Some Assembly Required

James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis, over at Exploring Our Matrix has posted a few thought-proving pictures a couple weeks ago. Click on the previous link to check them out for yourself. What do you think? Did God put the Bible together himself or did God use people to do the work for him? What does this tell us about the Bible itself? Can the Bible escape man's fallible nature or does it contain fingerprints of man's highest hopes and dreams to our deepest fears and darkest issues?

As I've stated many times before, if I believe in anything with every ounce of my being it is that man is capable of making mistakes. With this humble approach to our fallibility how then do we reconcile the view that the infallible and inerrant Bible was penned, edited, arranged, and transmitted by the hand of Man? Should we even try to reconcile these two points or simply look at our freshly assembled Bible with new eyes?

---

I have noticed two main views when it comes to the Bible's transmission throughout history presented now in a crude graph. (Click to enlarge the image)

• From Divine Inspiration to our modern Protestant Bible (the Catholic Bible is a whole other can of worms), God has guided the transmission of the Bible throughout history to it's Inerrant, and Infallible state
  
• From Divine Inspiration to the present day the Bible has been through countless of human hands for it to be completely free of error. It has errors that the church must examine and deal with as a community.
  

Inerrant and Infallible
The first view is governed by the belief that regardless of man's attempts in assembling the Bible (which was no easy task) God guided the entire process which resulted in an inerrant and infallible Bible. I believe it is alright to believe this as long the only version you read is the King James Bible. Once you crack open an NIV or any other versions/translations that has updated the KJV by removing erroneous texts you run into questions that challenge the view of an infallible and inerrant Bible. We have thousands of examples of scribal/copyist error so either we can

1. Ignore ALL of these and accept that God has indeed protected the Bible or
   
2. We can accept that God has not protected the Bible from error and we can begin examining these texts for the best and most reliable witnesses (manuscripts).

The first is easy to believe (a bit too easy) because it validates God's superiority and let's us off the hook without having to face any tough questions. The second is troubling to anyone who holds the belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible but which DOES NOT erode the spiritual importance and connection with the Divine. More on that in a minute. Another challenging issue is the concept that either God would not (or worse, could not) tamper with the production of the Bible, in other words, either he chose not to protect the Bible from error or he was unable to protect it. So far, I've only spoken on the subject of scribal error. The possibility (and probability) of error is increased exponentially at each junction of human interaction with scripture. Did the author hear the words of the Spirit correctly? Did the author and his scribes pen the first copy correctly? Were the subsequent copies copied correctly? And worse, did those who took part in the canonization of the Bible choose the correct books? At each junction of human contact, the original inspired words have a greater chance of containing human error. I do not challenge the original Divine inspiration, I just question man's role in transmitting it.

Bible Written by Man
The second view is governed by the history of the Bible itself: a long history of men battling over the Word of God. I believe that Divine inspiration was (and is) possible but how that inspiration was passed on through written words from generation to generations is what is continuously being challenged in the field of textual criticism. How close we can get to the original words is the goal, not diluting the spiritual importance and beauty of the Bible itself. The Bible can still be viewed as a source of spiritual strength and truth, when read spiritually, while also holding that fallible man had a part in its assembly. Just because the Bible was put together by man does NOT reduce its worth. As long as it guides us to God then we should keep it in our hearts. As long as I keep compassion, which I believe is the central quality of the Divine, as my compass then I can read the Bible without being trapped by it. Passages like 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 can be better understood as an interpolation, a result of the church wrestling with its beliefs and traditions on women than an outright Pauline command to keep women in their place within the early church. I can not believe that a compassionate God would give commands based on gender on the teaching of scripture. To me, this is an example where men have interjected with their own ideas while proclaiming they came from the lips of God.

We should not despair in the fact that the Bible was written by man but raise our voices in praise. It has been a source of inspiration and hope to millions throughout history and is one of the most widely read and highly praised books of all time. We should not bicker over the origins of this valuable gem but instead focus our energy and eyes on the progression of the human condition. What can a book written centuries ago help us to solve 21st century issues? There are only a handful of verses on homosexuality, should we really turn to the Bible when debating such controversial topics? With a humble understanding on the origins and history of this revered book I can no longer see it as a "Cure-all" text for issues and problems in my life. Again, this does not dilute its worth. It is a source of inspiration chronicling the outpouring of the human spirit. As it is then a human creation (although I do accept there was Divine inspiration) we must not put it on a pedestal so high that we are unable to reinterpret it with 21st century eyes. If there are verses that lack compassion then we must always seek to be compassionate even though our ancestors thought otherwise. In seeking God through scripture, we must surpass the words and deeds of history and transform ourselves into that which those very words beg us to become: imitatio dei, Being compassionate as our Father (God/Brahman/Allah/Yahweh) is compassionate. Even if God throughout the various religions lacks compassion, then we must strive to surpass God him/her/itself in compassion. Then we might discover a glimpse into the true image of God.

