Questioning Classic Christianity #3

Here is our third round of emails. My friend's post first, then my response.

On May 30, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Friend wrote:

Scott,

Let me kick off with the issue of scriptural corruption since I think that may be the crux of things at hand and the place where you're seeking more clarification of my views. I believe that much of the Bible is inspired text, composed by people who were in connection with the Holy Spirit. Who can read the words of Jesus in the gospel or Paul's passage on the primacy of love and not be convicted that this comes from something greater than the rational mind?

That said, many Biblical scholars (and not just ultra-liberal ones) will flatly tell you that some of the New Testament letters are frauds. 2nd Peter for example wasn't written by Peter, but by a later author who employed Peter's name to give the text an additional sense of authority. This was a common practice in the ancient world and wouldn't have necessarily been viewed as a deception (though I think the author's intent might be dubious). Several of Paul's letters are the same way.

Similarly, over the course of thousands of years of history, every single book in the Bible has gone through a process of editing and revision. If memory recalls, we don't have a single original text. They are all copies of copies of copies and many of which prior to being written down were preserved in the oral tradition for decades and even centuries. Through this process, the original wording and narrative has changed considerably in some cases. Numerous different communities with their own spiritual perspectives and agendas have handled these texts. I imagine many were sincere and handled the texts with the utmost veneration. Some were not so, and bended the text to serve their own political and spiritual interests.

Comparing the Books of Kings to Chronicles is one of the most poignant examples of this revision at play. Both pairs of books track roughly the same history of Israel, but in places provide very different descriptions and interpretations of events. I wish I could recall the exact verses, but in one place, Kings talks about how God sends a plague upon the Israelites for their sins. In Chronicles, recounting the exact same episode, it is Satan who perpetrates the action. How do you reconcile these differences, and other variations in the two accounts of Israel's history? The scholars I tend to trust say that the books were written at different times and reflect different perspectives on Israel's purpose and legacy. Kings is the earlier and more authentic text, and reflects a more critical and prophetic voice. Chronicles was written much later after the Babylonian exile, when Israel needed to renew a strong sense of national identity. Thus, it is a simplified and more patriotic account if you will.

You could apply a similar eye to the gospels. Four different accounts from four different communities. The gospels are in harmony in a number of places, but each has its own, voice, style, depiction, and interpretation of certain events in Jesus' life. Each reflects differing aspects of Jesus' life the authors deemed most important to understanding his nature and purpose.

Personally, I am no longer able to affirm that scripture as it is rendered in the NIV possesses absolute authority. The more I have learned about the process of authorship and transmission from generation to generation--about the politics often involved, and the differing theologies and world-views of revising communities--the less I can believe that all of these twists and turns have been guided by divine inspiration.

Thus the importance of experience in the mystical traditions. Again, according to the mystics, God is continually speaking--as powerfully today as God did 2,000 years ago in the time of Jesus, and 5,000 years ago in the time of Moses. There is no golden era of revelation, God is manifest in all times equally. Scripture reflects words written by people in touch with this inspiration, but then over the years, through the process of revision and political mangling, the text degrades. This is the nature of spiritual movements and human institutions in general. They rise, grow, stagnate, and then eventually crumble. And then from their ashes emerge new vital movements that are once again in touch with the spirit.

As far as experience goes, I agree with you that one has to be scrupulous. Spiritual experience can not simply be judged by the positive or negative feelings that arise from it. Rather, I find the test lies in how much the experience challenges me to grow and produces the spiritual fruit of love, patience, humility, perseverance, etc...

Yes, I believe that human efforts are futile if God is not at their center. And yes, I believe that Christianity is a vital faith that connects people with God. But I can't affirm that Christianity is the exclusive mediating faith for approaching the divine. Not all paths are the same, and certainly in my mind not all expressions of spirituality are authentic and beneficial. But fortunately there exists a wonderful spiritual plurality in this world that allows different individuals and communities to experience God in different ways.

Just as the strength and vitality of a forest is due to its ecological diversity, so to is our world sustained by its spiritual diversity. Frankly, I am skeptical of the line, "there is only one way" when it is spoken about any sphere of life, be it the environment, politics, culture, or religion, because I simply do not see this as in touch with the most fundamental principles of our world. I ask you to seriously consider if there's any other place besides in your life besides religion where, "there is only one way" actually reflects reality.

So there it is, I tried not to sugar coat anything for you, but let you know as plainly and authentically how I have come to view my faith and spirituality. I don't perceive my formation in the church as negative or harmful, but rather as an essential part of my spiritual growth and development. That said, I no longer find Evangelical Christianity and its model of discipleship as the vehicle for bringing me close to God and have embraced new channels for sustaining this connection.

Thanks for your patience waiting for my reply. I continue to enjoy this dialogue and look forward to your response when the opportunity presents itself.

