BlakeHuggins.com

Part 1: Where I Find Myself | Part 2: Narrative Not Systematic

Again, the comments in part one go into this to some extent. It might be best to read them first, I don’t know.

First let me say that I’m really proud of my grammatical maneuvering in the subtitle of this post. Originally, it was going to be “truth Not Historicity,” but I’m a real stickler when it come to spelling and grammar and whatnot and I figured someone would just assume I forgot to capitalize the “t.” It’s not capitalized on purpose and I put the parentheses around it to hopefully draw attention to this fact that it is lower case. (Plus I think it just looks cool aesthetically). But I digress.

Or maybe I shouldn’t digress because my use of the word truth is important and deserves attention, especially when we’re talking about the bible, and its interpretation. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say something like this, “I believe the Bible. I just read it and believe what exactly what it says. I understand the absolute, objective Word of God and you will too if you just read the Bible.” And I’m thinking, really? Seriously? Is it really that simple? I mean, if it is that easy, then how come so many people disagree on interpretation? And if all I have to do is read it, then why have so many people spent so much time (some dedicating their whole lives) and put so much effort into studying the bible and writing commentaries?

Additionally, I hear a lot of people throwing the buzz words “biblical” and “scriptural” around quite a bit these days, almost to the point that the words have lost lost their meaning. What do people mean when they use them? I hear catch all phrases like “biblical Christianity” and “scriptural truth.” Biblical this and scriptural that. I wonder if people ever really take the time to stop and think about how they’re using the words and want exactly it is they mean by them. When pushed in these areas, I’ve observed that most people use the words “biblical” and “scriptural” to reinforce a worldview or a theology that they have been given by someone else (usually a pretty recent system of thought c. 200-300 years ago). This gets back to the issue proof-texting I mentioned in part one. Rather than viewing the bible as a story, people lift certain texts out and use them to prove their system. Then they call it “biblical” or “scriptural” because those words carry a great amount of weight and authority.

I just don’t think it’s that simple. The bible needs to be understood natively not from the vantage point of a pre-made, cookie cutter worldview or theology. Moreover, and this gets back to my previous point, the reality is, reading is interpretation. None of us can claim to simply read anything without interpreting, without bringing something of our own to the text. We do that whether we realize it or not. As a white, American, male living in the mid-west, I read and interpret the bible different than say an African woman living in Sudan. Now, that’s an over exaggerated example, but it’s true nonetheless. I’ve experienced this many times leading and participating in “bible studies.” On their own time, participants are to read a certain passage of scripture and then jot down their thoughts to share with the rest of the group. By the time everyone shares his or her ideas and interpretations, there are just about as many “readings” as there are people. Now, I know that is what commentaries are for, that’s why some people (like myself) go to seminary and call themselves theologians or biblical scholars, but even with those restrictions there is plethora of ideas, interpretations, and readings.

Now, I’m not rejecting the idea of truth. I’m not even rejecting the idea of absolute, objective truth. I am rejecting the idea that a finite human being can understand and comprehend that truth. We can only ever come so close, no matter how hard or how long we read the bible or any other book. If a person ever did understand that truth, then that person would be God, and would therefore cease to be a human being. I believe that’s just part of the human condition–the best we can ever do is catch a glimpse of that truth. Which is why I think we need to constantly be in dialogue with one another, creating empathetic dialectics between differing poles, because through that dialogue a closer glimpse of the truth can be caught.

Now I really am digressing.

So, what does this have to do with the bible? I think it comes down to this. No one–not even the most learned scholar–will ever understand absolute, objective truth by reading the bible, it was written by human beings too. Anyone that claims to do so is delusional and is likely not being very honest with himself.

But I still believe that the bible can convey truth. This is where I must distinguish between truth and historicity as I mentioned above. For a lot of people, indeed for conventional Christianity, truth and historicity have almost become synonymous. That is to say, if something that is written in the bible didn’t actually happen and cannot be categorized as a historical fact, it simply cannot be true. This is very problematic. I think we need to move past this truth naiveté and I think we need a definition of truth that transcends historicity. I could start talking about myths here, but I won’t because many people have a very skewed and jaded view of the word myth. Maybe I’ll pick that up later. This will seem trivial at first, but I think on a certain level, we need to view the bible with the same amount of respect that we give the stories we read in a great novel or see in a great film.

Stop.

Re-read that sentence.

Seriously. Read it again.

We know those stories didn’t actually, historically happen, but we learn something from them nonetheless. They illustrate, in ways we can tangibly understand and relate to, truth about humanity and sometimes, likely more times than we realize, about God. Here I could quote the subtitle of a Marcus Borg book when he says we should taken the bible seriously, but not literally or the Native-American storyteller who begins his story by saying, “Now, I don’t know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true….” We need to start moving beyond the simple, shallow question of historicity to the deeper more meaningful question of truth; truth of the human condition and truth about ultimate reality, of Being-itself.

Earlier, in part one, a commenter pushed me concerning the historicity of Genesis’ account of the encounter between Adam, Eve and the serpent. I’ll use it as an example because I think it best encapsulates what I’m trying to get across. This is what I said:

genesis 3:1. do i believe god actually, physically spoke? no. do i believe there was an actual serpent? no. i do believe this. someone, somewhere sometime had experience that caused him/her to write that story. a story where the writer or the storyteller could convey as best he/she could with mytho-poetic imagery the feeling of guilt and defilement that came as result of separation from god. to me, that’s the deeper meaning of the story. i couldn’t care less whether god or a snake actually, physically spoke those words. or whether they was actually a man named adam and a woman named eve. i think there is a deeper meaning, a deeper truth (not historicity) about god and the human condition. but now i’m getting into some later posts. so for now i’ll leave it at that.

i don’t think that challenges christianity at all. i think it challenges fundamentalism and conventionalism and rightly so. those are modern, post-enlightenment constructs.

This post is getting long. If you’ve quit reading by now I don’t blame you. Let me conclude by reiterating, I think if we remain hung up on the question of factuality and equate truth with historicity we will eventually run into a lot of problems, and ultimately miss the bigger point. If we come to terms with, 1) the reality that none of us will ever know or comprehend absolute objective truth, only parts, bits and pieces from our dialogue with others and, 2) that truth ultimately transcends, and in a sense eclipses, historicity and factuality we have come a long way in our journey of seeking truth as it is conveyed through the strange narrative of scripture.

~bh ><>