(This is the fifth part in a series. Click the links to read the rest of the series: One – Going Back to the Beginning, Two – Stuck Between Two Horses, Three – The Wrong God, Four – Stepping Stones and a Crossroads, Six – He Is Not a Tame Lion, and Seven – Letters to the Wounded from the Wounded)
It’s been awhile since I’ve written about faith and the hard slog of the last few years. Sometimes things just need to simmer for awhile, and the last several weeks have been a much-needed simmer.
As I dip a spoon in and taste, the sharp edges and bite seem to have blended and muted somewhat. It is such a relief to enjoy a day without the dragging around the combustible balls-and-chains of rage, anxiety, and disillusionment. My pillow can’t convince me with its old “escape everything” promise. Instead of walking on eggshells, waiting for the next explosion, we all get silly together and laugh… a lot. Swinging on the swings, weeding the garden, taking walks, feeding the ducks… all fill our days now… except for the minor issue of the invasion of our area by ticks. *shudder* (Those of you who follow me on Facebook and Twitter will know more than you care to about this!) I’m mastering a new skill – pulling the critters off our dog.
After being off work for almost 6 weeks, I can honestly say I’m enjoying the time away. Being home every day has resulted in me being less pressed for time, allowing for a more relaxed pace and time to actually enjoy each other. Before I took this break, I wondered if being home 24/7 would push me right off the edge of sanity. Every week for four years I have looked forward to quiet days at my desk at the hospital where people called me “Joy,” not “Moooooomeeeeeee!!!!” and where I could go to the bathroom without anyone screaming in panic because I disappeared for two seconds.
To honor the time needed for simmering, I laid aside my theological/faith-type books and have been staying up too late savoring Anne Lamott’s well-written fiction and memoir. It’s like being a kid again, sneaking in just one more chapter at midnight.
Just because I’ve taken a break from deeper reading doesn’t mean the deeper thinking has stopped bubbling. Among my many lingering questions are issues related to the Bible, its use, and the origin and relative authority of the books contained in it. Does the word “literal” mean “at face value” or does it mean “the simplest interpretation possible?” How human is this book? Is it like Jesus – somehow paradoxically both fully human and fully divine simultaneously? What does that mean for how we read, understand, and apply it?
The term “Christian” itself is becoming increasingly difficult to swallow. It has been twisted and abused beyond recognition, its connotations far removed from the original definition of “follower of Christ.” People now hear the word and think of all the stereotypes and charlatans out there – the snake handlers, child-abusers, prosperity preachers, and manipulative thieves with whom I despise being associated.
Those of us who, sincerely albeit haltingly with many stumbles and missteps along the way, seek to follow Jesus Christ need a word or phrase other than “Christian” by which to refer to ourselves, a name that better reflects what is to be of utmost importance — Jesus, not politics or wealth or power or health or comfort. Lately, I’ve used “Jesus-follower.” It’s kind of a mouthful, but it’s also simple and direct. Reminds me who I am to be about (I’ll give me a hint: not ME).
I’m curious: if you are of a specific faith, do you find that people read into the name of that faith things you don’t intend? How do you respond to that?
Also (and just as important), what reading-for-fun do you recommend?
Available for RSS readers and email
One thought that I had as I read your post was that "literal" (at least in its ancient and classical sense) didn't really mean much of anything like the way it used within the context of modern biblical literalism. It's the reading in which we understand the events, places, people, or anything else in the Holy Scriptures before we interpret them. (Modern biblical literalism on the other hand depends heavily on specific interpretive moves, so isn't actually "literal" at all.)
The key interpretive lens for Christianity (and we see this from the first proclamation in Acts 2) has always been Christ. There have been many different approaches toward that interpretation, but it's never been "easy" or "simple". We don't live in a simple reality or worship a simple God. As with any text, the Holy Scriptures can be interpreted myriad different ways. The ancients were always aware of that reality and the test was never if someone could make a reasonable argument or not, but rather if the interpretation was in accordance with the way the Scriptures had traditionally been interpreted by the church or if it was not.
Arius is a good example because he made good arguments and convinced many. (It's why the controversy raged for decades — and still exists in places today.) When questioned, he had an interpretation of any and every text that fit his understanding of Christ. He was finally condemned not on the basis of Scripture but because what he taught was not what the Church had for the few centuries prior understood and interpreted Scripture. It was not what had always been believed.
Somehow, in the last few centuries, a lot of Christians have developed the strange idea that a text somehow has a meaning completely independent of interpretation and you can somehow discern that meaning correctly using nothing but the text. I would say that's crazy with anything but the simplest and most concrete texts and absolutely nuts with a collection of texts as complex as those in what we call the "Bible" or any sacred writings. (Our way of thinking about it as a single "book" is also very modern.) I would simply point to the modern proliferation of Christian sects to prove my point. I think it's self-evident.
