Reading after Fundamentalism I

 

Photo: Morgana Wilborn

In the last centuries of human life, the methods of natural sciences have produced great blessings for mankind: vaccines, abundant and secure food supplies, and Marshmallow Fluff, to name a few. The runaway success of the scientific method, which depends upon objectivity, experimentation, replication, and empirical observation, has convinced many of us that knowledge derived from scientific inquiry is the only real knowledge.

When we read, we tend to consider that we are reading in one of two ways. Non-fiction is objective, that is, it reveals some objective truth about the universe. Fiction is subjective, good for entertainment or creative self-expression. Non-fiction is important, fiction is fun.

When believers read the Christian scriptures, we tend to think of them as important non-fiction. We bring our more-or-less scientifically educated minds to the task. We have kind of a sieve through which we sort what we read. "This must be true." or "This cannot possibly be true." In short, we are concerned primarily to sort out our truth claims.

Unfortunately, well-intentioned zeal for truth may lead us to misunderstand what we read. When modern biblical criticism began to question the historical accuracy of the account of Genesis, some Christians totally freaked out, and begat one of the most well-intentioned bad ideas in the history of well-intentioned bad ideas: fundamentalism. Whereas until now the historical truth of scripture had been more or less assumed, (although some influential church fathers felt quite comfortable denying it) with fundamentalism, the literal truth and inerrancy of the bible became a litmus test of correct dogma, and a tool for hatred, in some cases. In any case, fundamentalists often miss the forest for the trees. Sometimes it seems that understanding what scripture says is less important to fundamentalists than defending biblical innerrancy as a doctrine.

However, perhaps so-called fundamentalism and so-called modernism are two sides of the same coin, products of the same presuppositions. Both value truth which has been denuded of the subjective. Objective truth is valued--the subjective is relegated to poetry or entertainment.

The search for objective truth, however, might be more elusive than previously thought. During the course of the 20th century, some men (who have a high probability of having a French last name, and an affinity for Gauloises) have debated whether objective truth can ever be realized, or if there is any chance of reaching anything like a universal truth (or any chance of correctly pronouncing Gauloises). Although the demise of so-called modernity is not as complete as some college philosophy students would have you believe, the consensus that truth equals objectivity is more difficult to maintain.

Some Christians have followed the so-called post-modern lead, and tried to get derive more meaning from scriptural stories by viewing the stories as myth, or useful fiction. Various terms are used for this view: "anti-realist," "post-modern," "fictionalist." When they read scripture, they think "This may not be literally true, but it comforts me to think of it as true." or "This is lovely poetry, the truth of it is irrelevant."

This approach to reading the scriptures is attractive in some ways. It help us not be distracted from the big picture of the story by being preoccupied with which bit of the story is literally true and which bit is not. The literary or mythical approach can focus on the way that stories can shape our minds and hearts, give us hope, and help us behave a little better.

Unfortunately, this approach also has a problem: truth. Perhaps the stories in scripture are entirely fictional and function only has useful parables on how to live better lives. Perhaps "God" is simply an idea that expresses the finiteness of humankind and the wonderment of the universe. But this is not what Christians have believed from the beginning and, I hasten to add, it is not what I believe. My faith in a creator demands that he be "real" somehow, that "God exists" even if in some transcendent way.

Moreover, the Church has believed for centuries, and I believe, that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead, and that his tomb was really found empty. The fundamentalist temptation is to get caught up in proving Christ's resurrection as an objective truth claim. The fictionalist temptation is to deny the objective truth in favor of the subjective "meaning" of the story, and thereby strip the story of its power. A story cannot save me from my sins. Jesus, I believe, and so the church teaches, can and will save me.

I said all that above so I can say this: most of us don't know how to read the scriptures. We are concerned to find some objective truth that may never be realized. Yet if we jettison the search for truth, we end up being followers of fables. Going to church becomes as meaningful as going to Medieval Times or watching Star Trek. What is a modern reader to do?

The following posts will suggest an alternative based on earlier precedents in Christian history. When I read scripture, I might fruitfully put aside the impulse to find objective truth, and instead look for a message applicable to me.  Perhaps it is less important to seek information about the history of Israel, the life of Jesus, or even the nature of God. It is more important (and more firmly grounded in the more noble traditions of the church) to read the stories of scripture in order to be transformed from the messed-up, anxious, and inconsistent humans we are to people who can receive the gifts of the Spirit: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5.22)