One of the flashpoints between religion and science is the origin of humanity. The Bible tells us that God personally created the first two human beings (Gen. 1:26–27). Science tells us that humans evolved over millions of years from single cell organisms to more complex lifeforms to primates to humans. The two accounts seem to be mutually exclusive, and, traditionally at least, believers couldn’t accept the theory of evolution without undermining their faith. Peter Enns, in his book The Evolution of Adam, argues that this is a false dichotomy, and that belief in God and an acceptance of evolution are compatible.
Basically, Enns’s argument is that the creation account in Genesis was never meant to be a literal play-by-play of the origins of the world. Instead, it was meant to do many other things that were relevant to the people who wrote it down: the exiled Israelites in Babylon. The creation account shows how Israel’s god is more powerful than the gods of the surrounding nations. It traces Israel back to the origins of time. And it tells Israel that even in exile, God is still their god.
Enns’s has much more to say about this, and I recommend reading his book, but this idea—that someone who generally believes the Bible doesn’t have to take the creation story literally—is what I want to focus on here. Because it got me wondering: if the creation story doesn’t have to be literally true for me to still believe what I believe, what else doesn’t have to be literally true?
Of course, many Christians won’t buy Enns’s point and will find this question absurd because they believe that the Bible is infallible. But that position has some serious problems. First, some of the events in Israel’s deep history aren’t supported in the archeological record when we would expect them to be. For example, there is no evidence that Jericho even had walls when they miraculously crumbled to the earth. Second, some of what we read in the Bible makes God seem rather monstrous. Take, for example, when he commands the genocide of the Canaanites. I find it difficult to accept that the God that I worship would do that. Third, and most troublingly from the perspective of a Bible literalist, sometimes the Bible contradicts itself. The books of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings recount the same period of history of 1 and 2 Chronicles, but they don’t always agree. If two accounts of the same events contradict one another, it’s impossible for both of them to be literally true (Enns discusses these issues in another of his books, The Bible Tells Me So, which I also recommend).
I, for one, am fine if some of the stories in the Bible, especially from Israel’s deep history, aren’t literally true. My belief in God is not harmed if the walls of Jericho didn’t miraculously crumble to the earth. If God didn’t command the genocide of the Canaanites, all the better. And if the Bible contains inconsistencies, they merely reflect the human instruments that God uses to convey his message. I want to be clear that I’m not saying that I know for certain that these things are not literally true, only that there is reason to be suspicious, and that even if they aren’t, it doesn’t damage my faith in God.
But what would? Perhaps a more important question is not what from the Bible doesn’t have to be literally true, but what does? What from the Bible must be literally true if I am to keep my faith intact?
First, is the existence of God and our relationship to him. The Bible makes very clear that God exists and teaches in many places that we are his children. If God did not exist or if we were mere creatures in relation to him, rather than children, it would destroy or seriously undermine my faith.
Second, is the life, divine nature, and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Not everything in the gospels has to be literally true — if, for example, Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount as one complete discourse, but gave it in bits and pieces over the course of his ministry, that wouldn’t bother me — but it has to be substantially true for my faith to have any meaning. Jesus must have been a living person — there must have been a historical Jesus. He also must have been more than a mere mortal. If Jesus was no more than a wise teacher, my faith in him would be misplaced. And, most importantly, he must have suffered for the sins of humanity, died, and been resurrected. Without his atonement, he would have no salvation to offer any of us, and my faith in him would be void.
Third, for a Mormon, is the divine calling of Joseph Smith to restore Christ’s church in the latter days. If God did not call Joseph Smith to be a prophet, or in other words, if Joseph Smith was a charlatan or a lunatic, then my faith would be severely undermined.
I could probably add more to this list, but I think that this is a good start. If something from science or philosophy or history or any other human discipline tries to undermine one of these things that have to be literally true, we should be skeptical. It not, we should be more open-minded and comfortable with the idea that we don’t know everything, even about religion. There is a line, somewhere, between what has to be literally true and what doesn’t. We should try to find where that line is and we should only get up in arms when it is crossed.
I don’t mean to say here that any time science says anything that contradicts scripture that people of faith have to concede that ground. What I’m saying is that when science says something that seems to contradict scripture, we should think and ponder before we react. Is there really a contradiction or are the two compatible? If there is a contradiction, does it undermine something that has to be literally true? If so, we should stand our ground. But if not, we shouldn’t waste our time getting worked up over it. We’ve got enough on our plate trying to love our neighbors — and even our enemies — as ourselves. We don’t have the time to argue over the Bible’s minutia. And we should have faith that someday, probably after this life, we’ll know whether all that stuff is literally true or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment