There is one niggly little problem with this: how we define truth. For the last few hundred years, since about Isaac Newton, we figured truth, logic and scientific evidence tied together. So if we say the Bible is "true", then according to this kind of thinking, what the Bible says is to be taken as scientifically factual and with the same authority as a legal constitution.
That kind of an approach ends up with glaring inconsistencies between common understanding and things written in the sacred text of the Bible: people have there battles arguing whether the Bible is wrong or science is wrong. Neither are "wrong", the problem is that the yardstick we use to measure truth is a very narrow one, not appropriate for the sacred texts, and certainly far too restricting in the view of the ancient Jewish society for whom these texts were originally written.
Richard Rohr, Franciscan Friar, has a great meditation today, which really helps open up this whole dilemma:
"I think we learned the Sic et Non ["Yes And"] approach in the early Christian period from our Jewish ancestors. They called it midrash. Midrash was a different way of coming to truth. It was simply where you get together and look at Scripture in an open—but faith-filled—way: It could mean this; it could mean that. It might challenge you in this direction; it might invite you in that direction.
"Jewish midrash extrapolated from the mere story to find its actual spiritual message. We all do the same when we read anyway, but Jesus and his Jewish people were much more honest and up front about this. Fundamentalists pretend they are giving the text total and literal authority, but then it always ends up looking like what people in that culture would want to believe anyway. (Remember, good Bible Christians in the U.S. Confederacy and in South Africa were quite sure the Scriptures justified oppression and enslavement of black people.)
"To take the Scriptures seriously is not to take them literally. Literalism is invariably the lowest and least level of meaning. Serious reading of Scripture will allow you to find an ever-new spiritual meaning for the liberation of history, the liberation of the soul, and the liberation of God in every generation. Then the text is true on many levels, instead of trying to prove it is true on just the one simple, factual level. Sacred texts always maximize your possibilities for life and love, which is why we call them sacred. I am afraid we have for too long used the Bible merely to prove various church positions, which largely narrows their range and depth. Instead of transforming people, the Biblical texts became utilitarian and handy ammunition."
Let's chew on the statement "sacred texts always maximize your possibilities for life and love, which is why we call them sacred." Think about that a minute.
Literal truth, instead of being the ultimate truth, is the lowest level of meaning; what really makes texts sacred and valuable are the hidden and deeper meanings that maximize possibilities for life and love, deeper truths that transform lives.
A yardstick for 2014? That which maximizes your possibilities for life and love.
Years ago around the early 1960's a Toronto United Church minister did a series of messages around tte theme "let's be honest about..." various subjects. Like the Friar's comments, he too echoed the theme that to take the Bible seriously was not to take it literally - or as the friar put it, the lowest level of understanding. A common illustration was that the accounts of scripture were not necesarily historically true, but they served as a medium to convey higher truths to lift us spiritually. The idea was that the details of such accounts were not the main thing, but rather they pointed to a higher uplifting meaning. In other words, the accounts were the "vehicle upon which the truth was wheeled." - as often expressed. This way the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead was to show God's concern for our grief. The feeding of the 5,000 showed us how we can trust God to meet our needs. And by this yardstick, the pastor told me when asked that he did NOT believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, not that Jesus was born of a virgin, nor that He rose from the dead, nor any of the miracles. He denied the truth of every miraculous deed the Saviour performed on this earth as recorded in the gospels The problem is this: how can we teach truth based on events presented as fact, but which are not fact and never happened? The attack on literal truth, while seemingly loving and caring for us, actually paves the way to deny the fundamental truths of the gospel upon which our salvation is based. The first example of this approach is in Genesis 3. God said not to eat a specific fruit or they would die, period. Satan came along and said to look beyond that for the real meaning. He said that they would become like God and not die. He convinced them that by denying the literal, they could reach their highest potential. If we have any question which is true, the literal or the "higher truth" take a drive by your local cemetery.
ReplyDelete