Was Mary raped by God? Is the Crucifixion a historical event? These were the topics that I had a chance to discuss with the Godless Engineer, John Gleason. While the topics were clearly controversial, the conversation was pleasant.
So, this summer, I had the chance to do two live discussions. While I’ve done a number of live presentations in the past, this specific format was a bit different, so it was a new experience for me. Of these two discussions, one was a complete dumpster fire, while the other was wonderful.
For Gleason’s part, he made the discussion a great ordeal. Part of this was that he has a lot of experience in this area. He’s been creating content for many years, and has a good knack for it. More importantly, he’s well informed. While I disagree with his conclusion, it’s still clear that he’s done proper research.
For my part, I wasn’t as prepared as I should have been. If this had been a debate, I’d have to give it to Gleason. In the future, I will dive into some of my missteps, while also building up my own case. But for now, after having reflected on the conversation for some time, I want to discuss what I think the larger takeaways may be.
Approach to the Bible
One of the main issues that quickly became apparent in our discussion was that Gleason and I approached the Bible very differently. This isn’t completely unexpected and shows a larger problem in general: the disconnect between academia and the general populace.
This is an issue I often find myself running into. Having gone to college for this field, and being engulfed in that aspect, my view of what the Bible is, what it represents, and how it should be approached has been heavily impacted by mainstream academia. Sadly, much of this sort of information doesn’t often trickle down to the lay person.
Now, to be very clear, Gleason is a well-educated individual. I’m not attempting to discredit him in any way here. However, his approach to the Bible appears to be heavily influenced by the standard sort of Christian he engages with. Which often happens to be more along the lines of apologetics.
What is the Bible
A common view about the Bible is that it is an argument for God. That it is what defines the worship of God, what informs us of who or what God is. This is a fundamentally misguided view. A view, that while understandable, begins at the wrong point.
Both Judaism and Christianity began and spread for centuries without a Bible. The Bible was not the starting point, but it was a product of Jewish and Christian worship. The Bible is not a dictation of what the faith is, but it’s an expression of that faith. An expression that developed over centuries of debate and reflection. A process that would continue long after the books of the Bible were written, and the canon finalized.
We see this continual development long after the books of the Bible were written. Within Jewish context, we see the oral Torah, which, in part, was written down in the Mishnah, which would then be expounded upon by the Talmud. And as in Christianity, we see even a continuation to today, with the production of commentaries and varied interpretations of “scripture.”
Throughout all of this, there have been varied debates in regards to what should and shouldn’t be accepted, as well as to how much authority a selected text wields. Much of this nuance is either unknown, or at times, simply ignored, by much of the general populace, in exchange for a more unified view of the development of the Bible.
This complicated history has major implications for how the Bible is to be approached. If we view the books of the Bible as expressions of faith, from people working within the faith, and addressed to others in this same faith, then the outcome is a work that is not, nor was ever intended, to be an argument for God.
Instead, what we have is a work that is, among many other things, attempting to answer questions about a shared faith, which is continually being explored and reexplored. This is a process that we can engage in, and often are encouraged to do just that.
Word of God
This naturally leads us into the question: is the Bible the word of God as Christians often claim? This becomes a bit tricky as there are multiple ways to approach this, from taking the stance that the Bible is literally the Word of God, to a more metaphorical stance. To further complicate matters, there is the concept of divine inspiration, and what that truly means.
For my part, I take the view that the Bible is divinely inspired in some sense, that the writers of the books of the Bible were inspired to put pen to paper. But what does that actually mean?
Within mainstream academia, when the Bible is approached, it’s done so in a scholarly manner. In many ways, the religious implications are stripped away as the Bible isn’t being preached. Instead, it’s broken down as any other work within the specific genres.
That does mean we have to accept some things right off the bat, such as the fact that each work was written down by humans, who are inherently flawed. Who are limited. Who are fallible. And in turn, they produce such works.
We also have to realize that these writings were not only products of their time, but that we will never fully be able to realize what was going through the author’s minds as they were putting pen to paper. But we still need to attempt to gain some understanding.
There are a number of ways that we can do this, such as through studying the context, both literary and cultural, of the author. And we can ask ourselves basic questions about what the author’s purpose appears to be. In doing so, we have to be careful not to retroject our own views and ideas onto these writers.
It also means that we must realize that what we are viewing is the perception of an author or authors. And in that, what we are reading is thus biased. We can attempt to cut through some of that bias, as we do with any other text, but regardless, we have to understand that it is nevertheless there.
With the Bible being a collection of works that span a variety of genres over the course of centuries, this can become all that much more complicated as we aren’t looking at a singular cultural or literary context that produced these works.
Quite possibly the most important part of all of this though is that, for the most part, the Bible is not taken as the literal word of God within academia, as treating it in such a way would equate to special pleading. Simply, the Bible is not the dictated word of God in any way, but a complex assortment of texts that span a wide array of genres of contexts that portray the views and perceptions of individuals who are already within the framework of this faith or faiths.
Now, that doesn’t mean that in one’s own personal life, within a person’s own faith, that they take this view. Some scholars truly believe that the Bible is the word of God in a variety of different senses. But it means that they make an effort to differentiate between the Bible according to their faith, on the one hand, and the Bible according to academic scholarship, on the other hand.
Okay, So What?
What does this all mean then? It means that within both the Christian and Jewish faith, one does not have to see the Bible as literally the word of God. Instead, we can view it in a much more complex, and I think, rewarding manner that allows for continual engagement.
For many, this does seem a bit shocking and hard to understand. But if we understand that the Bible was not the foundation for either faith, nor was it the defining factor, because after all, it developed out of the faith, then the Bible’s position within all of this dramatically shifts.
On the one hand, this means everything becomes a bit more complicated as we have to be more careful in our reading. Instead of taking things simply at face value, we have to ask a host of questions. We have to do more digging. And we have to accept that when someone claims to hear from God, to be voicing the view of God, that something else is occurring.
It means that we don’t have the simple security of knowing what God supposedly directed and commanded of humans. That instead, we have the words of people who either claimed to be speaking for God for their own personal reasons, or quite possibly were just mistaken. That they believed they were hearing from God, being directed by God, were speaking on behalf of God, but in truth, they were doing no such thing.
On the other hand though, we are given a larger opportunity for engagement. The same sort of opportunity that the writers of the Bible had. Writers such as the author of Job, who looked at traditional wisdom, and argued that it was in fact wrong, that we had to think deeper about the question of suffering.
This does make everything a bit more messy. No longer can we simply point at the Bible and say, well it clearly says this, so I’m right. Instead, it means we have to work out more reasoned arguments, we have to be open to questioning, and often, we have to be okay with the idea that we simply don’t know.
Summary
This vast expanse between my views on the Bible, and Gleason’s, for me, posed a massive hurdle. It was something that took me a bit off guard, as I took my position for granted. But it also highlighted the importance of trying to span that bridge between academia and the general populace.