Brooding Silence

I've decided that I would like to do a quick post since I have been silent for so long.  On a personal note, work has simply occupied so much of my time until recently, I have done little else, save unwinding on my downtime.  I also know that when I get started it is difficult for me to stop until I have completed a post.  

However, I have mulling over a particular topic in my mind for a bit -- one which I'm sure will be the topic of my next post -- I've been thinking about "willful ignorance" -- that thing in which we all participate in some capacity -- something akin to "denial" I suppose -- but I'm particularly interested in how it operates in our own social, political, and spiritual lives.  I'm not going to attempt a full definition here, but I think of it as a somewhat deliberate -- even if it is for "right" or noble reasons of conscience -- dismissal of real facts of experience, or a deliberate refusal to discover those real facts of existence.  Willful ignorance has both active and passive counterparts. 

So, even as I try to put this into terms, the nuances are making my thought pattern more complex -- and I realize I have more thinking to do.  Willful ignorance is a deliberate "not knowing", a refusal to investigate, to consider, to learn -- and it is usually motivated, in my estimation -- and as I will elaborate further -- by a perceived threat to some sort of belief and/or value system, or to something valuable, perhaps an ideology, an expectation, an idea.  And I think -- and we will see as I attempt to flesh this out -- that there is at the root of it some sort of fear.  

And I think also a part of it is this:  it also can be a real denial of the consequences of the real facts of experience.  One remains "ignorant" in the face of evidence -- and this can approach -- and does become delusion -- believing something that has little or no base in reality.  Hmm, so what is reality anyway?  And why is it important that we see reality clearly?  Is denial and delusion ever a better option?  Guess I have some more things to think about -- maybe this will get my motivation going.  

How do we know what we know? Why the Bible cannot be understood literally or as inerrant.

It's been a while since my last post.  After the election -- and Obama's landslide victory -- my desire for making statements seemed to wane a bit.  I've been thinking about what I would like to post next -- what topic I would explore, or what thoughts I would have.  I said in my initial post explaining the beginning of the blog and the significance of the title that I have wanted to in some way document my own intellectual and spiritual journey -- this was part of the purpose of the blog.  I thought a while back I would like to post something about the Bible -- for a bit I was having interesting conversations with a couple of folks on thoughts about God, etc., and I was feeling compelled to spell out my thoughts on why I thought what I did about what it is that we know -- or think we know, about God, and even more specifically, how we know such things.  So, the following post is an overtly religious one.

Systematic Theology was my focus in divinity school, and we would call this particular topic the doctrine of Revelation -- what we know about God, and how.  For more orthodox theologians, this discussion would center around what it is that God has revealed to us -- meaning what God has chosen to let us know, and how we know it.  For others, more progressive thinkers, revelation might be found in some places other than what one might expect, and could even take the form of what we can find out ourselves about God -- what might be there for us to know, which would presumably have been put there or at least allowed by God for us to know.

One of my professors used to liken systematic theology to a plate of spaghetti, when you pick up one strand, say Revelation (the doctrine, not the book), the others tend to follow -- for example, if I want to say what God is like (the doctrine of God) I could extrapolate that, but I would have to address somehow how it is that anyone has come to know what God is like.  I would have to address how I can say the things that I say, that is, if I want to give reasons for it and not simply declare who and what God is by my own imagination.  It would work the same way if, say, I wanted to talk about something like marriage in a theological way.  I would have to address what marriage would be -- and thus I would have to discuss what it means to be a human person in theological terms (this would be theological anthropology).  And again, inevitably, I would eventually need to justify what I have said by giving reasons for it and by justifying how I may make those claims at all -- how would one know these things -- again, revelation.  It seems to be that many, if not all, theological questions are rooted in this doctrine.  How does someone arrive at the conclusions they have come to about God and the world?  Look at their ideas about how we know such things and you might find the answer.  It sounds simplistic -- and perhaps it is.  But it fundamentally informs ALL our theological ideas and opinions -- it fundamentally informs what we consider as TRUTH.

