We just returned from a visit with friends at the shore, a welcome respite. One of the things we did was walk the virtually deserted beach and talk along the way. Our friend Maura was talking about her experience of discussing the Bible with one of her Jewish acquaintances at work. Maura was uncomfortable about not having an answer when her coworker said they had read and studied the New Testament and had problems with taking seriously a set of stories about Jesus that were written by people who had never met him and were written so many years after his death. I smiled and shook my head and offered the 'short version' of my answer.
About two miles and twenty minutes later, I had come to a conclusion, but some questions remained. And here I fell into the standard Lutheran answer, "As Lutheran we are not so much interested in defending the Bible as we are in studying and discussing it." Yes, all those things are true about the Gospel writers; but, here is some more bad news, Paul did not write all the letters attributed him, either. And here I get to feeling like the literature students who argue about the question, "Who wrote Shakespeare?" And I suppose the response I would like to offer is this, does it really matter? And for now I would like to give some answers that you can respond with when you get into a discussion and/or teachable moment with people who have faith questions.
What about all the differences in the stories of the Gospels? Well, go to your 30Th year High School reunion and get three friends together and ask them to recall a shared event. I am willing to bet that there may be some glaring discrepancies in the narrative accounts. It will be a good deal like the song "Ah, Yes I Remember it Well!" And my other response is what is the important part of the story? You have to remember that the Gospels were written for different audiences and to portray Jesus in a different way to that audience. And even more important, it is the GOOD NEWS, does it tell of the death and resurrection of Jesus, because that is the salvation part of the good news.
Next problem, what about the similarities of the three synoptic Gospels? While we live in an age where we respect an individual's work and can clearly recall the teacher telling not to look at an other's work, things were a little different 2000 years ago. And don't get me started on pseduoepidigraphia! Yes, the early gospel writers did lift sections from other writings and then inserted them without footnotes I might add, in their own writings. Is this a problem? I suppose it depends on which side of the argument you stand, and I can take either side.
Just on these two points alone you can find people who are willing to completely dismiss the authenticity and validity of scripture. Again, let me take the fallback position of we want to study and discuss scripture, not defend it. We accept that it is the inspired word of God, but it was written by mere mortals. And has gone through multiple translations. If you want to read scripture that was dictated directly to the amanuensis from the deity, you may want to convert to Islam and study Arabic.
The long and the short of all this is, maybe we all could learn a little bit more about our Book of Faith and be a bit less intimidated when the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons come knocking on our door. Or even have a conversation with someone from a different faith tradition.
Peace,
Deacon Clyde
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can relate to your experience of being a high-achiever and not having a lot of patience for other goals of education, like character-building. This post led me to think about education in a new, more Christian way. Thanks!
ReplyDelete