Over
the last four months, I have posted four foundational articles related to my
book The Limits of Liberalism (2010), which I am updating and slightly
revising this year. This post is based on Chapter Five, the first specific
issue discussed with an entire chapter—and the only one dealing with the same issue
as my book on fundamentalism.
Positive
Aspects in Liberal Views
Before
elucidating some problem areas in liberal views of the Bible, several positions
must first be noted as being commendable.
First,
the rejection of biblical inerrancy is an important emphasis of liberalism.
In
his 2003 book The Heart of Christianity, Marcus Borg strikingly states
that in the last half-century “more Christians have left the church because of
the Bible than for any other single reason” (p. 43)—and that is largely because
of the conservative evangelical emphasis on inerrancy. Thus, the liberals’
rejection of that is praiseworthy.
Also,
as I write in Chapter Five, “As opposed to fundamentalism’s approach to the
Bible, in the liberal paradigm there is freedom to revise interpretations and
to reject previous views which are obviously no longer valid.” That, too, is
commendable.
So,
there are clearly some positive aspects in liberal views of the Bible. However,
. . .
Negative
Aspects in Liberal Views
The
starting point of liberalism is one of the main problems, for it begins with
reason, not God’s revelation as recorded in the Bible.
Traditional
“orthodox” (Protestant) theologians thought we should start with the Bible and
form our Christian beliefs and base our actions on it. But liberals tend to
think that we should start with reason and accept only what we can rationally
understand and accept of the Bible.
That
problem was highlighted by Martin Luther in his disputation with the scholar
Erasmus. Luther reportedly said, “The difference between you and me, Erasmus,
is that you sit above Scripture and judge it, while I sit under Scripture and
let it judge me!”
Further,
one does not have to be a conservative evangelical to see that there are
potential problems with the liberals’ “softness” in speaking clearly about the
unique inspiration of the Bible or the authority of the Bible, which were
strong traditional Christian emphases long before the rise of fundamentalism.
Questions
about Liberal Views
In
Chapter Five, I discuss five questions. The first two are, “human or divine?”
and “factual or metaphorical?” In contrast to most conservatives’ emphasis on
the Bible as divine and mostly factual, most liberals tend to see the Bible primarily
as a human book and mostly metaphorical.
Both
questions are probably answered best with a both/and position rather than an either/or
one. The latter is easier to explain, but the truth is much more likely to be
found in the both/and explanation.
The
final question of the chapter is this: should Christians speak of the “Holy
Bible” or of multiple “sacred scriptures”?
There
is a proclivity in liberal theology toward the latter, which means relativizing
the Bible. Thus, rather than holding to the Christian Bible as unique, as implied
by the words “Holy Bible,” the sacred writings of other faith traditions are
seen as more or less of equal value or validity.
In
contrast to the contentious past in which Christians tended to vilify other
religions and to denigrate their scriptures, liberals are prone to accept the
scriptures of all major religions as being more or less of equal value.
Certainly,
that irenic attitude of the liberals in this regard is preferable to the
belligerent attitudes and actions of many Christians of the past. But it is not
necessary to go from one extreme to the other.
Asserting
one’s belief in and acceptance of the “Holy Bible” does not keep us from
affirming the right of the adherents of other religions to believe in and
accept the sacredness of their scriptures.
But
affirmation of religious freedom does not mean relativism. It is simply a
matter of respect for others with different traditions. Or, we might say, it is
a matter of loving others as we are commanded to do by the Holy Bible.
*****
“The
Bible Is Like a Rorschach Test” was the title of my 9/20/17 blog post, and it
has received more than 350 pageviews; if you would like to read it (again), click here.
Pretty well put. The "traditional" Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) do have a VERY high view of "The Word of God" as part of Church tradition, and honor it as such - "...holy men of old, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God." But also of the "rhema" - "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us..." a phrase consistent with the ecumenical Councils.
ReplyDeleteBut have been around a little, it is also easy to find other followers of the Creator, some of whom have very nearly identical early traditions - including the names. But one must also be careful, there are plenty of aberrant and heretical beliefs - including among Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, and liberals. (eg - "Theotokos save us." eg - "Our.") The Word of God is valuable "for teaching, rebuke, and training in righteousness." Postmodernism makes a wreck of that.
