The Bible also becomes easier to understand (relatively). If we can read a text that says "he will rise in three days", we can take that as a literal reference to temporal activity. There is no need to question or investigate deeper cultural relations which might cast the phrase "three days" as a symbolic element. And then there is the almost endless debate about what symbols mean, and what those symbols refer to. Symbols can refer to symbols which can refer to symbols. The process can be endless and quite possibly hopeless.
Fundamentalism contains an air of confidence with it. The simplicity and ease of understanding makes us sure that we have applied our interpretations effectively. The fundamentalist is then freer to engage the world concerning spiritual absolutes more-so then one who questions the simplicity and ease of access to the Bible.
The fundamentalist also has clearer moral directives on how to live his life. The Bible clearly outlines simple moral directives in how Christians should behave. If this simple interpretation were reversed then how would a Christian know how to act? The fundamentalist need not explain why homosexuality is wrong. The Bible simply tells him this is so, and that is the end of it. Moralizing can lead to endless uncertainty and doubt, fundamentalism provides clarity and absoluteness to a very unsettling enterprise.
The fundamentalist also has a closer grasp as to the kind of world earlier believers would have lived in. Typically, a simple reading of the Bible forces us into a world where miracles happen, heaven and hell exist as spatial-temporal realms, and prophecy can predict the future. Thus, fundamentalists are truer to the original believers in Christ, because they accepted the kind of world they wrote about.
This is a pretty fair rendering of fundamentalism, but if I have left something crucial out then I can easily ammend.
These are the pros of Higher Criticism. Reading the Bible through critical eyes is in keeping with the spirit of reason, also born out of the Enlightenment. Reason can give us a more honest and humble account of Scripture that relates more to the human condition and deepens our understanding of faith.
The Bible becomes more connected to our human condition. The subtlty and nuances of Scripture reveal to us a human predicament similar to our own. The culture and themes of the Bible deepen our awareness of the struggle and insight that the original authors experienced.
Higher Criticism has an aura of humility and authenticity to it. The critic always submits his insights to a universal understanding of truth and open debate. The critic allows for his insights to be subject to criticism as well, and this allows for the critic to represent his honest and sincere judgments.
Higher Criticism can reveal to us that modern people were no too different then ancient believers and that moral ambiguity and suffering were still problems for the religious man. The critic can relate better to the moral dilemmas that exist today through the Bible and seeing the colorings and timbre represented in Scripture and the struggles that early believers shared with us can deepen our commitment to spiritual principles and trust more intimately that our Creator has everything under control.
The critic is also better equipped to communicate the truths of the ancient world into his own. In this sense, the critic is closer to the ancient believer in the practice of adapting their faith and keeping their essence alive in a modern context.
These are the cons of fundamentalist belief. The first, is the near obliteration of context. A plain reading of the text may provide a simpler and more versatile text that every individual can have access to, but it is most certainly removed from the context that the original author and readers experienced the work initially.
The knowledge provided through fundamentalism is superficial. Consider a phrase written in a text which says, "He will rise in three days". Now the plain reading produces a reality that someone has died and in three days will rise again. It is pretty self-explanatory. Now the fundamentalist is not limited in this regard, he is allowed to dig deeper into the cultural background and discover that the phrase "three days" has a special cultural influence that was present at the time of the writing. The fundamentalist is allowed to weave a tapestry of knowledge which includes all the amazing details of what "three days" meant to these people. He can learn how it signified the completion of history and the number of God's perfection. All this knowledge will definitely produce a religious experience to be sure, but in the end the fundamentalist must set aside such knowledge as only periphery. It has no bearing on the actual text which reveals to us plainly and simply that someone rose from the dead after three days. In this sense, it matters very little what the cultural background was, "three days" is simply an incidental recording of events.
