Week 1 Debate- the Bible and Global Politics by Ian Lawton
The Bible and Global Trends in Christianity- by Ian Lawton (www.christ-community.net )
Jos is a province in Nigeria. Between 2000 and 2005, 50,000 people were killed or expelled through inter-religious fighting. Conflicts between Christians and Muslims, such as that in Jos, are mirrored across Africa and Asia. It’s a trend that is defining global Christianity, as more American evangelicals find their networks in Africa and Asia. It’s also a trend that reveals the double edged role of the Bible; both as justification for political agenda when read literally, and as a potential agent for global healing when read as life affirming myth.
Consider these emerging trends:
1. In 1900, Africa had 10 million Christians representing 10 percent of the population; by 2000, that was up 360 million, or 46 percent of the population. That is the largest quantitative change that has ever occurred in the history of religion. All denominations have been growing, and Anglicanism in particular. The worldwide Anglican Church is going to be overwhelmingly an African body in the near future.
2. A growing number of American Episcopalian churches are shifting their affiliation from their American dioceses to African and Asian dioceses. This means that American money and moral support is flowing to places such as Nigeria where there is no separation of church and state. There is also, at best, a tacit approval, at worst a financing, of inter religious wars in Africa by American Christians.
3. While resources and ideology are heading from the north to the south, people are arriving from the south to the north as refuges and changing the landscape of America. By 2050, one-third of Americans will have Latino or Asian roots. When you add in people of African roots, this number booms to half the population of the US. Christianity will remain a numerically dominant religion in America. However the dominant Christian expression will be a conservative one, with a literal reading of the Bible, an unholy alliance of the American religious right and immigrants of conservative religious persuasion.
Phillip Jenkins, one of America’s foremost religious analysts, points to the connection between these trends and the role of the Bible.
“There are lost tribe ideas around in Africa, and you get them very strongly when African theologians look at the Old Testament, particularly at the Pentateuch. They just get a pad and tick the number of resemblances between ancient Hebrew society and modern African society, and when they reach point 92, they say, "My God, we are the Hebrews." If African Christians see themselves as a new Israel, will a new form of American Zionism emerge?
The Bible is filled with references to angels, healings, exorcisms, and demons. These myths tap into the magical worldview of African culture. As they do, the rights of women and gays, scientific rigor and the separation of church and state take a back seat to the literal demands of a pre-scientific Bible.
The Bible is a wonderful book, full of treasures. If it is read as the poetry it was intended to be, it is gripping, conveying universal human longings and dreams. When read as myth, the Bible can inspire the best of humanity, transcending any particular political agenda or social perspective, but exciting the highest human ideals.
However when it is read literally, the Bible has the potential to incite violence and hatred. It is used to support all manner of socio-political agendas from socialism to nazism, imperialism to totalitarianism, justifying apartheid and genocide, violence against gay people and discrimination against women, racism, crusades and the slaughter of cultures and languages. The Bible has been used to silence dissent and institutionalize theocracies. Whatever else can be said about the Bible, it has never been neutral, and has often been used in thumping duels between divergent groups. As George Bernard Shaw said-
“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.” --George Bernard Shaw
The Bible was not written as history, to be read literally or authoritatively. It was written as poetry and myth. Karen Armstrong has made this point well.
"In the pre-modern world, people had a different view of history. They were less interested than we are in what actually happened, but more concerned with the meaning of an event. Historical incidents were not seen as unique occurrences, set in a far off time, but were thought to be external manifestations of constant, timeless realities. ….. To ask whether the Exodus from Egypt took place exactly as recounted in the Bible or to demand historical and scientific evidence to prove that it is factually true is to mistake the nature and purpose of this story. It is to confuse mythos with logos." The Battle for God” by Karen Armstrong (p. xvi)
Not only is the Bible internally inconsistent when read literally (monogamy and polygamy both seem to be encouraged in different parts of the Bible), it is also irrational. The levitical law outlines a code of morality that marginalizes women because of a pre-scientific understanding of child birth and menstruation. As the pious preacher on The Simpsons, Ned Flanders, said: “I've done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!”
