Author: BOB
To: Steve (and John)
For many years, I was dismissive of the Bible for many commonly
offered reasons: alleged internal
inconsistencies, accounts that seemed irreconcilable with modern scientific
knowledge, and stories that seemed too incredible to be true. In recent years, those types of concerns
have receded.
Reasons That Some Obstacles to Belief Have Diminished in
Significance for Me
There are several reasons why these concerns have
diminished. First, I became struck by
the inadequacy of science to provide any better answer than the God explanation
for how did all of this (all of creation) first get started and why has it unfolded
the way it has. I can’t conceive of
what total nothingness is, and I can’t conceive of how you get something from
nothing. A theory such as the Big Bang
seems no more compelling answer to this than belief in God, because it begs the
question of what caused a Big Bang to occur.
Second, I read more on the subject of science and
religion. Some of these works might be
regarded as apologetics for religious belief, but nonetheless, the works were
convincing to me that a theory like evolution is not fundamentally incompatible
with a belief in God. In fact,
evolution viewed as the unfolding of God’s plan or the progression of life to a
higher level of consciousness is very compatible with belief in God.
Third, I was convinced (by hearing Bishop Spong) that there is
a distinction between the experience of God, and the explanation of that
experience, and that this distinction has a powerful meaning for understanding
the Bible. The experience of God, Spong
states, may well be timeless and real; but the explanation is always bound by
the time, beliefs, and prejudices of those who do the explaining. Furthermore, he argues, the writers of the
Bible were not seeking to be journalists, but rather sought to convey a
message. In that vein, the guiding
concern for readers of the Bible should not be “Is this story that is told
literally true?” Rather, what we should
ask is “What does it mean?” What led
the Biblical authors to tell this story?
Therefore, Spong has argued that the choice between accepting
the Bible as literally true in every detail and becoming a fundamentalist, on
the one hand, and deciding that the Bible is not literally true in many details
and therefore becoming an atheist, on the other hand, is “a sterile choice”,
and not a necessary choice. It is
possible to reject the accuracy of some Biblical details or stories and yet
maintain overall belief. More
importantly, it is possible to even reject some explanations or interpretations
of Biblically-reported experiences – even those explanations that have become
commonly- accepted matters of Christian belief -- but not reject the idea that
a powerful underlying experience led to a strongly felt need to develop these
explanations.
This last issue or distinction (about the experience of God
versus the human explanation of God) was very important to me, because there
was much in the way of details, interpretations, and explanations in the parts
or passages of the Bible with which I was familiar that I found either
impossible to believe, or actually repugnant. This was true for both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, but
it was particularly true for the Hebrew Scriptures. The idea that the Bible was the attempt of ancient communities to
imperfectly explain their experience of God provided me with a path to take the
Bible (as Marcus Borg has said) “seriously but not literally,” and provided me
with a path to belief.
I Can’t Believe Unless…
However, I can’t believe unless that belief entails a
relationship with a God who I perceive to be fair, proportionately just, compassionate,
and loving.
I can accept and have faith in a God who is pointed to by
scriptures that are manifestly written by human authors – replete with
inconsistencies, errors, and stories that are not literally, factually
true as
indicated by reason or science. I can
accept and have faith in a God who fails to appear or provide clear
evidence of
existence. I can accept and have faith
in a God who works in somewhat mysterious ways. I can accept and have
faith in a God who allows free will to
reign and does not intervene even in the face of practically
unimaginable evil
and suffering (the Holocaust, for example). I can accept a God who is
close to, but is not, all-knowing. In fact, I think this latter
limitation of
God is necessary, if human free will is truly allowed to work and if
God is to
derive benefits from his own creation.
On the other hand, I have trouble accepting and having faith in
a God if that God is defined by mysterious ways that are contradictory to basic
human values, or a basic human sense of right and wrong. I can’t believe unless I perceive the God I
am worshipping to be more fair, more proportionately just, more compassionate,
more loving, and more grandly humble than the best human being(s) among us.
Opportunities from this Dialogue: Testing the Parameters of Core Belief
Although in my previous discussion I have been somewhat
critical of the Bible, there is a core within the Bible that has appeared
approachable and worthy of worship.
