One can only wonder why there are some, Christian theologians perhaps being the foremost examples, who still care to defend the Christian scriptures on an intellectual level. In a time when Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” became an international bestseller and theology has been marginalized in the academy, and the Church marginalized in Western societies, why do we still care? Or, better, why do we still believe at all? The answer to that question always, to some degree, begins or at least falls back on those texts that were delivered to us; texts from ancient times, thousands of years old: texts written in a very different culture, from very different lands and cities than where, for the most part, people think and discuss and write about these texts in our time.
On the grassroots level, these texts are highly revered by enormously diverse groups of peoples, literally all over the planet. Mostly, all these groups also read the same texts differently, but for certain relatively stable notions. Where does this undying reverence and trust in these texts come from, so goes a common question of today’s society co-inhabitants. And the question is understandable; even more so, it is a question that most believers ask themselves as well, often on a regular basis. The question also often seems, unfortunately, unanswerable. The common answers do not satisfy—at least, they do not satisfy most people.
Is it not, to start out with, an immense problem that the foundations of our faith are often seen to stand or fall upon words written on paper, as opposed to a foundation outside of the written word, however difficult to imagine? This would mean that as soon as certain parts of these texts could be reasonably attacked and made to look implausible, these foundations would start crumbling, as indeed they have. What remains, if not the text? If the text crumbles, are we left with nothing? But then again, surely God is not found in the text itself? (although writers such as Brueggemann suggest just this. Brueggemann refuses to speak of a God outside of the text. See Theology of the Old Testament. Perhaps, in Brueggemann’s case, it is foremostly a way of doing theology well. See his Deep Memory, Exuberant Hope, p84. It cannot be denied that his approach takes the biblical texts extremely serious). The texts themselves presuppose, from beginning to end, that God acts in the reality outside of the text. Put irreverently, the texts are merely the after-effects of the writing down of what God did in Israel’s and mankind’s history.
If God stays inside the text, we are faced with a dead entity. Over-simply put, He’d consist of letters slapped on paper. It is true that such ways of speaking are tributes to postmodern philosophy and literary theory, but true theology need not pay tribute to anyone but God. In that sense, we can agree with Dawkins who sees the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis, outside of any holy text—if God does not exist in that way, then surely not in any other way (for example) as pertaining exclusively to a written, holy text. The problem, or if you will, opportunity, is that we, Christians, see a direct relation between the existence of this God and the written, biblical scriptures. Without these texts we’d have what Dawkins tries to disprove: a supernatural, transcendent entity about whom we know nothing. With these texts, we have the entrance into a revelation about this entity, who is presented to us as being personal and, to a degree, approachable. We tread on a thin line, between having nothing and, possibly, a lot. All of that is caught in what I here have called the problem of scripture.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 29, 2010 at 13:30
communiosanctorum
1.) What is unsatisfying about scripture? (just asking, I don’t have an agenda with this question)
2.)
Isn’t Dawkins entirely mistaken thinking about God in that way? Is existence in a scientifically provable way the only way of existing? Is “existing” really all that important? What would it mean on the level of God? I think once you have a real understanding of what the referent is of the word “God”, you begin to understand how mundane most of man’s pursuits are of God, including Dawkins etc. Especially trying to put God into a logical box or scientific proof.
By the way, if you approve or disapprove of this comment, you will notice my email address. I’m looking for knowledgeable people I can occasionally shoot an email too about theological questions. Email me if you wouldn’t mind talking about some theological matters some time over email. Thanks.
July 29, 2010 at 14:18
Jelmer de Jong
1: Why did you think I was unsatisfied with scripture?
2: Of course, you are entirely right. The only thing I agreed with, was to posit God’s existence as outside of the text. On that regard, it is helpful, but in most other regards Dawkins’ discussion is not very relevant. I actually wrote a little bit about that as well, but it didn’t fit in the blog post. It is an unfinished comment, but you’ll get a better feeling for what I think about that. I’ll post it here:
To come back to Dawkins: he attacks the hypothesis of God’s existence and deems the existence of any kind of supernatural power or being nearly impossible. The challenges he puts forward seem to be insurmountable to most theologians, but why don’t his questions and challenges sting? They somehow miss the intended sting. Dawkins’s arguments and questions lack that punch he thought they’d have; they are almost irrelevant. To convince a believer that God does not exist by purely rationalistic arguments has the same result as trying to convince an atheist that God does exist by said arguments (that argue the contrary). The mind is left untouched. Or should we say, the soul is left untouched?
July 29, 2010 at 19:25
communiosanctorum
OK, I misread the end of your second paragraph. Can you elaborate on the answers that don’t satisfy many people?
July 29, 2010 at 21:58
Jelmer de Jong
Ah, I understand. What I am hinting at is the difficulty to defend the bible’s credibility, or even historicity, etc., from an objective, or if you will, ‘scientific’ perspective. It’s hard to explain why one should believe in the bible, especially to a critic. Of course there are reasons, reasons that have been rehearsed for years, but often those reasons do not carry a lot of weight.
July 30, 2010 at 00:03
communiosanctorum
I’ve found that most people who will deny the historicity of the bible are often unaware of the facts pertaining to that claim. The educated people who do accept the “historical” Jesus, and that the bible has merit as a historical-religious text will then often not accepts Jesus’ claim of divinity or any miracles he performed. Those, in my opinion, are the tougher nuts to crack because they are coming at this stuff from a naturalists’ perspective, which precludes miracles to begin with.
You mentioned that if the sole basis of your faith is merely the text, then if and when that text can be shown to be untrustworthy then your faith crumbles with it. I remember thinking this in college. At that time I was learning the technical details of all the arguments related to the historicity of the bible and the existence of God etc. But faith and belief is not, as I think you mentioned, based merely on a text or logical argument. I think much of our faith and belief comes from our experiences with God through His actions in the world, through his community of believers, through the Church. I am also reminded of something Bonhoeffer wrote about having faith in order to be obedient, and to obey in order to have faith. Each increases the other and they feed off of each other.
July 30, 2010 at 11:54
Jelmer de Jong
I think my earlier comment on dawkins (my first response) reveals that I do not think faith comes from logical or scientific reasoning, nor just from a bare text. So yes, I agree with you: experiences are crucial.