“’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'” (Matthew 22:37)
“‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.'” (Luke 10:27)
“Test everything, hold on to the good.” (1 Thess 5:21)
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1 Peter 3:15)
A couple of years ago Matt made it to the position of one of two final candidates for a position with a Christian school who wanted to hire a theologian to re-write their curriculum and work with their teachers so as to better bring God into each subject area. The final interview went badly. Matt was asked for how he would approach science and creation issues and he gave an answer not unlike this comment which he left in the comments thread of my post “The NZARH and the Privileging of Secularism“:
The Atheist Missionary asked: “If a student approaches their science teacher and asks whether the world is only 6000 years old, what should the science teacher tell them?”
Matt answered: “If it is a public school with a significant “fundamentalist constituency” the teacher should tell the student that according to the best current scientific theories the world is several millions of years old and explain why they think this. The teacher could then state that some religious groups believe that the world is 6000 years old and this is because they think the bible is God’s word and that Genesis 1-11 should be read literally. The teacher could note that if these assumptions are correct then God teaches that current science is wrong and there would be good reasons for thinking science is mistaken. The teacher could add that there are other Christians who think Genesis 1-11 should not be interpreted literally but he should note that whether the assumptions and interpretation in question are correct or not is a theological dispute which he as a science teacher cannot really comment on. He could refer the student to some books which discuss these issues from various angles and perhaps even refer him to the Religious Education teacher who might be able to explain the theological positions better.
If the student asks what do you think? The teacher could answer, “I accept that science is the only reliable way of coming to these questions, and I don’t accept the assumption that the Bible is God’s word; however, these are philosophical and theological positions, not strictly scientific ones.” Alternatively he might state, “while I accept the Bible is God’s word I think Genesis 1-11 is not supposed to be interpreted literally, I think when you examine the kind of writing it is there are good reasons for thinking something else is going on there and so there is no reason for thinking science has made a mistake here.” Again, the teacher should encourage the student to come to an understanding of the issues for himself and should recommend a range of people or resources from different perspectives for him to consult. What he should not do is say: ‘no it is millions of years old and anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fool worthy of ridicule.’
The former approach that I advocate encourages understanding of the issues and it encourages the student to think wholistically about all the questions- scientific, philosophical and theological – as well as how to distinguish the different issues and assumptions involved and so on. The latter position, which appears to be the attitude of many, does not do this. It essentially fosters ignorance about why others think the way they do and encourages intolerance based on this ignorance.”
In the final interview Matt said he thought that at a senior level differing approaches to how Genesis relates to evolutionary theory should be presented; the arguments for different positions should be examined and tested with a view to the students grappling with the theories and coming to an informed conclusion. Some on the interview panel reacted strongly against this, suggesting Matt was claiming “God was wrong” and one even insinuated Matt might be an atheist. They claimed he had denied scriptural authority and even suggested that his whole theology should be in question. Matt was advised the next day that the school were not sure if they were going to hire the other candidate but they definitely were not going to hire him. (Ouch!)
In addition to the frustration of missing an opportunity to serve God with his giftings we were frustrated at the school’s apparent refusal to be willing to permit room for the engagement of the common reasons for doubt that many young people growing into independence have.
It would be nice if this experience was a once-off and was unique to that school but we have not found that to be the case in New Zealand. Matt has been passed over for full-time employment for his “socratic” style of engaged teaching; the received wisdom in another Christian school was to encourage the memorisation of facts and filling in of work sheets in philosophy and religious education classes. Matt committed the offence of engaging the senior students in socratic dialogue instead of handing around cross-word puzzles.
Similarly, in the tertiary sector, we have found that evangelical colleges put a limited premium on these issues too. Once Matt, in an interview for a Theology Lecturer position, was asked if he though having a PhD in Theology made him over-qualified(!) (A pastor with a BMin was appointed in that instance).
People associated with another institution which came under some criticism for hiring someone with a PhD in Education and the equivalent of a preaching licence in Theology to teach their philosophical papers have expressed the attitude that philosophy is something one can apparently “just pick up.” The same institution, along with others and some para-church organisations, have repeatedly shown in their hiring practices their view that at best one only needs a BA on the topic or sometimes not even that if they happen to be the latest trendy para-church intern who has read a popular book on world views and who has written a couple of essays that impressed the equally unqualified hirer.
In addition to not valuing analytic theology and philosophy as academic disciplines, in other contexts we have heard these subjects denigrated by people saying “you can’t argue with personal experience, just love people and show them you care.” The attitude that this is all that is needed to engage non-Christian New Zealand is common.
