Monday, February 07, 2011

Trying to be a Christian

Here’s a comment on an old thread, so I’m going to post it here:

By Cameron on The Last Enemy on 2/6/11
        
He said "started" the cracks, not being the sole cause of the cracks.

The precipitating cause of his apostasy was emotional rather than rational. That’s what he said.

Your belief is your belief, our opinion is that it is *probably* erroneous. Most atheists will concede at every stage the possibility of being wrong.

Of course, that’s just a throwaway concession, the purpose of which is to ease the burden of proof on the atheist. He can append that disclaimer to whatever he says. But it has no practical effect.

I used to be a Christian. And generally not the hypocritic sort. I genuinely tried to be an upright Christian, not that I didn't have my flaws according to the teachings.

That’s a stereotypical phrase I often encounter among apostates: “I tried to be a Christian, but…”

i) That’s a revealing approach to Christianity. 2011 will mark my 35th year as a Christian. But in all that time I can’t say I ever “tried” to be a Christian. Honestly, it’s never occurred to me to “try” to be a Christian. I don't know how I'd even try to try to be a Christian. 

For me, that’s like trying to be American, or trying to be male. I’m psychologically Christian, just as I’m psychologically American, or psychologically male. It’s not something I must try to be, like practicing a role in a play.

If I moved to France or Italy, I’d still be psychologically American. That’s because I was born here. Born to American parents. Attended American schools. Grew up watching American TV shows and movies. Had American neighbors and relatives. That’s my formative experience.

Likewise, the walk of faith is a formative experience, with its own lifecycle. It’s own developmental stages. God shapes us by his grace and providence.

ii) Of course, there are certain things a Christian is supposed to work on. Like self-examination. Bible study. Besetting sins.

But that’s a part of being Christian, not trying to be Christian.

iii) There are times in life when it may be harder to be a Christian than others. But that’s not because Christianity is harder at those times. That’s not because Christianity made it harder. Rather, that’s because life can be harder at one time or another.

It’s not more difficult because you happen to be a Christian. Rather, you happen to be a Christian who’s encountering the difficulties of life. Christian faith generally makes it easier to cope with life’s trials.

iv) An exception is if you have a faulty theology that fosters false expectations. That generates cognitive dissonance.

Ultimately, however, I kept hitting contradictions in the text. I was left with a choice, to either reconcile the contradictions, or abandon the faith. I tried to reconcile the contradictions using as many translations (and a Strong's concordance (I personally lacked the desire for a degree in theology though I considered the possibility). In the end I found the amount of work I was doing to patch over the Bible's teachings, to make them more ethical, was a waste of time…

Well, that’s all rather vague:

i) In my observation, folks perceive lots of contradictions in the Bible because they don’t acquaint themselves with the compositional techniques of the Bible writers. They seem to think that a true historical account should read just like a security camera which records every single thing that happens, in the order that it happens, from a single viewpoint.

But Bible writers have various plot devices which they use in arranging the material to make it more readable, comprehensible, and insightful.

There are some good introductory works on this issue, like How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart; Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, by Leland Ryken, and The Art of Biblical History, by V. Philips Long.

There are also good treatments of Bible “contradictions,” like The Historical Reliability of Gospels (2nd ed.), by Craig Blomberg, and Interpreting Puzzling Texts in the New Testament, by Robert Stein.

ii) I’m not clear on how making Bible teachings “more ethical” is relevant to the charge of “contradictions.” If you’re alluding to OT ethics, there are some excellent monographs on that subject, such as Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically, by Gordon Wenham, and Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, by Christopher Wright.

iii) A writer leaves a lot unsaid. He relies on a common cultural tradition which he shares with his audience. For instance, I’ve never read a book on the SF genre. Yet when I watch a SF film or TV drama, I understand what I’m seeing. And that’s because I grew up with SF films and movies. I learned the SF conventions by cultural osmosis.

But imagine transporting someone from the 16C to the 21C, then sitting him down to watch an SF movie. He’d find so many things unintelligible.

Indeed, a director will often play on the difference between the knowledge of the audience and the knowledge of the characters to generate suspense. Take a horror film involving vampires or werewolves. The audience knows the conventions. The director doesn’t have to name or explain these creatures for the benefit of the audience.

So the audience knows what’s taking place before the clueless townfolk do. They see a small town being overrun by vampires or werewolves, while the mayor, the sheriff, and the other residents are dumbfounded. Blindsided.

And that generates suspense. Will the townfolk figure out what’s going on in time to halt the infestation? Or will they be overtaking by events? Will they discover the truth after it’s too late to fight back? When they are now outnumbered?

But if a filmgoer didn’t know the conventions, he’d be in the same condition as the hapless, clueless characters.

It’s surprising how much of the Bible we can understand without any preparation. At the same time, we must make allowance for the fact that Scripture was written to an audience with a different background than you and me. An audience with the same referential universe as the author. That’s something a Bible writer could take for granted. But at our distance, you and I may have to work at it. And that’s only to be expected.

iv) In the accidental universe of atheism, life itself is a monumental waste of time. But you can never waste time investing your time in the Bible. 

…and that I should instead try and work out my own standards of morality, which are actually very close to what they were as a Christian, although there are some areas I've loosened up on.

Well, the nice thing about working out my own standards of morality is the way my standards adjust to my proclivities.

Now, does that mean I do not continue to treasure some of the Bible? Hardly so. Some passages are very moving, although most of it isn't. Much of it is, frankly, barbaric.

Barbaric because it’s realistic. The Bible isn’t a Hallmark movie with beautiful people, cute kids, watered lawns, adorable pets, and a happy ending for all concerned.

