One of the things irritating me about a book I’m currently reading is the strange (and unpersuasive) efforts the author makes to prove that certain events occurred exactly the way they are described in the Old Testament. I read and I wonder why the author thinks it is so important to offer this proof.
I don’t have any question that the Bible is a source of truth. However, I don’t think the value of the Bible as a source of truth depends on events having occurred exactly as they are conveyed in the many Bible stories we grew up with.
As I thinking about this I pulled out an article by Luke Timothy Johnson that appeared in Commonweal a couple of weeks ago (fortunately still sitting on the floor in my study), titled How is the Bible True? Let Me Count the Ways. Johnson suggests an approach to the truth of the Bible that resonates with me and that avoids the kind of efforts that so irritated me in reading this book. He talks about an approach of literary imagination that approaches the Bible “not as an anthology of composition locked in the past but as a word that unlocks every present, not as a set of sources for describing relaity, but as a set of witnesses prescribing reality, not as a set of propositions about the world but as an imaginative construction of the world.” The Bible, he argues, creates an imaginative world in which we can choose to create. He elaborates:
In each and every one of its parts and as a whole, the Bible imagines a world as created by and ordered to, cared for and saved by, a God who is at once infinitely powerful and infinitely personal; a world in which God creates humans in God’s own image, with capacities for knowledge and love, pleasure and freedom; a world that is a garden that God plants for humans to enjoy and cultivate. Nothing about the imagined world is empirically verifiable, yet by imagining the world in this fashion, the Bible also reveals reality, and by revealing it, opens the possiblity of humans living in it. By imagining the world that the Bible imagines, humans can imagine – construct – their world as a new creation.
Framing it in this way allows us to think about the question of whether the Bible is true in a different way than, e.g., natural science would approach the question. It turns the primary inquiry in our direction, asking, do we act as though the Bible is true? As Johnson puts it: “Are we engaging the world that the Bible imagines, living in a manner consistent with its vision.” That is a lot more challenging than simply asserting literal truth. And it is a lot more meaningful and productive use of our energies than arguing about whether there really was a flood that wiped out all human beings or whether Lot’s wife was really turned into a pillar of salt or whether Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale.
Susan,
I appreciated this post. Thanks. I have lived a lot of my adult life in fundamental Christianity and we always have to do a lot of mental, texual, and historical gymnastics to support the Biblical stories as factual. I think you are correct and I identify with your frustration.
Joe
Susan,
Thought provoking as always.
There is a definite distinction between something being factual vs. truth. As believers, or seekers, we look to the Bible for TRUTH. Much like taking the 10 Commandments at their FACTUAL value. We may be lulled into a false sense of righteousness by the mere fact that we did not kill someone today. Knowing full well, there are farther reaching implications to ‘Thou shalt not kill’.
I believe it to be more a question of faith: belief in things unseen. Like you, I do not need the “facts” to inspire my actions. Discipleship calls us to a higher standard than a mere checklist of facts.
I would have been irritated by that author too.
Blessings,
Mary
Is this the Exodus book written by a Cambridge biologist (and amateur archeologist/ biblical scholar)? I enjoyed reading the book, reckoned that his science was, at best, 50% correct (without the expertise necessary to figure out what or why) but wondered why it all mattered. I would no more believe in God if he adduced proof that, for instance, locust plagues were rare as opposed to common.