Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Jim: Christianity and the Bible

Matt pointed out that my last post was "one of the harmless ways to elucidate of the problem of believing that you have in your possession, the unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe."

I do not believe the Bible is an unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe. I have not believed that since I was a child. And, I will provide one more sentence of testimonial: If one must believe that to be a Christian, I am not a Christian.

I don't know what strict adherence to the Bible would mean for the country. But it is my position, that literalism is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and does not represent the impact of Christianity on the country. But am I right?

Is advocating a thinking reading of scripture copping out? Is it legitimate to say you are Christian and that you believe the Bible was written by human beings and has value for precisely that reason, but acknowledge that it is chock full of factual errors? I offer the following only to survive summary judgment. That is, only to show there is a question here.

1. Some protestant denominations have explicitly rejected the notion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. See for example: http://www.disciples.org/ccu/dialogues/dialoguedocuments/2005Boring.html (Disciples of Christ)
The United Church of Christ, and I believe the United Methodist Church are two more example.

2. Although the Roman Catholic Church's position would be more complex I suspect, it pre-dates the collection of books into a Bible, and also would reject the notion that the Bible is the definitive word on what is Christian.

3. Finally, nothing in the Bible declares it to be the infallible word of God. Jesus (cf. Mohamed & Joseph Smith) did not declare the Bible to be the infallible word of God.

So, like I said, that doesn't mean I win, but I hope it means there is room to discuss the role of literalistic interpretation of the Bible on the impact of Christianity in America.

Matt also wrote, "Now I know you have asked us to consider "Christianity" and not "The Bible" specifically, but the Bible, after all, *is* the foundational text from which Christianity, even today, purports to take its moral readings."

This is an awesome topic. I am happy to explore it.

No comments: