This is a continuing series of guest posts by my very good friend Dave Clark. I usually start out by saying, "No editing. No disclaimer", but Dave has added his own opener this time. This should be interesting... -Gene
The views expressed here do not reflect the views of Crossroads Community Church, the pastor, staff, or congregation but are solely the thoughts of the author.
I want to talk about the nativity (birth) stories of Jesus. If you can get what's called a 'Synopsis of the Gospels' you can see the two stories side-by-side and interesting things are revealed. The stories are in Matthew 1:18-2:23 and Luke 1:5-2:40. Let's compare.
They both have him born in Bethlehem, but why? There was a well-known prophecy from Micah 5:2 saying the Messiah would come from Bethlehem. Matthew even has it woven into his narrative as a pronouncement from the priests and scribes (2:6). John knows of it too, (John 7:41-42). Though he doesn't quote it, Luke knows it too and has to make sure Jesus 'comes from' David's city, Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-7). The problem for both authors was the common knowledge that Jesus was from Nazareth and that didn't fit into the prophecies; no Messiah comes from Nazareth. (See John 1:45-46). So, what to do? Two different stories of the same 'event' emerge. In Matthew, Jesus ends up in Nazareth via Egypt, and even includes prophesy that “He” (Messiah?) will be called a Nazarene (2:23). Problem is there is no prophecy known like that. In Luke he is clearly from Nazareth (1:26; 2:4). Additionally, Luke's device to ensure Jesus is born in Bethlehem is a worldwide census by Caesar Augustus in the days of Quirinius, governor of Syria. Problem is there was no worldwide census in that time period and none when Quirinius was governor of Syria. What you clearly have here is two separate tales woven to explain the birth of Jesus. Nativity stories of great men were common in the day, with tales of signs and miracles that attended their birth. Caesar had them; Alexander had them; the Pharaoh’s had them. The evangelists were going to have them also.
Only because they come from the Bible do we not look at these differences and what they might mean. We are engaging in what is called 'the suspension of disbelief'. It is a recognized principle of psychology that in a story people will set aside critical thought to embrace the story. Nowhere more true than some views of the Bible and what it is.
Am I saying the Bible is not true? Am I saying the virgin birth and the miracles didn't occur? Am I trying to destroy your faith in the Bible? Am I some kind of godless, liberal, atheist? Many point out these contradictions (and there are many in the Bible) because they are unbelievers trying to tear down the faith. I am not one of them.
I say the Bible is not true in the way some people call it true; that every word is literally true and everything in it objective fact. There are different truths. The sun is a giant, thermonuclear ball of hydrogen. That is a fact. And the sun rises in gilded beauty. That is also true, a different fact. The virgin birth and miracles; I don't know. They could well be true facts. But if they aren't, it doesn't change who Jesus was, or is, or what he did and said. Or what he does still. I suppose I am trying to destroy a certain type of faith in the Bible. The one that sees it as magic and unquestionable; used to bind people to only one way of thinking. The kind of faith that is used as a cudgel to beat people and keep them in line. As to godless, liberal, atheist; I say no, though the religious background from which I come already has consigned me to the pit. So be it. They worship a book instead of the one who gave it to them. They have made an idol. I worship an infinite, infallible God; he is more than the book he gave us.
Faith and love can't live in fear. Many view the Bible as the inerrant word of God. So any questioning of it is heresy and laden with fear and judgment. But demanding scientific accuracy in a narrative where it doesn't exist isn't faith and denies the mysterious, winsome nature of our faith. But Jesus told us to be like children, full of trust and curiosity and joy and love. Children trust, they don't know all the answers. Children love, they have hearts attune with their parents and aren't looking at their mother's resume'. Children are curious, believing that goodness can be discovered. Children are filled with joy, knowing they bathe in the love of their parents. True faith means living with mystery, trusting God to fill in the blanks.
So where did the theory of inerrancy came from, why do inerrantists hold their views and what are the implications for them and us all if they hold sway?
The tenacious insistence of an infallible, inerrant Bible is only about 150 years old. Prior to then it was not an issue. Why? What happened? Study history and you find this was the midst of the scientific revolution. Science began to displace religion as an authoritative explanation of the natural world. Added to that, the time was also the true beginning of biblical criticism, the treatment of the Bible as literature, subject to the disciplines of textual, literary, historical and form criticism. These tools were already being used on other ancient literature but only recently had the church lost the power punish the “heretics” for forwarding such ideas. With the church now impotent to launch reprisals against those who held other views, they were free to be and to question. One of the main reactions to this was the doctrine of inerrancy.
Why would this be so? In criticism, the literalists perceived an attack on the truth of God. They were as much slaves to rationalism as any scientist. Anything not objectively true is false. So they manically began to try to prove the Bible. They might as well have tried to prove the color blue. The reality of our belief will always be on the inside, where a (yes, subjective) knowing confirms in our heart the truth and reality of God. Or as Paul put it “the Spirit of God affirms to our spirit that we are God's children” (Romans 8:16). That is why it is faith. It has no objective proof. There is much more to it than that of course, but I only have time for a brief description. So what does it matter if Christians hold the view of requiring empirical evidence of faith?
I can think of no more glaring example of the inerrantists view made concrete than the Creation Museum in Kentucky. There they teach that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs! Though even this is a change for creationists (a subset of inerrantists). In earlier decades they denied altogether the existence of dinosaurs but were finally overwhelmed by enough evidence that they just had to accept reality. Having to work them into their scheme somehow, now the first couple frolic with T-Rex and Jesus rides a Triceratops! This is the product that comes from that world view.
The final outcome of inerrancy unchecked, is fear and retreat from the modern world; a rejection of science for pseudo-science and a return to superstition, repression and the dark ages; for their god is too small.
Think carefully about this. The exchange of certainty from an inerrant Bible for the hurly-burly of real life is not the great deal you may think. They still want to silence the heretics.
