This
is Part 2 in my series discussing the Bible’s relevancy to Modern Life. Here is Part 1. Here is Part 3
To
sum up, while our technology and circumstances may have changed since then, the
basic motivations of life and human nature have not changed in spite of all our
advancement. Even our modern toys fulfill the same needs that they had
then.
I
realize that many people reject the Bible as an authority in their lives.
Many do so because they don’t really want that standard. They want to be
free from any accountability. For these people, there will be no argument
that will seem reasonable at all because their desire trumps logic.
Others
reject the Bible under the belief that it is not reliable either in what it
describes (our situation) or in the sense that the text we have today is not
what was written then.
I
believe that many people who question the Bible’s relevancy to modern life
ultimately comes down to the issue of Reliability.
Is
the Bible we have today reliable? Does the Bible accurately describe the
human condition? Is what we read today anything like what was originally
written?
I
would argue that the text we have is reliable and that it does accurately
describe the human condition.
First
issue:
Does the Bible accurately describe the human condition?
Eastern
religions tend to see this world as an illusion to various degrees and problems
such as sickness, suffering and death are caused by our insistence that our
lives are real and distinct from the divine or because of our attachment to
things that ultimately are unreal. These account for the situation of
this world by ultimately denying its reality or significance.
The
dominant philosophical competition in America would be metaphysical
naturalism—championed a generation ago by the likes of Carl Sagan and more
recently by the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Samuel Harris. They
insist the material universe is all there is and life as we know it
evolved. Death, competition and disease have always been a part of
existence and are merely mechanisms that serve as the driving force of
evolution. There is no divine being, no spiritual reality, no existence
beyond physical death.
This
worldview, in my opinion, better accounts for the world as we know it than the
eastern religions, but naturalism insists it has always been this way and will
never change. To suggest otherwise is merely wishful thinking.
Suffering, disease and death are realities and will always be a part of our
lives. There is no hope or expectation of changing this truth apart from
advancement in knowledge and technology.
The
Bible describes in full color the depths of suffering in this world as we know
it. The Bible acknowledges that these issues are real and significant,
not merely illusions, unreal or based on ignorance. Where the Bible
differs it insists that the world has not always been this way, it’s not the
way the world is supposed to be, and not the way the world will end up.
The
Bible starts in Genesis with God’s ideal—human beings in a world free from
corruption and sin… free from death and disease. But anyone with half a
brain can tell that’s not the world we live in now. So the Bible then
describes how everything got to be the way it is—why is there suffering,
disease and death.
Everything
changes in Genesis 3 with the Fall. In that moment of rebellion, sin
corrupted not only our nature, but all of creation itself (see Romans
8:21-23).
A
biblical worldview at the point of describing reality is in general agreement
with the naturalist—sin, disease, suffering and death are a part of our
existence. We merely disagree on the cause and what, if anything can be
done about it.
Much
of the Bible illustrates just how bad this fallen nature is—and it is not G
rated. But it offers hope in that it adds what God intends to do (or has
done) about it.
The
Bible describes people as fallen, damaged and broken. This fallen nature
manifests in the way we act and treat each other.
We
are by nature selfish. Watch any group of toddlers
with toys and you realize you don’t have to teach them to grab a toy out of one
kid’s hands and run saying “MINE!!!”. It takes great effort to teach them
to share. Greed comes naturally--as the reality show Hoarders or all the
complaints about corporate executive salaries shows. But the Bible says
that “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil”. Jesus
taught us to be servants and to be willing to give up all that you have for the
sake of the Gospel and serving others.
We
are by nature liars. Lying comes naturally and early
in life as well; especially if we feel like we’re in trouble or don’t want to
get caught. Jesus said we should let our “yes be yes and your no, no”,
that we should live lives of integrity and honesty.
We
are by nature coveters. We want what other people have
and are willing to resort to taking and justifying it. I’ve always
wondered why this one was listed last among the 10 Commandments, last among
those dealing with relationships between people (#5-10) and I finally figured
it out—this one is an internal action while the others (murder, stealing, lying
etc.) are external ones. The more we control our desires, our coveting,
the less likely we will violate the others. Jesus said we must be willing
to give up everything in order to follow Him, to deny ourself take up our cross
and follow Him.
We
are by nature killers. No, not everyone kills someone
else, something holds most of us back from that—but it wouldn’t take much to
push us to that point. People have been proven to kill for land, for
money, for “love”. Jesus elevated the bar by saying if you hate someone
you have already committed murder in your heart.
We
are by nature adulterers. Much of our culture struggles
with their sexuality in some way. It is our natural tendency to sin sexually. Yet that is not how the Bible calls us to
live. It actually calls us to live contrary to our natural desire—calls us
to refrain from sex before marriage and then to remain faithful to one woman
only in a life-long commitment. Even more, Jesus elevates this calling by
saying that a man who looks at a woman lustfully (covetously) has committed
adultery in his heart.
In
essence, we are self-indulgent narcissists who seek our own pleasure in life
often at the expense of someone else. Anyone who watches the news,
watches TV for more than 10 minutes knows these are accurate
descriptions. And there are more.
The
fact that we are this way is undeniable and not in dispute. It’s the
cause and cure that are.
