The Moral Dilemma

The following is a prayer recorded by a once Wycliffe Bible translator several years prior to his eventual renouncement of Christianity. Where I thought it helpful, I have supplemented the original text with the relevant scripture references.

“Father God, God of all creation, the one who made me, the one who loves me more than anyone else, the one who desires my well-being, I come to you today with a very heavy heart. Or more precisely, a knot in my stomach. Once again, it appears to me that all I have been taught about the inspiration of the Bible is false. Deep down inside me, I have a very, very strong suspicion that the Bible is human and not divine through and through. You know the passages I struggle with. I can't seem to reconcile my conception of your nature with the way your character is portrayed in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. Where do I get this sense of moral injustice when I read about how a master is not to be punished for beating his slave as long as the slave doesn't die, because the slave is his property [Ex. 21:20-21]? There seems to be within me a moral law that stands in judgment of the Bible. Is this internal moral law a product of my culture that is to be submitted to the higher moral law of the Bible, or vice versa? Why does the Old Testament incessantly violate my idea of right and wrong? Why does it regard women in such a poor light? Why are the people of Yahweh supposed to wipe out men, women and children but are allowed to take the virgins for themselves [1 Sam. 15:3, 22:19; Num. 31*]? Why are the sacrifices offered in the tabernacle called food for Yahweh [Lev. 21:6, 8, ]? Why does Yahweh need sacrifices anyway? Can't he simply forgive those who ask for his forgiveness, just as we humans forgive each other? Why do some people get zapped instantly for touching the ark inadvertently while Aaron [2 Sam. 6:1-8], Moses' brother, gets off scot-free after making a golden calf for the people to worship [Ex. 32; Deut. 9:7-29], and then he becomes the leader of the priesthood and the recipient of the best of all the offerings of the people? Why do women suspected of adultery have to go through some bizarre ordeal of drinking bitter water and seeing their womb swell and thigh waste away, while no provision is made for women to test their husbands for the same offense [Num. 5:11-31]? God, the weight of all these troublesome passages, and many more, add up in my mind to foolishness. Or at least an attribution of ancient cultural ideas on the God of all creation. The list goes on: the Bible's endorsement of polygamy [2 Sam. 12:8], the magic of the striped sticks causing sheep's offspring to be striped [Gen. 30:25-43], the assertion that camels don't have split hoofs [Lev. 11:4; see also Lev. 13-23], the mixed use of round numbers and exact numbers in Numbers to justify paying redemption money to Aaron's family, Yahweh's command to hamstring the horses [Josh. 11:6], the barbaric brutality of the Israelites in their holy war [e.g., Judges 1:6-7; Judges 8:1-21; Josh. 10:16-28], the contradictory teachings on divorce [e.g., Deut. 24:1-4; Mal. 2:10-16; Matt. 19:3-9], the many little historical contradictions, the attempt to explain language diversification through a "how-the-leopard-got-its-spots" Tower of Babel story [Gen. 11:1-9], the conception of a young earth which is clearly unattested to by the facts [Gen. 1], the fact that Christians have been unable to agree on so many doctrines while reading the same Bible that seems to say one thing in one place and another in another place, the long process of canonizing the Bible, the vengeful attitudes ascribed to Yahweh when his wayward people are attacked by their enemies [e.g., Is. 13; Hos. 13:16], the sacrifices in Ezekiel's temple that has yet to be built [Ezek. 40; 43:7, 13-27; Heb. 10:14; Rev. 21:22], the vengeance Samson took on his betrayers under the influence of the Spirit of the Yahweh [Judges 14-15:1-8, 16:23-30], the exclusively physical punishments and rewards promised for the Israelites with no mention of heaven until late in the writing of the Old Testament [e.g., Deut. 8:6-18], and on and on and on.
How much of this am I expected to absorb and put into the filing cabinet labeled "troublesome, contradictory or unjust but accept it by faith anyway"? How much tension can a soul take? Why does it seem like I'm just about the only one in my circle of friends that struggles with these issues as deeply as I do? Am I warped, proud, or rebellious? Are you blinding my eyes because I haven't spent enough time with you in prayer lately? Or are the things I'm beginning to suspect--that the Bible is not divinely inspired--true after all? This is not just an academic exercise. The direction of the rest of my life, if not eternity, depends on it. I know that even if the Bible is true, you don't mind my bringing these questions before you, since the Psalms record similarly piercing doubts that David experienced. Father God, take me in your arms just as I would take David or Philip or Corinne [our children] in my arms in a time of trouble, and comfort me with words of assurance and love and healing. I know you are my creator. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you made me and love me. I ask you to have compassion on me and lead me to the truth. I ask you to search me heart and reveal to me anything that displeases you and that stands in the way of my finding the truth about the Bible. Open up my eyes so I can see my sin as you see it, and give me the courage and strength to put it away. I confess that I have been detached from you and my family and friends. I have been living in a world of my own mind, excluding those who are dearest to me. I have been objecting to the inequality of men and women expressed in the Bible, yet I've effectively been reinforcing it in my own marriage by leaving Charlene to do all the household work. Forgive me, I pray, and help me to get back on the right footing. Father, if I could only sit before you and talk with you as a man talks with another man, if only I could ask you what you had in mind when you made humanity and allowed so many different religions to take root and lead to so many confusing, contradictory and sometimes harmful paths. Why are people so gullible to believe so many contradictory things? Muslims believe what they do because they've been exposed to Islamic teachings and social influences, and it seems no different from why Christians are Christians. If no one major religion is the truth, then what is? Do I have to make up a minor religion to get at the truth? Heaven forbid! In my opinion there are already too many religions. Oh, Father, I don't want to be impertinent. I don't want to reject Jesus as the Son of God if he really is the Son of God or equivalent to God. But if he isn't the Son of God, then I don't want to spend my life in Africa proclaiming he is. What do I do, Lord, what do I do? Comfort my soul, Father. Thank you. Thank you for coming over me with your presence and that indescribable peace that assures me of your care for me. You have answered my prayer to take me in your arms and comfort me.
…I love, you Father, even though I'm confused. If my unbelief is unsubstantiated, help me in my unbelief, and may I be convinced that the Bible is indeed your word. If my unbelief is merited, I pray you'll help me know how to proceed from here. In either case, I pray you'll take away the blinders from my eyes that stem from myself, my sin, my culture, my religion or Satan, whatever the case may be. It seems that there are very few who manage to rise above the beliefs of their own culture. It's usually the intellectuals. I have a hard time believing that you would set things up in such a way that only intellectuals find the truth. But I see how grotesque the fruits of anti-intellectualism have been in so many societies, and I don't want to have part in that either. How do I find truth, Father? I pray as I come to you in prayer during this special time of seeking that you will reveal yourself to me in such a way that I can be assured of the truth. I certainly can't find it out on my own or exclusively through intellectual evaluation. I want to seek truth in the way that you want me to go about it, whether it means accepting the Bible by faith, reading philosophy, praying until you reveal yourself to me, going to seminary, meditating, reflecting, talking with others, or any combination of the above. My problem is that I really don't know how to go about it. I need your hand to guide me" (Daniels, Ken. From Missionary Bible Translator to Agnostic, 2003).*1

As you were reading this prayer, did you find yourself sympathizing with many of the sentiments it expressed, particularly as regards the seemingly deviant standard of morality in the Old Testament? How big of a problem is it if you find that the kind of morality ascribed to God in such passages as those cited above conflicts with your internal sense of right and wrong? What kinds of explanations could potentially reconcile the disparity for you? Are there any?

