On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: > This is one of the problems with most of the modern interpretations of > the Gospels. Where Iasus was being metaphorical, he is taken literally; > and where he was being literal, he is taken metaphorically.
I attended a seminar by Marcus Borg (http://www.united.edu/portrait/borg.shtml) on Friday, a Jesus Seminar fellow and prominent defender of the faith against Biblical literalism. He described two forms of Christianity: an earlier "belief-based" paradigm and an emerging "transformational paradigm." The interpretations you rightly criticize above are the product of the former paradigm. The latter may well be the antidote to it. As the name suggests, the former paradigm emphasizes the act of belief in such Biblical items as Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the applicability of (certain) Levitical laws, the Davidic authorship of the Psalms and Solomonic authorship of the Proverbs, and of Jesus, virgin birth, divinity and bodily resurrection. "Belief-based" Christianity holds that scripture is a divine product, and therefore inerrant and literally true. "Belief-based" Christians take the Bible literally wherever it is possible to do so -- if it says that God created the world in six days, it must mean six days as we understand them. Salvation refers to afterlife, which is achieved solely through Jesus (and is thus exclusive to Christians) and is a personal matter, affecting the individual's eternal life. The emerging paradigm emphasizes that the Christian life is about a relationship with God that transforms us. This form of Christianity holds that scripture is a human product -- the "wisdom tradition" of Christianity's Jewish and Christian spiritual ancestors. It takes a historical/metaphorical view of Scripture, rather than a literal/factual view. As one wag put it, "The Bible is true, and some of it actually happened." Biblical stories are "poetry plus and not science minus," in the words of a Swedish proverb. Salvation is a process of transformation that begins now, is both personal and political, spiritual and social, affects temporal life, and is universally available. Personally, I think that this is what Jesus was talking about when (OK, if) he said "I have come that you might have life, and have it abundantly," and "the kingdom of God is among you." It's now, folks: enjoy it! Despite the fact that the fundamentalist view is thought of as more "traditional," the fact is that it is just about 400 years old. It came about as a defensive response to the enlightenment, to scientific thinking, which challenged so much of Scripture's pre-scientific view of the universe. Even the words "belief" and "faith" have changed their meanings significantly over the past half-millennium. "Belief" originally meant "trust in God," while "faith" meant "loyalty"-- as in "good faith" or to be a faithful spouse. To be a believing, faithful Christian was to be a person who trusted in and was loyal to God, not necessarily a person who held that the things of the Bible were true. On the other hand, Borg considers the "transformational" view to be both very ancient -- reaching back to the lifetime of the historical Jesus, and relatively new -- gaining renewed favor only in the last few decades. He pointed out that it, too, was a response to the enlightenment, but an appreciative integration of it, rather than a defensive rejection of it. The emerging transformational view is very much the one I've been coming to over the past couple of years, especially lately, as I've been reading Bishop John Shelby Spong ("The Spong of Satan," quips Nick), who invites Christians to understand the history of Scripture in order to understand scripture itself. If one blindly accepts the testimony of scripture and tradition that the Pentateuch was penned by Moses, for example, much of it ceases to make sense. If, however, one accepts the scholarship of the past century or so, then the layers of telling and retelling, editing and re-editing to reflect changing Hebrew and Christian societies become visible. The books gain historical power, revealing the times and the needs (as well as the biases and errors) of the people who wrote and edited them, while retaining their metaphorical power, reflecting their evolving understanding of God. Fundamentalist Christians can get quite exercised at this, particularly when a Spong or a Borg says that the Bible does not contain the thoughts of God, but the thoughts of particular individuals and groups at specific times, dealing with local issues of their place and time while trying to understand the thoughts of God. Even relatively liberal Christians find the loss of certainty unsettling. Ironically, viewing the Bible metaphorically strengthens, rather than weakens it, freeing it from the crazy idea that it must be considered factual in every respect. Untold millions of intelligent, sensitive people have been turned off by this unsupportable idea. The Bible is completely pre-scientific, assumes a world view in which slavery is a routine and acceptable form of labor, and plainly contradicts itself time and again. Viewing it as fact is killing it. On the other hand, viewing it as the best that a series of particular, peculiar, pre-scientific, slave-holding people had to offer in the circumstances of their time makes it a remarkable artifact. Seeing it for what it is will preserve it. Personally, I have decided to take the Bible seriously by refusing to take it literally and by promoting a vision of Christianity that does the same. Peace, Dave _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