If the Virgin birth is understood literally, it denigrates women’s sexuality. If the Magi following the star is read literally, it makes a mockery of natural laws. If God literally sent his only begotten son to die on the cross, it calls into question God’s character and raises all manner of human psychological dilemmas.
A literal understanding of the life and ministry of Jesus is equally fraught, and politically loaded. Canadian author, Tom Harpur has written a book called “The Pagan Christ”. In it he says this-
“The personal Jesus concept is a truly limiting, and deeply divisive, dead end. The historical evidence simply isn’t there. It’s a classic case of the emperor’s having no clothes. What is more, it commits idolatry by making a flesh-and-blood man into God – thus forever alienating Jews, Muslims, and believers of a host of other religions, and making full religious harmony on the planet a perpetual impossibility. It has, most notably in the United States, created a kind of passive-dependent Jesus cult totally prone to extreme magical thinking. It restricts Christhood to one person in all history instead of acknowledging the deep, archetypal power of a universal – yes, cosmic – principle and ideal. There is no doubt that by exalting Jesus in a unique magnificence, the Church has too often let the divinity in every human heart – yours and mine – lie fallow.”
The Bible is gripping, when read as life affirming myth, but life denying when read literally. When read as myth, the motivation for all people to live with compassion and justice, finds expression in the gripping stories and archetypes of the Bible.
Apparently the twentieth century theologian, Paul Tillich, had a fundamentalist student in one of his classes who believed that Tillich did not have enough respect for the Bible. During each class, the student would ask Tillich if he believed the Bible was truly the Word of God. Tillich would reply with a long and abstract answer about the Greek concept of logos and other theological subtleties. The student wanted a clear answer to his question and became agitated.
So one day during class, the student walked up to Tillich and waved his Bible in front of his face and said, “Dr. Tillich, I demand you tell me. Is this or is this not the Word of God?”
Tillich answered very calmly and confidently, “It is the Word of God if, instead of you gripping it, you let it grip you.”
What might a mythic reading of the Bible look like? How might it grip our imaginations, excite our vision for justice and be a genuine alternative voice in the cultural- religious marketplace?
Consider just these few examples;
The exodus is a universal story of alienation, inner and social. Liberation from exile is an interconnected global story, and is a story that can never be possessed by any particular group or nation.
The gospels are less interested in proving the pure blood lines of Jesus than they are in pointing to Jesus as the “New Moses” who is passionate about feeding the spiritual hunger of people in the wilderness.
The gospels are less interested in whether Mary’s baby was literally fathered by the Holy Spirit than they are in pointing to Mary as a “goddess of fertility”, manifesting the divine feminine, birthing hope in barren lives.
The gospels are less interested in stars that transcend the natural order than they are in Persian gentiles whose imaginations were so excited by the universal possibilities of a “New Moses” that they followed an inner calling to look level eyed into the face of God.
That’s just a sampling of Christmas myth. There are at least two broad themes to Bible myth and story-
1. Personal transformation- a new perspective, a new clarity, a new question, a new passion, a sense of waking up to the possibilities that surround you.
2. Social transformation- counter cultural trends towards love and abundance rather than fear and scarcity, new networks of blessed unrest, a tidal change of global connectedness, a belief in the impossible dream of peace in the midst of horrendous conflict
I end with a story out of the Jewish Hasidic tradition. It speaks of the power of a mythic reading of the Bible to inspire compassion. A student of the bible asked his Rabbi about something puzzling him. "Rabbi", he asked, "it says in the Torah that the Word of God is placed on our hearts. Why does it not say the Word of God is placed in our hearts?" The Rabbi responded, "The reason Torah says the Word of God is placed on our hearts rather than in our hearts is because not everyone is ready to receive the Word fully into our hearts. But the Word of God is placed on our hearts so that when our hearts are broken by the suffering of this mortal life the Word of God will then fall into our hearts and become God's life for us in our suffering. The Word remains on the surface, dropping into the seam of pain when that seam opens."