It is sad that evangelical Christians in New Zealand are so wedded to these paradigms because recent research from Fuller Theological Seminary, has shown them to be hugely damaging. As Nancy Pearcey points out in “How Critical Thinking Saves Faith,”
Fuller Seminary recently conducted a study on teens who become leavers [of the Christian faith] in college. The researchers uncovered the single most significant factor in whether young people stand firm in their Christian convictions or leave them behind. And it’s not what most of us might expect.
Join a campus ministry group? A Bible study? Important though those things are, the most decisive factor is whether students had a safe place to work through their doubts and questions before leaving home.
The researchers concluded, “The more college students felt that they had the opportunity to express their doubt while they were in high school, the higher [their] levels of faith maturity and spiritual maturity.”
The study indicates that students actually grow more confident in their Christian commitment when the adults in their life — parents, pastors, teachers — guide them in grappling with the challenges posed by prevailing secular worldviews. In short, the only way teens become truly “prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks” (1 Pet. 3:15) is by wrestling honestly and personally with the questions.
As the researchers put it, “Students who had the opportunity to struggle with tough questions and pain during high school seemed to have a healthier transition into college life.”
Sadly, most churches and Christian schools do not encourage “tough questions.” In Dyck’s interviews with leavers, most reported that “they were regularly shut down when they expressed doubts.” They were ridiculed, scolded, or made to feel there was something immoral about even asking.
Instead of addressing teens’ questions, most church youth groups focus on fun and food. The goal seems to be to create emotional attachment using loud music, silly skits, slapstick games — and pizza. But the force of sheer emotional experience will not equip teens to address the ideas they will encounter when they leave home and face the world on their own.
Over the years as Matt and I have worked with and spoken to groups of all ages and levels of education we have always found that without exception those hungriest for solid analytical theological engagement are teenagers (followed closely by their parents).
I so get why. I was raised in a non-Christian home with very limited exposure to Christianity. When I found myself in a church and learning the ‘rules’ of conservative Christianity I had a lot of questions about them. Why do I have to stop having sex until I am married – where does it say that in the Bible? Don’t give me 10 reasons why sociologically some study says it is harmful, where does God say it? Where does it say I should not masturbate? What is wrong with swearing? Why can’t I smoke a little dope occasionally? Why do I have to throw out my tarot cards? I also had a lot of questions about scripture and Christianity in general. Being a real nuts and bolts thinker, I found answers like “you should just have faith,” “we don’t really need to know the details of that, just focus on the cross,” and “don’t ask so many questions, don’t over think it, work on your relationship with Jesus”, “pray in the Holy Spirit that you might experience God”, “focus on being part of the big story” extremely irritating. What is faith? What is the significance of the cross? How am I supposed to have a deep relationship with someone who I do not know anything about? Pray in the what now? Being part of the “big story” sounds trendy but what does it mean and how does focussing on it answer my specific questions? What is the point of experiencing something you do not understand? And what is with the trinity – everyone who attempts to explain it to me seems to contradict the last person!
I joined a cell group and I recall lots of yummy food, feel good platitudes, motivational tips and one session where we put lots of different sized rocks, sand and water in an empty ice-cream container to demonstrate the importance of prioritising the big things in life; when we put the big things first the small things fit in around them but if we focus on the small things we have no room for the big things – an astute point and all, but it did not answer my questions!!!!
I was not alone as Drew Dyck points out in “The Leavers: Young Doubters Exit the Church“,
At the 2008 American Sociological Association meeting, scholars from the University of Connecticut and Oregon State University reported that “the most frequently mentioned role of Christians in de-conversion was in amplifying existing doubt.” De-converts reported “sharing their burgeoning doubts with a Christian friend or family member only to receive trite, unhelpful answers.”
Churches often lack the appropriate resources. We have programs geared for gender – and age-groups and for those struggling with addictions or exploring the faith. But there’s precious little for Christians struggling with the faith.
Eventually I worked through all these things and got my answers but it was no thanks to the church I was in, it was through meeting Matt, Glenn and Ruth Peoples and David Hillary and the intense conversations and bible studies we engaged in that were fuelled from the independent readings of theologians and Christian philosophers that we were separately engaged in. Eventually we found a church that was big on discussion, deep questions and answers but we went through more churches than we found to get there. The church as a whole simply did not cater to people like us and the university campus was full of a lot of us who simply were no longer looking.
Prior to this, the appeal of what was being taught to me in church just did not do it for me. I could not see much difference between what the church had to offer and what the world did but in the former there were more rules. My pastor (at the church that we found which did answer our questions) once profoundly said “we must present the gospel clearly and precisely enough so that those hearing can either accept it or reject it. Too many churches are scared of the latter.”
Drew Dyck puts his finger on precisely what my problem was with my cell-group and my old church,
When sociologist Christian Smith and his fellow researchers examined the spiritual lives of American teenagers, they found most teens practicing a religion best called “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” which casts God as a distant Creator who blesses people who are “good, nice, and fair.” Its central goal is to help believers “be happy and feel good about oneself.”
