The Literature of the Heretics, pt.
2
“To
be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as
you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed
documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and ‘improved’ by hundreds
of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to
each other, spanning nine centuries.” – Richard Dawkins
“...just
like the Old Testament, the “New” one is also a work of crude carpentry,
hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised
attempts to make things come out right.” –Christopher Hitchens
If
Dawkins and Hitchens are to be believed—a presumption that goes without saying
for many of my readers—the greatest, most powerful tool to wield against the
rising tide of Biblical indoctrination is nothing more complex than the reading
of the Bible. The greatest threat to Christianity, so they imply, is that the
Bible is actually read. Nothing could be more detrimental to the faith than
that it be made to actually experience these poorly “cobbled-together”, poorly
planned (Dawkins says of the Gospels that, “(those) that made it into the
official canon were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, out of larger sample of
at least a dozen including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Philip,
Bartholomew and Mary Magdalene,” which tells me that he has both never read any
of these “alternative” gospels and
that he has never bothered to understand the complexity and drama of
canonization) scriptures.
Indeed,
surely by reading the scriptures one could not possibly miss the terrible truth
discovered by Hitchens: “It would be hard to find an easier proof that religion
is man-made. There is, first, the monarchical growling about respect and fear,
accompanied by a stern reminder of omnipotence and limitless revenge, of the
sort with which a Babylonian or Assyrian emperor might have ordered the scribes
to begin a proclamation. There is then a sharp reminder to keep working and
only to relax when the absolutist says so. A few crisp legalistic reminders
follow, one of which is commonly misrendered because the original Hebrew
actually says “thou shalt do no murder.’” While I, personally, have been unable
to find the proof of a man-made religion in these rambling points, certainly,
by simply picking up the Bible, one could not possibly miss it. Could they?
To
be fair, one of the tragedies of Christian history is that for some centuries
the church did at least appear to agree with this sentiment, and kept the
scriptures out of the hands of the lay parishioners out of fear that they did
not have the appropriate aptitude to understand them. Perhaps, the state of
education and literacy being what they were, there was some truth to this, but their
extreme dogmatism about it leads one to seriously doubt their faith in the Word
of God.
The
truth that seemed to escape the early Catholic Church as well as the modern
skeptic, however, is that this weapon is more prone to backfiring than a
child’s slingshot (personal experience). I do agree with both Dawkins and
Hitchens that there is a remarkable (and perhaps even mystifying) diversity to
the scriptures—an almost unimaginable roster of authors of every background, a
multitude of styles, written over a tremendously long span of time. And yet, no
classic of literature or survey of history stands up as perfectly under
repeated readings.
The
Bible, in fact, seems to be only truly understood and appreciated under
thorough investigation—the thorougher the better. Sure, we have all heard
stories of the skeptic or the furious God-hater who, in a misguided effort to
prove their hatred, took to the scriptures, only to find their faith (or,
rather, lack of faith) shattered by sudden revelation. These stories exist (and
they are not entirely uncommon), but I think that they prove a noteworthy and
beautiful exception rather than the rule. I gladly accept these sudden
conversions as works of miracle rather than logic.
But
there are always miracles in the scriptures—some obvious and some hidden.
Here
is one of the smaller, often missed miracles: Repeated readings of scripture
yields the very opposite of doubt. Though logic might suggest that to look too
closely at a single work of literature would inevitably make its flaws all the
more glaring and its imperfections all the more noteworthy, the truth, at least
in my experience (despite my background in literary criticism) and in the
experience of countless others, is very much the opposite. Reading the Bible
makes even the perceived “inaccuracies” melt away as the pieces of the larger
narrative and the greater theology fall into place. Though the complexity of
the book may, indeed, make a first reading (especially if unguided) somewhat
disorienting and, in fact, somewhat strange, only a superficial examination of
the scriptures or a severe prejudice could lead one to the conclusion that
there is nothing remarkable about the continuity on display.
Even
a strong believer can be negatively stricken by skeptic who provides only lists
of the Bible’s most “difficult” moments out of context (as both Hitchens and
Dawkins do quite capably, effortlessly weaving their witty commentary with
non-contextual passages of scriptures that seem to portray a vicious, selfish
God). I readily admit that I cannot read the works of the skeptics without at
least faint pangs of... doubt may be
too strong a word, but it is something along those lines; maybe something more
along the lines of disquiet. It is a
feeling that, true to the intent, at first makes me want to recoil from
scripture, but I know that this is the wrong reaction. Alas! It is only by
looking into scripture—toward the Word of God—that I find the
welcome cure.
There
is a difference—and not a subtle difference—between the words of the Bible and
the WORD of God. The skeptic may freely attack the former but is absolutely
powerless over the latter. The first is a collection of letters forming words,
words forming phrases, and phrases spelling out ideas, and as such, they may be
taken, warped, misunderstood, and bastardized to the heart’s content. The words
of the Bible is not the WORD of God that became flesh, that dwelt among us in Grace
and Truth.
