You should discuss the mythology of the book of genesis, and why modern American Christians are so afraid of mystery.
I don't know exactly what was meant by this, but I have heard some say similar things meaning American Christians dogmatically hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis in the face of seemingly strong evidence that is contrary to such a view, and that these Christians, therefore, are afraid of the mystery of not knowing what the Bible is talking about. While I would agree that we could often stand to be more humble and open about various interpretations of portions of scripture, I find the above explained to be ironic.
There seems to be a driving presupposition at work that assumes what is true before entering the arena. In order to claim that the literalists are afraid of mystery you have to bring to the table what it is that you think is mysterious and what is less mysterious. In this case, distance from the text is deemed mysterious and holding firm to the text is less mysterious. But why would that be the assumption? Is it because there are more and more people rejecting that position? Is it because there is "scientific evidence" that challenges that position? The popular view and the scientific view create a tension with the text that calls for the rejection of the literalist view and an acceptance of a distant mysterious view of what the text says. Well, that makes sense, sort of. But to go this route you have to give authority to science and popularity. In other words, science and popularity tell you something and it doesn't jive with the Bible so you distance yourself from the Bible and call it mystery. You are starting out by taking the word of the world. But that isn't mystery at all. In fact, it is pretty non-mysterious. or, to put it another way, if this is your view then you are afraid of mystery. You've basically taken the easy road out. You've thrown out the mysterious in favor of something safe like popularity and science. The ones who aren't afraid of mystery are the ones who trust the myth in the face of opposition - the ones whose authority is revelation from God. When God tells them something and it doesn't jive with what the world says, that is where the mystery is. That is where faith is required.
My guess is that many of the folks who respond to Christians with this mystery argument are reacting to a legitimate problem. The truth is many American Christians, while actually holding the more mysterious position, don't let it be mysterious. And this is probably more along the lines of Brian's point. They fight as if they isn't mystery and they refuse to engage opposing "evidence" and dogmatically dismiss other arguments with cruelty and blind arrogance. In these cases there does seem to be a fear of mystery. But the solution to this problem isn't to distance ourselves from the text or change our views of scripture, or adopt an agnostic approach to tricky passages calling it strict myth or allegory. The solution is to recognize that our views are mysterious in the current popular context. This isn't the same as saying such views are unreasonable. In fact the are just as reasonable if not more so than opposing views. If you don't think the are reasonable then you don't really believe that they are true. But when you are faced with the great wonder of creation and the world is constantly changing its story based on new discoveries and is using their story against you, you have to recognize and be comfortable saying you can't explain it all. Its okay though, as dogmatic as our opponents can be they can't explain it all either. And their own theories are constantly challenged and disproved - but God is never disproved.
The mystery isn't so much being comfortable with not knowing what the Bible is talking about, but it is being comfortable not knowing how to fit what we think we know about the world into what the Bible is talking about. Those who are afraid of mystery are the ones who think they know both what they see and what the read (both extremes do this). The ones who aren't afraid of mystery believe their side will be vindicated in the end but know that they can't see it all with their human eyes.
8 comments:
Is your premise that 'popular science' contradicts the bible and that we must ascribe the term 'mystery' to anything that doesn't meet either strict biblical or scientific interpretations?
I, personally, don't see anything in the bible that I would deem mysterious (that is not knowing the source of the mystery). I see things that I can't explain or will ever understand, but I am confident that they will work out in they end and that, in the fullness of time, with my perfect being, I will understand all that God created and the means in which he did. So for me Genesis can either be literal or figurative and it doesn't change anything about who God is and what he has done or is doing.
I agree with your statement that God can never be disproved but I would take that a step further and argue that God can use things like 'popular science' to prove himself and that we as Christians are not at war with 'popular science' and that we can use that knowledge as a tool to better understand God and his grace. Look at how the earth tilts at 32.5 degrees for example, ultimately it is only by God grace. We have a fossil record, and we can argue about what that means to the Genesis account, but what we can never argue about is the ultimate source of that record or why it is here (to point to God as all his creation does).
