I must start off this piece by first acknowledging that there is much practical value to the Bible. It might seem rather odd that the opening content of an article would go contrary to its title, but since the title of this particular blog does not imply that its opposite is untrue – that is, that it is untrue that the Bible has practical value – I thought it would be important to point this out. Indeed, by virtue of the fact that the Bible is true and provides reliable information about the only way to God makes it very practical. However, the Bible is certainly not an instruction booklet for life (for Christians), and the history of its composition certain bespeaks of this truth when one considers that it is a collection of scrolls, histories, books of legislation, poetry, wisdom literature, tracts, letters, and prophetic revelations written over the course of a few thousand years (1500 to be more precise). To lump all of these various types of writing together under a single heading such as “The Bible” and to read it as a “book” certainly would not be the most accurate way to understand the nature and purpose of the Bible.
Having said this much, the reader should know that it is a necessary introduction to a rather controversial point which I am about to make. And instead of taking awhile to reach the substance of this blog, I will state it as tersely as possible right now.
For one reason or another many Christians that I interact with have a strange approach to studying the Bible. They seem to search each section of Scripture and look for the “practical” value in everything they read. I find them scouring through every book of the Bible as if it were an instruction pamphlet on how to deal with a particular challenge in this life. Furthermore, every time I want to stop and take things slowly, to perhaps ponder over a verse and consider various interpretations and what impact they would have on the overall authorial meaning, people are reluctant and they immediately prefer “practicality.” “If it isn’t practical, then what is the point in knowing it?” they say. Rarely am I ever afforded the opportunity to discuss with someone the broader theological or philosophical implications of a particular passage of Scripture.
While reflecting upon this attitude I came to a certain realization – and perhaps the credit is not due to myself because I had never thought of this idea before – of precisely why this is a naive and incorrect approach to reading the Bible. The question basically came to my mind like this: Why does everything that we learn about the Bible have to be “practical” and “applicable”? Why do I have to be able to read a portion of Scripture and extract a set of guidelines or rules for life? Why cannot one simply be content with learning a truth about our world, or about the historical figures in the Bible text, or the historical situations in which the Bible was written, instead of having to see how it relates to their life?
Here is my main observation: so much information that people consume readily is very impractical, inapplicable junk. They play video games, absorb pop culture, watch fashion trends, read magazines, watch movies, watch sports, and then talk about it with their friends despite the fact that all of this information has no practical value. I can’t create a “guide” for life by watching Star Wars, or playing Grand Theft Auto 3, or listening to classical music, or talking about the Raiders, etc., on and on the list goes! So why in the world would anyone be resistant to learning non-practical information about the Bible? It simply makes no sense.
What makes the situation worse is that information regarding the Bible has value regardless of its practicality, yet people will flee from a challenging investigation of the Biblical text. It is as if Christianity either has to be practical or it is not worth knowing, and this is simply wrong. If people begin to examine the other areas of their life they will realize how much useless information they absorb that is also very impractical, and hopefully they will see that filling their minds with “impractical” knowledge regarding God, theology, and Christian truth is much more important. Ultimately, I believe, it will also be more practical in the end because it will allow them to understand their beliefs better, to communicate them to others in a coherent way, and to have a sincere dedication to something that they have taken the time to investigate.
All this having been said, there is of course this possible objection: “But having information about the pop culture will allow me to talk to other people, which might give me a chance to share the Gospel. If I don’t know anything about other people’s interests then how can I relate to them?”
To this I respond by saying that it is in no way a bad thing to be knowledgeable enough about the popular culture so that one is able to talk to others. However, the observation that I make is a situation which Christians can have in-depth discussions of popular culture while maintaining just barely enough knowledge of the Bible to attend church and not be overwhelmed by a few Bible references. The truth of the matter seems to be that the situation ought to be reversed: Christians ought to know just enough of the popular culture to not be ignorant, but should be filled with information about the Bible that is beyond what they think they “need” to know. Since most of us are already filled with information about various subjects which we in no way “need” to know, why not replace our time spent absorbing such things with time spent reading four and five commentaries on a single book of the N.T.? I understand that this requires much work and might not be very “practical,” but neither is any of that other information, and this seems to be more important.