At any rate, this post is about the Bible -- and the upcoming Christmas season has gotten me thinking about it  -- with the focus on the birth narratives of Jesus.  As it relates to the above paragraphs, the Bible is considered by many  Christians and especially by evangelicals as the primary source for knowledge about God and the world.  Having grown up in the Southern Baptist Church, the Bible was spoken of as inerrant, and in many cases, literally true -- meaning that the Bible was accurate in all its accounts in every detail, including historical facts -- it was actually "the word of God" which many believed was in some way "dictated" to the authors of the various books -- biblical scholars call this the verbal plenary theory of inspiration.  Now, this is certainly not the only theory of how the Bible is to be considered "inspired" -- other groups consider it inspired without having to be thought of as "dictated".  Still, other Christians consider it inspired without that having the implications of "inerrancy" -- especially when it comes to matters of fact.

My journey began with the thoughts that I have identified as those associated with the Southern Baptist church -- this is what I was taught -- and it is significant to my own spiritual journey that I parted with those ideas and allowed myself to begin to ask questions, instead of simply believe out of command and fear.  For me, one of the most difficult struggles I had in my earliest spiritual life was regarding the question of salvation -- specifically my own.  My denomination taught that salvation was part of an experience of being "born again" which would culminate in entrance into heaven sometime after death.  For whatever reason, I always questioned my own "born again" experience -- I was young, so there was no radical departure from a life of debauchery.  I did what I was told I should and took for granted that it had worked, until sometime later when the question began to bug me.  I searched the Bible for answers to my questions -- what did I need to do?  How could I be sure?  I read that all I had to do was believe in Jesus -- also that if I confessed with my mouth that "Jesus is Lord" and believed in my heart that God had raised him from the dead, I would be saved.  But somewhere else, I read that I needed to repent -- which was something I had to do -- and had I truly done it?  I didn't understand what that meant the first time I had asked God to save me -- did that mean it didn't work?  The questions became very circular -- and no matter what I did -- no matter how many times I prayed -- I could not be sure about my own experience.  And I was confused as to the lack of very clear instructions in the Bible -- did I do something, or did I only believe -- or both?  It depended on which passage I read -- and I distinctly remember thinking in the pew of my church on a Sunday evening -- the Bible must not contradict itself, somehow it all fit together, even if I didn't understand it -- the pastors said that it did -- and they knew more than I did -- they understood the Bible.  And there it was -- the first time I can isolate an experience of believing because I was told to believe, despite the facts, despite what I saw.  I was telling myself not to question, but simply believe and it would work out.

That thought is now quite frightening to me.  Believe despite the evidence to the contrary -- it seems incredibly dangerous.  Yet, this sort of thinking gets lived out in churches all the time.  Granted, it is often in a sort of non-conscious way -- many often don't literally pose the questions that way -- but they do it nonetheless -- or they simply never search the Bible enough to realize that thinking of it as "inerrant" or as literally true is problematic.  How is it problematic -- why do I think that the Bible cannot be taken as literal in every sense or "inerrant"?  So, I will attempt to delve here into my own thoughts on the doctrine of revelation.

I remember my Old Testament professor at Truett Seminary (Baylor University) starting out the class with some readings on how Baptists interpret scripture.  Now, remember Baylor is not what I would call a liberal or progressive school.  She began by pointing out that the idea that Scripture was inerrant was an idea or concept that Scripture NEVER claims for itself -- this is an idea imposed on the text by its interpreters.  Now already a scripture may come to some minds that says "All Scripture is inspired . . . useful for teaching . . . etc,."  Yet, to what Scripture is this referring?  At best it can only be referring to the Old Testament, for when Paul wrote this (if indeed he wrote it) the New Testament did not yet exist -- not even the Gospels.  The idea that the Bible we have now -- from Genesis to the book of Revelation -- is a well-defined and deliberate volume -- consistent and without internal contradiction, as well as accurate in its historical detail -- is not found in the Bible itself -- and well, is a notion that is easily refuted.  In fact, one need not even take external evidence -- like the lack of historical and archeological corroboration with Biblical stories, like the narrative similarities between the Bible and other ancient texts, like the historical accounts of how the Bible as we have it was put together -- to see that this idea of inerrancy is shaky.  One need to only consider the Bible itself.  The Bible itself provides ample evidence that it cannot be taken literally in every sense -- and cannot be understood honestly as "inerrant".

