The Bible, western culture & the idea of “truth”

     No one reads the Bible in a vacuum.  Also, the Bible is not self-explanatory.  Reading the Bible, like reading any text, involves the reader in the process of interpretation – what does this text mean?  Everyone who reads the Bible does so within a certain culture at a particular moment of history, perhaps as a member of a religious community who holds certain official beliefs about Scripture (inspiration, revelation, etc.).  All of these factors contribute to how we understand the Bible and how we seek to live in light of what Scripture says.  As westerners, or as members of peoples who were colonized by western nations, we are members of a culture/civilization which has been reading the Bible for almost 2,000 years.  When we open the Bible, we join a 2,000-year-long conversation – a conversation which has often resembled a heated debate.  No text has had a greater influence on western culture than the Bible.  The Bible is at the roots of how we see the world; the Bible is foundational for our legal systems and our fundamental values.  Whether or not we are aware of it, if we are living in the western world, we are under the Bible’s influence.

     The westerner who picks up the Bible (again) for the first time may be shocked by the Bible’s attitude – the Bible seems to think that what it says is “true”, not only for the author of the particular biblical book that is being read, but true for all people.  This biblical attitude might very well strike the 21^st-century western reader as being hopelessly arrogant, exclusive and narrow-minded.  What to do about what the Bible says about “truth”?  Let’s briefly consider the notion of “truth” in the Bible and then discuss how western attitudes towards the Bible’s claims have changed over time and finally, consider how one might live today in light of the Bible (huge issues!).

“Truth” according to the Bible.

     The Bible is very concerned to make the case for the uniqueness of the God it describes.  As we have seen, the ancient Israelites didn’t perceive their covenantal relationship with Yahweh to be simply another example of human religious experience (to put it mildly) – au contraire, they believed that their God (the God of whom they were the chosen people) was the true God, and that the idols of the other nations were non-existent figments of the pagan imagination (cf. Isaiah chapters 41, 44-46).  The Israelites thought about the world in terms of Yahweh’s relationship to them as his chosen people.  The fate of the world depended on the success of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel.  “Truth”, in the Bible, is never a matter of abstract statements, but is always something that is lived out in real day-to-day life.  For example, for an ancient Israelite to demonstrate his belief that Yahweh was the true God would not require him to make a detailed theological argument, but would rather lead him to the Temple where he would offer worship to Yahweh, as opposed to pagan idols, and commit himself to obey Yahweh’s commandments.

     The New Testament is concerned to make the case for the uniqueness of Jesus, that he is indeed the Messiah of Israel, and therefore the world’s true Lord.  It would have been inconceivable for the New Testament authors to think of Jesus as simply being a “spiritual leader” or just one more spokesman for God (“prophet”).[1]  Au contraire, the New Testament is convinced that in and through, and as, Jesus, Yahweh had revealed himself in a new and ultimate way.  Jesus, so the New Testament authors believed, had done what, in Scripture, only Yahweh could do.  In Jesus, the evangelists and apostles insist, the true God of the Bible had fulfilled his promises to Abraham and had acted climactically to rescue his world from evil.  As far as the New Testament is concerned, the fate of the world has been both guaranteed by the death and resurrection of Jesus (it will ultimately be recreated and healed: Revelation chapters 21-22), and also depends on the world’s response to God’s action through Jesus.  As was the case with the Old Testament, “truth” in the New Testament is not simply a matter of believing a list of “true” statements about Jesus.  It is rather a matter of believing in what the Creator God (known to Jesus as “Father”) accomplished in and through Jesus, joining the community that worships Jesus as the “Son of God”[2], and learning to become genuine human beings by the empowering of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible & western culture.

     The idea that the Bible contains a “truth” that is somehow binding on the whole world might have been taken for granted during the period of “Christendom”, but this idea now appears to smack of a backwards fundamentalism, calling to mind the many atrocities that were committed by Christians “in the name of God” – the crusades[3], the Spanish Inquisition[4], the Church’s (forced?) conversion of the peoples of the “new world” that were colonized (often brutally) by European nations in the 15^th and 16^th centuries, etc.[5]

     “Christendom” (4^th – 15^th centuries AD) was a period during which European culture and political structures were thoroughly Christian and the Church had no cultural, religious or ideological rivals.  During this period, to think at all was to think in terms of the Christian faith and the Christian worldview.  This state of Christian hegemony began to breakdown with the 16th-century Protestant Reformation, which resulted in the formation, in most of the states of northern Europe, of national churches independent from Rome (e.g. the Church of England).  The cultural shift that ultimately marked the end of Christendom was the 18th-century Enlightenment (“modernity”), a cultural, political and intellectual revolution which put an end to the Church’s political power and removed the Church from its position in Western society as the arbiter of truth.  From this point on, human reason (especially science) would establish, primarily in the academic milieu and then in the wider culture, the criteria for what was “true”.  The Christian tradition was relegated to the private sphere of personal opinion, and was no longer considered to be a valid source of truth that could be applied to the public sphere.