As far as the use of "Christian" goes, there have always been individuals and groups within Christianity who have made it difficult to bear the name. That's not a modern thing. The idea that we can somehow "distance" ourselves from them rather than repent for their actions is also a modern one. Christianity teaches that we all share our common humanity. In some sense, we are all responsible for each other. I don't know that it matters much what label we use for ourselves, but the idea that we select a different label specifically in order to separate or distance ourselves from others … troubles me. It's also ultimately futile. Every time groups have attempted such separation, the same evils have followed them into their new group.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Oh, and when people bring up things done by Christians that are deplorable, I simply acknowledge them and apologize for them and try not to live the same way. There's little else we can truly do. I won't reject them or make them into the other, for I think that simply makes our human problem worse.
For light/fun reading, I tend to be a science fiction/fantasy fan. But what I would recommend often depends on the sort of things a person tends to like to read.
Two comments:
1. Fun reading: The Lord Peter Wimsey mystery novels by Dorothy Sayers. They are so, so much fun. She was a Christian scholar in the early 20th century, a friend of C.S. Lewis, and an advocate of classical education. She was one of the first women to graduate from Oxford. Start with "Strong Poison," then "Have His Carcass," followed by "Gaudy Night," and then "Busman's Honeymoon." Those four are fantastic, and are sequential according to a certain romantic storyline.
2. "Literal" interpretation of the Bible: The Bible should be interpreted according to the type of literature it is. The Lord shelters us under His wings is not literal in the sense that God has wings. So we should strive to understand who the author is and what type of literature it is before we begin to interpret. Is it historical? Wisdom literature? Poetry? A letter? Etc. Also, I do believe you've accurately hit upon the fact that the Bible is 100% human and 100% divine, like Christ himself. It was authored by humans and has their personalities and style written onto the page but God somehow mysteriously carried them along by His Spirit so that He is its true author in every way. We've got to be comfortable with two seemingly contradictory things being true at the same time, because God does not fit into a box built by Western logic. We've got to be comfortable with mystery and just take God at His Word. And at the same time seek to understand as much as we can because He has given us His Word, His Spirit, and the mind of Christ in order to help us know and understand Him as much as we can in this life.
Perhaps because I've spent so much time absorbing the lengthy process by which we came to set the boundaries about things we can say Christ is and things we cannot rightly say, but I'm very loathe to describe anything or anyone but Jesus of Nazareth as the perfect and complete union of the human and the divine. God is the only uncreated and though, through Jesus, our nature has now been joined to God's, we still will never be God in his essence. We will always be creatures along with the rest of creation.
The Scriptures are holy (that is set apart) and sacred. I take no issue with those statements. I would say they are an icon in words of Christ, particularly the Gospels. I would say they are an expression of the activity (sometimes called energies) of God and are useful for many things. But they are not on a par with Christ. They reveal to us the mystery of the Incarnation, but they are not themselves an Incarnation. They are not themselves divine — sharing in the essence of the uncreated God.
Understanding the type of literature is important, as long as you recognize that the ancient types do not precisely correspond to our modern types. That understanding helps you grasp what the text actually says. But I don't know that it offers much real help toward interpreting the text. And again, I would stress that the only lens that has traditionally been used within Christianity to interpret Scripture is Christ, operating within the boundaries of the tradition of the apostles, sometimes more explicitly defined in response to significant challenges. Scripture has no meaning separate from that tradition. (Or rather, it has an infinite number of potential meanings and interpretations. To me, that's little different from no meaning, but thoughts might vary.) Even with that lens and within the boundaries of that tradition, there is an unending richness and depth to the text. Absent that tradition, the text simply becomes a tool to buttress my own opinion — whatever that might be.
We are not Islam. We are not a people of the Book. Our Scriptures are holy, but they can be translated and remain just as much the Holy Scriptures. There is a strain of modern Christianity that seems to be more influenced by a tradition flowing from a cultural exposure to medieval Islam than from anything clearly Christian. I was actually surprised a few years ago to discover that the Christian denomination within which I found myself (SBC) actually called themselves "people of the Book". From my historical and pluralistic perspective, I had always associated that phrase with Islam and never realized until that time that some Christian groups used it as well. (I know that phrase did come from Islam, however it ended up in certain Christian groups.) I've since noticed that such groups tend more toward iconoclasm than is traditionally Christian, tend to be dominated by lectures about the "Book" as you find in the mosque, and don't generally share much, if any, continuity with any identifiably Christian historical practice.
Just a few rambling thoughts on the red flags that idea raised in my mind.
I should have said, "100% the product of human authors" and "100% the product of a divine author." The Bible isn't God. Wasn't trying to say that.