The moral dilemma in Christianity, which we are here encountering, is in my mind one of the most difficult, and most personally significant dilemmas we must work out as would-be Christians. At stake is the integrity of our own modern moral sentiments in the face of an exotic, divine-brand morality: one which seems to allow for, even at times prescribes, such morally deviant acts as murder, rape, and the general mistreatment of fellow human beings.*2 More alarming still, perhaps, is the implication that, as the revelation of God’s moral sensibilities, there is some degree to which we are accountable to its demands. In other words, for every instance in which human morality runs into conflict with divine morality, it is the exotic divine-type that provides the absolute standard. And when the differences among types run as deep as the difference between condemning and condoning rape, discerning which elements of one’s own moral sensibilities are appropriate candidates for reform is no simple matter.

The author of the above prayer at one point notes that “there seems to be within me a moral law that stands in judgment of the Bible.” Later, however, he entertains the possibility of yielding this internal moral law to accommodate the many exotic features of, as he calls it, “the higher moral law of the Bible.” What are your feelings on this prospective resolution? Is it possible that being a Christian might entail the setting aside of our moral sentiments in humble submission to divine-brand morality; and if so, how far should we allow ourselves to stray from our ‘moral home ground’ to conciliate with this higher law? Finally, what practical consequences might we incur by adopting such a policy of moral deference?

In order to answer such questions as these, I propose the following set of considerations (which themselves are merely constituent elements of the larger question in view) to serve us as guides throughout our discussion:

1. Is divine-type morality (as indicated by Old Testament events) equivalent to the best human-type morality?;

2. What is the foundation of divine-type morality?;

3. What is the foundation of human-type morality?; and finally,

4. Can distinct moral-types engage in loving relationship?

Each of these topics which we in turn consider will illumine some new and unique feature of the dilemma which besets us, allowing us to assess our problem piecemeal. Adopting such an approach should safeguard us against the common failings of our rational faculties to guide us steadily through particularly convoluted subject matter.

Such complexities in our topics of discussion often undermine our pursuit of truth by engaging our rational faculties beyond their effectual limits. Often, the nature of these dilemmas is such that we are divided across both sides of the fence, trying our best to preserve certain essential elements of each position, yielding none. In this effort to accommodate large amounts of mutually incompatible data, these faculties accustom themselves to vacillating between several, inconsistent explanatory frameworks in order to preserve efficiency in their practical functions. Often this goes completely undetected on our part until one encounters just the right situation to precipitate the contradiction.*2

Detected or not, however, the contradictions which we harbor in our rational faculties have a significant impact on the resultant quality of our volitional lives. As the contemporary philosopher, Harry Frankfurt writes:

“The psychic integrity in which self-confidence consists can be ruptured by the pressure of unresolved discrepancies and conflicts among the various things that we love. Disorders of that sort undermine the unity of the will and put us at odds with ourselves. The opposition within the proper scope of what we love means that we are subject to requirements that are both unconditional and incompatible. That makes it impossible for us to plot a steady volitional course. If our love of one thing clashes unavoidably with our love of another, we may well find it is impossible to accept ourselves as we are" (The Reasons of Love, 49-50).

Let us apply this principle to our present context. As long as we are unable to fully endorse the one set of commitments (i.e., our own moral convictions) over the competing set (i.e., our felt responsibility to meet the moral demands of God), we are positioned in a sort of moral-practical deadlock. This deadlock will persist as long as we forbear on making a decision about which of the competing sets is most important, or necessary to us. But such a decision does not have to feel arbitrary; nor does it have to prove divisive to our sense of personal integrity. In allowing our best reason and intuitions to act separately upon the various features of this complex dilemma we should find ourselves able to effectively negotiate those inevitable obstacles along the way, and come away in possession of everything we need to construct a rationally coherent, and personally satisfying position - if not unanimously, at least individually.

Disclaimer:
As a last word before trudging all the way into what has the potential to become a long and increasingly tortuous discussion, I want to address those who, on the basis of the formidable prima fascia case against condoning Old Testament morality, are likely to weary of those arguments that seek to vindicate it, perhaps premature to the other side’s readiness to submit a verdict. I ask you to be mindful of what hinges on such a verdict for these individuals, and to be charitable toward the arguments which they present, understanding that, even for those of us who argue to vindicate Old Testament morality, we do not do so on the basis of condoning the atrocities which it appears to sanction (at least I believe this is the case). We are all alike starting down this road with the same motivating principles: firstly, an incorrigible affinity for our native moral sentiments, and an irresistible compulsion to defend them from exotic competitors; but also, and equally important, the need to accommodate ourselves toward what is ultimately true of reality, be that physical nature or a transcendent God. I appreciate everyone’s sustained effort to make this discussion a fruitful one.

Footnotes:
*1 - For full document, visit: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/daniels.html.

*2 - 'Murder' - Insofar as murder can be equated with the taking of someone else’s life on unjustified, or otherwise inappropriate grounds (that is, according to our modern moral sensibilities). Instances in scripture might include the law’s prescription of capital punishment to seemingly undeserving parties: homosexuals (Lev. 20:13), adulterers (Lev. 20:10), children who strike or curse their parents (Ex. 21:15; Lev. 20:9), etc.; acts which could be construed as war crimes: the excessive slaughter of entire races in a military campaign - men, women, and children (Josh. 10:16-28); and certain divine acts: killings perpetrated by God Himself on seemingly indefensible grounds (2 Sam. 6:3-7), or those committed by judges and prophets under divine influence (Judges 14-15:1-8, 16:23-30; 1 Kings 20:35-36; 2 Kings 2:23-24). For a more comprehensive survey of dubious killings, see http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm.

'Rape' - Insofar as rape can be defined generally as perpetrating sexual acts against a person who is not completely willing. e.g., Num. 31 records Moses’ distribution of the Midianite virgins as spoils for the fighting men of Israel. God later is recorded as having affirmed this decision in vs. 25-35. So far as we can assume that these captive Midianite women did not willfully become the wives of their Israelite captors, we seem to have a clear instance of grand-scale rape. See also Gen 16:2 and Deut. 21:10-13.

'Mistreatment of fellow human beings' - e.g., slaves, women, and children. See Gen. 21:10; Ex. 20:17, 21:20-21, 22-25; Lev. 12:1-5, 27:6; and Deut. 22:28-29.

*3 - The Socratic method, often proceeding by way of reductio ad absurdum, was especially adept at precipitating these internal contradictions, as is demonstrated in such dialogues as Meno (see Plato Complete Works, 883-884).

Also, William James writes along these lines: “Just as we feel no particular pleasure when we breathe freely, but a very intense feeling of distress when the respiratory motions are prevented, - so any unobstructed tendency to action discharges itself without the production of much cogitative accompaniment, and any perfectly fluent course of thought awakens but little feeling; but when the movement is inhibited, or when the thought meets with difficulties, we experience distress” (The Will to Believe, 64).

The Progression of Religion (Originally posted Oct. 9, 2007) -AS

First off, I apologize for my inactivity in the forum as of late. I'm busy and when I do have the time I very much resonate with your friend in not wanting to write just anything. That being said, I'm going to give a much abbreviated version of some of the issues being raised in my life as of late regarding faith with the hope that such brief remarks will generate further discussion/inquire from others who may be more qualified to speak to the matters at hand or who may have more time to look deeper into them.