     During the 18th century, “critical” study of the Bible appeared in European universities.  This “critical” approach was modeled on the principles of modern scientific methods of research.  This academic study of Scripture had the explicit agenda of discrediting the historical foundations of Christian doctrine, thereby undermining the authority of the Church.  After all, the Bible is premised upon the conviction that Israel’s god was the one true God who had created the world and that this God had acted within the life of the nation of Israel in order to rescue her (the Exodus from Egypt) and, through her, the entire creation.[6]  Within the Academy, the Bible was studied in the same way that one would study any ancient text and was not believed to be any more “true” than any other ancient book.[7]

     The “postmodern” period (beginning in the 1960’s) has witnessed a total rejection of the notion that Christianity is superior to other religions, cultures, worldviews and spiritualities.  Indeed, the very idea of “truth” has become extremely controversial.  Postmodern thinkers have demonstrated that claims to “truth” are often bound up with power grabs and aspirations to imperialistic dominance (ring any bells?).  Also, no one has an Archimedean point of view (God’s eye-view) on reality.  Whatever “truth” one manages to ascertain is always seen from a certain point of view, from a specific (and limited) perspective.  Everything is seen by someone and from somewhere, sometime.  The postmodern eagerness to avoid repeating the (now) obviously disastrous errors of the Christendom/colonial period has led, especially in academic contexts, to Christianity being “dethroned” from its former position of cultural and religious supremacy.  In the present Western cultural context of democratic liberalism and religious relativism, “facts” are believed to come from science and democratic majority vote while “values” are perceived to come from the realm of religion/culture.  Westerners are free to hold to whatever values they like, but are expected to function in terms of “the facts” (as defined by political structures and the sciences) in their public life – the workplace and the “public square”.[8]

The Bible as “true story”.

     So, in light of all this, how should one approach the Bible today?  Is it still possible to consider the Bible to be “true” in any sense?  If so, the Bible is not true in the sense that an Encyclopedia is presumed to be “true” (i.e. “accurate”, based upon the best possible information available at the time of publication).  The Bible, in fact, doesn’t resemble an encyclopedia; rather, the Bible resembles …a story.  In a previous post, I told the biblical story of rescue/salvation, understood as being the fulfillment, in and through Jesus of Nazareth, of the promises of God to Abraham.  One could define the (Hebrew) Bible as being the story of how the Creator God promised to save/rescue the world through Abraham and his descendants, and the New Testament as being the story of how God fulfilled those promises in and through Jesus, understood to be the Messiah (promised King) of Israel and therefore, the Lord of the world.  For the Bible, as far as God’s rescue-plan is concerned, it’s all about Abraham (and by extension, the nation of Abraham’s descendants, Israel).

     This “Israel dimension” of the way the Bible “thinks” about God and the rescue of humanity from evil has often been neglected in the history of the Church.  From its earliest days, the Church has struggled to think through many difficult questions about the nature of God and the means of salvation, and has most often done so with the help of (Greek) philosophy (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity).[9]  However, the biblical emphasis on Israel’s role in God’s plan of salvation is now making a comeback within the world of biblical studies, thanks to the recent prominence of narrative approaches to theology.  According to these approaches, it is possible to understand God, not only by philosophical means, but also through the story the Bible is telling.  The narrative character of the Bible, including the “Israel dimension”, is coming to be seen as an alternative framework within which to wrestle with the big questions about God and salvation.

     According to this approach, the Bible is understood, not as an encyclopedia of doctrinal statements, but rather as being a coherent story (43 % of biblical literature is narrative in genre) of what the Creator God has done to rescue humanity and the rest of creation from evil – i.e. from all that defaces humans and the creation and prevents the world from being the fruitful garden it was always intended to be.  Some biblical experts argue that the narrative approach is a more legitimate way to do theology, since the Jews had always believed that Yahweh’s revelation of himself had occurred through events within history (especially the Exodus from Egypt) and the stories that were told about those events.  The early Christians (who were all Jewish), believed that Yahweh had offered the ultimate revelation of himself in the event of Jesus’ death on the cross (Which is why they thought it was essential to write the story of Jesus, especially the story of his death.  In fact, the gospels of the New Testament have been described as “passion narratives with lengthy introductions”).

