The Context of the Bible

[go4tli]

When we assume that we have perfect knowledge -- that we know what the
answer will be before we even investigate -- conflict with science is
all but guaranteed(1).

It also puts people -- a *lot* of people, if polls conducted by
Evangelical groups are anything to go by -- in the awkward position of
having to decide between science and faith, as if those two things
were *ever* amenable to some kind of value-based comparison.

In my opinion, that's because too many people treat the Bible as if it
is *complete*, and as if it is *written particularly to modern man*.

A lot of people expect the Bible to address, and be the final word on,
every issue in human experience. They'd prefer an owner's manual or
an almanac to a love letter, it would seem. Of course, this stance is
ridiculous when one considers the point of following Christ. If the
Bible already addresses *everything*, then where's the room for a
relationship with God that is allowed to *grow*?

It's also a mistake to go into the Bible without awareness of the
cultural influences it was written from. To miss this is to miss the
sorts of things the Bible *does* address. Science isn't one of them.

Somehow, modern folks have decided that this means that the Bible is
inferior. That God somehow stooped beneath Himself when He delivered
His Word *not* to pay attention to science.

But isn't that the *point* of Christianity? That God stoops low --
amazingly low, infinitely low -- to reach us where we are (Philippians
2:6-8)?

I'd argue that the entire *reason* that both Jesus and Scripture look
so human and so ordinary and so much a part of their surroundings is
*expressly* to draw attention to God's glory and power. The Bible
reflects the ancient cultures in which it was written; Jesus reflected
the appearance of a first-century Palestinian peasant. These very
facts proclaim the glory of God.

A lot of Evangelicals seem to skip right over this truth. We don't
like to think of the Bible as despised and weak, in spite of what
Scripture itself has to say about such things (1 Corinthians
1:18-31). We like to emphasize attributes we give it but which it
never gives itself -- such as scientific accuracy.

Which makes me wonder how much we're missing. Jesus claimed that the
*only* way to know God is through Him. Think about that. We can only
see God *truly* through the humble form He has chosen to use. The
life of Jesus and the testimony of Scripture itself seem to point the
the power and glory revealed through weakness (2 Corinthians 12:7-10).

Yes, this is paradoxical. There are *a lot* of paradoxes in following
Christ.

When we divorce the Bible from the people it was written to and among
and try to wrench it into contemporary scientific discussion as a
scientific description, I'd argue that that's not *just*
stubbornness. It's not just *merely* delusional. It also misses
something fundamental about what it means to follow a God Who walks
with us.

It sells God's Word short by selling God short.

We might prefer a god who keeps a comfortable distance by being
clinical in his communication to us, keeping his descriptions of deep
events to some kind of historical sequence. But that's not God. If
you're interested in following Him, you're going to have to get used
to that.

----------

(1) Science is investigation. If you know the answers already, by
definition, *it's not investigation*.

To put it differently: If scientific findings *don't* challenge your
favorite ideas, you're doing it wrong. If you're sure you know what
you'll find before you experiment, *you're not even doing science*.