I will provide a couple of examples:  Starting with Genesis -- the first two chapters contain what appears to be two distinct creation stories -- each has its own order of creation; in one human persons are the last created, in the other they are the first.  So, the question arises, which is it?  Did God create humanity as the crown of the creation -- last and most important?  Or, did God create a man first, search for a partner for him amongst the animals, and then as an afterthought, create the woman?  They are both there in the text.  Which is it?

Another curious example is the story of Noah, which is almost certainly a borrowed story from other ancient flood narratives -- older than the Biblical story.  In one account, Noah takes in the animals two by two.  In another there are seven of each.  Which is it? 2 or 7?  In the church we sort of mish-mash all these accounts into one overarching narrative -- like the way we think of Jesus life -- which is actually a conglomeration of the four gospels -- but in reality each gospel presents a different aspect of Jesus' life and intentions -- yet we think of these stories as one continuous narrative, when in fact there are four.

That takes us on a leap into the New Testament where the four gospels give us different accounts of the details of Jesus' life.  The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and John disagree on many details concerning the passion, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.  There are numerous other factual discontinuities in the Bible -- and the point here is not to catalogue them all -- they can be found on many sites and in many books of detailed studies of the Scripture.  The point here is that the factual discrepancies -- that is the internal inconsistencies in the Bible -- not to mention those things which clearly contradict ALL other sources of information and evidence -- basically put to rest the notion of an inerrant text and/or a text that should be understood as literally accurate.  Or at least is SHOULD put those notions to rest.  

So, where does that leave the Bible?  Well, it certainly DOES NOT mean that the Bible should simply be thrown out -- although I wouldn't argue too much with some passages being seriously questioned -- like the offering of Lot's daughters to be raped -- or the rape of the concubine who is subsequently hacked into pieces and sent throughout the kingdom of Israel -- neither of which God seems to have a problem with.  There are others, but that would be a digression here.  Even though there are questionable passages, it doesn't mean that we have to throw out the baby with the bath water.  What I think has to be done is to find some sort of interpretive fulcrum for the Scripture -- say, what Jesus said that the law and the prophets were all about -- love God and love your neighbor as yourself.  A Christian could take this as an interpretive fulcrum and weigh the rest of Scripture from this.  And I think this would be an adequate Christian reading of Scripture.  

How one would measure what amounts to the love of God and neighbor would be less clear and concrete -- it would take some thought -- some weighing out -- perhaps some dependence on the Spirit -- which Paul was so adamant about -- instead of relying strictly on the law -- but to look to the Spirit within the person to guide them into right action -- the mature would live by the Spirit, not by the law.  

But I would go further also -- by stating that there are other ways we know about things -- not just from revealed Scripture -- or from the leading of the Spirit -- but also by what is clearly given to us -- some may call it revealed by nature.  And there is no better interpreter of nature that we have -- nothing that has been so successful in leading us into knowledge about the world than science.  So, I would also include science as a source of revelation -- at least about the world -- and maybe even about God -- at least by deduction.  I am an advocate of an integration model of the relationship between science and religion -- ultimately, in my opinion, they should say the same things and not contradict one another.  The model of science is one that is open to correction -- to progress.  Unfortunately, the model of religion has often not been open to correction, but has enforced static codes and laws once and for all -- because it believes that it has received them from God -- even if they are internally inconsistent and contradictory.  This, in my opinion, is why religion has so often taken a beating from science -- because science has allowed itself to progress, while religion has dug in the trenches and attempted to conserve itself, rather than look for where it could have been wrong.  Honestly, does it not seem interesting that Bronze Age myths and stories are still guiding our beliefs about how the world originated and continues to operate?  Can we learn from those stories without having to accept them as LITERALLY true?  Of course we can!  I think definitely!

Now, this post has gotten ENTIRELY too long!  And the last bits are probably not fully fleshed out enough, but hopefully the ideas are there.  Here is my tiny little doctrine of revelation -- or just some thoughts on it.  It is not meant necessarily as an attack on thinking about the Bible as inerrant or literal, but as a catalogue of my own thoughts on the subject -- and that was the beginning point of my own thoughts about the Bible, and where I have journeyed from after years of study -- personal, devotional, and academic.  I personally have taken Jesus' comment on the law and prophets as my own fulcrum for judging the Scripture from a Christian perspective.  That means for me that some passages have more weight than others, some are questionable, and some could just be thrown out as guides for moral and ethical behavior.  The Bible is a wonderful book -- full of stories useful for reflection and teaching -- sometimes for what not to do, sometimes for what to do.  Sometimes its meaning in ambiguous -- and sometimes its different passages contradict each other.  Best of all and where it is most inspired, I think it can help to tell us how to love -- but it's not black and white -- but the Scripture was never that anyway -- with it's many shades-- the moral world of the Bible has always been gray -- even if we have not understood it to be so. 