As far as death, when it occurs, it occurs. I don't pretend that I won't be scared when it becomes close. To be such is to be human. It is a natural thing, and you shouldn't be ashamed to be scared of death in any way.

I appreciate your candor.

Hitchens IMHO pretty much tells it like it is. He doesn't sugarcoat things. And that in my view is exactly how it should be.

Well, you just said much of the Bible is frankly barbaric. Do you think the Bible should sugarcoat real life?

I hope he recovers.

I hope he repents. 

12 comments:

  1. "In my observation, folks perceive lots of contradictions in the Bible because they don’t acquaint themselves with the compositional techniques of the Bible writers. They seem to think that a true historical account should read just like a security camera which records every single thing that happens, in the order that it happens, from a single viewpoint.


    But Bible writers have various plot devices which they use in arranging the material to make it more readable, comprehensible, and insightful."


    Yes!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Likewise, the walk of faith is a formative experience, with its own lifecycle. It’s own developmental stages. God shapes us by his grace and providence."

    Well said!

    I would add that the blessing of His grace in our lives is also effected by our obedience and our decision to not surrender ourselves to unrighteousness but to God, as Paul reminds the Romans and us in Chapter 6 of Romans.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I don't know how I'd even try to try to be a Christian."

    Is it possible that someone tries to repent and really wants to repent but God will not let him?


    (Heb. 12:16 comes to mind)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ben,

    Short answer: no.

    A penitent desire is itself a type of repentance.

    In context, the verse in Hebrews is simply making the point that, having sold his birthright to Jacob, Esau couldn't turn back the clock.

    That's not "repentance" in the evangelical sense.

    And he wasn't contrite over sin. He merely regretted a rash act which was irrevocable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of your best! Thanks Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Barbaric because it’s realistic. The Bible isn’t a Hallmark movie with beautiful people, cute kids, watered lawns, adorable pets, and a happy ending for all concerned."

    This kind of reminds me of something I was wondering about a while ago. Hopefully it's not too tangential. Anyways, the Bible in the OT prescribes the death penalty by way of stoning. Now that's a pretty nasty way to die. Even if you agree with capital punishment (which I do), can you offer thoughts as to why such a brutal method of punishment is prescribed? Why not something quick and painless, like beheading? True, swords might not always be available, while rocks are never in short supply. But still, in that sort of case, why not go with a quick method of execution is available, and then stoning as a last resort?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mathetes,

    How quick a stoning death is depends entirely on who does it. Most of us know about stoning only through the images of Islam, since they're the only people still doing it these days. But considering the way most capital punishments went back then, stoning, even in the Islamic way, is actually fairly quick.

    In the ANE, capital punishment was supposed to be torture until death. That's how virtually every culture did it. That's why it wasn't at all unusual that the Romans would use crucifixion for their capital punishment, even though someone could take up to a week to die during that method--and in those cases, death was usually due to exposure. The Greeks and Egyptians, or even the Assyrians and the Persians, had very unpleasant capital punishment techniques. The purpose of all of them being that not only would the criminal (or innocent person, as could sometimes happen) die, but that his manner of death would be so bad that no one would ever want to do what he did lest he die in a similar fashion.

    In other words, the bare brutality of the torture before death itself functioned as a deterrent to the behavior. So, in the grand scheme of things, stoning actually was pretty humane at the time.

    As for the other results of stoning--the idea wasn't just to kill the person, but also to make a giant pile of rocks that would serve others as a reminder that that's what happened when you broke the law. In other words, it was still for a deterrent effect, even though it was more humane than, say, the Assyrian method of hanging people (which was to impale them on a sharpened stick, and then hoist them into the air--and the impalement was designed not to be immediately fatal, as the criminal was supposed to suffer for a long time up there; and it is *THIS* type of hanging that is the basis for the verse: "Cursed is anyone who hangs upon a tree").

    As for beheadings, they are not necessarily going to be quick and humane themselves. It depends on the skill of the execution, as was discovered via many botched executions during the Middle Ages when beheadings were common. This is part of the reason why the Guillotine was invented--it was supposed to be a more human way of execution by guaranteeing it wasn't dependent upon how well someone could swing a sword or axe. Needless to say, however, that didn't work out all that well during the French Revolution.

    Anyway, I'm not sure if that gets around to answering your question completely, but I think the issue isn't quite as simple as one might think coming at it from an American culture that's been largely insulated from the brutality of the ANE.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That does help, thanks Pete - not surprising for a guy whose name means "rock" :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. The person Steve quotes refers to "the amount of work I was doing to patch over the Bible's teachings". What about all of the work he now has to do to dismiss Biblical miracle accounts, dismiss extra-Biblical miracle accounts, justify his latest moral standards, dismiss arguments for God's existence, etc.? Skeptics have their own forms of inerrancy to defend. A naturalist, for example, can't let a single miracle account stand. Those who abandon Christianity exchange one set of difficulties for another, but they seem to give so much less consideration to their newfound difficulties. They're so focused on the previous ones, and so interested in avoiding them, that they say little or nothing about the new difficulties they've taken upon themselves. Often, their thinking seems to be so shallow that they don't even realize that this sort of comparison has to be made, or they make it in a hasty and lopsided manner. They're so focused on throwing off the chains of Christianity, even if it means taking up heavier chains of some other type.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve wrote, “2011 will mark my 35th year as a Christian.”

    Would you mind elaborating on your conversion experience? To what event or moment do you index your becoming a Christian? As I understand it, some Christians are not aware of a specific moment when they passed from death to life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As I recall, I was 16, going on 17. I felt led to read the NT. I began with Matthew. As I read, I believed. And I came under conviction.

    ReplyDelete