Progressive Christians must continue to be gripped by the word of God that falls into our open hearts and allow this word to shape and inspire our responses to personal and global issues. The Bible as story and mythology must be presented clearly and concisely so that issues of gender and sexuality, scientific integrity, church and state separation and social justice find grounding in the Christian tradition, and so that the conservative agenda cannot take sole ownership of the Bible.
Mixed media
I used to hold conservative theological views but have always held liberal political views and never understood why conservative politics was expected of conservative Christians. In fact, taking the Bible nearly literally demanded a great deal from me in caring for neighbor that was better served by a liberal social agenda.
I came to reject the inerrancy of scripture and thus left Evangelicalism. Only recently have I been able to return to my roots to reclaim the truth in those views. I knew of Jim Wallis 25 years ago when I was in seminary as an Evangelical and I am so pleased to be re-discovering him today. I have also recently been reading Brian McLaren and am inspired by his "generous orthodoxy" that clearly welcomes someone with my now progressive theology to conversation.
I think there is a great danger of literalism in the hands of people with a conservative political agenda, so I welcome the fresh air of voices like Wallis, McLaren, and david who posted here. There is no automatic connection between conservative theology and conservative politics, so we must continue to challenge that, regardless of the way we choose to interpret the Bible.
Question about how to work together?
My question though is in a similar vein as David's. How do we work together with our friends who are politically progressive, but more conservative theologically? It seems like differences in theology are starting to really hand us up in building a broad based movement. If you believe the bible is more myth, how do you dialogue with the fundamentalist about our faith? Should we even go there if we largely agree politically?
Progressive theology
Rev. Lawton,
This is a fantastic piece and one of the better articulations of progressive theology. We hear so much from the religious fundamentalists in the media and in my daily life at least, that its often difficult to take a step back to ask the questions about what I believe to be truth in the Bible.
The whole Bible as myth and allegory doesn't completely work for me. As the Bible grips me, there are truths that confront my personal behavior and relationships as well as my socio-political sentiments. As someone who has sometimes struggled with my faith, I realize there are things I take on faith that do not meet with the rational mind that progressive theology seems to embrace. For example, I don't think Jesus's existence or his divinity is myth. I believe on faith, hard-earned through contemplation, dialogue and personal trial, that in the long arc of history that bends towards justice, that God decided he would insert himself into human history to help transform the world. This is certainly not the only time that God has impressed himself upon the world, but it was certainly the most dramatic.
To me its become logical. I believe in God, a supreme timeless being beyond comprehension, like our inability to understand the root of the unbelievbly dense ball of matter and energy that created the big bang.
Why wouldn't God insert himself into our world to know more fully the joys and travails of being a human, to bring forgiveness to all of us who are broken, and to model a perfect life of healing the sick, spending time with the outcasts and destitute and challenging the rich and powerful?
Thanks for helping me explore these issues.
option simply not on the table for many
I appreciate your view on this matter, but I have two responses.
1. The notion of making a fundamental change in the way Christians in order to gain a different political viewpoint is likely to be rejected out of hand by those believers whose identity as a group is closely tied to the more literal understanding of the Bible.
Humanists have recently been arguing along similar lines urging believers to reject religion wholesale because of the problems it has caused throughout history. They say, in essence, reject faith and the world will be peaceful. What you are suggesting is that if religiously conservative Christians reject a core component of their faith and worldview, we can all live in peace.
I would argue that it is not any religion or manifesto in particular that inherently yields intolerance, but rather epistemic arrogance. -> we know the truth and you must therefore conform. It doesn't matter what particular belief a group adheres to, if they believe that they have the authority to press their understanding of reality and right behavior on others, it becomes a threat to peace.
