Towards the end of
this blog, I said that there was one element that I had left out. I pointed out
that I did not use the word “Truth”. I added that the Bible is used to support
various contradictory views and doctrines.
What are we to make of
the fact that God inserts stories in the Bible that provoke disagreement
(English newspapers would say “controversy”).
Consider the story of
Adam and Eve in the early Chapters of Genesis, right at the beginning of the
Bible. Was the world was created in seven days, and Adam and Eve the first
people, or is it an allegory? I chose this this example because it arouses
debate in some places, but is less contentious than it once was. (I have decided
that I do not have an opinion on this, but can imagine either to be true.)
Closer to home, the
differences in doctrine within the protestant Church concerning Baptism (child
or adult) is a matter of conviction to Church-going insiders and completely
baffling to outsiders. What is clear is that any one party will be able to
demonstrate that their belief is consistent with the Bible and can be derived
from it.
More contentious at
the present time is the matter of women priests and bishops. This is a serious
practical matter. If it can be put as a matter of “Sides” (like a football
match), one “Side” looks to the literal writings of the Bible and the other
“Side” would say that the Bible should be interpreted in the light of modern
day practice and custom. (A bit more complicated than that, I know, but it will
do for an 800 word blog). Again, as a practical matter and moving away from the
main plot, the outside world looks on and regards the whole thing as slightly
bizarre.
Whether it is “Adam
and Eve”, “Infant or Adult Baptism” or “Women Priests”, “Pre-destination or
Freewill” (to mention another question) or any other belief, they are discussed
by the respective parties as matters of Truth. I use the word “Truth” with a
pinch of irony. It is inherent in the way that we approach questions to look
for the “Truth”. When we have found the “Truth”, we regard its opposite as “Not
True”. (I share Martin Mosse’s view on this point – see footnote). Whether or
not this is a “Western” or cultural thing, I do not know.
As if to reinforce
this approach, we think of Truth as being “Carved in Stone”. One can use this
expression to describe the fact that a “Truth” is eternal and unchanging.
However, we often use it to express the sentiment that there is no disagreement to be had with this.
The Bible is not a
series of individually true statements, which stand alone and are eternally
applicable. It is not a book of beliefs and doctrines. Neither is it a book of
rules and regulations, whose main purpose is to tell us what we must do and
what others must do.
It is something more
personal than all these things. It is a vehicle through which God speaks to us
about Himself and ourselves. In John 5.39, Jesus says that the Bible speaks about
Him. Click here for Link.
Finally, I refer you to Martin Mosse’s website “Brainwaves”. http://www.brainwaves.org.uk/ “Brainwaves” is a series of articles and papers,
on both religious and secular topics, designed to encourage people to approach
questions from alternative points of view to those conventionally followed.
In January 2009, he
wrote a paper, Healing of the Church. (click on link)
Amongst other themes, he
considers some of the apparently conflicting views of the Catholic and Protestant
church. This is in itself an interesting theme. What readers might also find
interesting, as I did, is the proposition that opposites might both be true.
