So yesterday I was able to get out and go hear Phyllis Tickle speak at St. David’s church here in Austin. It was nice to get out of the house and pretend for a few hours that I am still a thinking adult and not just a spit-up depository. Phyllis discussed the ideas in her new book The Great Emergence (which I blogged on recently here). She of course is brilliant in her understanding of religious trends and the transformative impact of historical events. I am really looking forward to reading the book, and wish I could attend The Great Emergence conference in December to explore these ideas further.
One thing she brought up yesterday that really stood out to me was the idea that the major controversial issues the church deals with (slavery, women’s rights, homosexuality…) are significant mainly because they challenge the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura. For most people it doesn’t matter if their reading of the Bible on those issues is perhaps wrong or biased – they interpret the Bible a certain way and anything that challenges that interpretation is a direct challenge to scripture. One could argue until one is blue in the face that the Bible really doesn’t condone slavery or support the subjugation of women, but any challenge to their preconceived notions is a death blow to Sola Scriptura. There are of course all sorts of discussions regarding foundationalism and theories of truth that relate to this idea, but her discussion connected to me on a more visceral level in relation to basic underpinnings of faith.
Recently Mike and I have had numerous conversations on how one approaches the Bible. In seminary he is mildly irritated at the either/or approach one is offered when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Either one is a literalist or one is a historic liberal. It’s one or the other. Which is of course annoying to those of us who take a slightly more middle ground. But in discussing the good parts of historical source criticism, I’ve seen that often my gut response is not to explore the truth behind such claims, but to react to how they change my faith. The good moral lessons or words of encouragement that I was taught were the core meaning behind certain bible stories no longer exist when those stories are approached from a different perspective. I find myself uncomfortable not because such things challenge truth, but because they challenge the cultural trappings of my religious tradition. I have to ask if my faith is truly in God or if it is in the presentation of the christian faith as it has been given to me.
I have no problem exploring that question and rethinking what I believe. But others see such questioning of biblical interpretation as questioning the Bible itself. It is all about our faith in Sola Scriptura as Phyllis mentioned. It is about an idea – a constructed way of being – more than it is truly about the Bible or truth. Questions and doubts challenge the superiority of our intellect and undermine our egotistical perceptions of self. We spin it other ways, but it comes down to basic posturing and the inability to admit we are wrong.
So I have to ask myself if I would rather place my faith in a false god than have that faith challenged. Is my comfort with the familiar more important than following and serving God?