I should preface by explaining the root of the issues. I am taking a Survey of History until 1500 course at school that is taught by what I perceive to be a "sneaky humanist", though this is simply a judgment I've made based on the way the course's content is presented. With the guise of objectivity, he manages to paint pictures with the material that are not necessarily imperative to one's study of history. It is so subtle that is it difficult to pinpoint, but as the post progresses I hope to clarify what I mean by that. My other main secular influence is a World Literature professor who is what I think most Protestants would call a Catholic pluralist--ascribing to Catholicism herself, rather devoutly I might add, but at the same time accepting other faith systems as legitimate means to spiritual "enlightenment" though I don't mean to allude to eastern religion at all with that term. Also, she has an IQ of 140. I refuse to allow myself to vocalize my disagreement with her on most things as this usually ends up in an intellectual beat down for me. Don't ask why she is teaching at a community college. She is very big of Jungian (philosopher/psycho-analyst, Carl Jung) Myth Criticism, which, as she explains it in a very watered down manner posits there are three levels of “consciousness” if it can be called that. The first is the personal consciousness. That is where we live day in and day out. It manifests itself through our different personas (friend, brother, son, youth leader, etc.) as a result of our ego (don’t think of that in a pejorative sense…I’m told it is deeper than what we consider ego). Personal unconscious is the next level. Sometimes our personal unconscious can seep through to our personal consciousness. This is supposedly what happens when we have dreams. Our personal unconsciousness is slipping into consciousness, though we aren’t ready to face those as realities yet. Underlying both of these levels is the collective unconscious. It is connected to through the “anima” for men and the “animos” for women. (I really don’t know what either of those mean.) The collective unconscious is just as it sounds, that which is collectively “known” apart from geography, race, gender, religion, creed, and all the rest of that good stuff. This level is exhibited best in the great works of literature. The Bible being one of them, but every other great work being one as well. That was a little rant for you, MR, but I suppose it is somewhat relevant. Another quick note on this before I move on. From my observations, few though they may be, it is not noble to seek to know the source of the collective unconscious. It is much more virtuous to simply recognize it’s existence and be in awe of it. Once responsibility for the phenomenon is shifted to a cause, specifically a deity, it loses its awesomeness. Just a note of interest there.

So, what types of things have these two professors of mine been corrupting this young, pliable mind with? Briefly, I suppose if I had to put it in a box and wrap a bow around it I’d label the box “the progression of religion”. I would guess that most who frequent this forum have heard the arguments against a divine being that rely on the progression of religion as evidence. First, “God” (I use that as a generic term, not referring to a certain monotheistic religion’s with which we are all so familiar nor excluding polytheism/pantheism, etc.) is an animal. Then, we kill so much of that animal that it dies out or something, so then we say “God” dwells inside this holy temple that only certain “priests” can go see. Well, eventually people go inside the “temple” and find no “God” so they say “He” must be atop this very high mountain that no once can climb. Well, we end up climbing the mountain and find “God” is not at the summit. What do we do next? We say “He” resides in the heavens. That is, in the celestial bodies. Well, we look up there with telescopes and eventually fly up there with space shuttles and see no “God”. So naturally, there must be some “heaven” in a fourth dimension or something that is not visible to the human eye where “God” resides. I realize I butchered this, but you get the point. There was a guy who did this a lot more effectively than I have a while back in a book or something, but I don’t remember who he is. Oh well. So, we see a progression of religious beliefs to bring us to where we are today.

*From this point forward my sole historical source is a guy with a masters in history from Mercer University, so if my history is at all off, he is to blame. It is my intention to express the ideas with the bias that he may have provided me with unbeknownst to me.

Long story short, my history professor without coming out and saying it has hinted that a similar progression is seen within the Judeo-Christian context. First, you have the Jews being monolatrous initially. (I’m sure [someone else's] expertise can be useful here in the arena of dating Old Testament books and the relationship of theology to chronology in the OT.) That is, they lived with a polytheistic world but chose to focus on the worship of a particular deity, yet they didn’t damn other deities, they just chose to worship Yahweh. Of course, as the Hebrews progress and by the time we get to the Prophets we see worship of Jehovah alone with much exclusivity there. Nations being punished for worshiping other gods and so on and so forth. Enters Zoroaster.

Zoroaster is the founder of the Zoroastrianism religion. The time of Zoroastrianism’s origin is a matter much disputed by historians with estimates generally ranging between 1600 to 750 BC. Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra) was a prophet/holy man who renounced “the Lie”. “The Lie” was the ritualistic religiosity practiced by so many of the contemporaneous religions. He, instead, advocated a personal relationship with Ahura-Mazda “Wise Lord”, the “One True God”. Zoroastrianism’s creed has been summed up as “good thoughts of the mind, good deeds of the hand, and good words of the tongue.” The emphasis was on the importance of the individual to Ahura-Mazda, the only true God amongst a world of many idols. Ahura-Mazda’s adversary was Ahriman. Ahriman, a devil of sorts if you wish, had battling helpers who waged war against Ahura-Mazda and his force of spiritual beings in a cosmic battle between good and evil. The prophet’s teachings are copied in the “Zend-Avesta” The Law, which was copied by priests called magi and finalized during the 3rd century BC. Also unique to this faith system was it’s “Last Judgment” in which there would be a resurrection of the dead at which point there would be a trial by fire. For those who rejected “The Lie”, they would be purified by the fire unto eternal life. For the bad, they would be punished by fire as an eternal torment.

I’m sure it goes without saying that there are some remarkable similarities here to some very popular western religions, specifically Christianity. I’m going to go ahead and end here. I realize this hasn’t been the best written of posts, but what do you expect from a flustered college student that is trying to rush things so he can study for his test he has in the morning. I hope that this post has been useful at least in part, if for no other reason than that [someone else] can clear up any misconceptions I have may have gotten. I’d love to hear what everyone thinks. -AS

Faith: Part 3 (Originally posted Aug. 27, 2007)

Let me preface my response by telling you that C.S. Lewis has already discussed this issue at length in the first chapter of The Abolition of Man. By the end of my post, I hope to have provided what I have just asked AS for in my last post - that is, the “shape” of supernatural discernment. But so that we are first all agreed in my general premise, let me describe the “real world” correlative as referenced in Plato’s Republic (pgs. 122-125):

“It would seem…that the direction in which education starts a man, will determine his future life. Does not like always attract like?…Until some one rare and grand result is reached which may be called good, [or] may be the reverse of good?…[so then,] shall we condescend to legislate on any of [the] particulars? I think…that there is no need to impose laws about them on good men; what regulations are necessary they will find out soon enough for themselves…”

“…[but] without divine help…they will go on forever making and mending the laws and their lives in the hope of attaining perfection…[such men] are always fancying that by legislation they will make an end of frauds in contracts, and the other rascalities which I was mentioning, not knowing that they are in reality cutting off the heads of a hydra…” (pg. 122-124)

(If it is not clear what Plato is describing, think of these individuals as the ethical equivalent of a hypochondriac. The person is always troubling himself with trivial matters, when it is his general character which he should attend to. They “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24).”)

“…the true legislator will not trouble himself with this class of enactments whether concerning laws or the constitution [of a State]…many of them will naturally flow our of our previous regulations.”