Where did teenagers learn this faith? Unfortunately, it’s one taught, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, at every age level in many churches. It’s in the air that many churchgoers breathe, from seeker-friendly worship services to low-commitment small groups. When this naïve and coldly utilitarian view of God crashes on the hard rocks of reality, we shouldn’t be surprised to see people of any age walk away.
I challenge anyone working with teens to consider whether the way they are interacting with their teens looks like just pizza, pot-luck dinners and video nights or whether it looks like the scriptures I began with. Church has to be a place for everyone including thinkers and questioners or there is no way we will be able to achieve our mission. Dyck agrees,
One place to begin is by rethinking how we minister to those from youth to old age. There’s nothing wrong with pizza and video games, nor with seeker-sensitive services, nor with low-commitment small groups that introduce people to the Christian faith. But these cannot replace serious programs of discipleship and catechism. The temptation to wander from the faith is not a new one. The apostle Paul exhorted the church at Ephesus to strive to mature every believer, so that “we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Eph. 4:14, ESV).
The other tragedy here is that there is a wealth of resources and groups for people who do wrestle with these questions. While not everyone is as pathological as Matt to take Plantinga’s God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in Gods to the beach with him for recreational reading, many people have written works and resources for the layman on these issues. Consider for example Timothy Keller’s recent and very accessible to the lay person book Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, which introduces some of the better academic resources at a popular level. Or the brilliant Reason for the Hope Within edited by Michael Murray, which though authored by professional philosophers is incredibly lay friendly – no Christian with questions should be without this book! Or consider sites like our son Christian and his teen friends favourite, William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. We have recently discovered and have been recommending to homeschooling families Confident Christianity. There there is philosopher Glenn People’s excellent podcasts (complete with his original rock music and sound effects) and New Zealand’s own Thinking Matters. Go to The Veritas Forum and hunt through their resources – they have some brilliant DVDs of their forum sessions; we watched some really good ones featuring JP Moreland last year. Or if you’re really brave, ask Matt to come and speak at your church or to your youth group or if he is too far away consider hiring him to write you some group studies or just work through our Sunday Study series or his Contra Mundum Columns. These are just a few ideas to get started on the important task of critical engagement, there are heaps more out there.
I am grateful to André Z for his assistance in writing and editing this post.
Tags: Apologetics · Critical Engagement · Drew Dyck · Faith and Reason · Michael Murray · Nancy Pearcey · Timothy Keller45 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Must agree that Keller’s “Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism” is excellent. A very accessible read.
In reference to Matt’s unsuccessful job interview, please keep in mind that we all suffer losses from those who would seek to restrict opportunities to those who share their particular religious or non-religious views. Here is an extract from a telephone message which a client left for one of my partners today:
“As well, when I return from [vacation] I would like to schedule a quick meeting with you and [yours truly] in regards to his [Irreligiosity] newspaper article and the possible negative impact it could have on your firm and mine.”
I can’t wait to attend the meeting. I’m interested to know why he feels my public atheist stance is any more relevant to his use of my firm’s services than his bible thumping is to our use of his firm’s services.
Madeleine, I really like this. It echoes the conversation we’ve been having around here since you came over at the weekend. I think there is an inherent anti-intellectualism in many streams of the church in NZ, particularly those I am most familiar with. These are often new pentecostal movements which came out of grassroot “revivals” where ordinary and often uneducated people found God en masse. These streams of the church highly value the accesssibility of the gospel to “everyman”, and are, unfortunately, usually fundamentalist and suspicious of ideas that challenge the truths they hold so dearly. As if ideas could take anything away from God! I also think that the tall poppy syndrome is still alive and well. Shame on us.
Excellent post, Madeleine. I should point out, however, that this is generally not a problem in developing countries. There is a much greater willingness to grapple with the harder issues and the drive towards evangelism tends to make developing churches deal with real-world objections.
I see this very much as a spiritual battle in Western churches. After all, it is the truth that sets you free, not ignorance. The lack of critical thinking in our churches is nothing less than a particularly nasty form of bondage. One that results in a darkness of intellect that makes the dark ages look positively sunny. The getto- ization of Western Christianity must count as Satan’s biggest victory since the Fall.
I find it interesting that often when Matt will point out a hermeneutical difficulty in a post and will explore different ways of reading it that makes sense that you’ll get Christians saying “but if it isn’t what literal English in 2011 makes it seem like it means the average Christian will get confused.” I am usually pretty gentle with such people but part of me wants to scream WAKE UP! I mean, why does the average Christian get confused by this? How many years have they been turning up to church on Sundays and bible study group on Wednesdays?
