I said to Glenn:
>>You and I operate with
>>substantially different concepts of divine inspiration and, consequently,
>>what constitute appropriate expectations and uses of the biblical text.
Glenn replied:
> Agreed. That is the real underlying difference. What is inspiration and how
> effectual is it. If it doesn't do anything substantial, like change the
> sentence the Biblical writer, left on his own intended to write, then it
> isn't worth a whole lot to me.
OK, we agree that our differing concepts of biblical inspiration lead to
differing expectations and uses of the biblical text. Let me try two
comments in reply to your expectations regarding what inspiration _changes_
and what makes it _worth_ anything.
1. How effectual is divine inspiration in producing a _change_in the text?
Whether or not a "change" can be substantiated depends, of course, on what
_kind_ of change one is expecting (or demanding).
2. Whether or not something has _worth_ to us depends on what we are looking
for. For instance, if I'm looking for a ripe orange, then finding a dead
apple tree is of little worth to me. However, if I'm looking for firewood to
burn in my wood stove....
Further reflection:
If, in the course of my life experience as a human being, I gain a sense of
the reality and necessity of a transcendent God and of the creativity and
generosity of God as the Creator of the universe, will I not be inspired to
think and write in ways substantially different from what I would have done
without that experience? Is that _change_ significant enough to count as
"substantial"? Or isn't that the sort of change that has any "worth"?
To me this sort of change should indeed be counted as "substantial" and as
having considerable "worth." If I were to write something in response to the
inspiration of an authentic experience of God's reality, presence,
creativity and generosity, I think that each sentence I wrote would be
substantially different from what I would otherwise have written.
But would that concept of inspiration and change be acceptable to the
conservative evangelical Christian in North America when applied to biblical
inspiration? I doubt it very much. Why would it not be acceptable? I'm sure
there are many factors, but here's one factor that I suspect is quite
influential. And I think it lurks beneath the surface of numerous debates on
this list.
Modern Western culture has placed a very high value on the particular kind
of _factuality_ and _certainty_ that the natural sciences are presumed
(rightly or wrongly) to be able to deliver: "eyewitness accounts" of the
results of systematic observation of events and processes in the
physical/material world; firsthand reports of the results of measurements
that are characterized by quantitative accuracy; carefully crafted
theories--often in quantified form--that can be empirically tested and
evaluated for their predictive accuracy; scientific "proof" of the
correctness of one explanation over all other alternatives; and other
similar contributions....
Especially among conservative North American evangelical Christians, there
seems to me to be a very strong desire (some observers might even use words
like 'lust,' or 'obsession') to be able to say that the Bible offers
_factuality_ of exactly the same sort as the natural sciences. Furthermore,
if the biblical text is factually correct in this modern scientific sense,
one can then be _certain_ that its religious message is comparably "true."
Religious truth is as much within human grasp as scientific truth. There is
little need to appeal to ultimate Mystery, and no need whatsoever to speak
of Myth, not even in the "good" sense of that term.
Given this state of affairs (if I correctly understand it) the meaning of
"inspiration" becomes effectively equivalent to "providing factual
information by supernatural means." Biblical writers who are inspired _in
this way_ are thereby given direct access to portions of God's own data
bank. And because God is presumed to confer this factual data directly, it
will have none of the usual human limitations. It will not, for example, be
affected by any human ignorance or misunderstanding characteristic of the
time or place in which it was put into writing. Neither will it reflect any
of the inaccuracy or uncertainty that is characteristic of normal human
reflection or interpretation. it won't even be limited by the usual
incompleteness of any human language. Because the Bible is inspired, one can
be _certain_ of its unqualified _factuality_.
I suspect that the above concept of inspiration is prevalent in the
conservative evangelical Christian community today. A modern Western
scientific style of factuality and certainty are presumed to be essential
character traits of a divinely inspired biblical text. Though it may never
be stated quite this candidly, the biblical text is sometimes treated as if
it were not only _inspired_ by God, but also effectively _written_ by God.
God ensures the factual accuracy of the text by bypassing the normal means
by which humans gain knowledge and by directly supplying certain data for
the text.
Given this concept of inspiration and the text that results from it,
concordism (in the sense of the full agreement of text and scientific study)
becomes essential. Since both the Bible and empirical science are seen as
providers of the same kind of factuality and certainty, they absolutely must
agree whenever they speak to the same issue. If both appear to speak to the
chronology of the Creation's formational history, then their chronologies
must agree. If both appear to speak to questions about the character of the
events and processes that contributed to the Creation's formational history,
then there must be full agreement. If both appear to speak to matters of
geological history (including episodes of flooding), then there must be a
full concord regarding the particulars of such geo-hydraulic phenomena.
I think that Glenn honestly and accurately reflects a viewpoint something
like this when he says things like:
"If they [the factual details in something like a biblical flood account]
don't matter, upon what basis do we figure that the account is inspired by
an all-powerful God who can raise a man from the dead? Why should this book,
which can't get simple history correct lay a claim on my (or anyone's life)
as being the record of God's interaction with humanity?"
and,
"If God's inspiration makes no
difference in what the Hebrews wrote compared with the writings of other
ancient cultures, of what value is the Hebrew writings? In that case, I
would see little to recommend a belief in the Bible."
and, even more emphatically,
"Is God so powerless that he can't even inspire true accounts of what
happened in the past? I for one won't worship such a weakling."
So, if God's inspiration of the biblical writers does not take the specific
form of a direct supplying of information or data that is not accessible to
humans by any other means, then must God be considered a "powerless
weakling" who is undeserving of our worship? Did I understand you correctly,
Glenn? Did you really intend to say it that strongly? Does God have no other
choice available? Is God really bound to human demands of this sort? Is this
the only way that biblical inspiration could be "worth" anything?
I don't think so. There are other concepts of biblical inspiration within
the Christian community that need to be appreciated. For instance, might it
not be more realistic to recognize the biblical text as "a thoroughly human
account of an authentic encounter with the majesty, creativity, generosity
and love of God"? Would these be accounts inspired by this encounter with
God? Yes, indeed they would be. And by reading these divinely inspired
accounts, written in the conceptual vocabularies of other times and
cultures, would we not be led (or called) to seek similarly rich experiences
of God and to articulate them in the conceptual vocabulary of our own time
and culture?
This way of thinking does not satisfy the lust for certainty that is
characteristic of modern Western culture, but it fits far better with my own
experience of life. The older I get, the less I know with absolute
certainty. The need to make judgment calls on the basis of incomplete
information is the rule. Absolute certainty is the exception. Learning to
live with judgment calls made in the context of uncertainty is an essential
life skill. Admitting this is a sign not of weakness, but of a willingness
to be realistic.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 20:56:01 EST