In the book, Socrates returns later to describe what is to be the emphasis of sound instruction with this illustration:

“You know…that dyers, when they want to dye wool for making the true sea-purple, begin by selecting their white color first; this they prepare and dress with much care and pains, in order that the white ground may take the purple hue in full perfection. The dyeing then proceeds; and whatever is dyed in this manner becomes a fast color, and no washing either with lyes or without them can take away the bloom. But, when the ground has not been duly prepared, you will have noticed how poor is the look either of purple or any other color. Then now…you will understand what our object was in [educating our citizens]; we were contriving influences which would prepare them to take the dye of the laws in perfection, and the color of…every opinion was to be indelibly fixed by their nurture and training, not to be washed away by such potent lyes as pleasure - mightier agent far in washing the soul than any soda or lye; or by sorrow, fear, or desire, the mightiest of all other solvents.” (pg. 128-129)

As C.S. Lewis comments:

“In The Republic, the well-nurtured youth is one ‘who would see most clearly whatever was amiss in ill-made works of man or ill-grown works of nature, and with a just distaste would blame and hate the ugly even from his earliest years and would give delighted praise to beauty, receiving it into his soul and being nourished by it, so that he becomes a man of gentle heart. All this before he is of an age to reason; so that when Reason at length comes to him, then, bred as he has been, he will hold out his hands in welcome and recognize her because of the affinity he bears to her (see Republic, pg. 95-96).’” (The Abolition of Man, pg. 16-17)

Up to this point, we have considered only Plato’s philosophy of education, and it seems to me a good one. Now, is there any reason preventing us from applying the same principles to God’s approach with man? I think, rather, that the Bible supports this principle, as evidenced in the verse below.

“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - His good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Rom. 12:2)

The concept is that the heart is like an instrument requiring fine tuning if it is to resonate in harmony with God’s heart. Or perhaps it is better thought of us an antennae which must be regularly tweaked in order to tune in to God’s frequency. Or it could even be thought of as the helm of a ship. This is my personal favorite because it treats the heart as a fixed mechanism with an explicit purpose: to direct the ship. (Furthermore, it isn’t as accommodating of those cutesy clichés as my previous illustrations, and the fewer cutesy phrases I have to use, like “quiet time” for instance, the better.)

People - particularly academia - often ridicule someone who “follows their heart” or “trusts their gut” (by the way, the Israelites also placed the heart’s activities in the bowels and the kidneys, so the terms are interchangeable). Thomas Jefferson says it best:

“'Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity (The God Delusion, pg. 34).’”

Jim Watson, founder of the Human Genome Project, commented: “I’m a bit embarrassed [laughs] because, you know, I can’t believe anyone accepts truth by revelation (The God Delusion, pg. 99).”

And, here comes the slippery slope, we all probably agree that reliance upon feelings is unwise (reminiscent of the Fact-Faith-Feeling train from certain Christian tracts). But telling someone not to follow their heart is, relative to Biblical principles, the equivalent of telling someone not to navigate their ship at the helm. To further illustrate this point, consider Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees:

“You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.” (Matt. 12:34)

“The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:45)

What I like about the concept of living from the heart - well, one thing anyway - is that our hearts are capable of inspiring actions that we would not have otherwise made intellectually. It allows such experiences as falling in love, bearing someone else’s burdens, or even laying down our lives for someone else. I like that we describe this kind of inspiration in terms of being “swept up” into something “bigger than ourselves.” It seems to reestablish our position in relation to God - we recognize in we do are not doing the work, but participating in the divine nature. It distinguishes us from other creatures, even from ourselves when we are acting as mere creatures, and makes us feel truly human. “…for in the image of God has God made man.” (Gen. 9:6)

But back to the attitude of academia toward what Jefferson would call “unintelligible propositions”, that is, those that are based on some subjective intuition of the heart, let me clarify what is really being debated. What most critics mean when they call a proposition unintelligible is that it can’t be assessed empirically. And to further clarify, let me provide a definition. Empiricism is defined as the way we assemble what we know of ourselves and our world from the "association of ideas" that come to us from our five senses. Sight, sound, taste, touch, smell. But is that all there is? Are the “five senses” really the only contributing constituents to what we acknowledge in our minds as sound reason? Philosophy would not exist if it were. But when we’re studying the natural world, that one side of what many acknowledge is a two-sided coin, all voices besides those coming from our five senses are silenced. And this is what we call being empirical.

And you know what, this is a perfect standard for the field of science. Science is only concerned with the natural, therefore it only makes sense to exclude non-empirical data. The problem comes in when someone becomes so habitually dependent on the natural, that he/she forgets its limitations. It is nothing but a case of nearsightedness. Narrow-mindedness. Bias. None of the terms are meant to offend, only to remind anyone who has forgotten that such a state of mind is quite common. We all do it. But every once in a while, we need to expose ourselves to the many correctives this world has made available. We are acted upon by reality in the same way our government is acted upon by the system of checks and balances. As C.S. Lewis has said, “All reality is iconoclastic (A Grief Observed, pg. 66).” There are experiential counter-weights everywhere, if only we are open to them.

In the illustration below, we see the potential consequence of a life lived shut off from the reality and its iconoclastic nature. As you read it, keep in mind that we are sometimes kept from the reality by forces outside ourselves (as is the boy in the story); but at other times, we are our own imprisoner (as we have just discussed).

“Let us picture a woman thrown into a dungeon. There she bears and rears a son. He grows up seeing nothing but dungeon walls, the straw on the floor, and a little patch of the sky seen through the grating, which is too high up to show anything except sky. This unfortunate woman was an artist, and when they imprisoned her she managed to bring with her a drawing pad and a box of pencils. As she never loses the hope of deliverance, she is constantly teaching her son about that outer world which he has never seen. She does it very largely by drawing him pictures. With her pencil she attempts to show him what fields, rivers, mountains, cities, and waves on a beach are like. He is a dutiful boy and he does his best to believe her when she tells him that the outer world is far more interesting and glorious than anything in the dungeon. At times he succeeds. On the whole he gets on tolerably well until, one day, he says something that gives his mother pause. For a minute of two they are at a cross-purpose. Finally it dawns on her that he has, all these years, lived under a misconception. ‘But,’ she gasps, ‘you didn’t think that the real world was full of lines drawn in lead pencil?’ And instantly his whole notion of the outer world becomes a blank. For the lines, by which alone he was imagining it, have now been denied of it. He has no idea of that which will exclude and dispense with the lines, that of which the lines were merely a transposition - the waving treetops, the light dancing on the weir, the colored three-dimensional realities which are not enclosed in lines but define their own shapes with at every moment with a delicacy and multiplicity which no drawing could ever achieve. The child will get the idea that the real world is somehow less visible than his mother’s pictures. In reality it lacks lines because it is incomparably more visible.” (The Weight of Glory: "Transposition". pg. 109-110)

Needless to say, we have all had personal experiences with individuals who affirm - and under no compulsion - certain feelings or experiences which Christianity presents as evidence of our origins but which science (or more strictly, the monist perspective) disregards. One of the most wide-reaching examples of this kind of experience which I have found is that which Lewis describes as Joy. This experience, when understood as Lewis intended, is to me one of the strongest arguments on the side of Christianity and deserving of a separate discussion all its own. For now, suffice it to say that even atheists are sometimes caught off guard with experiences that draw them outside themselves.

Before closing, I would like to discuss the thing which takes the conversation full circle…I have already suggested that faith is a reliance upon those things which God has made known to us intuitively, in our hearts. But this is a double-edged sword, because as intangibility protects intuition from being ruled out by science, so it also prevents us from making empirical judgments about its conclusions. It, perhaps unfortunately, introduces a measure of subjectivity into the discussion, allowing not the accountability to peer review as does science, but personal accountability to one reviewer: God. As the Bible affirms, “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?…The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment (1 Cor. 2:11).” But if you think about it, is this not a much more appropriate type of accountability for intuitive knowledge, since morality (or better, right standing with God) is at its heart? Morality really goes no further than the heart (as in, there is no prior source). Actions in themselves are morally benign; it is sin in the heart that brings death to the soul. “…but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death (James 1:14-15).”