This
is exactly the kind of people the Bible says we are and the Bible is full of
examples of people doing these very things… many of them the ones who are
supposed to be close to God. King David—a man after God’s own heart—was a
liar, an adulterer and a murderer. The Bible has many stories relating to
killing for money, jealousy, revenge or women.
The
Bible is not a G rated book but describes our world exactly as it is—the Bible
describes human nature accurately. The Bible does not hide or excuse our
sin but reveals it. It merely assigns the cause of these behaviors
to be spiritual—a spiritual failing and corruption.
Again,
the Bible accurately describes the human condition, the primary difference it
subscribes is the cause—a spiritual problem.
Much
of modern America wants you to believe that people back in the ancient world
were just too ignorant to understand human behavior.
The
ancients did not have modern scientific methods, psychological assessment,
medical and genetic models to draw from. As a result of this lack of
knowledge (and assumed superiority) the moral judgments of the ancients have no
bearing. In many instances, behaviors that at one time were understood as
a moral/behavioral issue have been redefined to be morally neutral, a disease
that requires treatment not condemnation. Consider this statement
concerning the role of a modern psychological therapist:
“the therapist will
not impose or otherwise induce his personal values on the patient…The
exploration and acquisition of more constructive and less neurotically
determined values [is] conducted without ethical or moral pressure or suasions
of any kind.”
In
many instances this type of approach is very helpful and opens up new treatment
possibilities. But in other ways, it ignores the root problem and gives
people an excuse to continue in the wrong and damaging behavior—alcoholism and
sexuality being contemporary issues.
In
contrast, Dietrich Bonhoeffer—who grew up as the son of a therapist, said this:
The most experienced
psychologist or observer of human nature knows infinitely less of the human
heart than the simplest Christian who lives beneath the Cross of Jesus. The
greatest psychological insight, ability and experience cannot grasp this one
thing: what sin is. Worldly wisdom knows what distress and weakness and failure
are, but it does not know the godlessness of man. And so it does not know that
man is destroyed only by his sin and can be healed only by forgiveness.
Only the Christian
knows this. In the presence of a psychiatrist I can only be a sick man; in the
presence of a Christian brother I can dare to be a sinner. The psychiatrist
must first search my heart and yet he never plumbs its ultimate depth. The
Christian brother knows when I come to him: here is a sinner like myself, a
godless man who wants to confess and yearns for God’s forgiveness. The
psychiatrist views me as if there were no God. The brother views me as I am
before the judging and merciful God in the Cross of Jesus Christ.
The
Bible claims that the Word cuts through our motives, cuts through our excuses,
cuts through our rationalizations and exposes our spiritual need.
Hebrews
4:12—“For
the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged
sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and
marrow. It is able to judge the ideas and thoughts of the heart”
At
that point, the solution and “treatment” that God provides is laid out—repent
(agree with God’s assessment of your sin and turn from it) & believe in the
person of Jesus who provides the cure for our condition through the Cross and
Resurrection.
To say that ancient cultures were
ignorant and thus incapable of making a just assessment fails on two points.
First—those cultures had
far fewer restraints of “proper behavior” than ours and thus witnessed far more
of the depths that sinful behavior can sink to—sometimes in participation and
blessing of their religious belief. They saw a wider range of depravity
due to the close proximity of multiple cultures, with invading armies moving
through and pillaging, etc. Religion in many of these cultures were
highly sexualized, warfare and victory was often license to do anything with
those captured. I believe we take for granted the general restraint that
exists in our society that prevents the kind of rampant behavior those cultures
faced every year “in the spring when kings go off to war.” This increased
suffering and victimization.
They
were far more familiar with death and disease. Fewer and fewer of us even
slaughter our own animals for food anymore, rather we (myself included) pick up
a sanitary package at the local store. We didn’t make the cuts or watch
the creature die like they did. Similarly, when people died then,
preparation and burial rituals were very hands on by those closest to the deceased.
We let someone else do it and only show up after the person has been prepared,
dressed and covered in make-up. Most of our young men these days don’t
have to serve in the military or defend their life on a bloody battlefield in
hand to hand combat. Those that did then and do now experience many
traumas whether they are injured or not. Many of the diseases they dealt
with would be considered superficial or easily treated now—rashes, boils—but
they had to endure them for extended periods and at close proximity.
Now
you’d be right to argue that the way we do things decreases disease and death,
but it also removes our general familiarity with it. For them, it was all
day, every day, every year.
They
would argue that we, in general, are ignorant—of how rampant and debased
humanity can be, of firsthand experience of the horrors and victimization of
war, of the messiness of disease and death.
Second—the assertion that
their ignorance and lack of modern knowledge prevents us from taking what they
say with any authority assumes that there is no God who can and might speak to
a people and reveal His opinion.
Those
who make this argument, whether they intend to or not, are saying that the
Bible is more a reflection of the human author’s opinions and culture than it
is of God’s opinion. They argue that IF God did speak (which is suspect),
then what we have has been so distorted or corrupted by human copyists or
translators that what it says cannot be trusted.
This
leads to the Second Issue: which I will take up in Part 3
Is
the biblical text we have reliable or has it been corrupted beyond trust?
No comments:
Post a Comment