     Seen from this perspective, the “truth” of the Bible is that of a “true story”.[10]  Again, biblical truth is not that of abstract propositions, but is “truth” that requires and is understood through committed action to living one’s life in light of the story Scripture is telling.  “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”; the proof of the Bible is in the living.  C.S. Lewis, in his book The Silver Chair (part of the Chronicles of Narnia series), spoke of this notion in terms of hearing a story that one would like to be true.  The person who heard the story might so desire that it be true that s/he might begin to live as if it was true.  Living biblical truth is not primarily a matter of being “right”, but is rather a process of letting oneself be transformed more and more into the image of Jesus (cf. 2 Corinthians 3.18).  Of course, as we’ve seen, the way the Bible tells the story demonstrates the importance of certain things actually having happened within history, due to the action of God within his creation.  Living in light of the Bible’s story invites one to trust (have faith in) the God whose story Scripture is telling, believing that this story is the one within which genuine humanness is possible and this God is the God who can bring it about in our lives.

Living inside the Bible’s story.

     In Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the four Pevensie children – Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy – stumble through the wardrobe into Narnia and discover this magical world to be “frozen” in a state of perpetual winter under the rule of the White Witch.  Before long, they begin to hear tell of a certain “Aslan” who left Narnia some time ago, is the sworn enemy of the White Witch, and whose imminent return is rumoured throughout Narnia.  In fact, so the children are told, it is Aslan who is to blame for Narnia’s sad state of affairs: “always winter, but never Christmas”.  Once the four siblings meet Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, the rodent couple tell them that in truth, Aslan is the son of the “Emperor beyond the Sea”, he is the true ruler of Narnia and that he is “on the move”, i.e. Aslan is set to return to Narnia and put an end to the reign of the White Witch, who is in fact the real enemy who usurped the throne and is, in truth, responsible for Narnia’s frigid condition.  The children are faced with a choice – which story will they believe: the one according to which Aslan is the enemy of the legitimate Witch-Queen or the one according to which Aslan is the true King who will put an end to the Witch’s wintery rule?  As the children soon discover, their decision has consequences – whichever story they choose to believe, they will be caught up in the war that is about to break out between Aslan and the White Witch.  Their choice will determine the side on which they will fight.  Concerning the Bible’s story, we are also faced with a choice – will we live according to the tale Scripture is telling, or will our lives be directed by another story?  Chances are, if we are not aware of having made a deliberate choice about which story to live by, we are probably complicity going along with our culture’s current dominant storyline – that is to say, this life is all you’ve got and it’s short, so have fun while you can, and s/he who dies with the most toys wins (this story was also prominent in the ancient world; cf. 1 Corinthians 15.32).

     At the end of the day, the question seems (to me) to be: “Which story, if we were to live in and by its light, would enable us to live as genuine human beings, bearing the image of the Creator and contributing to the divine project of bringing the creation – us included! – to full flourishing?”  The many misappropriations of the Bible’s message and the many failures of the Church throughout its history to live in light of the biblical story (as opposed to that of imperialism, etc.) notwithstanding, the Bible still invites us to listen to the story it is telling and beckons to us to live within and in light of that story, praying all the while that the Spirit of God will “lead us into all truth” (John 16.13).

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ON MODERNITY

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ON POSTMODERNITY

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ON GLOBALISATION

---

[1] In the Gospels, Jesus is often perceived as being a prophet, of a kind with the prophetic figures of Israel’s past.  Jesus never rejects this description, and indeed, he does carry out a very “prophetic” campaign of itinerant preaching, healing and symbolic actions.  For the New Testament authors, Jesus was definitely not less than a prophet, but he was also much more than a prophet.

[2] The title “Son of God” has many meanings.  In the Old Testament, it was used to refer to the king of Israel (Psalms 2.6-7; 89.19, 26-27; 2 Samuel 7.12-14, etc.); human rulers are actually called “gods” in Psalm 82.6 (quoted by Jesus in John 10.34).  The “kingly”, royal sense is the meaning that the title appears to have, most of the time, in the synoptic Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark and Luke), and is probably the only meaning that the title had during Jesus’ life.  Sometimes in the Gospels (especially John), we can see that the title is taking on more meaning than simply “the King”.  In John’s Gospel, the title is used to refer to Jesus’ pre-existence as the “Word of God” and his intimate relationship to “the Father” (Jn. 1.1-18).  Eventually, within Christian theology, “Son of God” would come to refer to Jesus as the second member of the “Holy Trinity”, the fully-developed Christian understanding of God as existing as three distinct divine “persons” united by one divine “substance”.  The doctrine of the Trinity was worked out during the 4^th century AD.  It is also interesting to note that the title “son of (a) god” was used as an official title for the emperors of Rome.

[3] Military campaigns conducted by European armies, among other places, in the Holy Land (Palestine) from the 11^th – 15^th centuries AD which, with the Church’s blessing, attempted to capture “holy sites” and to secure pilgrimage routes by combating Muslim forces.