So the observations which I have made this far could be constructed as a tentative argument that it is better for Christians to be filled with impractical knowledge of the Bible, theology, philosophy, apologetics, history, etc., than just about anything else. It is not merely a defense of practicing such study habits, however, because I see it more like a call to action on the part of Christians who lack a rich knowledge of Scripture. If our lives must be spent absorbing some kind of information, then why not let this be what our minds dwell on? And why not push ourselves to be exerting our mentally faculties in an area of our lives which has vast treasuries of knowledge that concern truth?
I simply do not understand the attitude which is constantly forcing the Bible to be “practical.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
alt="" border="0" >
6 comments:
It all just comes down to critical thinking skills. Thinking is hard. People are manipulated, by their laziness, into obedience to the Bible.
Any critical examination of the Bible leads to the obvious conclusion that it is a mythical history fabricated and cobbled from a mish mash of myths that were popular around 800 BCE.
What you ask of your fellow bible studiers is to have them step onto the slippery slop of critical thought. It just won't ever happen.
I agree with your first two sentences and your last two. Other than that we depart.
However thinking is difficult as you said and I invite it, critique away of anything I have written if you would like.
And saying that the Bible is myth does not - while being persuasive to another uncritical mass of people - establish the claim as true.
If you show how the Bible is not practical- you are basically taking away the crutch that the Bible has become for many, many people.
If you try to teach them critical or reflective skills-- they will eventually put the Bible in the proper archeological and historical context, reduce it to just another myth such that the "various interpretations" will be no more meaningful that interpreting StarWars or the Matrix .
If video games have non-practical usage, then you're asking people to reduce the Bible's value to that of a video game. Once you do that, they may just set the Bible aside and look for more beautiful more engaging non-practical experiences (art, film etc..) When was the last time you read the Decameron for non-practical value?
You assert that the information of the Bible has value regardless of its practicality. Yet you fail to realize once you remove the standards, all things have value regardless of practicality. People will chose more engaging, less repulsive (you know the stories in the Bible I'm talking about) to spend their whimsy hours on. If the Bible has no inherent practical value--- then lets just go to the movies.
To limit yourself to the impractical value of the Bible seems foolish and antiquated. There are more compelling, more involved, more complex narrative truths out there in our modern era that make the Bible a primitive, hate filled culture bashing train wreck. To encourage people to narrow their understanding of human experience from a text written 800BCE used by rival clans to justify the murder of entire peoples is just --- wrong.
The attitude to force the Bible to be practical is an impulse to not think for themselves, be obedient and not challenge their own notions of what it is to be human. You have identified one of the major psychological dysfunctions found in religiosity, but your recommended solution is dangerous and short sighted.
Anonymous,
I appreciate being called dangerous, thank you.
First of all, I did not say that one should limit his study of the Bible to what which is impratical, as you accused me of doing. Rather, I said that the information has inherent worth, making it worth knowing regardless of its practicality (thouhg, in the end, it all usually ends up having some practical value).
As for your history, I am afraid that it is a bit mistaken. The O.T. was written between 1400-500 B.C. according to scholars across the board in terms of their beliefs. Job is probably one of the oldest, and John's Gospel is probably one of the newest (Job being written before the five books of Moses - the pentateuch or the first five books of the Old Testament. And John's Gospel being written sometime between 90-120 A.D. , though most likley beteen 95-100). Also, it would have been pretty hard for early Christians to use the Bible to justify genocide or killing "rival clans" because Christians were the ones being killed for the first
300 years!
Lastly, I have said that the Bible has inherent worth, but I have not made an argument for this. Here is why I would say that the information in the Bible is worth knowing:
P1) If God intends to communicate information to humanity, it is for a good reason.
P2) The information that God intends to communicate to humanity can be found in the Bible.
C3) Therefore, God had a good reason for communicating the information in the Bible.
Second argument:
P1) If God had a good reason for communicating something, then it is probably worth knowing.
P2) The information in the Bible is something that God had a good reason for communicating.
C) Therefore, the information in the Bible is worth knowing.
Now I realize that this is far from a formal deductive argument and that it's kind of criss-crosses between induction and deduction, but you at least have the general idea. If God has chosen to inspire Scripture then that probably speaks of such information benefiting the individual in the reltionship with Him. That is why the Bible is worth knowing, so you may attack my reasons rather than my assertions.
Lastly, why do you keep calling the Bible a "crutch"? I hardly find having a relationship with God to be a crutch, and most of the time it seems like a burden. I'm not really sure that I want to know God, but I do want the truth, and so I must go where I can best understand the truth to be found. If you have anyone else you think I should be following - other than Jesus Christ - then by all means make a suggestion.