---

Blog Series: Some Assembly Required

Part 1: Some Assembly Required
Part 2: The Best and Worst Intentions

Abraham's Test

During my research and study on the topic of God testing our faith I stumbled upon an interesting concept that completely turns the story of Abraham and the binding of Isaac completely upside down and inside out. In Karen Armstrong's In the Beginning: A New Interpretation on Genesis, Armstrong reinterprets this symbolic book by wrestling with the symbols that it contains instead of reading them literally. Genesis was never meant to be read literally since "the text points beyond itself to a reality which cannot adequately be expressed in words and concepts." (Armstrong, p.5) So what can we learn from a book of symbols, what lessons are there that may teach us about God and ourselves?

[Abraham Sacrificing Isaac, Laurent de LaHire, 1650]

---

Genesis Ch. 22 starts off with God testing his servant, Abraham, who tells no one of this test and even Isaac is left in the dark when he asks about the lamb for the burnt offering. Abraham places his son on top of the altar, takes out his knife to kill his son when he is suddenly stopped by the Divine. The Lord provides a ram for sacrifice instead and blesses Abraham after passing the test of faith showing that he feared God. The original story is viewed as a test of Abraham's faithfulness to God and reinterpreted by Christians as a foreshadowing of the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ. But what about poor Isaac?

It is not until after Isaac and Ishmael bury their father that the writers of Genesis actually let Isaac speak again. Who's faith was actually tested on Mount Moriah, Abraham's or Isaac's? Even though Genesis references Isaac as Abraham's only son he still had Ishmael (whom the Lord also blessed). If God had let Abraham actually sacrifice Isaac, which ironically would have been a much stronger foreshadowing of God offering his only Son than the the original story, Abraham would still have descendants through Ishmael. Even though Abraham would have lost a son, Isaac would have lost his life. Furthermore, in Ch. 21 God promised Abraham that it is through Isaac's descendants that he will be blessed. The early Christian church responded through the writer of Hebrews that Abraham had faith that God would resurrect Isaac if he had been sacrificed (Hebrews 11:17-19). So if anyone's faith was being tested on that day, I believe it was Isaac's!

Armstrong brings up the fact that Isaac doesn't say a word after the events on Mount Moriah and in the very next chapter we learn of Sarah's death. Did Isaac run off after almost being sacrificed? (There are some Jewish traditions in the Midrash that speculate that Isaac did indeed run off to see his brother after the events on Mount Moriah, unfortunately I can not find them.) Abraham returning home to inform Sarah that God wanted him to sacrifice her baby boy would have been a tremendous shock to any mother, especially if Isaac did not return home with his father (Genesis 22:19). Of course this is all speculation, but we don't learn about Isaac's whereabouts until the end of chapter 24 where he was living near Beer-lahai-roi (Hagar's Well) and later settles in the Negeb (south of Judah). Where was Isaac during his parents' deaths? We can only speculate, but the point is that he moved away sometime after the disturbing event on Mount Moriah and later moved back before the introduction of Rebecca. Armstrong also points out that God is also referenced as "The Fear of Isaac" (Genesis 31:42,53). Most people would say this is a holy fear of God instead of an outright terror, but I agree with Armstrong that even though Isaac had survived Mount Moriah that he might have been scarred for life because of the event.

Ms. Armstrong concludes the chapter on Isaac by readdressing and reinterpreting God's test on Abraham's and Isaac's faith.