I think that this myth perspective is fine, but ought to be understood as one way that people who identify themselves as followers of Christ come to hold liberal political views. There may be advantages to embracing such an interpretation of scripture, but there are also consequences that many people will find unacceptable.
2. A more literal interpretation does not necessitate intolerance. There are ways of understanding scripture that both yield a fundamentalist literalism and tolerance of those who do not hold to the same understanding of scripture.
One of the things that I have noticed here is that many of the regular contributors do adhere to a more figurative interpretation of the Bible. That is likely to be expected. The fewer religious restrictions that are rendered from the principles you apply to scriptural interpretation, the fewer restrictions you are likely interested in pursuing in civil matters. However, endeavoring to unite your fellow Christians by loosening their manner of interpreting scripture is probably a lost cause and may cause more divisions than sense of unity.
A more persuasive approach is to endeavor to find some means that is compatible with these believers worldview and core tenets of faith. I am an evangelical and I have arrived at a liberal tolerant political viewpoint through my conservative interpretation of the Bible. I have taken a different path to get there, and, though we may not stand on identical theological grounds, we can stand together in a shared vision of justice and liberty for all.
david
A Developing New Spirituality
I respect your interpretation of scripture David and it is one that Progressive Christians, who favor a more theologically liberal perspective of the good book, should learn to be able to peaceably coexist with.
Something is going on though in the Christian world. The old mainline denominations are dying off. The Evangelicals are surviving. There is also a new breed of Christian developing that loves God but can't express it as an Evangelical or in the mainstream denominations. The main stream denominations are clinging to their old ways and resisting change and it isn't working. The creeds remain the same, they sing songs 150 years old, and they don't have the spirit and fervor of the Evangelicals. The developing Christianity has a spirit equivalent to the "born again aspect" of the Evangelicals. It is a spirit that encourages meditation, personal development, and a renewal of the soul. It transcends creeds and dogmas and emphasizes experience and knowing. This new spirituality is where I am at. 75% of Americans are not white, born again Evangelicals. That is where the fertile ground of the new spiritual revolution is. You have arrived at a more tolerant peaceful worldview as you stay true to your Evangelical faith. Many in the 'emergent" church and the Sojourners folks lean that way too .Locally I work with Mennonites on Peace issues who come from a similar perspective. But what about the millions of Evangelicals who literally want to kill for Jesus? The new spirituality will help counterbalance this as will people like you. That is why we must be allies.
The Bible as Myth?
This article resonated with me. Being Episcopalian in the US, I did know about the African church, and living in a parish that disagreed with the actions of the last Convention strongly enough to remove itself from the Episcopal Church of the US and attach itself to the Anglican Communion, I knew too much about that. I strongly disagree with the actions of my parish, but that's surely a discussion for another time and place.
So I knew about the growth of the African church, which I see as a wonderful thing. I hadn't considered how it happened, just that it did and was exciting to me. But using the Bible as myth?
That really struck me and got me arguing with myself. The very concept shook me to my core. The Bible as myth.
A myth?
No! The Bible is true!
Every word?
There is a lot of allegory in it, but it contains truth.
Are myths not true?
Uhhhh...
Well, yeah. Most myths contain truth, even if we can't find a talking fox, or a very wise turtle. We find truth within them and in the lessons they teach. And THAT sounds familiar. THAT sounds like exactly what the Bible means to me, containing truth and wisdom and lessons for my life.
The language still bothers me, it is SO not comfortable to say "bible as myth" as part of my belief structure. I think I need to study more on the development and defining of myth.
Thank you for sharing this. I needed a good argument with myself this afternoon.
Dynamite Debate Post on the Bible and Global Politics
Thanks Ian for this post, it has a unique perspective. This was the first time I heard this describtion of the situation in Africa. I hope you will join us for the rest of the debate.