Like anything, theology is a discipline that a lot of us will pick up a working understanding up but unless we really study and put in the hours and do the work we are not going to become pro’s at it which is why we need theologians – it is the same with anything, I can change a lightbulb and a fuse but when sparks fly out of my power-socket I realise I need to consult an electrician.
The church has lost the theological skills that used to be present in it. Some pastors and ministers might hold a Bachelors degree but it will often be a BMin (ministry) not a BTh (theology) whilst a lot of others will self-taught but good communicators with strong people skills (and some of these will be very touchy about anyone noticing their lack of theology training). Those that are qualified will have invariably been taught in either one of the colleges I was talking about above or one of the ones that is filled with liberals…
Resources to remedy this are out there. If the colleges won’t budge then we need to find them and get them into our churches and into our children.
Just to mix it up a bit, I don’t think the theological training situation in NZ is really that terrible. There seems a reasonably widespread acknowledgement that certain liberal institutions have not been great for the Church, along with a gradual ‘evangelicalisation’ of one or three of these as younger theologians move up and older ones who’ve gone off the rails (or perhaps were never within the rails) slip out.
Our institutions don’t seem to be great at teaching intellectual engagement with the secular elite, but maybe that job is best left to scholars in the respective disciplines and Christians in the universities anyway. In such a secular society, it’s gonna be hard for theology and theologians to get a hearing without earning credibility first. Solid teaching in biblical preaching as we see from a few quarters, will I think bear fruit and help the Church to develop a Christian mind rather than a simply instinctively accomodatory or reactionary one. This could be supplemented by better analysis of where the power in and generator of modern culture actually lies; but the truth of that is the subject of a genuine argument that might have to be more conclusively won before more effort is put into engaging with culture thus-perceived.
In this vein, the rhetoric from a certain evangelical college is impressive; I love the tag line and I respect very much what they seem to be doing, or trying to do. Let’s hope it continues to develop and that scholarship and public figures come from there which will be listened to.
Well I have never studied at a theological institution in New Zealand but I have perused the qualifications of the faculties and taken note of the publishing records – most are in house, very few seem to be world class. And I have sat in plenty of different church pews and I am left wondering where the New Zealand Pastor Timothy Keller’s are.
Andre, I agree that there are improvements relative to the “Geering era” of the past and we do have good evangelical scholars like Paul Trebilco at Otago for example. I also know of some really good evangelical scholars who have gone into the ministry and will be a real asset. I think however, particularly with the large charismatic movement in NZ, the attitudes Madeleine refers to remains quite strong. I have been to Compass conferences in the last decade where people like Michael Bauman and Greg Koukl have exposed very quickly the theological confusion and illiteracy amongst so many evangelical young people.
My assessment of evangelical institutions is a bit different to yours as well. I think there are signs, in terms of rhetoric, towards moving in the direction you mention but much of the critical theology is influenced by continential trends and takes post-modernism and various fads far to seriously, while analytic theology is ignored.
I also don’t know that I agree with your comment about a “secular society” post 9/11, I think it is quite apparent that we do not live in a secular society. My admittedly anecdotal experience is that many people are quite interested in theological questions and dimensions to issues and will listen to people who address these issues, provided the people are credible and know what they are talking about and speak in contemporary English. The mainstream media, on the other hand, like to trivialise this discussion with sound bites or by grabbing people like Brian Tamaki and this creates a PR image of theological discussion which is quite inaccurate.
I’ve also spent quite a bit of time browsing theology faculty details and I agree, there are few top notch scholars in NZ, particularly outside of the universities. From where I’m sitting, the concept of original research doesn’t seem too familiar to many.
The church in NZ has a far more ‘pastoral’ focus, which does seem to somehow be linked to the massive influence of the charismatic movement. It’s good to clarify these things. I’m not entirely sure that a pastoral/ministry focus is a bad thing; perhaps it depends who we’re trying to reach. The majority of society, as you point out, isn’t secular and may be more open to a more relational, narrational or conversational approach – but the institutional framework (including the media) is avowedly secular – an intriguing contrast.
In view of that, we definitely need good evangelical pastor-teachers. But perhaps it’s a case of ‘different strokes for different folks’ – I’m not sure. I find it easy to criticise them, but when I take a step back, the charismatic/pentecostal churches are having real success and I have been warned by credible people of over-intellectualisation in Christian communities. The question is how to approach things thoughtfully while keeping the conversation open to non-Christians and not losing those whose faith has been less thought-through. If the youthful success can be augmented with a more careful/thoughtful grounding (something I try to facilitate wherever possible), I think we’ll have a new Christian generation worth taking notice of for more than its occasional musical accomplishments.
I think we need a whole body approach, head, heart through to hands and feet. Some organs/parts need to be more dominant due to the importance of their role for the health of the whole body but they should not dominate the body beyond this.