Tim
You said, " Rather, I said that the information has inherent worth,"
So you're saying something can have worth but be non-practical? This sounds like equivocation or double speak to me. Can you clarify? Either the bible has worth or it doesn't-- perhaps you should just stick with one term and add clarification. Some passages may have aesthetic worth but offer no educational worth. It all turns on what you call practical, which leads to confusion.
You said: " I am afraid that it is a bit mistaken. The O.T. was written between 1400-500 B.C."
Are you saying it was started at 1400 BCE or somewhere in between 1400 BCE and 500 BCE?
To be clear I'm sure that the oral traditions probably spanned further back, but the actual writing of the Pentateuch was done by editors, representing their understandings of the oral traditions, reflecting their purposes and agendas. It is generally agreed that the stories that we find today in your average off the shelf Bible is the product of editors around 1000 BCE to 200 BCE). See Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed, pg 12-13.
I just sort of averaged it out when I said 800BCE. You even agree that it is sometime between 1400-500 BCE. As for the New Testament, there is little dispute over the age of those writings.
The editors (religious leaders) specifically edited the scripture to justify the ethnic cleansing that was required at that time. Don't get confused with the later political situation that was involved in the generation of the New Testament. In those cases it was Christian cults killing each other off. See Gnostic history.
You said:
"P1) If God intends to communicate information to humanity, it is for a good reason.
P2) The information that God intends to communicate to humanity can be found in the Bible.
C3) Therefore, God had a good reason for communicating the information in the Bible."
Again I think you're equivocating between practicality and inherent worth. You don't make a meaningful distinction and it just looks like special pleading.
Joe Schmoe says "that bible doesn't help me at all." You reply, "well it doesn't have practical value, but it does have inherent value..."
But you can't show inherent value with evidence so you make up some syllogism linking everything to the notion that everything God does is good, God wrote the bible, therefore the bible is good. But there is no way to test this claim. Without practical value your syllogism is worthless.
You asked: " If you have anyone else you think I should be following - other than Jesus Christ - then by all means make a suggestion."
Yourself.
Seriously, you can't find God unless you make some personal choices independent of God. How do you chose to trust God? You can't depend on God to make this choice without being circular. So, to yourself and your own sense of freedom and responsibility-- then seek out a God: but remember the tools that allowed you to build yourself up. I would hope those tools are proportionate conclusions to the evidence at hand. Those same tools will reveal that the Bible is just a history of a people from a long ago time.
It does have worth, but nothing more than any other history.
anonymous,
I am glad that you called the Bible "history." That is exactly what I think it is as well, only that it is accurate history, whereas you think it was edited.
I will respond to your question and then ask you only a few more for the sake of brevity.
First, there is of course a distinction between practical value and inherent value. Without delving into too much of a technical treatisue how one would define either, I could say that a thing has practical value if it has instrumentality towards a thing of inherent value. Thus working has the practical value of providing money which I use for the inherent value of support my family. By "inherent" I mean something which has a value that does not need to appeal to any other function in order to derive its value. It has value simply in and of itself, such as smoking a good cigar.
Now, as to the question. Can you please support this claim with any evidence, "The editors (religious leaders) specifically edited the scripture to justify the ethnic cleansing that was required at that time. Don't get confused with the later political situation that was involved in the generation of the New Testament. In those cases it was Christian cults killing each other off. See Gnostic history. "
About 50 years ago or so you would have had an easier time making this claim. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, much damage has been done to this theory. In discovering scrolls which date back to about the third century BC, these were compared with the text of the OT that we have which dates back to about 1000 AD. The accuracy of the copies of the OT which were done by the scribes over a period of about 1,300 years was at an average of 95% word-for-word accuracy, with most of the differences accountable for via spelling errors and changes in the language (Hebrew) itself. The system of copying the OT manuscripts was very elaborate and adding to/subtracting from was considered sacriligious, so you can imagine the difficulty a priest growing up with hundreds of years of tradition would have with doing so. In any event, the OT has been demonstrated to be a historically reliable document which has not been manipulated by editors and scribes (other than within the already-acknowledged range of correcting misspelling and adding missing words, etc.) to the best of our knowledge, and so what you have said amounts to not a verifiable "fact" but a hypothesis put forward to explain the data. It is not automatically wrong, as such, but is nonetheless an inferior hypothesis.
Post a Comment