Faith and Evidence

I find it quite interesting that it is not enough for we as Christian believers to simply deal with those who do not believe in our faith and seek to articulate and defend our positions to them.  No.  For some reason, we also must deal with one another and oftentimes to seek to articulate and defend our positions to one another.  Oftentimes, when we engage in such debates, non-believers can simply sit on the sidelines and watch us go at one another all the while laughing at our inter-squad rivalries.

It would be nice if we did not have to have such inter-squad arguments.  It would be nice if we could have an agreed upon methodology of interpreting Scripture, formulating doctrine, and defining practice.  But, alas, Pandora's Box has been opened, and we cannot stuff all the entities back into it.  And so we must wade through the varying theologies and methodologies to seek the Truth and hopefully be grasped by it at some point.

One of the great struggles in the Christian faith has been the interpretation of Scripture and how we view the documents called the Old and New Testaments.  Much ink has been spilled in how to view these documents throughout the ages from the earliest decades of Christianity to the present, and, in some cases, the arguments of how to handle these documents has gotten rather heated.

In our own cultural situation (North America, U.S.A.) perhaps the most heated debates on how to deal with the biblical canon are between those holding to biblical inerrancy and those who embrace the historical/critical methods of interpreting scripture.

I am of the opinion that each side takes its particular position too far in its effort to prove its credibility oftentimes ending up with the following exchange:

"You historical/critical folks do not take the Bible seriously enough and you try to manipulate it to say what you want to say."

"Well, we believe and worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible itself!"

The accusations on both sides are flawed.  Each side takes the Bible very seriously--there is no doubt about that.  Yet, each side fails to recognize some very basic truth as well.  I believe some of these differences can be reconciled if we view the Bible in a particular manner--as evidence.

Professor John Lennox in one of his lectures found on Youtube said the following:

We have a job to do to explain what John does in his Gospel so brilliantly.  That faith is not something that just happens to people.  It’s a response to evidence–these things are written...in order that you might believe.  Here is the basis, and faith is based on evidence.  Otherwise, by definition, you wouldn’t need the New Testament.  If faith is believing where there is no evidence, then the greatest faith is shown by those people who never read the New Testament.  Because it is evidence, I am sorry to say, but I am not sorry to say. 

This is a very important statement in my estimation.  And as I have thought about it, it makes a lot of sense to me.  Here is why:

Evidence demands interpretation, and it does not tell the full story.  Those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture would do well to remember this.

Consider the analogy with dinosaur bones.  (I am sorry.  I cannot help but use this example as my son is a huge dinosaur fan.)  The bones tell us an awful lot about anatomy.  They give us a great glimpse of what the skeletal features of these creatures looked like.  But, we also know these are the basics.  There are much more to dinosaurs than just bones.  In a very real way, we have to fill in some blanks.  There is interpretation which must be done especially in regards to behavior.  How did the dinosaurs act?  Hunt?  Move in their environment?  How fast could they move?  Were they warm blooded or cold blooded or did different species have different blood types?  We can make some very good guesses based upon the bones, but the full truth actually escapes us.  There is no way to fully verify.

The God of the Bible can be viewed similarly (please allow that I realize no analogy is complete).  Scripture gives us the bones in a very real way.  We see God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We see God revealed in how He acted in the Old and New Testament.  We see God revealed in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, fully divine and fully human.  However, there is much which begs interpretation.  There is much which begs to be filled in.  There is much to God which we still do not know.  Given the tremendous advances in technology, how indeed does God view genetic engineering?  The use of fossil fuels?  The role sporting events now play in our nation?  The rise of science?  The fact that we interact so much over our computers and phones?

If we are true to ourselves, we will answer that we truly do not know for sure.  We can get a pretty good idea, but the full Truth is just beyond our grasp, and the best we can hope for is to be grabbed by it.

And just like a paleontologist has to put together a skeleton based upon his or her knowledge of anatomy, we too have to put together the pieces of God as revealed as the Trinity.  We know the fullest revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, and so we must look to Him as the example as we move forth in our talk about God.  So, as we look at Jesus, does the "bone" regarding the stoning of disobedient children in Deuteronomy 21 fit?  Obviously not.  Furthermore, Jesus Himself told us that some bones are not to be dealt with any longer (dietary laws).  Based upon the evidence of Jesus, we have a great guide to wade through some of the issues regarding inerrancy in the Bible.

However, there are a couple of things that we are not allowed to do.  We are simply not allowed to rearrange the skeleton in whatever fashion we desire.  I mean, when a paleontologist puts together a mess of dinosaur bones, he/she does not take a bone away just because it doesn't seem to fit his/her own imagination of what a dinosaur looked like.  If a full skeleton of a dinosaur is found, and the bones are arranged in a certain way in the ground, the paleontologist does his or her best to deal with the skeleton as it is and tries to work with the bones as they are presented.  One cannot manipulate the pieces and rearrange them to fit one's preconceived notions.

There are more than a few who involve themselves in the historical/critical methodology who do just this.  They take the evidence presented in the Bible and arrange it to fit their own ideas of what God is like.  They are more than comfortable saying, "Well, this bone/saying of Jesus doesn't fit what I think God/Jesus is really like, so this must be made up by a particular community; it must be legend; it must be an invention in the mind of a particular scribe who is trying to push his own agenda."

Evidence demands to be interpreted--not thrown out because one does not like it.  And too many scholars enjoy trampling on pieces of scripture because they do not like it and it does not fit their own ideas of what God/Jesus is/should be like.  Indeed, this is tampering with the evidence instead of truly wrestling with it.

