Questions from Confirmation Class
(Question #1):
For the next few posts I would like to address some of the
questions that our confirmation youth have asked over the last year or two.
How can we believe in the Bible when it was written 2,000 years or more
ago?
While we
accept the Bible as the “authoritative source and norm of [our] proclamation,
faith, and life” (Article C2.03 ELCA Constitution), we don’t actually believe
in the Bible. The Bible is a witness, a
written witness to the Word of God. The
living Word of God is Jesus.
Understanding the Bible as a written witness stops us from worshiping the Bible or considering it as something supernatural or superhuman. It is not infallible and it can’t always be
read literally. The Bible was written
over many centuries (10th century bc
to 2nd century ad) and
by a variety of human authors from differing times, cultures, and social
classes. It also contains many different
genres of literature (including works of fiction, Jonah, Esther, and parts of
Daniel for example). Reading such fictional
stories literally doesn't make it the most faithful reading, it means
misunderstanding it. None of this means
that we take the Bible any less seriously than someone who considers the Bible
to be infallible or demands the only reading is a literal one.
So how can we read the Bible and
still finding meaning in it, when it was written 2,000 years ago?
By reading the Bible contextually and modestly. We read the Bible modestly because neither
the Bible, nor ourselves are infinite, we are limited in our understanding,
biases, and perspectives. We can only
posit a text’s interpretation tentatively, knowing that both the biblical text
and our reading of that text have been culturally conditioned. So we test our interpretation against other
biblical passages and/or books. We
commit ourselves to reading and discussing our interpretations of the Bible in
a community (i.e. the church). We seek
dialogue partners from outside our own community and social class in the hopes
of broadening our perspectives and improving our interpretations. Reading the Bible isn't always, if ever,
easy.
A large
part of the meaning and relevance of reading such an old library of scared
literature (essentially what the Bible is) is found in struggling with
Scripture. A struggling that often
involves a direct challenge to the status quo, our treasured doctrines, and
preconceived notions. Any interpretation
that affirms our own ideology, a little too nicely, is one that was doubtlessly
made too easily and should be suspected.
While still tempted to read the Bible as a book of answers, I have come
to believe the Bible is more a book of questions than answers; a book about
asking the right questions rather than finding ‘right’ answers. In
affirming the inspiration of the Bible, we need to recognize that inspiration doesn't just apply to the Bible’s authors, but to its readers and interpreters,
as well.
So we read
the Bible contextually, modestly, and as “the written witness to God’s
Word. But of course we really do hope
that the reading of Scripture…will stir the minds and hearts of the hearers so
deeply that they will in fact ‘hear the Word of God’ and not just words, words,
words.[i]”
[i]
Hall, Douglas John. What Christianity is
Not: An exercise in “Negative” Theology.
Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013.
p. 52
No comments:
Post a Comment