For all these reasons, I am inclined to agree with A.W. Tozer’s assessment (I think this is Tozer?) that “God’s voice must speak from within to bring enlightenment. It must be the Spirit of God speaking soundlessly within. That is what brings in man and makes him accountable to God.” (Peter Lord, Hearing God, pg. 20) And if all this is true, true of Christianity at least, then I’m afraid I’m going to have to return to my position as devil’s advocate for a while…the consequence of establishing a system of such immense expectation - that of God entering into intelligible dialogue with man - creates the potential for deep emotional / spiritual wounds to develop. It is as if God signs on to what is very largely, in our experience anyway, a human enterprise, where the rules of engagement are well-agreed upon. How does the God who reveals Himself to Job as an unpredictable, uncontrollable whirlwind (Job 38:1) condescend to such a position? How does He then borrow such emotionally-infused qualifiers as friend, brother, father, and lover to describe His relationship with us? God was not wary, not the least bit cautious, in building up the incredible expectation that exists around Him today. And I find this is a frustrating, an exasperating, promise of scripture that demands our deeper exploration.

(Suggested reading on this subject includes John Eldredge’s Journey of Desire; Peter Kreeft’s Heaven: The Heart’s Deepest Longing; C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man (Chapter 1: Men Without Chests); Peter Lord’s Hearing God, and of course all of the context implied by quotes included in this response.)

Faith: Part 2 (Originally posted Sept. 13, 2007)

Ok, so now that we’ve gotten to the point of proposing a “mechanism” for receiving and discerning spiritual truth, we can move on to testing our hypothesis. Just to recap AS’s definition, let me cite some of his statements along with the supporting scripture references:

“Why do differences in doctrine exist? Sin. Laziness- an unwillingness to do the hard work of interpreting the Scripture rightly, which may include things like learning the original languages and reading books by gifted teachers, etc. etc. Spiritual immaturity or perhaps better stated as a lack of spiritual maturity in certain areas - we may just plain be unable to handle certain truths at particular points in our lives. Bad English translations of the Bible. Who knows what else?”
-AS

“My point in reviewing all those texts you provided that speak of spiritual enlightenment coming via the Holy Spirit was to emphasize I don’t think that the Holy Spirit is necessarily the means by which every spiritual truth is understood.” -AS

“But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.” (Heb. 5:14)

“Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” (2 Tim. 2:7)

“I think there is a fine line between understanding spiritual truths as intellectual constructs and understanding them as spiritual insights.” -AS

This is one distinction which I have to recognize. The intellect certainly plays a role in discerning truth, spiritual or otherwise, and intellectual laziness can certainly be blamed for poor theology. Jameson already did a good job providing the scripture to support this point (Heb. 5:14, 2 Tim. 2:7 and 15).

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on his own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come.” (John 16:12-13)

“Again, I think this is a disciple-limited promise that the Holy Spirit will guide the apostles ‘into all the truth’ in the early church age so that they may speak the very words of God and communicate the ‘whole counsel of God’ to believers as was achieved via the New Testament.”
-AS

Someone could probably ascribe a name to this position, whether it be one of the proposed “dispensations” or something else. Whatever the case, I don’t know that I subscribe to the idea that God revealed spiritual truth to his apostles any differently than He does to us today. Even if I could accept that they received a heightened capacity for discerning spiritual truths, I cannot accept that we operate by any different principle. And it’s the principle that I think we are most concerned with. The simple fact that Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth in John 14:17 (see also John 4:23-24) reveals that spiritual discernment is one of the roles of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. (And anyway, what part of the scripture you cited do you not believe to apply to the modern-day believer?). I think our contention, if there is any, concerns the location of that subtle line distinguishing that truth which is discernible through the work of the intellect versus that only discernible by supernatural revelation. I think in many cases the latter is no more than a unique condition of preparedness to receive the lesson…Spiritual revelation in my experience has always come to me as a sort of chain reaction connecting hundreds of previously understood lessons which effectively produces a glimpse of the larger picture of who God is and what He’s all about. I call that “revelation” because it’s a moment where the intellectual components work together in a uniquely orchestrated fashion that allows me to “see” God. Perhaps the only supernatural part of the whole thing is that God is responsible for directing the course of my intellectual growth that allows that moment of “enlightenment” to unfold (see Ps. 119:130). In this case, maybe the question is more about the extent to which we can expect to hear from God via means other than our intellect. Can you think of any instances in which spiritual discernment is more strongly differentiated from discernment via intellectual constructs. How are such revelations validated? Against what measure or standard are we to test these revelations?

“What I do know though is that we have the Bible. Why? Why didn’t God just give us a systematic theology book that we could just turn to a page and get the answer to whatever question we had under the appropriate heading? I can’t be sure, because I’m not God, but I could guess that one of the reasons is because he wants us to work.” -AS

This is a worthwhile question to consider. Why is the majority of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) written in story form rather than as a book of systematic theology? Why also, within these stories, would God choose to be less than clear on the intrinsic lesson - assuming there is one (not very didactic of Him, huh Jameson)? As Justin has previously pointed out, the Bible tends to be more descriptive than prescriptive. It tells the story as it happened and very seldom takes the extra step to supplement the events that are occurring with any moral qualification. So, why Story? Let me provide the only possible explanation I have come across as presented in John Eldredge’s book, Epic.

Story is the language of the heart. Or, in other words, the heart receives and frames its beliefs within the construct of story. As Eldredge suggests, “Life doesn’t come to us as a math problem. It comes to us the way that a story does, scene by scene (Epic, pg. 2).” He goes on to suggest that story is also how we figure things out (as evidenced by our fixation with the news, novels, and movies and our tendency to look to them for illumination into our own lives).

This principle has applications to our spiritual life as well. For instance, God uses this tendency to redeem all those dead, stagnant periods of time (chronos in Greek) by providing also divinely orchestrated moments (kairos in Greek) which infuse them with meaning. But if we understood life and internalized our experiences with our bare bones intellect, we wouldn’t find it necessary to draw a distinction between chronos and kairos at all. But the fact of the matter is that we do perceive such a distinction, and this is why human beings love stories. All the elements of a great story - setting, plot, conflict, character, point of view, theme - work because there exists a corresponding quality in our nature. If we can accept this principle, then we’ve understood the premise of Eldredge’s worldview. He goes on to say,

“Every story, great and small, shares the same essential structure because every great story we tell borrows its power from a Larger Story, a Story woven into the fabric of our being - what pioneer psychologist Carl Jung tried to explain as archetype, or what his more recent popularizer Joseph Campbell called myth.” -Epic, pg. 12-13

“Every story we tell is our attempt to put into words and images what God has written there, on our hearts.” -Epic, pg. 73

While I might be missing some inherent flaw in his theology, I think Eldredge’s explanation serves at least one crucial purpose and that is to provide a framework within which we can understand our communion with God. If God has made our hearts to learn and grow through the medium of Story, then it might follow that He meant for our communion with Him to be an experience more centered around the heart than the mind. We can all agree that our intellects are more adept to learning through concise, systematic presentations of facts and principles. Stories, on the other hand, tend to teach us things which our intellect often has difficulty putting to words. The lessons take a “back road” to accomplish its intended purpose. Blaise Pascal writes in Pensées, “The heart has its reason which reason knows nothing of.” We’re all familiar with the idea of a girl’s emotions preceding her intellectual comprehension of those emotion’s source. They cry before they even know intellectually what’s wrong. Stories do that…after watching the movie Braveheart, you might feel inspired to take up arms with William Wallace without ever grasping the politics or necessity of his cause. It moves our hearts, and so we act.