But! The fundamentalist may object at this point to say that such events were orchestrated by a sovereign God and actual history was manifested to fulfill the cultural expectations of that time. Okay, this may be well and good, but what is the basis for this belief? At this point the fundamentalist is going outside of Scripture in order to defend his Scriptural beliefs, and this may be justified if he were to have independent confirming reasons, but all he has is his theology. His claim is an imposing action of what he believes a sovereign God would do. Unfortunately, we cannot appeal to a sovereign God in such a way. The very principle of God's sovereignty is that He is utterly free to do anything. If we could use sovereignty as a means of making a formula out of God's behavior that it would be His sovereignty that would be the one thing which negated His sovereignty.
Also, there is no reason to think that sovereignty were impugned upon by doubting whether a plain and simple reading of a text can provide spiritual depth.
Next, fundamentalism can lead to a false sense of security. History has shown us that fundamentalists often flare up and become dominant in a culture that threatens their existence. Fundamentalists feel that homosexuality threatens the future of the church,and every fundamentalist fears a reality where the government will force churches to hire gay pastors (regardless of the freedom of religion). Fundamentalists retreat to their Scriptures in order to secure and stabilize their society, and this is a response generated by fear and loss of power.
Fundamentalists morality is almost in principle amoral, and has the potential for nihilism more then any other doctrine despite the "supposed" moral integrity of fundamentalist believers. A key component of fundamentalist belief is that what the plain reading of the text is akin to the voice of God itself. Thus, if the Bible says that people should not get divorced then the fundamentalist now has a moral obligation according to something he has been told. It is important to recognize that doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do is entirely different then doing something because you are told to do it. The fundamentalist in principle cannot recognize such distinctions and this erodes moral fiber rather then building it up.
The last con for fundamentalism is its anti-scientific devotion. Many fundamentalists have constructed elaborate models and theories in order to align the narrative of the Bible with modern scientific discovery, and such an enterprise is impressive, but in the end futile. True science gathers evidence and then forms theories. The fundamentalist begins with his theory and constructs the evidence around it. Now there are many theologians who believe that philosophic arguments can be made to support some of the narratives in the Bible, such as creation, or miracles, but this does not get us any closer to what the original writers meant when they wrote. The fundamentalist is so divorced from authentic spirituality that he cannot even conceive that many of the Biblical narratives were constructed mythically in order to deepen the believers faith rather then serve as some scientific justification for a reductionistic plain reading of the text.
These are the cons for Higher Criticism...
In subjecting the Bible to higher criticism it may appeal to reason, but at the same time it makes us relate to the Bible as we would any other book of antiquity. Reason gives no privileges and thus the Bible looses its sanctity.
The Bible becomes subjective and relative. None of its mandates can be seen as absolute or unchanging. If we allow the teachings of the Bible to be adapted then what is the point of the Bible, and spiritual devotion? God is Holy and his laws never change. Man should not simply be allowed to change what he does not like about the Bible, because that is an offense to God.
Higher Criticism is pseudo-intellectual. It hides behind ivory towers and most of its interpretations are removed from the common understanding of the Bible. It may convey an air of humility, but behind it is pompousness and narrow-mindedness. Just because a few smart people agree on a meaning it is divorced from the general rendering done by most believers and thus is an outsiders opinion rather then an insiders insight. So you can comfort yourself with false humility all you want, but you will never understand the Bible the way a Christian understands it.
Higher Criticism reduces the heroes of the faith to weak men. The great men who paved the way for our faith are seen as normal everyday people who acted in their own power. There is no power of God evident in them. They are all seen as normal people.
Higher Criticism seem devoid of any spiritual understanding. It removes the miracles, heaven and hell, and the supernatural from the meaning of the text, which is the basis of spiritual belief and practice! How could a critic be able to read the Bible like the way an early believer read the scriptures!So there it is. Both sides have a fair share of glory and blame. I have reached the maxim of what I will allow myself to write in a single blog. I will respond to this analysis in my next article.
No comments:
Post a Comment