Dumb Religion, Dumb Politics?

(A note:  after having written the following post -- I found that it was really a stream of consciousness -- thoughts and questions -- some conclusions -- and more questions.  There really is no absolute coherence.  So be warned -- and my apologies.  Perhaps I will distill them in another post.)

I start today's post with a question:

Why does intelligence and sophistication seem to get a bad rap these days?  And in particular -- my areas of interest -- why do they seem to be frowned upon in politics (per Palin) and especially in religion?

I'll talk politics first.  There seems to be some sort of attraction by some American's to Palin's brand of "Joe Sixpack" sentimentality.  For me, she conjures up images of Rednecks in pickups with bumper stickers displaying their political and religious proclivities.  (This image comes to me from a Family Guy episode where Peter decides to become a Redneck.  He paints an image on the truck with the words, "We support our troops and fetuses.")  Now, this is an extreme image, I know.  But I wonder why it is that Americans are attracted to the "average joe" to lead their nation in complex and often dangerous matters.  

I realize the hockey mom thing has its appeal, but to lead the nation?  To look Putin in the eye as he "rears his head"?  To solve complex economic problems like the storm now hitting the nation?  Do I really want someone like me to lead the nation -- not to mention leading the free world in some matters?

Palin's ineptitude is clear, as far as I'm concerned.  I think she has shown that herself.  But that's not my purpose here -- my purpose is to ask, what is her appeal?  Why is the charge of "elite" leveled as if having an "elite" leader is a negative?  Do we not want someone who is elite, at least in some senses leading us?  

I wonder where the "elite" charges come from as far as Obama is concerned?  Is it because he went to Harvard?  Or his many other intellectual accomplishments?  Is it because he is liberal -- which tends to be associated with intellectual elitism?  

Now, this is not meant to be an endorsement of Obama over McCain -- although I enthusiastically support Obama -- in part because of what I consider to be his superior judgment and intellectual abilities, and in part because of the abysmal Republican social and foreign policies.  What I mean to ask here is:  Why the attraction to "average" over "elite"?  

I suspect it is this -- and not really an attraction to average over elite after all -- but a re-ignition of the culture wars -- primarily by Palin.  The "elite" represent a liberal -- dare I say liberated -- culture.  "Joe Sixpack" represents something else -- the everyday average person who is not liberal -- the conservative -- who is under threat from the liberal elite.  I guess, after all, it is a power struggle -- who will have influence over the culture -- influence over the policies of the nation -- and ultimately our place in the global community. 

So, is it ultimately the pursuit of an ideal of equality -- the common man controls his or her own destiny?  Or, is it ultimately the pursuit of control -- of power -- of who will have the dominating influence?

I will put forward that I think Palin's sentiment is ultimately one of control -- since I think that her bent of conservatism moves to limit the freedom of individuals -- and I think this is guided by her religious beliefs . . . which leads me to the next question . . . 

Why is intellectual pursuit often frowned upon by religious persons?  I will not rant at length here, but simply make some observations and raise a few questions.

I can only speak from my own experience here -- which is extensive where religion is concerned.  Most will know I attended seminary, and many will know that my faith changed as a result of my pursuits there.  Some of these were welcomed by some -- some were seriously questioned.  What I would like to point out is that often I find that the use of the mind is frowned upon in many religious circles.  

I can recall from my own experience that seminary was considered a bad option by many of my church leaders in college -- now leaders of the somewhat famous -- or infamous -- Antioch Community Church in Waco, Texas.  Instruction from "scholars" was not important -- even considered evil by some -- and I will say that at one time I shared this sentiment.

This is by no means limited to that community.  It exists in many places -- in many churches.  What I would like to suggest is that the same sentiment mentioned above is also at work in religion -- that of control -- of the established culture, doctrine, church being challenged -- being under threat by another way of thought.