Two brief responses:
Delete1) The liberal views of the Bible go back to the 19th century, long before postmodernism.
2) 2 Tim. 2:16-17 states, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NIV). -- It needs to be noted that here Scripture is not related to doctrine (orthodoxy) but to ethical action (orthopraxis).
I think there is something problematic in using the word "unique" when what you mean is superior. And i would argue there's a certain amount of unavoidable relativism whenever we respect other traditions and their beliefs unless one enters inter-religious dialogue from the position of "I'm right, and you're wrong." I think a far better approach is to recognize -- through reason -- that anything viewed as "holy" or "sacred" is an attribution by human beings in particular cultural circumstances. And we should look for and appreciate truth wherever we find it. The spiritual quest of humans is itself a transcendental practice that is properly "disciplined" by reason, cultural traditions, and one's religious formation. I have no problem acknowledging that I've experienced God's grace through fundamentalist, evangelical, and liberal Christianity and that doesn't mean or even imply that Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists don't experience God's grace through their own very different traditions. But, then, I'm a liberal. I have limitations. :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thought-provoking comments, Anton. They are of such import that a brief response is not adequate. I will think more about what you wrote and try to post a fuller response later.
DeleteAnton, I think you are probably right: the word "unique" is problematic, for it means "being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else." So while the Bible is unique, so is the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible), the Qur'an, etc.
DeleteAnd perhaps I did mean "superior," which means "higher in station, rank, degree, importance,"--but that is a word that seems haughty and potentially demeaning so it is one I don't particular want to use. But isn't that what the adherents of any religion, at least adherents by choice rather than by birth, think about their own "sacred writings"? Why would anyone want to be an adherent of a religion if they thought there were other scriptures superior to theirs?
The WhyIslam.org website says this about the Qur'an: "It is the last testament in a series of divine revelations from God. It comprises the unaltered and direct words of God, revealed through the Angel Gibrael, to the final Prophet, Muhammad . . . some 1400 years ago." That statement about the Qur'an definitely means that Muslims think that it is not only unique but superior.
So what should our attitude be toward that Islamic statement? As I see it, relativism means thinking that it is true for Muslims, but not true for those who are not Muslims--just as relativism would also mean that the Holy Bible is the Word of God for Christians but not for those of other religions.
But it is this relativization of truth that I cannot accept. There are conflicting truth claims. And what does it mean to appreciate truth wherever we find it. Do we in the Christian tradition find truth in the statement that "the unaltered and direct words of God" were "revealed through the Angel Gibrael, to the final Prophet, Muhammad"?
So I come back to my insistence that we should relate to people of other religions, people who have different scriptures, with respect, acknowledging their right to believe what they think is right. The "I'm right, you're wrong" approach is not respectful, nor helpful. But neither is the position of "What you believe is true/right/good for you; what I believe is true/right/good for me," which is perhaps a bit of a caricature but basically the position of relativism, it seems to me.
But liberal or not, I certainly do not wish to reject your contention that Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists may, indeed, experience God's grace through--or maybe, in many cases, in spite of--their own traditions.
Here are comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for bringing up what, for me at least, is a fascinating topic.
"A Lutheran pastor once told me that the Bible is inerrant with respect to its purpose, so approaching the Bible from a literary or scientific perspective does not necessarily impugn the view that the Bible is inerrant teleologically. I could write much more about this, but I will resist since this is an email.
You cited Marcus Borg, who wrote that in the last half century, more people have left the church because of the Bible than for any other reason. I am not sure I agree with Borg. While fundamentalist views of the Bible have driven many people away from the church, I think social (i.e., urbanization and multiculturalism), psychological, and even moral reasons have been more important factors. Fundamentalist views of the role of women or of homosexuality have certainly been important, especially among younger people."
Thanks for your comments, Eric, and I appreciate your reference to Borg's quote. As I view the situation it has, indeed, been matters such as the role of women and/or or homosexuality that have caused many younger people to leave the church. But, those positions are largely based on the fundamentalist view of the Bible as being inerrant and necessary to be interpreted literally. If that is the case, I think Borg's statement is probably true.
DeleteThinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky writes,
ReplyDelete"I probably fit the category of liberal theology. My problem with Fundamentalism or Inerrancy is that it makes an idol, a golden calf, of the Bible. In my understanding liberal theology says that faith should be faith in God attested to or made manifest by the patriarchs, Moses, the prophets, and, above all, Jesus.
"Other sacred writings may also help us to know God, but none matches for me what I learn about God through the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Yet I can recognize that Muslims may think the same thing about the Koran or Hindus about their sacred writings. In that I am recognizing the 'conditioning' we experience in our different traditions and pray that I will have the humility to admit that the God of this universe of more than 150 billion galaxies is beyond my comprehension, no matter which Bible I use."
Thanks, Dr. Hinson, for your significant comments.
DeleteThere is a lot of variance in liberal theology, and while all reject the biblioaltry of fundamentalism, I am not sure all would agree with your second sentence. To the extent that they do, it seems that they would be affirming the idea of the Bible as the record of God's revelation "made manifest by the patriarchs, Moses, the prophets, and, above all, Jesus." If they do that, I have no problem with that view of the Bible--but, as I said, I think there are many liberals would not agree with that view.
Since the first chapter in my book "Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now" is "God is Greater than we Think, or Even Can Think," I basically agree with your final statement.
Comments from local Thinking Friend Temp Sparkman:
ReplyDelete"A balanced view of the issues, Leroy, and a rightful personal position. I’d say that all scriptures are valid for the religions that adhere to their teachings, but they mean nothing to me as a Christian.
"It is clear that the writers of the books of the Bible were under inspiration. The Bible certainly judges me for my attitudes and actions but it is not an authority in my experience. I get my experiential perspectives and values from many sources. Like all human knowledge, the Bible is a product of human imagination. Consider that the original sources (papyrus for the Hebrew Bible, scrolls for the New Testament) were written down in historical circumstances and languages."
Thanks for your comments, Temp.
DeleteThe last part of your second paragraph seems to indicate that you believe that the Bible is only a human book. Conservative evangelicals emphasize the Bible as only a divine book. As I wrote in my post, I hold to the both/and view that the Bible is both human and divine. This was something that Dr. Wayne Ward emphasized when I was a student at Southern Seminary.
I appreciate the way you parse these issues, Leroy. I always learn from you, and I like your “both/and” approach here.
ReplyDeleteOne thought this time: Putting the term “Holy” before the word “Bible” is reasonable when we think of the Bible in terms of being set apart as “superior,” for Christians who, as you say, have chosen this text above all others. But many people use the word “Holy” in front of “Bible” to mean it is set apart in the way that God is set apart, as divine, not just divinely inspired, but as if the book is to be exalted or treated as a sacred relic. I’ve been in churches that begin each service with the pastor making a grand entrance, carrying an enormous “Holy Bible” above his head, and all stand until the sacred book takes its place on the podium. I can believe that that book is filled with specially inspired themes from God that are superior to any other group of texts, without feeling the need to call it “holy.”
Merrium-Webster’s first and second definitions of “holy”:
1: exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness
2: divine // for the Lord our God is holy
Thanks for your comments, Fred. It hadn't occurred to me that calling the Bible "Holy" could be, or is in some cases, linked to bibliolatry.
DeleteThe best definition of "holy" in reference to the Bible is, I think, "dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose." That is in keeping with the words of 1 Peter 2:9, where the Christian believers are referred to as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people." It was in this sense that the Apostles' Creed refers to the "holy catholic church."
And in The 39 Articles, a 1536 foundational document of Anglican theology, states that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.” Anglicans have not usually been accused of fundamentalism, or bibliography, but holding high the "Holy Scripture" is a definite part of the procession at the beginning of Anglican worship.
So, by emphasizing the "Holy Bible" I was seeking to focus on the importance of the Bible as being of divine origin and given for the purpose of helping us humans know and worship God.
I appreciate this post, especially your Luther citation. I tend to agree with your both/and approach to Scripture. However there are some biblical text that are problematic re their divine aspect. For example, this Sunday's Revised Common Lectionary first lesson-Genesis 22:1-14. In a cultural milieu where heathens sacrificed children, one agonizes-as Abraham must have-over why the LORD God would require Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? In the end, divine intervention prevented Abraham from killing his son. However, one wonders what were the long-term consequences of that event for both Abraham and Isaac? How did it affect their relationship with each other and with God?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Lutheran friend, and for linking it to this Sunday's lectionary reading, which will doubtlessly cause anguish for many pastors who seek to use that story in their sermon.