As implied in this framework, Story is the language of the heart; and incidentally, Story is also the dominant form of divine expression available to believers. It must follow that God intended a communion of the heart to be the center of our relationship with Him. Story is an especially powerful tool to teach, grow, and challenge believers in their faith walk with the unique characteristic of transcending the intellectual limitations of its hearers (positive actions can be inspired without the antecedent of intellectual comprehension). This quality of Story relieves the tension that exists between intellectual capacity and one’s ability to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

I believe God intended for our heart, rather than our intellect, to be the center of our faith walk. I think this point is communicated in Prov. 3:5-6: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding…”; and Prov. 4:23: “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.” We cannot ignore the emphasis the Bible seems to place on the heart’s activity and the debilitating limitations He has placed on our intellect. In Ecclesiastes 11:5, Solomon writes, “As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.” In 3:10 he writes, “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” David reflects on God’s intimate knowledge of him and responds, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain (Ps. 139:6).” And Proverbs 25:2 suggests that God conceals things in mystery for the sake of His glory (it’s interesting to consider the “God of the gaps” discussion in this light).

The intellect is indispensable in discerning spiritual truth, but I believe that God intended our heart to be the primary instrument for communion with Him. Granted, the concept of the heart is kind of ambiguous and can hardly be separated from the mental process, but I think we are all aware of the distinction between the type of meditation our hearts engage in as compared with that of the intellect. The intellect, stripped to bare bones, would produce a naturalist or a monist. The metaphysical heart is the bridge between our bare bones intellect and that abstraction which we call the supernatural (see The Abolition of Man, pg. 25). An acknowledgment of both is essential to the Christian worldview, yet they have different means of receiving truth.

So, anyway, let me bring this back to the essential question. How does God’s choice of story form to express Himself (according to Eldredge’s worldview) relate to the discussion of discerning spiritual truth? For one, It appeals to a heart-centered form of communion whereas our discussion up to this point has more supported discernment via the intellect. I feel pretty certain that, if we are to take the Biblical perspective, we are going to have to accept some degree of supernatural discernment which is not so dependent on intellectual capacity. Likewise, I think there are fundamental qualities of the Christian faith that are lost to an intellect-driven faith walk. On the other hand, I think the alternative forces us back into that uneasy territory of subjectivity, which is very difficult to defend. In one last quote, AS, you said:

“But if the primary means through which God speaks is the Bible, and I think it is, it might would be an apt illustration to say that that voice is in a language that needs to be interpreted. Interpretation, of course, involving the intellect.” -AS

What would you propose is the “shape” of spiritual discernment (that not arrived at via intellectual constructs). What does it look like? How is it practiced? What is it and what is it not? Is there communion with God beyond that which is freely accessible through intellectual exploration of His word? Can we truly expect the type of intimacy which many Christians are claiming is available to us or is nearness to God nothing more than harmony with the theology of the Bible? WHY DOES IT SEEM THAT CHRISTIANS ARE CONTINUALLY MISSING IT!?…“Like sheep without a shepherd…” That is the question.

Validity of the Bible: Responses (Originally posted June 2007)

I have decided to begin with the discussion concerning the inspiration and canonization of the Scriptures. I cannot think of a discussion of greater importance than this. Everything that we believe, even stake our lives on, rides on the validity of the Scriptures. Yet, the sad truth of the matter is that far too many Bible believing Christians have very little knowledge regarding this matter, or concern for it. However, that does not mean that there not answers out there. The topic of canonicity is a huge one. We can only hope to scratch the surface in this discussion by talking about specific points of interest. With this being said, I want to recommend some books that can give a more comprehensive knowledge of this (I can lend these out if you anyone's interested). I will only deal with OT canon in this discussion.

General Introduction to the Bible, David D. Wegner- ISBN 0310453712

From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible, Geisler and Nix- ISBN 0802428789

The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible, Paul D, Wegner- ISBN 0801027993

The Process
First of all, there is little known information as to how the process of the OT canon came to be in terms of specific times and locations. That is to say we have no hard facts concerning any councils that took place among Masoretes, Rabbis, or Scribes. However, that does not mean that there was not a process by which it came to be. Our best look at the actual criteria by which it came to be comes from Josephus (37AD-around 100AD.) in his work Contra Apion. The main goal of this work was to show the great antiquity of the Jewish people, as opposed to the Greeks, who had customs of very recent origin. In this work he gives 3 main criteria:

1) It does not contain contradictions
2) It was written by a prophet or someone recognized as having divine authority
3) It was accepted by the Jews as authoritative

Concerning 2.
In my opinion, this the most tangible of the 3 criteria listed, especially when it comes to the Prophets. Why would a writing from a prophet be considered reliable, or divinely authoritative, if he had not proven himself to be reliable among Israel? For instance, the prophets that warned against the coming Assyrian and Babylonian invasions would not be considered very good prophets if those invasions never occurred. In fact, under the Law, they would be killed (Duet. 18.20). However, this point is not limited to the prophets alone. All genres of literature in the OT can be prophetic. Even narratives such as in the book of Genesis can have poetic discourses that speak of the future (Gen 49). I can only think of 3 OT books off the top of my head that don't seem to be blatantly prophetic at first glance.

Dating of Texts
The issue of prophecy directly relates to the dating of texts. Generally speaking, the presupposition from liberal scholarship is that prophecy does not happen. Many times, this is the overriding factor and sol rational for attributing a latter date to some texts. Or at the very least, they assert that there was an original text but the prophetic parts were added to it after the event prophesied took place. This is why most liberal scholarship, concerning the Servant Songs in Isaiah, leading up to 1947, suggested that they were added in from post AD sources as an apologetic for Christianity. As Patrick mentioned, this assertion was proven wrong by the finding of the Isaiah scroll (in the Dead Sea Scrolls) which was completely in tact and contained all of the Servant Songs. Moreover there is even proof of a messianic interpretation of these texts prior to the coming of Christ due to one of the DSS writers who believed that he was the Messiah because he suffered as the Servant did in Isaiah. Or take for instance the idea that Gen 49 is post monarchial (after David) because of its blatant prediction of a coming ruler from the tribe of Judah. I don't presume to assert that the presupposition that prophecy does not exist is the only factor that liberal scholarship takes into account when dating texts, but many times, it seems to be the overriding one.

Source Criticism
The nature of scholarship is that it builds off scholarship. For instance, the dating of texts, as discussed above has much to do with Source Criticism. When scholarship places a date on a given text, that date limits the amount of sources that could have been possibly used in the formation of that text, according to the date that it is given. In other words, 1 Samuel could not have used the gospel of John as a source because the gospel of John did not exist at the time of the writing of 1 Samuel. But suppose that we found out that the 1 Samuel was written by a by a Jew living in the 2nd century AD. It would at least be possible for the writer of 1 Samuel to have used the Gospel of John as a source. This example may seem a bit ridiculous but things like this happen. Example: One of the common beliefs among liberal scholars is that the Genesis account of creation is based on an “earlier” writing known as the Enuma Elish (Akkadian creation narrative). I personally remember seeing this very thing in my world history book my junior year of high school. However the earliest discovered copy of the Enuma Elish is from around 750 BC The actual autograph is thought to be from around 1700 BC This date has also been challenged by many. Some have dated the original autograph around 1500 BC or even 1400 BC The problem here is that the modern view of the original autograph(s) of the Pentateuch does not even put the Pentateuch on the same playing field with any of these texts. The idea that Enuma Elish could have borrowed from the Pentateuch does not even show up on the radar of liberal scholarship because it has wholeheartedly built its view of the date of the Pentateuch on the scholarship of Julius Wellhausen and his Documentary Hypothesis (J-850 BC, E- 750 BC, D 621 BC, P- 450 BC) as opposed to a Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch (around 1400 BC).