The heart and brain by necessity have to both be strong before the other organs and the more practical parts can do their thing.
All head with no heart is not very nice and won’t win many hearts but likewise all heart with no brain is not very bright and won’t win many brains. Balance is what I am calling for in the face of imbalance.
Sounds like you should make a little compromise. Teach God’s word as it is written and say that you’ll do that at interviews. 🙂
Yeah Matt, at your next interview with a Christian school when you’re asked “how would you structure a lesson on who Jesus was?”
Answer: “why, I would simply teach God’s word as it is written. Jesus was a grapevine, a woolly ovine, a door to a house, a piece of bread (with wine for blood), a road, a man, the savour of the world, a rock, a jew, a rabbi, a light…”
Wow. I’ve been following some of the more recent OPs and and I never thought that I’d read something like this.
The major reason that I began engaging with Christians was because of the possible teaching of YEC in UK schools, particularly in the semi-independent academy schools such as those run by the Emmanuel Foundation.
It’s good to read that there are Christians teachers who don’t want to teach by rote or by completing crossword puzzles.
Do you mind if I quote and/or link to this OP, as I think it’s a very important piece ?
I am in general agreement with the conclusions of this post Madeleine. I don’t remember being dismissed for having questions growing up, though at times there were a paucity of answers for a variety of reasons.
I wish to add a further perspective. While I appreciate the development of the mind, I am not certain that all do. I dismiss the approach that says “do not question, have faith” (in the way this comment is often used). And I am surprised by the testimonies I hear about people facing crises of faith because they are taken back the first time they hear a superficial challenge to Christianity (though I hear this more from US than NZ cases). But for many people it seems a non issue. I have heard complaints about excellent sermons because of their intellectual character. I have taught Bible studies where there is less interest in dealing with theological challenges and more interest in relational issues.
Now this is not true of all, some of my students enjoy when I teach because of the discussion topic, but in the group there are some who struggle to understand, don’t really see the point, and even some who are happy with the “have faith” comment as they themselves advise this.
I do not mind when people are like this, but my point is I think some people are generally happy not asking these questions because they would rather serve, or worship, or pray. They may not have the answers but I think that some of them really do not care that much. They learn, but are content.
My concern is as yours when those who do not have these passions dismiss, or ignore the deep and real questions some do have. They may not be aware of the importance to the other person, but I think they need to realise that rather than giving unhelpful trite answers, they direct questioners to people who do wish to teach others about these things, who do think that asking questions is helpful.
If a musician asks me about some finer point of music, I might direct him to the music team rather than offer a trite explanation.
Sure Paul, glad you enjoyed it.
Expelled – the other viewpoint…
One blog in particular has been catching my eye, because of the quality of the apologetic being put forward. I would like to highlight the latest opinion piece there because it is an honest and sincere personal statement of experience from a Christian …
Flotsam and jetsam (1/11)…
Madeleine Flanagan reflects on The Importance of Critical Engagement. Citing one study regarding teens in the church: The study indicates that students actually grow more confident in their Christian commitment when the adults in their life — parents, …
Help, I’m being impersonated.
It’s far worse in the U.S. I’ve written off both churchianity and the academy because of their rampant anti-intellectualism and narrowness. The unchurched constitute the overwhelming majority of Christians in this country, and thinkers outside of the academy are far more open-minded than most professional philosophers, who are fixated on intellectual fashions and publishing for the sake of tenure etc. Anyone who thinks I’m overstating the latter need only read American Philosophical Quarterly during the last five years of Rescher’s editorship, through five years after, to see a good analogy to what has happened to philosophy in the U.S. Tragic, and with much the same parallel consequences as Madeleine has outlined with regard to churches’ attitudes toward the intellectual struggles of pre-college youth. All of my professors are in almost complete despair over the poor quality of students, and the outlook for the very existence of academic philosophy is grim to put it mildly. Part of this is its own fault, admittedly, but part of it is the general culture, and K-12’s feverish avoidance of logic, grammar, and controversial issues, defaulting to Sesame Street-like, everyone-just-get-along mindlessness and sterility. No wonder students are so bored and just following their whims.
But Allan Bloom pegged the university situation incisively: The universities are like refugee camps, where all the geniuses have been run off by an unfriendly regime.
I completely agree with your comment about the body Madeleine. We do need balance. Often God the Holy Spirit moves in our lives by engaging directly with our heart and emotions, and this should never be discredited. Of course then the mind needs to also be engaged and enlightened but this should be liberating, not a burden.
Christians that are looking for help with “relational issues” are genuine people with genuine needs. Surely if the bible has something to say on nearly every aspect of the human condition, then theology can be engaged with on a variety of levels and through many entry points? Good theology will enlighten our relationships. It’s the same with music, isn’t it? Good theology makes our “musical accomplishments” more meaningful. Why compartmentalise? Is theology only theology when it involves books and blogs and serious conversations?