The
WORD is not a mere collection of words. It has little to do with language; it
is unaffected by arguments concerning grammar or syntax or morphology or any of
the nonsense that I was forced to learn in college. The WORD is not a series of
verses held fast by rote memorization and then repeated at Sunday School
(though there is inestimable value to this practice, which I genuinely desire
to pick up again myself). Knowing the words of the Bible is not knowing the WORD
of God. One is tempted to be reminded of Satan himself, who quite ably used
scripture to make his own evil point... but that argument seems out of place
here—the example of Satan is not worthwhile when directed at those who
pointedly do not believe in the existence of such a being. Far more applicable
are the arguments of the heretics, who follow firmly in Satan’s footsteps,
reading the words but entirely missing the WORD. It is precisely these of whom
the Apostle Paul says: “For the WORD of the cross is folly to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is
written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the
discerning I will thwart.’”
I
understand that this concept might not be understood by some, and to the
skeptic it will seem like nothing more than a logical fallacy. I can only
respond by saying that this is how one often sounds when describing a miracle.
The fact is that the WORD is not always the thing that a person is looking for.
As I said before, there are some who have been reading the words of the Bible
in hatred, and yet have suddenly found themselves reading the inexplicable WORD
of God. For others, it is only after the words are studied and pored over and
held up to the light of scrutiny that it is suddenly transformed into something
living and active and sharp—but it is no less a miracle.
But,
setting aside that crucial distinction for a moment:
No
matter how one looks at scripture, there is power to it. The vehemence with
which Hitchens, Dawkins, and the others in their camp attack it is a testament
to its strength as well as its continued effects on every facet of our society.
This is why I cannot help but feel something when I force myself to read their
attacks on the Bible. The truth is, it’s remarkably difficult to read any
subjective account of scriptures (whether positive or negative) and not be
touched with a pang of something or other—of revelation or anger, hope or doubt.
It is impossible, that is, to stand unaffected by scripture, which says something
in and of itself. Especially when taken out of context, or given a healthy dose
of spin, there is potency to scripture not found in Shakespeare or Dante or
Homer, and perhaps it is because it stands as something to be lived by rather
than read. Thus we cringe when the Israelites are directed to administer
punishment to seemingly harmless minor criminals; thus we are encouraged when
told of a God who loves and pursues His chosen ones, even when turned against
at every turn; thus we treasure being reminded of God’s faithfulness in
providing for His people; thus we treasure the hope of salvation; thus in love we
pursue those who are perishing.
For
this reason, I can’t simply ignore the attacks I see continually being made on
the scriptures. I must have a
response—but I must be careful that it is the right response. If I am touched
by pangs of doubt I must respond by facing them head on. I can respond, as the
creators of these arguments surely hope, by fleeing from the scripture,
allowing the seeds to take root in a purposeful ignorance, willingly living
with a deeply-rooted seed of doubt, or (perhaps worse yet), I can retreat to a
selective reading of scripture, believing that my faith might be restored by
simply acknowledge only those bits and pieces of neutered verse that make me
feel good and are easily understood. Or I might, as Thomas Jefferson, quite
literally take scissors to the Bible, trimming away those bits and pieces that I
find difficult to digest, simply acknowledging that I have not yet learned to
chew properly.
But
I choose not to take these courses: I choose, instead, the course that feels
far less natural; far less intuitive: I accept this subtle pang of doubt and
take it into my study of the WORD. It is no accident—and certainly no self-delusion—that
those most enthralled with God’s word; those most enamored by its beauty and
its divine origins; are those who have most thoroughly familiarized themselves
with its intricacies; who have not
shied away from those pieces that seem difficult or counter-intuitive. The
truly faithful are those who are the least surprised, the least shocked by
those who would seek to pit scripture against scripture; who are never fearful
of those who have only read the words of the Bible but never known or sought
after the WORD of God.
The
skeptics have focused the wrath of their reasoning—for they are far too reliant
on the unreliable human mind—on an old, stale, unmoving tome of stories and
poems—as stagnant in corporeality as Aristotle—and surely find it an odd thing
that The Bible should assert itself to be living and active. They cannot
understand how anything so ancient and unmoving could be considered as swift or
sharp as a sword. They cannot understand that the Word is not a collection of
chapters and verses, it is God choosing to speak through such human things as
chapters and verses.
One
cannot possible expect a humanist to understand that the Bible is a human
thing—a collection of chapters and verses—but the WORD is God speaking through this same human thing. Yes,
it may seem like a terrible logic trick, to say that there is something hidden
and invisible in scripture that only the Christian can see (it is quite circular, isn’t it?), but all I
can say is that this is how it appears to be. The Christian sees scripture
differently than the humanist; and yet, that is the miracle of the
incarnation—that is the mystery of it. Just as God injected Himself directly
into human history, so also can He inject Himself into the stubbornness of the
human soul. That is certainly one of His greatest miracles.
Issac - you are so good with words.I disagree with you about other literature not being Godly, for my goal is to be closer to God, and I have found it isn't limited by the Bible.My Jesus is so much more internal and personal. Jesus said behold an Israeli without guile during the time he was recruiting the disciples. The Israeli did not join him but was at the resurrection.Guile -definition: gile. Craft; cunning; artifice; duplicity; deceit; usually in a bad sense. In other words seeking truth in yourself and in others was a very high priority for Jesus to be close to God the Father. Seeking the truth or finding God can be done with the emotions - such as believing, or with the mind - using your intelligence or even mastering your body. The most successful way is to know and understand all three parts of yourself and be guided by your spirit. Just as Jesus said Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your body, and with all your soul.
ReplyDelete