"Perhaps God wanted Abraham to argue with him on Mount Moriah, as he had argued for the people of Sodom. Or perhaps, seeing the consequences inflicted by his "test" upon Isaac, God came to realize that too relentless a faith can lead to fanaticism and to a lack of humanity that has permanent and damaging effects upon others." (Armstrong, Pg. 73)

Maybe God's true test on Abraham was not a matter of following his directions blindly but to test his humanity. (Or maybe Abraham was testing God's morality by forcing him to stop the sacrifice, click here) Maybe God wanted to know if Abraham still had a conscious and would stand up against injustice as he did for the people of Sodom. Abraham was bold enough to defend innocent strangers in a sinful city from God's wrath, so why not strike at the heart by having him sacrifice his son? Abraham is then torn between his two loves: his love for God, and his love for his son. Maybe Abraham thought that if he did not follow God's command he would take away any promise of descendants, maybe he believed that since God gave him Ishmael and Isaac then God would grant him another son as long as he was faithful. But at what price? Would you blindly follow the command of God even if it meant compromising your humanity to do an unjust act as killing another human being?

Maybe the lesson is that we should never forget our humanity nor lose compassion for our fellow man even if we are commanded to do so, for this blind faith may lead us down the heartless path of fanaticism. I don't believe in a God who would sadistically test mankind to sacrifice their own children, but the one I do believe in is the loving and compassionate God who is found throughout all faiths, buried beneath imagery, symbols, and anthropomorphic attributes. The true compassionate God of Abraham is the God who stopped the knife.

Under Quarantine

Like the rest of my blog, my posts are meant to seek understanding and not as an attack to any particular faith. It is true that within those religious traditions my words may seem as an attack but if you look closer they are just simple questions that believers would benefit from asking themselves. Today's question: Why are Christians afraid of outside influence from the world and other religions?

[Gas Mask Jesus by Jackace]

---

There is no doubt that the majority of Christians are indeed careful of who and what they come in daily contact. There is nothing wrong with being careful but why fear outside influence? Are we (and I'm including myself although mainline Christians would not) so weak in our faith that we might catch a "spiritual disease" from a Buddhist, or even begin doubting God if we talk with an Atheist? I believe the fears are legitimate when seen from within the Christian community: anything alien that enters into our gates that is "not of Christ" may cause disharmony. Take a step back and those fears look a bit xenophobic when seen by someone outside of the Christian community. Christians speak of loving their fellow man as long as they don't get too close: loving them at arms length with a Bible in one hand and Germex hand sanitizer in the other. But not all influence is bad. Zachery Karabell's Peace Be Upon You: Fourteen Centuries of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Conflict and Cooperation is a great book on the historical relationships and influences between the three monotheistic faiths. History tends to focus on the conflict and what surprised me the most is that not only did these three faiths live harmoniously (as humanly possible) at times, they flourished while influencing each other enormously.

Let's face it, if we hang out with the wrong crowd we're gonna get influenced. I guess the opposite is true for me. Even though I live in the Bible Belt (right next to the buckle) and I'm surrounded by Bible believing Christians I somehow slipped through the cracks and became, to them, an unbeliever. I never hung out with anyone of a different faith, (I have met a Muslim and asked him a few questions he couldn't answer, and my professor is Jewish) just good old, church going Christians. I explain to them I am a Christian even though my views on Christ, the Bible, and God differ from theirs, yet I am still considered lost to them. If I were to move a few hundred miles north I might find a Christian community that holds the same beliefs as I do. So, which community of Christians are truly following Christ? The community itself decides the extent of their borders: whether something is clean or unclean, worldly or Christian, right or wrong. One community/denomination/individual may privately state that the other ones are misguided on their path to God, but we have no way of determining the validity of those statements. We have no way of viewing our theology and warring doctrine from God's perspective. We have the Bible, God's Word, yet it is interpreted with human eyes and human mind. And this is why each community determines for itself where they belong among other communities, what they believe, and how they act. This develops a communal personality that is shared between the members of that community. When someone dies, everyone mourns. When a mother gives birth, everyone cheers. Like members in a choir they sing in unity.

Good and bad influence may come from outside AND inside the community. Yet, it is still the interpretation of the community (and even the individual), not God, that decides the extent of their borders in regards to God's Will. It is fear of division, disharmony, and disease that causes those within the community to keep firm to tradition. This causes stagnation which some may label a "dead church". I am not saying that every church must drastically change their beliefs and traditions (their borders) to keep the community healthy, but continuously challenging those beliefs may lead to growth and progress. Man is a fallible creature and the descendants of a community should not pay the price of stagnation for the beliefs carved in stone by its founders. If not, then black men and women of African descent would still not be able to participate in Temple ordinances that is necessary for the highest degree of salvation within the LDS Church. In 1978, they got rid of a racist doctrine that the founding fathers of the LDS church put in place. I'm sure that there were those within the LDS church that found this to be a "bad influence" and that the secularist ideals of racial equality would poison their long held beliefs and tradition. Yet, progress at any speed is still progress.