DeleteAs you know, Kierkegaard's book "Fear and Trembling" is based on that Genesis story, and I think what he wrote there must be taken very seriously--although his book is not easy to understand either.
As a religious humanist, my answer to this blog is largely the same I posted to the May 25 blog, I believe in the power of metaphors and the experience of God. Rather than re-litigating that, I would like to discuss two examples.
ReplyDeleteI am a trinitarian religious humanist. I think Unitarians made a mistake when they gutted the trinity rather than re-imaging it. For one thing, three-in-one is not a hard metaphor in a world understood through quantum mechanics. Every proton and neutron is believed to be made up of three quarks, yet no quark has ever been identified all on its own. Second, the trinity means something very central to Christianity, as I see it. God the Creator is our connection to the mysteries of existence. God the Son is our connection to each other. What we have done to each other, we have done to Jesus. Right now we should all be moaning, "I can't breathe!" Speaking of breathing, God the Holy Spirit is the God we most personally experience within us. Whether it is Elijah's still small voice, or the road to Emmaus burning within, if we listen carefully, we can hear God telling us, "Black Lives Matter!" Yeah, I am pretty sure God is using the exclamation point.
My second example comes from growing up RLDS. Yes, I was born across the river, one of the Saints in Zion. This meant I had three sets of scripture to deal with, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants. I can forgive the last, it is basically a list of various leadership announcements and personal decisions throughout the history of the church from Joseph Smith, Jr., down to today. Sort of like the Book of Numbers in the Bible. I remember once causing some consternation at my current Baptist church when I answered a question about the Book of Mormon by saying my main problem with it was that it was boring, like a 700-page companion to Judges. Judges is long enough on its own. Compared to that, the Bible is a tower of strength and wonder, only challenged by the likes of Shakespeare or Mark Twain. The Bible criticizes itself as later writers seek deeper insight than what earlier writers found. With care, I join that process. So far I have not found myself rattling the Beatitudes or questioning "God is love." So I love my Mormon neighbors who have found more than I did in the Book of Mormon, even as I find the Bible superior. I would not say the Book of Mormon has nothing to offer, clear back in the early 19th century, it presented a painfully modern image in one story of a war of total mutual annihilation. There are several flavors of Mormonism in the world, and I would not deny any of them their pilgrimage of faith. God loves us all.
Leroy, as you know, I am a fan of Marcus Borg. Since I consider myself a liberal already, his writings along with people like Brian McLaren and John Bell resonate with me, but I'm not sure that their perspectives have prevented the exodus from the church. Too many younger people had already given up on the failure of the church to be "welcoming and affirming" not only in terms of gender, but also race, and women. I'm still old-school enough to think that we preach "from scripture," and I still want the Bible to be read in worship with a sense of loftiness and respect different from other readings in worship. I am currently delving into Mary Magdalene and the "New New Testament" which incorporates all that was omitted from the canon. The omissions did not just weed out heresies as I had long been taught, but intentionally and maliciously cut out ideas that were all in general circulation in the first and second centuries about all of the multiple, not-yet-consolidated Christ movements. Maybe if we had now
ReplyDeletethe perspective of the apostle Mary Magdalene, we would view Jesus differently and understand following him in a very different way.
Thanks for your comments, Lydia. It is always good to hear from you.
DeleteYou are probably right that Borg's, McLaren's, and Bell's perspectives have not prevented the exodus from the church--but largely, I think, that most of those who have left the church have never read those three writers. Of the three, I am fondest of McLaren, whom I do not consider a liberal--but who is most certainly not in harmony with the conservative evangelical wing of the church, although that is where he started. I have read Bell the least, although I did post a blog article back on March 30,2011, titled "Bell on Hell."
If people understand the teaching of Jesus (and the New Testament) as interpreted by people like Borg and McLaren (and me!), I don't think there is any pressing need to construct a new New Testament to counter the racist, anti-women, anti-LGBTQ ideas and actions in contemporary society.