So, after this ramble -- I am wondering -- why does conservatism, be it political or religious, tend toward a less than favorable approach to intellectual pursuit -- or perhaps a better word is intellectual exploration.  I am not suggesting that conservatism prefers dumb people -- the title of my post was meant to attract readers.  Is conservatism the enemy of such exploration -- and is it open to correction?  Fundamentalism of this type should be, I think -- be it conservative or liberal fundamentalism.  And I really want to ask this question -- why do the more intellectually "elite" places tend to put out more "liberal" thinking persons -- be they religious or political?  I mean, Harvard, the University of Chicago, and dare I say Emory don't seem to be cranking out the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and Joel Osteens of the world.  Is there a reason that those who attend the best schools are more liberal????? (Generally, at least.)  I suppose it is up for grabs as to which schools are the best -- but they are the most difficult to attend.  I am wondering . . . . . . . . . 

The Beginning of the Blog

Hello folks,

Well, thanks to a relatively sleepless night, I've set up this little spot as a repository for some thoughts and expressions.  I've been thinking about it for some time, and after a little encouragement, I've decided to begin.  I'm not sure what sort of shape I think this little project will take -- I suspect I will talk a lot about religion, and my own journey of faith and thought . . . I suspect a healthy dose of politics will be involved, especially with the election upon us in 4 weeks . . . I suspect that my posts will range from inconsequential musings to attempts at philosophical sophistication.  So, I think that what will emerge will be a sort of auto-biographical smattering -- like my life as a Jackson Pollock painting -- although perhaps not so interesting or substantial.

So, I should say a bit about why . . . .  Well, for those who have come across my Facebook profile, you will probably immediately recognize the impulse, per my incessant status updates filled with propaganda.  For some time, I suppose, I have wanted to, in some form, write down my own intellectual and spiritual journey -- and I hope to accomplish this is some form through writing about whatever comes across the path here.  Sometimes I just want to say things -- sometimes to explain myself, sometimes to convince others, and even sometimes to pick a fight (I bet that an inquiry into that "fight" bit will find its way here).  I also hope to create a few interesting conversations between myself and whoever might read this -- I miss my days as an aspiring theologian.  

Now, a word about the Title of the Blog . . . some of you may recognize this as having been adapted from Martin Gardner's "The Flight of Peter Fromm."  I read this book in seminary at Emory University in a New Testament class.  It shook me.  I'm not sure exactly why reading it was such a powerful experience for me -- maybe it was because I saw myself in Peter -- maybe it was because it tackled some of the same questions that I was having and had in the time leading up to it -- maybe because of its (at least what seemed so at the time) razor sharp theological discourse embedded in a fictional narrative.  

I should tell you more about the book -- and because I am lazy and cannot remember the details, I will let Wikipedia explain a little about Gardner and the book: 

"Gardner has had an abiding fascination in religious belief. He has written repeatedly about what public figures such as [[Robert Maynard Hutchins]], [[Mortimer Adler]], and [[William F. Buckley, Jr.]] believed and whether their beliefs were [[logically consistent]]. In some cases, he has attacked prominent religious figures such as [[Mary Baker Eddy]] on the grounds that their claims are unsupportable. His semi-autobiographical novel ''The Flight of Peter Fromm'' depicts a traditionally Protestant Christian man struggling with his faith, examining 20th century scholarship and intellectual movements and ultimately rejecting Christianity while remaining a theist. He describes his own belief as philosophical [[theism]] inspired by the theology of the philosopher [[Miguel de Unamuno]]. While critical of organized religions, Gardner believes in God, claiming that this belief cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by reason. At the same time, he is skeptical of claims that God has communicated with human beings through spoken or telepathic [[revelation]] or through [[miracle]]s in the natural world." from Wikipedia, entry "The Flight of Peter Fromm.

Thus, The Flight of Vance West.

Now, I can already anticipate some reaction from what I just posted about the book -- and I should say that I am not using the book AS my autobiography -- I am just drawing some parallels. Whether or not I agree with Garnder's beliefs is not illustrated by my use of the title. Probably, for anyone who might be interested in them, my beliefs will show up in the posts, I am sure. And some of them will maybe get worked out as I think and write -- and am hopefully engaged by a couple of you about different ideas.

So, for those who are so inclined, please leave comments if a particular post strikes anything in you -- thanks for reading.