Interesting post, and I see I rate a mention. I’ve posted a response here: http://www.lostsoulblog.com/2011/01/religious-experience-and-social.html
Just a few questions about this:
“Christians who think Genesis 1-11 should not be interpreted literally…”
but how do we know what is and what isn’t meant to be taken literally?
What about the christians who think Genesis 1-50 isn’t mean to be taken literally?
What about the ones that think Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 isn’t meant to be taken literally?
How are we meant to find the truth?
Do we all need a PhD in Theology? Even then there will be people with PhD’s who think all of it is meant to be literal and others saying none of it is meant to be taken literally. Surely we don’t just find out all the different opinions and then decide which one we think sounds like the truth to us.
So.. Is there a sure way to find out which Bible verses are literal and which are figurative?
Actually Rosjier, if we were to “find out all the different opinions and then decide which one we think sounds like the truth to us” I think that’d be a pretty good method for deciding stuff. That doesn’t need to imply picking it out of a hat or anything; being rational beings, we can think critically. God’s quite happy for us to use our minds – as far as I can tell, He even commands it.
I think the literal/figurative dichotomy is a bit misleading. In a different context (that of the resurrection event itself) NT Wright suggests (I think) the terms “concrete” and “abstract” might be more helpful. Here I think it’s even more complicated. In terms of language, there are a range of styles that we might call “figurative”. Clearly there’s metaphor (the indicator of which might only be the fact when taken literally, it gives an account which would be absurd), but also other things such as poetry of various forms, which may be more appropriate in classifying passages which are more extended than “I am the good shepherd/light/door” etc). When words like ‘myth’ and ‘metaphor’ are used in the context of explaining Genesis, it can be taken to mean the person speaking has little respect for the text – but while that’s one possibility, it’s certainly not the only way to interpret what they’re saying!
In the case of the first few chapters of Genesis, I don’t think the text by itself determines what we ought believe about certain details of the earth’s history. I’m no expert, but think it could be described well as a creation hymn, with various stylised elements and a symmetrical structure, intended to make clear the relationship between Israel’s God, man and the wider creation; this leaves open the possibility that it is simultaneously a ‘lab book’ style account of seven 24hr days of world-creation and rest, but doesn’t necessitate that. Whether it ought to be taken literally (or, some would say, literalistically) may best be determined by our knowledge of the natural world and the general state of things – the kind of knowledge we apply in interpreting other figurative language, in its various forms.
A public statement of atheism could possibly affect business, but I think the alleged negative effect in this case is a red herring for the real cause: the person’s own intellectual paranoia due to a long-standing unwillingness to having thought out their own views. Yet another example of the damage caused by anti-intellectualism, combined with the fact that most believers do not personally know very many—or more often, *any*—atheists.
I agree that the Figurative v Literal argument is a bit of a rabbit trail. Just read the text and accept what is being said at face value. Much like you would accept any piece of information at face value. If something comes up that you find has to be impossible then perhaps that is something you need to dwell upon.
So basically to answer my question:
“Is there a sure way to find out which Bible verses are literal and which are figurative?”
Both of you say no.
Andre says to think critically which does not lead to us being sure of everything if anything.
by all means think critically, but I don’t think that could be the measure of truth.
Grant says just presume it’s literal unless you have reason not to, except of course nothing is impossible for God.
Again this can be good advice, but is not the measure of truth, how can it be when it’s constantly changing?
What is it that you think is constantly changing? Just read the story. If you do not understand something, read a little deeper.
Rosjier
1. In answer to your question, I’d ask how you tell when someone speaking to you in English is talking literally or using irony, or sarcasim, or metaphor and so forth, you take the statement in its context and take into account the known Genre.
Take the Pauline epistles, we know what Paul meant be all men have sinned, because we know the context in which he says this, at the end of 2 chapters where he argues that both Jew and Gentile have disobeyed God. We also know this phrase comes in the middle of an epistle. On the other hand when we read revelation referring to a lamb we know if we read the context this refers to Christ because it identifies him as Christ in the text, so it can’t be literally true. We know also this is the book of revelation which is Apocalyptic literature and hence highly symbolic.
2. you are concerned that with some texts there is disagreement over this, that’s correct, its also life. There is also disagreement over wether God exists or not, or wether morality exists, or wether democracy is a good system of government and so on, on any issue of importance where people have to make important choices there is disagreement. That’s unavoidable. To let it paralysis you when it’s the biblical text and not in any other context makes no sense. And seems to confuse the notion of getting a consensus with getting to the truth.
