“I like to begin my day in the Bible because I know I’m going to be lied to the rest of the day.”
R. Kent Hughes
That’s a bold statement by Kent Hughes, and I know that a lot of people who read it might think a number of things that pretty much miss his point. It’s one of those, “If you know, you know” kind of things – the difference between the secular and the Christian worldviews. I see it summed up like this: “To the Christian, this world is the closest to hell they will experience. To the non-believer, this world is the closest to heaven.” Still, easily misunderstood. The knee-jerk reaction to this, I’m sure, is “how dare you judge me.” How dare you say I’m not going to heaven. How dare you imply the life I live and the world I choose to live in is wrong.
Here is the stark truth of Christianity: like the word itself, its basis is “Christ.” It’s centered on Christ – what he says, what he does, what he’s asks of humanity. If you want a “heaven” with a “god” that lets everyone in the door, you would be rejecting Christianity. Christianity doesn’t have a Christ crucified for nothing — a “Christianity” where the death of Jesus means nothing is no Christianity at all.
But what about precious Jesus, meek and mild? The one who says all of the sweet things about loving others? It’s foolish to think he lacks appeal for most of us, but is he anything more than that? A good dude? A teacher of “the way?” This might get you started, but where to from there? We all just live our sweet lives, loving one another? We all just get along? We should all be good with that, but if that’s all that we get out of life, then maybe Paul was right: “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” What more is there?
So maybe Hughes is right. Should we believe in the world? A place that consistently lets us down and leaves us no recourse but to hope that maybe things will get better? Or should we believe that the world is ultimately lying to us? That’s what it means to believe the message of the cross – that is, to have a hope in a place and life more meaningful than that which we experience in the here and now. To have a savior that actually has the power to save and not a mere man who only instructs and serves as an “example.” Examples are fine, but they’re only patterns to follow, not the ultimate real thing.
Here’s the bottom line: either there’s something to Christ, or there isn’t. The Christianity of the true Christ – that is, the one to whom God gave authority to hold the world accountable (and then backed up by raising from the dead) – holds power. The Christianity of happy teacher Jesus and wishful thinking doesn’t. The world hates the former, but loves the latter – the lie. Which would you prefer?
I’m glad you’ve found a path that gives you faith, but to suggest one brand of evangelical Christianity is the only true path to spirituality and God is a rather narrow view.
I was reading an evangelical website this morning, and it talked about the Bible being God’s infallible word, saying the textual integrity is well established, however no one translation or interpreter is regarded as infallible. (That seemed a little disingenuous to me, but so be it.) It then goes on to challenge “incorrect” interpretations with its own interpretation. It’s all neatly self contained within the structure of biblical verse. An impenetrable feedback loop using a preferred translation and set of biblical verses to make its point. The problem, as I see it, is when you live within a closed system, any challenge to that system is easy to dismiss as long as you won’t stray outside of it yourself to take an honest look at how others view it.
And frankly, over the decades I’ve heard quite a few Christians who admit they are afraid to go outside of their closed system to look because it’s of the devil. If fear is the motive for not straying, there is a problem with their belief system as far as I’m concerned. (Not that I’m saying you have that problem because you obviously aren’t afraid of reading secular works or even entertaining yourself with secular music or movies, but the fear does run that deep with some evangelicals because of their Christian cocoon.)
I remember when I was involved in the Way. Very cocoon-like. It’s considered a cult, perhaps rightly so, I’m not to judge, but looking back on it, the Way was only different from many of the current evangelical Christian sects in its interpretation of Jesus’s role as the one begotten son of God, not a part of a 3 person God (and even that argument was one of semantics if you looked at their detailed explanation closely enough, so it all became very silly on their part, in my mind), and it’s interpretation of the Holy Spirit as simply another name for a different characteristic of God, not as a 3rd personage in the Trinity. All theological debate, really, and they had scripture to back them up too, but it was a closed system, and those in their Trinitarian cocoon didn’t appreciate those in their God and Son of God seated at the right hand of God cocoon, and all I can think now is how silly both arguments were – scriptural reference versus scriptural reference and none of it pulled out of context, though of course both sides claimed that the other side was going outside of the overarching context of the Word. With one side saying if you believed Jesus was God himself you were engaging in idolatry derived from pagan beliefs and the other side saying if you didn’t believe Jesus was God you were denying his role from the beginning as part of the true God, and neither side exploring any other possibility beyond the limitations of their self imposed boundaries, what was one to do? (I walked away from it because I saw it as a debate over which dogma to espouse, and not very Godly either way.) But that is the way of all religious sects who have determined their view is the only proper view. They live in cocoons of their own making and none of them are of God. Though their intentions may be good, they are human by design. I’m of the belief that God transcends emotional wrangling of that sort.
I actually find your description of world views a rather simplistic caricature that fits well with your closed system, but is rather dismissive of the reality of other faith’s and beliefs. it makes me wonder if you really know what you are talking about when you say those things. I’ve met many people of different faiths who live rich and meaningful lives that don’t rely on “wishful thinking”. In fact, some of them would think you are relying on that yourself, but you and I know better. Your faith is rooted in your trusting heart and your loving acts, not just a creed. I applaud that. You act on what you believe with a loving heart.
I don’t deny you your faith, but do you really think you are so right that you can authoritatively deny others theirs. I admit that there are lost souls who don’t have faith beyond the secular world. But your brand of Christianity isn’t the only religion that addresses that subject. And you need to remember, it is a religion, a human institution, and is thus as fallible as the rest.
I love to read the Bible, but I do not regard the scripture as infallible. Some of the stories in it may be factual. I can’t judge them all. I wasn’t there. But there is plenty of evidence that some of those stories are myths and extensions of the culture that created them. (Yesterday I was doing some reading on the Nativity story and the problems with the scriptural version of events claiming that Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem for a census, so the subject is fresh in my mind.) I don’t begrudge that. Life is made of stories. They bring meaning to life. Myths can hold truths just as easily as history. Every culture has them. If we had to be literal about everything, metaphor would not exist and a lot of our stories would be very dull indeed. Lessons don’t have to be factual to be true. If they did, Jesus himself would never have told a parable. The only way I’ve ever seen anyone who believes in the infallibility of the Bible challenge my view is to quote scripture, or rely on some theologian who relies on scripture to build his argument. (Again, a closed system.) That’s not very convincing.
As far as I’m concerned, from the different theological works I’ve read, the Bible is written by men whose inspiration is God. And I’m fine with that. Language itself is an exercise in relativity. It’s an invention that is useful for communication within a culture and society, but it is limited and subjective by nature. Words can be signs directing us to an ultimate reality, but it is a mistake to accept the words themselves as that reality.
There is a Buddhist metaphor that I think demonstrates this aptly. In Buddhism, the moon represents enlightenment. Using the moon as enlightenment, the Buddhists scriptures are regarded as a finger pointing at the moon. The teachings point the way, but they are not the moon itself, so don’t cling to them. The truth of enlightenment can only be found in practice. As applied to my own beliefs, I see that actions are the real test. If, in acting upon the words (whether they be Biblical scripture or Buddhist sutras) they promote anger and hatred, as an example, how can they be of God?
I guess in this way, I rather consider myself as one who sees the proof in the pudding. God is revealed in life not in any text, but in the result of the recipe.