Time of Canonization
As mentioned above, we have no records of any councils that took place among Masoretes, Rabbis, or Scribes. However, we do have a general idea of the latest date that the OT could have been canonized. This is due to the name of the OT canon that begins to show up in writings in the 2nd century BC. This name serves as a three-fold division of OT canon, The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings. (We get the name "TaNaCH" from the transliteration of the first character of these three words in Hebrew.) The earliest that we see the name, in a literary work, is in a work called the Prologue to Sirach/Ecclesiasticus (132 BC), only the writer speaks of “the Law, the Prophets and the others that follow them.” The idea here is that from the 132 BC on, the OT seems be have a name by which it is called. A formal name begs the idea there be a formal reorganization of this three-fold division of the OT.

This is complicated, and too much to tackle here. What I have mentioned above is one of the main points of interest. I would refer to the reference works above to get a better idea of all the available texts that clue us into the timing of the OT canon.

Circular Reasoning
I wholeheartedly agree that most of the time, the canon is talked about in a manner that uses circular reasoning (the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is). I want to propose 2 ways in which scripture can be used in support of the canon without being considered circular reasoning.

1) Scriptures that claim that scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16) may be used to show that inspiration is not something that people have assigned to it. Rather, scripture claims inspiration for itself.

2) Scriptures that allude to other scriptures may be used to determine the timing by which criteria 3 (Josephus) came to be. For instance, Joshua 1:8 says, “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.” This shows the author of the book of Joshua’s perspective of the “Book of the Law.” Whether the book of Joshua is inspired by God or not, we have here a documented pre-exilic book that contains an opinion of the “Book of the Law”. (This final point is a product of textual criticism, which gleans facts apart from the consideration of inspiration. It is the approach most often employed by liberal theologians in their hermeneutical practice. - MR)

Validity of the Bible: Part 2 (Originally posted June 2007)

Once you begin to consider the reasonability of self-authoritativeness as a method of validating the Bible, you must eventually backtrack to consider also the theologians’ methods of analyzing the texts. In other words, no one can reasonably designate a text as inspired until they have first sufficiently substantiated its more superficial claims, such as the time in which it was written and its authorship. We must never forget the inherent weight of the adjective, divinely inspired. A claim as heavy as this one invites a level of critique probably far more severe than we have yet had to accommodate, and yet we often treat such critiques as trifle annoyances. What a Christian experiences as a bothersome triviality might, for the non-believer, seem an insurmountable obstacle to belief. My question, then, is how these more superficial claims are being tested by researchers within the field. Are the methods employed sufficient? Are the conclusions drawn continuous with the evidence?

As a necessary preface to this discussion, let me cite Richard Dawkins’ argument for how faith can be positively examined by science:

“’The net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the old clichés, science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven (quote by Stephen Jay Gould).’…The moment religion steps on science’s [turf, however,] and starts to meddle in the real world with miracles, it ceases to be religion in the sense Gould is defending, and his amicabilis concordia (lit., friendly agreement) is broken (The God Delusion, pg. 55, 60).”

To paraphrase Dawkins’ argument for our purposes: Although religion might claim certain attributes of itself ‘beyond the realm of science’, there are inarguably certain instances in which the two overlap (such as claims to the age of the earth, the feasibility of Noah’s ark, and - of special concern to our present argument - dates and events cited in biblical texts). Each of these things can be objectively examined within the realm of science, history, or whatever particular field the claims or events happen to infringe upon. However crystal clear this concept might be, and however simple it might sound to distinguish fact from fiction upon these guidelines, the pursuit of truth proves as difficult as ever, as I intend to demonstrate.

Historical researchers often employ science to support or lend credibility to a potential historical truth, but the application of science to the process is limited at best. Historians - or as far as it concerns the Bible, theologians - often adopt a set of criteria by which to analyze the scriptures in order to achieve the most balanced picture of what really happened. Such criteria differs between schools of thought (whether conservative or liberal) and might include such considerations as language used; cohesiveness of thought; literary structure; references to people, dates, or events; plausible influences; cultural conditions; authorship; extent of circulation and reproduction; and archaeological evidence. Historical truth, therefore, is achieved by determining the most likely scenario given the totality of evidence. The items which compose this list of criteria, as well as the priority that each item is given, is going to differ between different schools of thought. One example, and possibly that of greatest consequence to our discussion, deals with the treatment of prophecy. Among conservative theologians, the presence of prophecy within a text might suggest very little in regards to the date of the text; that is to say, prophecy within a text probably holds only little priority in the overall analysis of the text’s age. In contrast, liberal theologians might reasonably consider seemingly prophetic writing as evidence of actual foreknowledge (the writer either experienced or was familiar with the event). There is an underlying assumption, completely justifiable within the secular worldview, that true prophecy (that is, the foretelling of future events) is not possible. From that stance, it might be reasonable to assume that any prophetic passage within a text was either inserted at a later date by an author who possessed knowledge of the particular event - and possibly, whose agenda would benefit from the pretense of prophetic authority - or that the later accounts (i.e., accounts of Jesus’ lineage or nationality) were adapted in order to fulfill the existing prophecy. From the beginning, there is sown within the mind of the evaluator an underlying distrust (it might also be fairly called an objective skepticism) of biblical content. Among conservatives, there is an equally damning presumption of divine inspiration and the authenticity of prophecy. This is how the board is set…our job, then, becomes to find a common ground upon which to intelligently and objectively discuss the matter.

The products of these two methods of biblical analysis are so worlds apart that any comparison between the two would be about as useful as comparing apples to oranges. By the time we get to discussing the conclusions each school of thought has developed, we’ve already wandered too far away from the real important issue. While the products/conclusions are all that matter in science, with history, it’s the assumptions that bear all the scrutiny. While there are certainly reasons certain groups choose to consider particular items in higher priority than others, these reasons are not all equally valid. Justin, since you are more familiar (I’m assuming) with the actual lists employed by liberal theologians versus conservative theologians to analyze biblical texts, would you mind explaining the strengths and weakness of each criteria set? If you could also maybe reference how this whole process has come to exclude certain other texts from that same period (Gnostic gospels, apocryphal books, etc.), I would appreciate it. Also, maybe write something about the Dead Sea scrolls and how their discovery has effected each methodologies claims (i.e., The Isaiah scroll containing messianic prophecy, thus supporting conservative theologians’ assumptions that such prophecies were not edited in, etc.).

Like I’ve previously pointed out, an error in the conservative theologians’ analysis undermines the claim of divine inspiration; conversely, an error in the liberal theologians’ (or secularists’) analysis of scripture potentially opens the door to the reality of prophecy, thus substantiating the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration. Either way, I think within Dawkin’s frame of mind there is room to test the bible to see whose viewpoint withstands the scrutiny (is based on sound reason) and whose doesn’t. If I need to, I’ll cite particular claims made my Dawkin’s refuting the bible’s accuracy and we can deal with those one by one to see what comes up.

Validity of the Bible: Responses (Originally posted June 2007)

Allow me to preface with an apology for any rehashing that may be done in my attempted response as I would like to take this opportunity to organize my thoughts on assorted topics that have at least some relevance to the topic at hand. I feel I have very limited credentials to speak on much of what has been raised and for that reason I will give more treatment to some of the issues than others.

First, as to the origins of the canon. I’m sure it goes without being said that, as far as we know, none of the New Testament writers wrote with the intention of having their works canonized. So how’d it happen? I appreciate your five possible logical explanations for why the NT canon came together and I realize what I am about to say furthers the plight of the skeptic, but is it possible that the gathering of the canon came about by way of supernatural guidance? It would be nice to assume that closer to the event of Jesus’ incarnation there would be a deeper spirituality among God’s people. We are talking about people who supposed lived within just a few generations of the most revolutionary figure in all of history. These people’s great grandparents had seen Jesus. You get the idea. So perhaps their faith was so strong and God’s plan was so out of the ordinary that he used unparalleled guidance by the Holy Spirit to direct those responsible for assembling the canon very specifically as to what to include and what not and so on and so forth.

Moving on to the dating of the Biblical texts. I think the dating of the book of Acts is imperative in the dating of the gospels, which I would say is the most important dates we need to get right. We know that Acts was the second part of a letter written by Luke to “His Excellency” Theophilus. Accepting the assumption that Luke is a reliable historian (which I might add is the normal supposition made when examining the writing of all other historical figures [innocent until proven guilty]) one must wonder why Luke does not include two things in the book of Acts: 1. The Destruction of the Temple- AD 70 2. The death of the Apostle Paul (one of the book’s central figures)- AD 62. If you are willing to follow out the logic, you’d see that the reasonable explanation would be that the book of Acts would have been written before either of these two crucial dates. Going backwards, that would mean that the Gospel of Luke came before AD 62 and since Luke contains parts of Mark, as does Matthew, (Mark being the earliest Gospel) we have the Gospel of Mark being written very near Jesus’ death. Even if you don’t buy into that argument, consider this: Scholars, even liberals, put Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s (generally). So, that is a window anywhere from about 40-70 years of Jesus’ death. That is two generations at best. Compare that with the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great (I owe such a comparison to Lee Strobel). His two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after his death in 323 BC. Historians consider these to be generally trustworthy. In the case of Jesus, we are talking about twice as many biographies in less than a fourth of the time.

Finally, in regards to the Bible being “self-authoritative”. We know that the NT’s authority is rooted in the apostles who are the foundation of the household of God (Eph. 2:20). This makes sense since Jesus promised in John 16:13-14, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” So, ultimately, the NT’s authority is rooted in Jesus and we can work backwards from there to hear what Jesus said about the OT like Matt. 5:18 where Jesus claims, “truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” And I am sure you are familiar with tons of other NT verses like that that affirm the OT’s canonicity. I realize that it gets a little hairy to tell a skeptic, “the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is the Word of God and since it’s the Word of God I believe it.” But think of it this way. Imagine in a court of law the prosecutor is making his case for why he thinks the defendant is guilty and the defense attorney rises to object. The judge asks on what grounds does he object and he responds, “On the grounds that the prosecutor who is making this case actually believes the case he is making is true.” That is, analogously, what the authors of the Bible are so often accused of. I think this is especially prevalent when skeptics look at the gospel writers. They claim, “oh, these people had an agenda, therefore the fabricated nonsense they recorded is just that, nonsense.” But to borrow an analogy from Strobel:

Some people, usually for anti-Semitic purposes, deny or downplay the horrors of the Holocaust. But it has been the Jewish scholars who’ve created museums, written books, preserves artifacts, and documented eyewitness testimony concerning the Holocaust.
Now they have a very ideological purpose – namely, to ensure that such an atrocity never occurs again – but they have also been the most faithful and objective in their reporting of historical truth.

So it is with the gospel-writers. I recognize much of my focus has been on the gospels specifically rather than our broader intended scope of the entire Bible, but I really feel like Jesus has to be the starting point in apologetics. Seriously, if we measure time (or used to before they came up with the politically correct BCE/CE crap) according to the time of the man’s death he probably should be where we start when it comes to defending/working out our faith’s issues.

The Validity of the Bible: Part 1 (Originally posted June 2007)

This issue seems, from every angle, to be one of unique ambiguity. For the purposes of this forum, I will focus my questions to the following issues regarding the validity of the Bible: One, the origins of the canon; two, the methods of dating biblical texts by both conservative and liberal theologians; and three, the specific relevancies of the argument (as it effects the authority, reliability, and application of the text for the Christian; and how the perspective of the secularist might be undermined if their assumptions were properly challenged). This is a question which I’m sure others will be better suited to answer, but I’ll do my best to introduce the topic.

As for the origins of the canon (those books included in our modern Bibles and considered to be “inspired” by God), it seems an issue up for debate. It is clear that, even from several thousand year B.C., Jewish believers operated by observance of particular texts considered to be inspired by God. For instance, Daniel 9:2 reads: “…in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.” Also, it is known that certain biblical texts were commonly read aloud at the feasts of Israel. These include Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. If I remember my conversation with you correctly, the entire Old Testament was compiled and canonized - although perhaps not formally - by approximately 300 B.C. The New Testament books were canonized at a later date, the time and circumstances of which I can’t seem to nail down (granted, I’ve only asked around rather than researched the issue personally). If someone could supplement this issue, I would appreciate it.

So, where did the concept of canonization come from? I’m only guessing, but I suppose that part of the explanation involves our innate expectation that God would reveal Himself in a written account, as He has historically and as inferred through the person of Jesus Christ (as supported by the theology of His disciples - see, for example, John 1:1-18). The logic goes something like this:

1. God’s original revelation of Himself came via the Law, originally divinely transcribed on stone tablets and later expanded into written law.
2. God spoke through the prophets, who left written accounts of their prophecies.
3. The Messiah was both foretold in scripture and later validated by it (Luke 24:27, John 13:18, John 19:28, etc.)
4. God described Himself through these prior methods in terms of “word made flesh” (Ps. 119, etc.); this concept was also incorporated into New Testament theology (Heb. 1:1-3, Heb. 4:12, John 1:1-18; Col. 3:16; 2 Tim. 3:16, Rom. 9:17, Gal. 3:8, 2 Peter 1:20)
5. The retrospective evidence of having the word of God prove true in the lives of believers (Rom. 12:2-3, Rom. 2:15, 2 Cor. 3:18, James 1:22-25).

This last point is an example of how the Bible could be considered self-authoritative. If anyone would like to expound on this concept - specifically, how the Bible itself can be a legitimate testimony of its own validity - I would appreciate it. Points 1-4 are hardly worth considering if the Bible’s self-authoritative claims cannot be reasonably validated.

Anyway, it seems that Christians are very comfortable with the interpretation, application, and the concept of scriptural authority (particularly in regards to directing their lives and providing promises of eternal security), but seem alarmingly less clear on how the Bible came to be and from where its authority is drawn. Like my previous points have suggested, the strongest argument I’ve found so far as to the Bible’s validity is one which could very easily be considered a circular argument. As damning as the terminology sounds, I think there’s room to bolster that argument (that the Bible is self-authoritative) with clear logic and sound reason. Indeed, science espouses its fair share of self-authoritative theories as well. Quantum mechanics, for example, relies on a sort of retrospective proof which science seems to regard as quite convincing. As Dawkins writes, “Quantum mechanics, that rarefied pinnacle of twentieth-century scientific achievement, makes brilliantly successful predictions about the real world. Richard Feynman compared its precision to predicting the distance as great as the width of North American to an accuracy on one human hair’s breadth. This predictive success seems to mean that quantum theory has got to be true in some sense…yet the assumptions that quantum theory needs to make, in order to deliver those predictions, are so mysterious that even the great Feynman himself was moved to remark…: ‘If you think you understand quantum theory…you don’t understand quantum theory.’” (The God Delusion, pg. 364-365) Having said that, could the Bible’s authority be of a similar kind as that of quantum mechanics, gaining credence from the fruit it produces rather than upon the claims/assumptions it makes? What are your thoughts on this, since you introduced me to the term “self-authoritative” in the first place?