That core for me currently centers in a portion (but not all) of the
reported behaviors and teachings of Jesus that point to the existence of a
loving God. Through this dialogue with
you, Steve, I have an opportunity to test the parameters of the Biblical core
within the Christian context, and, in the process, consider how broadly can I
draw my own core of belief. For
example, what ideas from the Hebrew Scriptures might I still need to bring into
my core of belief? How well do I really
understand what I have chosen (so far) to place outside of my core of
belief? And I regard the dialogue with
you, John, as shedding light on these same issues, but also as an opportunity
to potentially expand the core to include some additional thoughts that are
outside of the Christian context. Overall, the process of defining and continually refining my own core of
belief has become particularly important to me because my children are reaching
ages at which they are asking questions about God and faith.
Response to Steve’s Question: Is the Goal of Spiritual Pursuit to Get to Heaven, or to Avoid Hell?
Initially, I think that the hunger or thirst for God for many
stems from the desire to see this lifetime as: (1) having meaning, and (2) having meaning within some larger
purpose. Quite frankly, there is a
desire that death does not truly mean our extinction and the extinction of our
relationships with those with love. I
found this latter point to be well-made when, in a question and answer session,
Bishop Spong was asked if he believed that in heaven, we would be able to
interact with those that we loved on earth. Spong said that while he did not profess to have knowledge of the
particulars of what heaven would be like, of one thing he was sure. Heaven would not be a heaven to him if it
didn’t include his wife Christine.
As we ponder this desire not to be extinct, and consider our
desire for something eternal, I think that at least the pessimists among us
(and probably others too) consider the idea that they would rather not believe
in a system that would actually make their fate worse than extinction. At least extinction can be viewed as eternal
rest. A fate worse than extinction
would be eternal suffering or punishment. The ideas of eternal suffering or punishment make the idea of eternal
rest sound pretty good.
So the goal becomes heaven. The problem for many, I think, is that the notion of heaven that we are
raised with is a very abstract, almost comical notion. I don’t know about you, but about the only
details of heaven of which I felt sure growing up (from my admittedly limited
church-going experiences) was that there would be wings, halos, and harps, and
there would be singing. While that
didn’t sound bad compared to the other eternal alternatives that I seemed to be
presented with (extinction, or suffering and eternal punishment), my existing
life seemed fuller than that to me.
Then, I came across two ideas that I felt gave me a better
understanding of heaven and the concept of hell. The first idea was that heaven and hell are not about flying with
the angels or burning with the devil. Heaven meant an opportunity for those exemplifying a desire to be with
God for eternity to get their desire. Hell meant an opportunity for those who did not desire to be with God
for eternity to also get their wish – but their punishment, if viewed that way,
was the eternal separation from God and good, not eternal, unspeakable
suffering. I do not even recall where I
first read or heard this idea. What I
do recall is that it seemed to me to be a radical departure from the fire and
brimstone message that I had previously been exposed to, and that it seemed to
me to make a heck of a lot more sense.
The second idea, or more like a set of ideas, came from reading
some books on the subject of near-death experiences. Now I don’t claim to know whether the people who are reporting
these experiences are being honest, nor whether their reported experiences of
“near-death” ultimately will correspond to any experiences “post-death”, nor
whether the particular individuals who are studying and reporting upon these
experiences are credible researchers, or charlatans. What I do know is that the traits that are have been reported as
common to many near-death experiences have provided me with a more concrete
notion of what heaven might be like than anything else that I have been exposed
to. The traits of that experience and
the interaction with the Supreme Being of Light that has been reported is
appealing to me. The concept of heaven
that I think may be derived from these reports (whether or not the reports are
all “true”), seems to me to be credible, and worthy as a goal of spiritual
pursuit.
As John (trialoguer John, not Biblical John) said, I think too that we
will reap what we sow (at least to some extent).
I think there certainly must be big trouble for those who have
committed acts of manifest evil (the Hitlers and Timothy McVeighs are in big
trouble).
I think that there may be trouble if we have not made a good
faith effort to love others.
I think that there may be trouble if we have not made a good
faith effort to try to find God.
I think there may be trouble if we have not indicated a desire
to be with God.
But I also think that as a just and compassionate God, God
considers mitigating circumstances. One
of these is our humanity.
Comments