A Conspiracy of Silence? - Is the Bible Ever Wrong?
Jesus Creed writes -
"...how should Christian colleges prepare college students, especially science students, for the intellectual challenges that will surely come in graduate study and the professional world? This pastor reflected that one of his sons came home after his first term at seminary and asked why his dad had never told him, never talked about, the issues and questions he was learning at school. The answer of course, was that there are some things that a pastor simply cannot talk about in church, he dare not raise the question much less provide scholarly answers.
I contend that this conspiracy of silence does as much, perhaps more, damage than good.
First: brushing the problems, "the blue parakeet texts," under the rug means that evangelicalism cannot develop a robust and defensible view of scripture.
Second: the lumps under the rug are not really hidden. We simply all agree to pretend that we cannot see them. The OT becomes a book we avoid rather than a heritage we embrace. For 20 years I found it difficult to read the OT except in carefully selected verse sized fragments - because it simply is not what it is supposed to be. A fact that is painfully obvious, even to an educated layperson.
Third: the science, the historical study, the textual criticism, none of this is going away - ever. We have to deal with it honestly.
Fourth: it becomes a stumbling block that contributes to loss of faith for many and prevents many more from ever even considering the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So I have two questions for pastors and others in ministry:
Is there a "conspiracy of silence," and if so is it a pastoral necessity? How should we deal with these issues in our churches?
and
How would you deal with an educated layperson with very real and very deep questions about the nature of the Bible?" Read the full post
Posts
10 Thoughts:
Miguel... I'm not entirely sure what your alluding to exactly. Hope you'll post further, to clarify.
In the meantime, let me reflect on something Charles Colson said (poorly paraphrased, please forgive)...
"What'd you learn from Watergate, Mr. Colson?"
"I learned that the Bible is absolutely 100% true. Our small group of the world's most powerful men, with pretty much nothing to lose, could not hold our conspiracy lie together for two weeks. Yet many of the authors of scripture were martyred while still avowing what they observed and wrote about."
Btw, as an example for the sake of conversation... Which empirical scientific experiment might we use, to discount John's assertion that Jesus turned water into wine?
If we CAN scientifically disprove miracles then we've eliminated the possibility that a perfect God Almighty could have anything to do with sinners like you and me, right?
Brotha Neil!
I believe reason is within the bounds of religion. Science is good and also a gift from God. However, it is not the arbiter of truth. Science has it's limitations.
I don't have a problem with the empirical method as a method. But when we put full stock in our sensibilities and subject ourselves to the limitations of our own fallibility then we will simply write off water turning into wine.
My problem is that I wish God would do it more often! That is, turn my pitcher of PUR filtered water into some of that wine!
Regarding the linked/cited post from Jesus Creed, I think if you read the post in it's entirety it will pretty much explain itself. It essentially is talking about facing scholarship of all kinds, textual, theological and canonical head on and not avoiding tough questions within and without the churches academia.
I simply posted select portions from the cited blog in order to strike the curiosities of readers. The questions are indicative of honest intellectual virtue.
I think the church ( just like any other human endeavor including secular institutions) is often guilty of discouraging honest and God honoring virtuous scholarship.
I think one of the reasons for this is because we are afraid to face matters and we often despise having our cherished long held beliefs challenged.
I believe our faith in the testimony of Christ can suitably offer us a response to issues that is both chastened in it's rationality and also reasonable considering our epistemic dependence (our dependence upon God for knowledge).
Peace to you brother.
Migue,
I'll admit a little sensitivity on this issue...but I think it is easy to say Pastors are "afraid" to face such matters and relatively difficult to find one who actually is so. Have you ever met a Pastor who is unwilling to talk about such things? Perhaps the corporate worship service is not the place to do it - indeed, it probably is not. I think McKnight is just trying to sell his book. "You can't trust your Pastor, trust me instead...buy my book..." Even the way the post is written sounds like a shill. "A conspiracy of silence" - please.
Maybe this is true of the Fundamentalist ghetto - but not many people live there. Though, I must say, the threat of living there still sells a lot of books.
I see what you're saying Roger.
However one thing is that McKnight did not write the post. It is RJS whom is a science teacher or professor who also now contributes to Jesuscreed as also John Fry does.
I do not suspect that there are any hidden agendas with the post.
Considering what you've said though causes me to notice the 'inflammatory' language (conspiracy) or perhaps a poor choice for a rhetorical device.
What I see that the write offers is a focus upon the need to not cower away from scholarship and the pursuit of intellectual virtue. In my opinion I think this post indirectly gives a word to not capitulate to fear and instead allow truth be truth and go-grow with it.
Perhaps a better title for the post would have been, "A Default of Silence?"
Granted not all contexts are the same. Not everyone is going to be engaging or needing to be engaged on "lofty" issues that impact the church.
I suppose the church feels the consequences of the thinking in it's practical and pastoral level. A knee jerk reaction to these issues could lead to a staunch fundamentalism or a complete overhauling of orthodoxy and pitching of ancient text in favor of human academia.
All of you are wrong. Only Jesus is right. Stop talking. ;)
You would Danae.
I have to say...I didn't read this whole thing, but I do have a thought-
you need to go to college. You and Danae. You guys both yearn for it and I know that you will most def. THRIVE there.
my two cents. Probably has nothing to do with you post, but I saw the word college and thought I needed to write this down.
Personally I find that this website says all that eeds to be said about this topic.
www.jesusneverexisted.com
It could very well be subtitled--by their(bitter) fruits you will know them.
But such a dreadful history, and its resulting mountains of corpses, was INEVITABLE when the church was coopted by the Roman state and thus became an integral part of the conquest(s) of empires(s), including the current USA empire.
And why, pray tell, does what didnt even happpen 2000 years ago (the "resurrection" of jesus") have a binding hold on every other human being on this planet? The more than 6 billion of us?
And were you there 2000 years ago to witness anything that is "reported" in the Bible?
"Anonymous", I realize bitterness abounds. It is a malignancy of the soul however it comes about and where ever it manifests itself.
I believe what will break the perpetuation of this is the death and resurrection of Christ and its cosmic fallout.
I realize this is a very, very messy thing. I guess a question is what isn't?
Concerning your first question; I cannot give a 'reasonable' response to it by granting your premise of "what didnt even happpen 2000 years ago".
Regarding your second question; No I wasn't there. Question is, "who was there besides them who reported?"
Regarding testimony, "the knowledge we gain from others is not inferential but properly basic; in many cases there are no other grounds for a belief." Regarding the justification of ones knowledge.., "justification in a fiduciary scheme has to do not with "founding" the evidence given by a witness but with trusting it." And, "...our reliance on testimony goes beyond anything that could be justified by personal observation.....testimony is an irreducible form of knowledge."
I don't mean to oversimplify the complexities of belief, knowledge and epistemic-testimonial dependence, but the above is sufficient for a general statement. Without out doubt more could be said.
Feel free to use your real name here friend. It's all good.
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."
credo ut intelligam
Post a Comment