And so, what do we have if we view the Bible as evidence?  Where do we arrive if we assume this book is God's people writing down how God has revealed Himself throughout history?

We have something we must take very seriously--but realize there are limitations.  We have something concrete and unchanging: beyond manipulation--but some blanks that beg to be filled in.  We have guidance in wresting with the tough issues of our day without having to come across as completely dogmatic and thinking we have it all figured out.  We also have the ability to invite other eyes to come and view the evidence--to see if they can uncover things as well.

It seems to me, that viewing scripture as evidence of God and His work gives us a path forward to navigate in the rough seas generated by two particular views of Christianity which are highly incompatible 

The Reason for Marriage: A Christian Perspective

It is not enough when one simply points out the flaws of a given perspective when it comes to a particular issue.  One must also offer an alternative point of view, and so, in regards to yesterday's post where I put forth the reasons a basis for marriage from a secular perspective fail, I must now offer the alternative.

Christianity has two main figures who address marriage at length: Jesus and Paul.  I will begin with Jesus as He is the Author and Perfector of the faith:

3 Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus], and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ ⁴He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, ⁵and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ⁷They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ ⁸He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. ⁹And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’--Matthew 19:3-9

Jesus teaches against divorce by referring to Genesis chapter 2.  I too will head that direction so that Jesus' words may be understood more clearly in regards to marriage, but first we must take a slight detour and examine St. Paul:

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. ⁹But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband ¹¹(but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.--1 Corinthians 7

Interestingly enough, Paul gives, as a reason for marriage, the quenching of the fires of lust.  Get married so that you can have sex which does not conflict with the commands of God.  Now, this might seem a bit absurd as the only reason given for marriage, but we must also note Paul ties his teaching to Jesus'.  So, we must examine in depth what Jesus says about divorce and why it is not permissable except in the cases of unfaithfulness.

One last tangent: there are those who claim that sex is sinful unless it is for procreation.  Paul doesn't come close to this in his statement.  If any of my readers ever thought this, I assure you, it is not scriptural.  Go have some fun.

Onto heavier matters...

Jesus teaches quite clearly marriage is to be between one man and one woman and that the bond should not be broken by anything man does.  Why is Jesus so strong on this teaching, leaving very little wiggle room?

Examining the text from Genesis chapter 2 is important here:

18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ ¹⁹So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. ²⁰The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. ²¹So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²²And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. ²³Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.’ ²⁴Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.--Genesis 2:18-24

There are a number of things of import in this passage.  Number one: While we can certainly live alone, it is not the preferred option.  We are meant to be a communal creature--individuals living in community, and the very foundation of that community is the marriage relationship.  Number two: we live in relationship to creation.  God began the process of community by bringing the animals to the man to name, and while none was a suitable helper, man still was in relationship with them.

And now, we come to a very important part: woman was taken out of man.  Please do not assume this means women have one more rib than men.  They don't.  Perhaps man was originally created with an extra--I really don't know.  What I do know is the importance of that act of removing part of the man and creating woman out of it.

For one must think like the ancient Jews to understand the importance of this act of God.  For the ancient Jews put a great value on the concept of wholeness.  God was considered the ultimate of wholeness, completeness if you will, and things which were whole were considered closer to God.  (Incidentally, the concept of shalom means wholeness.)  When man's rib was taken, he was no longer whole.  He was no longer one flesh.  How could he recover his wholeness?  How could he recover being one flesh?

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.--Genesis 2:24

It is in the marriage relationship where wholeness is found.  The two, in their relationship with one another become one--united in wholeness, in shalom.  This is why Jesus puts severe restrictions on divorce.  One does not simply walk away from such a bond because these two individuals have become one, and to tear one flesh apart not only is painful, but it destroys wholeness and shalom.  What God has joined together...

This is why the Roman Catholic Church honors marriage as a sacrament.  The mysterious joining together of two individuals into one flesh by God's Word indeed is a wondrous mystery.  (Lutherans do not consider marriage a sacrament because while there is command from God's Word, there is not a physical sign attached to it.)

This concept of wholeness is actually referred to again by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 and gives further credence to the Christian stance of saving sex for the marriage bed:

¹⁶Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’

The Christian basis for marriage is the belief that wholeness, shalom is achieved in this relationship.  It is not to be entered into flippantly, but with the knowledge something very important is going on.  The relationship should not be ended without very, very good cause (unfaithfulness, in my estimation, can also be extended to abusive situations).

So, what does viewing marriage in this fashion do?

1. It handles both the couples who have and do not have children.
2. It handles the emotional aspect of companionship.
3. It allows for the economics of marriage.
4. As it stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition, it also imposes the Judeo-Christian boundaries on healthy marriages.

Of course, then one must recognize the place of polygamy in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  The Bible never out and out declares polygamy a sin.  In fact, there are notable heroes of the faith who practiced it and without a peep from God or a prophet sent to tell them they were wrong.  One could argue that polygamy indeed is sanctioned by the Bible.

Yet, I personally would not go that far.  In 99% of the cases, polygamous relationships in Scripture turn out badly.  Sarah and Hagar were not the model of wives who got along.  Jacob's favoritism of Rachel's children over Leah's caused massive strife among the children.  David's family went into open war.  Solomon's heathen wives led him astray and into worshiping false gods.  In building a case, I wouldn't recommend polygamy in the least.

However, with that one caveat, I believe a faith based approach to marriage serves as a much better approach than a secular approach.