3. Why did I mention “Christians who think Genesis 1-11 should not be interpreted literally” and not those who take “think Genesis 1 to Revelation 22” non literally A couple of reasons, first, no one claims that nothing in the bible is literal, so that really is not an option. Second, I was in an evangelical school, and within evangelical scholarship there is a significant opinion that Genesis 1-11 is a anti-mythical polemic, and not literal history. This is determined by comparision with other ANE texts from the same period which have stories of floods, towers, creation myths, and so on which appear similar in certain respects suggesting these are common features of a certain kind of Genre. These features are absent from the epistles or Kings- Chronicles, and so on. On the other hand at the more popular level evangelical churches are heavily influenced by creationism. I think informing students at a senior level involves being honest that this discussion is occurring within evangelical scholarship.
I guess the difference here is that some people seem to think that creationism is a non negotiable piece of orthodoxy on par with belief in God and the virgin birth. I don’t see any reason for accepting this.
4. last you ask “Surely we don’t just find out all the different opinions and then decide which one we think sounds like the truth to us.” Actually that is to some extent what we do, when we face any issue on which there is disagreement we are in practise going to adopt one option. I would encourage people who have questions about how to understand Genesis 1-3, to be aware of the arguments for different positions, and to develop the critical thinking skills to asses the various arguments.
To many evangelicals want someone to just tell them what to think rather than face honest questions and think them through. That’s not spirituality its laziness.
I agree that the Figurative v Literal argument is a bit of a rabbit trail. Grant how do you want me to understand the phrase “rabbit trail” in this comment.
:chuckle:
I literally want to see you running through some scrubland. Bye bye now.. 😀
Grant, my point is that as a competent english speaker I know immediately what you mean. A person who did not speak english and gave a transliterated rendition of what you said would not.
This is the same with Greek and hebrew, when you read the “surface” reading. You are actually reading an english translation, someone who has both competence in the language and also has acess to the early manuscripts, has done the hard yacks for you.
It can be perilous in certain contexts to assume that whats the obvious plain meaning to a 21st westerner is what the original author asserted.
I think that when it comes to Creation it is important to let people know there are multiple alternatives, that they do not feel like they have to be committed to one thing. I’ve been a young earth creationist, an old earth creationist, and a theistic evolutionist. I’ve gone back and forth between these views dozens of times. You read one book, and you feel certain that young earth creationism is true. You read another book, and you feel for certain evolution is true. The trick is to realize that people that argue for a living can convince the average person of almost anything, and that creation is a very complex topic. Therefore, take everything with a grain of salt and realize this is a long-term search for truth, and ignore anyone who treats you like you’re stupid for not going along with them.
Exactly, Matt. Perhaps I was too flippant in my response, but believe me, I got the point. 🙂
Another thing to remember is the bible is a very long book and is full of redundancy in presentation of message. Thus even with a bad translation, the original meaning can shine through.
I agree grant, but that requires reading it, and reading it as a whole narrative. The problem is a lot of contemporary Christian’s read individual verses in isolation and never read the text as a whole.
I see the issue that Rosjier is getting at. It is a common fact amongst Christians that really important issues such as what is necessary for salvation and what is necessary for human flourishing have different and contradictory camps. These camps are replete with passionate adherents who have impressive credentials and who make convincing arguments. Many people do not have the time or the intellectual capacity to sift through the whole sworded issue. And this is a question of eternal life or death, not temporal issues like politics, that in the context of eternity do not matter very much.
The fact of the matter is that only a small minority of Christians have the ability to understand the nuances of the whole debacle of Christian disunity on vital topics. Why therefore would God not give us a living tool to dynamically respond with truth we can be certain about no matter what our intellectual or material abilities are? The answer to this is that He did as He established a living authority in Peter and his successors as Bishop of Rome, and the rest of the Apostles and their successors. All Christians can look to their authoritative decisions through the ages as the standard for what is necessary for salvation and other important topics.
I see that attitude as a cop out and very defeatist, Anthony. Sure, there are complex issues that are not easy to fathom, but the truth is that the gospel of salvation is accessible to all .. and with a little perseverance that message can be understood. And nobody who reads the bible and accepts what it plainly says is going to get too far away from what is right and true.
Firstly Thank you Jim for your post.
I think you answer Grants question:
“What is it that you think is constantly changing?”
better than I could have.
“I’ve been a young earth creationist, an old earth creationist, and a theistic evolutionist. I’ve gone back and forth between these views dozens of times.”
I think one needs to distinguish the main message of scripture from the nuances of particular interpretive issues.
I think the message of genesis 1 for example is clear, God created the universe, the sky the sea, the earth, the land and sea creatures, he created human beings in his image to gain dominion and to reproduce God requires people to work in reflection of his own creation work and to set aside one day to rest. man and women were created to form a monogamous one flesh union, human beings wanted to be like God so choose to “know good and evil” rather than gain immortality, as a result man is mortal and is alienated from one another, nature and God. This pattern has been repeated in subsquent generations so that mans heart is evil from birth. None of this is terribly obsurce.