Warmly,
Friend

Here is my response June 15, 2009:

Friend,

Starting from the end of your letter and working back, we share some commonality. I too believe that 'Evangelical Christianity and its model of discipleship' are woefully lacking and frankly distorted the message of Jesus. That said, I am not prepared to throw out the text of Scripture, or turn it into a buffet where I can pick and choose what is true, real, or unedited and ignore the rest. Instead, I have opted for a totally different path than you. I read it and take it seriously, instead of allowing one doctrine or dogma to trump everything else (which is what much of protestant Christianity has done. In the case of the liberal churches, love trumps holiness and social justice trumps piety, while in the conservative churches knowledge trumps lifestyle and one is saved even if their life bears not fruit.) I have sought to read the Bible and allow God to rigorously apply it to my life. Where sound thinking and good doctrine are called for (epistles), I ask God to reveal it and to transform my mind. Where lifestyle and action are demanded (read the prophets, sermon on the mount, end of most of the epistles) then I seek to live life accordingly by the empowerment of the Spirit, and when I fail, which is often, I repent and believe the good news that Christ came to forgive sinners and my actions don't make me acceptable to God, but are the fruit of a relationship grounded in Christ.

While I believe we share many things, the difference as I see it is the issue of truth. You are skeptical of it, an understandable thing for the average person raised in the late 20th century at the dawn of the cultural postmodern shift. However, there are absolutes in the universe, there are truths and a good lifestyle will not save anyone, as much as proper knowledge will not save anyone either. God, in his Scriptural Word and through the life of Christ, the living Word, has shown us that knowledge and action rightly joined together are the requirement for holiness and Christ alone, in all of human history, as the God-man, the incarnate Deity, as Emmanuel. He alone was able to perfectly wed the two, and we are invited to become part of that life, his life and share in his perfect union of proper doctrine and proper life. So, abandoning sound doctrine in order to get sound practice, is as fatal as abandoning sound practice in order to get sound doctrine. The two cannot be unjoined, and when they are then we can easily say that Christ is on the same plane as the Buddha or Muhammad or the Scriptures are on the same plane as the Koran, the Tibetan book of the Dead, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc. But when they are joined, as they were in the life of Christ, then he alone stands distinct and different from all others and his claims to authority and pre-eminence must be viewed as wholly different and distinctly unique. Christ is the only way unto God, as he says, "I am the way, the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father except through me."

As for some of the side issues you raise about transmission, textual copies, not trusting the translation of the NIV, etc. These are valid thoughts Your search for truth has led you farther than most in a critical appraisal of the evidence. It is true that their are variations in the texts, however, when one looks at and studies them, it becomes quickly apparent that the differences are miniscule in the vast majority of them and sure, there are some out there texts like the Gospel of Thomas, etc... but these are aberrations in their own right and were never widely accepted by the churches across the geographic spectrum in the first place. Let's take for instance, Homer's Iliad, there are 643 known copies of the Iliad with the earliest ones from 400BC or roughly 400 years after the text was originally written, or Herodotus' History which has 8 copies the earliest at 900 AD some 1350 years after the original, then one could also look at Plato's works, 7 copies, 1300 years after the original. The list goes on with Demosthenes, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Livy's History of Rome, Tacitus' Annals, etc. The gaps are huge, and yet we read and trust them as sources of History, etc. Now the New Testament, has 5366+ copies, fragments, books, etc. with the earliest fragments coming from 50 years post writing, the earliest complete books, 100 years post. The scale of preservation of the text is incomparable. That doesn't even take into account the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and Nubian texts, then there is all the early patristic quotations in their writings. The textual witness is greater than any other book in history. Are there differences, sure, do they change the message of the text - Christ is the God Incarnate, he alone satisfies God's demand for a sinless, holy life and he alone died as a substitution for your sin and mine, he alone was raised from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God...No. None of these texts negate this message, the differences come in words that are reversed, or in some slight things church teachings like baptismal practice, church organization, etc. But these things don't save anyways. Should we strive for solid understanding of them, yes, but should we allow these to determine our trust in the organic message of the text? No.

I would encourage you not to read the english texts. They are all translations and any translation is fraught with difficulty and bias as the translators seek to render the meaning into a target language. Learn Koine Greek and start reading the text in the original. Get a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27 or the UBS 4 with the critical apparatus that shows the textual variants and start reading as close to the originals as you can. Grab a copy of the Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: It's transmission, corruption and restoration, 3rd ed. It was published in 1992, and Metzger's text is the standard for introducing people to textual criticism, etc. He reviews the various manuscripts, papyri, etc and is a well grounded academic. You can take Greek at a number of the schools there in Seattle. I would recommend looking into Fuller Theological Seminary's campus in Seattle and taking the 5 greek courses they offer. The questions you are asking are the same ones I was asking 7 years ago. I started taking the Greek sequence in order to struggle through my thoughts, questions, etc. on the text. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Enough for now. I look forward to your reply.

p.s. I am really enjoying our conversation via email and was wondering how you would feel about me posting them on my blog. I would make you anonymous and erase any refs to your location, but the questions you are asking and raising are great and I think they would help many people in there own walk with Christ. if you are opposed, no problem, I wont put them up, if its ok, then thanks. ...Read more