[4] A religious tribunal set up by the Catholic Church in the 15^th century (and officially disbanded in the 19^th century) whose objective was to rid Spain of “heretics” (those who did not adhere to the official teachings of the Church including not only heterodox Christians, but also Jews and Muslims).  Physical torture was often used as a means of interrogation and securing confessions.

[5] Pope Saint John Paul II offered several formal apologies for the Church’s frequent complicity with the violence of European colonialism and other “sins of the Church”.  Without minimizing in any way the immeasurable evil of those atrocities committed by the Church during the Christendom period, it is also important to note that the Church also did a lot of good during this time, laying the foundations for the future advancement of western civilization in many areas including education, agriculture, engineering, the arts, science (yes!), architecture, etc.  For example, the first universities were located in monasteries, which, among other things, had extensive libraries and were centres of learning (albeit, for men only).  A few good books on these questions are “How the Irish saved Civilization” (https://www.amazon.ca/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1506202990&sr=1-1&keywords=how+the+irish+saved+civilization) and “How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization” (https://www.amazon.ca/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1506203056&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=How+the+Catholic+Church+civilzation).  Yes, those Irish who saved civilization were Catholic.  J

[6] This is not to say that “critical” study of the Bible does not have its place.  On the contrary, we need scholars of the ancient world to translate the text of the Bible into modern languages (as well as reveal the inadequacies of past translations), and to help us understand the culture of the biblical period so that we can better interpret the Bible as believers.  It is “traditional”, within academic contexts, to bracket out from the discussion of the Bible questions of the inspiration of the biblical text or a purported divine origin for the books of the Bible.  When the Bible is read and commented upon within the context of the Church’s liturgy, the biblical text is received as “the Word of the Lord” or “the Gospel of the Lord” (i.e. the “Word of God”).

[7] The way the Bible is read within the Academy is radically different from the way it is read within the Church.  From the earliest days of the people of God (ancient Israel), thinking about God (“theology”) was never simply a question of reading scriptural texts (in their original contexts).  “Theology” was always done in the context of the community, especially during those moments when the community gathered for formal worship (sacrifices, prayers, songs, festivals, liturgy, etc.).  “Theologians” were not simply people (mostly men) who wrote books about the Bible and Christian beliefs; no, theologians were leaders within the community – prophets, apostles, Bishops, priests, etc.  So, “theology”, for most of the Church’s history, was thinking about God in the context of worship and based, partly, on reflection on Scripture, which, in turn, often led to the writing of more (what would become) Scripture.

[8] This can be seen in the recent debates in Quebec regarding the wearing of “ostentatious religious symbols” or “religious accommodations” for members of other religious cultures, especially Islam.  Quebec had its own “Christendom” period, beginning with its colonization by France in the 16^th century and coming to an end in the “Quiet Revolution” of the 1960’s.  During this period, the Roman Catholic Church enjoyed a religious monopoly and exercised considerable influence on the politics of “la belle province”.  Since the “Révolution tranquille”, the Catholic Church has been socially/culturally marginalized, Mass attendance has plummeted into the single digits, rival Christian churches and other religions have taken root and the confessional educational system has been dismantled, resulting in a new program of “Éthique & culture religieuse” (Ethics & Religious Culture), which replaced the former Catholic and Protestant programs of “Moral and Religious Education”.  Also, during the “Révolution”, education and healthcare services were removed from the Church’s jurisdiction and placed under the control of the state.  In short, in the space of a decade, Quebec went from being a haven of Roman Catholicism to being a thoroughly secularized nation.  It’s interesting to note that Quebec’s “Quiet Revolution” occurred at the same time as several other religious/cultural movements: Vatican II Council (1962-65) which resulted in the introduction of many changes into the life of the Church, the global cultural changes of “the Sixties” and the emergence of postmodernism in France with such thinkers as Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, etc.

[9] The biblical (Jewish) way of thinking is not primarily “rational”, but rather “relational”.  That is to say, during both the biblical and post-biblical periods (Antiquity), Jews thought about the world in terms of Yahweh’s relationship to them as his chosen people.  The fate of the world depended on the success of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel.  On the other hand, the Greeks tended to think about the world in more cognitive, rational terms (via speculative philosophy and “natural philosophy”, which would eventually develop into the discipline we now know as the “hard sciences” [as opposed to the “humanities”: history, literature, sociology, etc.]).  Though traditional ancient Greek culture included belief in many gods and goddesses, there seemed to be a shared conviction among philosophers that belief in the gods was irrelevant to the study of the material world.  However, when they were conducting speculative philosophy, i.e. attempting to reason about the source of all things (metaphysics, etc.), the philosophers would often speak of, for example, “the One” (Plato).  It was extremely rare that a philosopher would posit a self-sufficient universe, i.e. not requiring anything outside of itself to bring it into existence.

[10] Or as C.S. Lewis put it, a “true myth”.