In the last 3 years of studying other religions I have come to find that we have more in common between faiths than we think. There are huge differences, but there is no need to fear the differences when we share core values. Outside influence is ALWAYS bad if you're firm that you're beliefs are 110% irrefutable facts while ignoring your own mortal fallibility. I believe that we can learn from other faiths and grow spiritually on our personal journeys. We each define our own borders and we each decide the components of our spirituality. We are not helplessly doomed to Atheism if we are surrounded by Atheists nor are we changed by their presence. We may say that God defines the borders of our faith but even then it is our own interpretation of God's Will that governs over the community we join, the beliefs we hold, and the way we behave.

I hope to always question my beliefs thereby allowing myself to never succumb to a stagnate faith. I do not fear other religions because they are different, I love them because they envision the Divine in ways I may never have know solely within Christianity. If I am influenced by other faiths, I hope to always be influenced towards compassion. I do not try to reconcile the differences between the different faiths but seek out the common denominator between all of us. What we share in common is stronger than the differences that keep us apart.

May peace and blessing be upon you all.

The Spirituality of Dinosaurs?

My son loves dinosaurs. So much so that we've been watching The Land Before Time daily for the past week. It was one of my favorites when I was young and I hope it becomes one of his. The Land Before Time is a 1988 animated film about a group of dinosaurs, led by Littlefoot (an Apatosaurus), fleeing famine in search of the Great Valley, a Utopian dinosaur paradise.

[Though odd, comical, and completely unrelated, as far as I've researched this was a serious picture that was posted on the Dinosaur entry on Conservpedia and has since been taken down. Read more about Dinosaur riding Jesus here. There is another picture floating around the internet of Jesus riding a Dinosaur that is fake and meant to mock creationists.]

---

The Land Before Time is a moving film and has always been a favorite of mine and my sister while we were growing up. It is an inspiring film which teaches young children the value of courage during hardship, the importance of friendship, and tackles the issue of prejudices.

While trekking towards the Great Valley, Littlefoot's mother is fatally injured by a Sharptooth (T-Rex) attack. Littlefoot, distraught at the loss of his mother, encounters Rooter, an aging Sauropelta, who appears briefly in the film to comfort him over his loss. Here is the film script.

Rooter: Hey! What's going on here?

[Littlefoot cries]

Rooter: What's your problem? You're not hurt.

Littlefoot: It's not fair! She should have known better! That Sharptooth... It's all her fault!...

Rooter: All who's fault?

Littlefoot: Mother's!

Rooter: Oh... I see. I see.

Littlefoot: Why'd I wander so far from home...?

Rooter: Oh, it's not your fault. It's not your mother's fault. Now, you pay attention to old Rooter: it is nobody's fault. The Great Circle of Life has begun, but, you see, not all of us arrive together at the end.

Littlefoot: What am I gonna do? I miss her so much.

Rooter: And you'll always miss her. But she'll always be with you, as long as you remember the things she taught you. You'll never really be apart, for you're still a part of each other.

Littlefoot: My tummy hurts.

Rooter: Well, that, too, will go in time, little fella. Only in time.

To most, this may seem as a routine Hollywood comfort scene meant to lighten the mood while avoiding mention of the Big 'G' or even 'G' junior (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). It's short, sweet and, to a child with a short attention span, quickly forgotten. But after taking a course in Religion in Popular Media by the inspiring Rabbi Rami, I can't watch a movie without analyzing it for its religious and spiritual symbolism.

Rooter: It is nobody's fault.

No one (not even higher powers) caused Littlefoot to lose his mother. It is nobody's fault. This is one of the most powerful lines in the film which addresses the loss of a loved one to young children who often seek to blame themselves (or others) for deaths, divorce, or parental abandonment. In a tender period in their lives it is comforting to know that when someone close dies, it is nobody's fault, not even God's. These things just happen.

Rooter: The Great Circle of Life has begun, but, you see, not all of us arrive together at the end.

Here is where we get into the nitty gritty. This can be interpreted as a water down explanation of the Monotheistic afterlife but the phrase Circle of Life implies that those who pass on will return maybe even in a different form, but return none the less as if caught in a circle. The Circle of Life was popularized by the 1994 Disney animated film, The Lion King. In essence, the Circle of Life describes the interconnectedness of all life and that the Spirit shared by all living beings stays intact even after the death of the physical body. This is a Pantheistic (and even Panentheistic) concept which I have found best described in Hindu terminology: there is but one spirit/reality (Brahman), and all that exists has this spirit deep within themselves. Conscious creatures like ourselves can seek out and uncover this universal, cosmic spirit by peeling back the layers of our ego to reveal our Atman, our True Self. Our individual bodies may die away but our core is still intact. Eventually, when we fully realize our true state (according to this belief) we break free from the circle, moksha. There is no 'end' in a circle so one could say that Rooter is describing Pantheism (or Panentheism, although I have yet to fully study the differences between the two). You can even go so far to say that Rooter is a Pantheist, but of course I'm sure the film makers were trying for more of a comfort instead of a spiritual scene.

Rooter: You'll never really be apart, for you're still a part of each other.

Another line that restates that they share the same source (Brahman) but their egos keep them from fully realizing that they are a part of each other. Of course this could all be rubbish and I'm probably making a big deal of out of nothing but I love analyzing religion in film and tv.

The theme of life from death (the circle of Life) is best illustrated in my favorite film of all time, The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky's 2006 sci-fi film about one man's quest to save the woman he loves. I wrote a paper analyzing the spiritual and religious symbolism on the film for my Religion in Popular Media class. It can be found in three parts, here. I plan on writing a new updated version that correlates with my current views.

Although poor old Rooter had a tiny part in the Land Before Time, his comforting words echo throughout the film. No matter what Littlefoot and his friends had to endure they never had to endure alone. This I believe is the heart of the film: though life may be tough at times, there will always be someone there to guide and comfort you.

Lenses of Faith

Belief is a personal experience that varies from person to person. The diversity of beliefs are a bold declaration, and reflection, of our own human diversity. But as much as it should be a strictly personal issue, a component of our diverse characteristics, why then is Belief such a divisive topic? Why must our differing beliefs keep us from embracing universal brotherhood?

---

I happen to stumble upon a very interesting methodology for theological reflection recently that arose from within the Methodist movement, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. In a nutshell, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, credited to John Wesley, was used to form his views on theology and is a method that can be used by any faith to form their own views of theology. John Wesley used these four sources to come to his theological conclusion:

• Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
• Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
• Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
• Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ

The United Methodist Church asserts that "Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation." (Wikipedia)

I believe that by tweaking this method one can easily see where, how, and what their theology is based upon by moving through the four sources. For example, a Muslim would use the Qu'ran as their scripture, the Hadith, a school of jurisprudence, and Islamic history as their tradition, their personal reasoning, and their personal experience as a Muslim. Rather quickly one can see that scripture and tradition are both external sources which are counterbalanced by the internal sources of reason and experience. But, where I differ from the mainstream view of Christianity is that I view ALL four sources as originating from the fallible hands, lips, and mind of man. In each of the four categories are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of possible avenues that can be taken which results in a diverse array of beliefs. The core concept that we must remember is that each of the four categories must first be examined, and later accepted or rejected, by the human mind.

John Wesley saw the Holy Bible as the ONLY source of Truth and used Tradition, Reason, and Experience as different lens to reveal and decode truth so that it may be implemented into our daily walk with Christ. Atheists on the other hand might use Reason as their source and use evidence (scripture), scientific method and community (tradition), and their personal experiences as an Atheist ( Ex. The fact that Atheist can be just as moral as Christians, or even more so, can be used as a personal experiences to support their reasoning for being an Atheist). Insert Belief System here and you can see how that system is accepted or rejected by the individual. One individual can not (although they sure try!) say to another that they have the wrong belief because each person may be using a different lens to peer into the Divine. They might not see what you see even after you explain it to them for a variety of reasons. We may share the same faith but our beliefs and experiences found on our individual journeys are as unique as fingerprints.

I believe there are Universal Truths but as humans we are unable to express it in human words although some of us may come to personally experience it firsthand. Our diversity in describing the Divine should not hinder us from sitting at the same table as our brothers. Jesus walked, talked, and ate with the impurest people in regards to the Jewish purity system of his day. So why is it so difficult for us to even accept that our brother's faith (a sin) is different from ours? Growing up in the Christian church I heard that we are to love the sinner but hate the sin. I do not regard diversity of faith as a sin but as creative human outlet which seeks in expressing and defining the Infinite.