Whats less clear are things less central to the message, is evolution true, was the creation done in 6 24 hour days, most of which I am inclined to think the author did not really care much about. Previous pre darwinian generations would not have had these questions nor would they have occured to them, so its our context that creates questions about how to play this all out.
Secondly Matt,
you said “In answer to your question, I’d ask how you tell when someone speaking to you in English is talking literally or using irony, or sarcasim, or metaphor and so forth, you take the statement in its context and take into account the known Genre.”
It seems you answer the question yourself not allowing me to answer. Take it in context and genre yes, but more importantly inflection in the voice, gestures, and facial expressions. Even with this advantage when talking with Christ Nicodemus gets confused, and needs to ask: “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” and he obviously knew the context and genre better than you or I.
Matt you seem to contradict yourself. You say:
“There is also disagreement over whether God exists or not, or whether morality exists, or whether democracy is a good system of government and so on, on any issue of importance where people have to make important choices there is disagreement.”
And:
“I guess the difference here is that some people seem to think that creationism is a non negotiable piece of orthodoxy on par with belief in God and the virgin birth.”
So you say there is disagreement, and then you say some things are non-negotiable. Either you are certain that God exists and there was a virgin birth or these are educated guesses as you say: “when we face any issue on which there is disagreement we are in practice going to adopt one option.” But it’s not an option it’s non-negotiable. Is there a way to tell what is non-negotiable and what is up for debate?
You said “No one claims that nothing in the bible is literal.” Of course people do, they’re called Anglicans. (Ok a little harsh.) They’re the ones with the BA’s that get the job because you’re over qualified. My friend’s Scripture study teacher at an Anglican school announced: “Jesus didn’t actually literally rise from the dead.” Some Anglicans are pro-choice, some lesbians are Anglican Bishops, I only need to say two more words on the topic: Glynn Cardy. (As a disclaimer I presume these groups in the Anglican church are minorities, and no doubt their are many devout holy Anglicans that will be in front of me in the line going to heaven, however The teaching of the Anglican church allows all these views to exist.)
Not to mention the countless debates I’ve had with, no doubt God-fearing truth seeking, Bible-reading, Jehovah Witnesses, that have studied the Greek, have taken it in context and genre, yet firmly believe that Jesus is not divine. They just do the study with their own personal bias. How do you know your bias isn’t blinding you from the truth?
Lastly,
Yes Anthony you do see what I am getting at. They do have impressive credentials and make convincing arguments. Just like Jim getting swayed by each book that’s read, any time you talk about, even essentials like: “Is Jesus God?” it can be confusing.
So to answer my question Anthony would say “yes” there is a sure way to find out which Bible verses are literal and which are figurative.
“There is a living authority in Peter and his successors as Bishop of Rome, and the rest of the Apostles and their successors. All Christians can look to their authoritative decisions through the ages as the standard for what is necessary for salvation and other important topics.”
So what you’re claiming is that there is a line from Peter to the current pope? and these have held the authority given to Peter by Christ, and that this authority gives Christians a sure, certain way of knowing what truths of the faith are non-negotiable and which are up for debate. I’d have to think about that more Anthony.
Grant I do not see this as a cop-out. Taking it at face value unless you feel the need to change your beliefs, that is more of a cop out in regards to searching for the truth. More than asking did Jesus give this type of authority to his disciples or not, and if so, does this authority still exist in the world today. “Nobody who reads the bible and accepts what it plainly says is going to get too far away from what is right and true.” I think you should think critically about that statement.
@MATT “Whats less clear are things less central to the message, is evolution true, was the creation done in 6 24 hour days, most of which I am inclined to think the author did not really care much about. Previous pre darwinian generations would not have had these questions nor would they have occured to them, so its our context that creates questions about how to play this all out.
1. People were rejecting the story of Genesis when Jesus was on earth.
2. The author of Genesis is very specific that these are six normal days. How could you imagine otherwise?
3. The rest of scripture is clear that these are six normal days.
4. Evolution is an idea specifically designed to remove God from the creation of His earth.
5. If you still insist that evolution is somehow viable we can look at the evidence.
Grant, I replied to your comment in the N T Wright thread.
Got it. 🙂
Sounds like you should make a little compromise. Teach God’s word as it is written
Problem is the people I teach don’t speak 7 century hebrew or 1st century Koine greek, so I am not sure how I teach it as written.
“Problem is the people I teach don’t speak 7 century hebrew or 1st century Koine greek, so I am not sure how I teach it as written.”
If you are familiar with these languages yourself you can still talk about the important points which exist in the original language to an audience that only knows English.
Max agreed, I was more trying to address the simplistic “teach it as written” comment.