I think a more interesting study is why 'popular science' (not the magazine with build-your-own-helicopters) and Christians so often oppose each other, when both (when done correctly) can only point to the truth.
The popular sentiment, the cool people, the intelligencia, the "relevant" folks, assume the Biblical creation account is nothing more than mythology or allegory. Likewise with academia. And if you are influenced by that then you "account" for your association with the Bible with terms that distance yourself from it like "mystery." You hold one to be reasonable and the other unreasonable, but then you cover your bases with the mystery card so you can have your cake and eat it too. That is why I was saying it is actually being afraid of mystery - because you have worked out a way to have both things (you still have your "faith, "but you also avoid the risk of running contrary to the flow of the world). The only mystery there is how you get away with such a thing in your head.
"in the fullness of time, with my perfect being, I will understand all that God created and the means in which he did." I got news for you. We are finite creatures and always will be even in our glorified state. God may never give us insight into all that he has done. Some things may not be for us to ever know in the scientific sense.
I understand what you are getting at about science being good and compatible and I agree. But most of what passes for science in the context of Biblical studies is inexcusable. The key to your last sentence is in your parenthesis: "when done correctly." How often does that happen?
Maybe this will clarify a bit:
If you start from the world's perspective you call religion mysterious and it is a credit to yourself if you believe in the mystery. Mystery = believing in something when you think it is unreasonable. Not only that, but you consider the ones who start from the religious perspective as being afraid of mystery.
But if we step away from both perspectives as much as we can and look upon them with as much objectivity as we can muster, which starting point seems more inclined to accept mystery? And in this case mystery = unaccountable according to the standards of the hour. Is it the one informed by the shifting doctrines of popularity and scientific dogma? Or is it the one informed by a relationship with the creator of it all? Is it the one who holds loosely to divine revelation in the face of the "facts" of the day, or the one who holds loosely the "facts" of the day in the face of conviction regarding divine revelation?
Well, there is room for boneheads on both sides, but as far as an objective view about who is afraid of mystery it seems that those starting from the world's perspective are the ones who seem afraid of mystery. They seem eager to ingest any new scrap of information, any new opinion, any half-baked speculative conclusion to fortify there position of holding the mysterious at arms length.
Does that help?
"We are finite creatures and always will be even in our glorified state."- expand that some more. don't you think that with a perfect understanding we will recieve in heave that we will understand the 'mysteries' of the Bible? I think that God is a God of law and that he opperates by the same mechanisms we see every day (only he is privy to the unspoiled mechanics). When Jesus turned water into wine I believe that happened on the molecular level that H20 physically turned into wine (what ever that chemical equation is). When he healed the blind man, his rods and cones started working again. I don't think God is bound to his natural mechanisms but that he used them for things like creation and how he sustains us on a rock in the middle of space that, like baby bears bed and porage, 'happens to be just right' When I get to heave I fully expect to understand both the how and the why God made man and earth and do so perfectly.
When is science and religion done correctly? I would say almost never and almost always at the same time. Truth is truth and it will always be at the root of everything. It is the common link. Science, regardless of the intentions will always reveal the truth to some degree...
I just saw you made a new comment so I will go read that now.
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Electricity is a mystery to me. I don't really understand how it works. I know that you have to compete a circuit to make things work and that if you don't they won't. But when I plug my computer into the wall it lights up and I can argue with my friend on the blog. Now take that many years ago plants got buried and turned into gas or oil and that when I burn that oil I can make energy that I can put into wires and make my computer turn on.
I can either accept that this mystery will never be explained and go on with my life or I can try to use tool that God has given me (reason ect..) to try and uncover that process which, I think, would give glory back to God and the divine architect.
I see your point that the term mystery can be used to hold on to current 'science' wile loosely holding onto the Bible and that it is not good. But I guess I am beating my same old drum that science will always point back to God no matter what the 'popular' sentiment is and that we can use it (with a grain of salt) to fully understand God better. I don't read the Bible as mystery, I read it as things my feeble mind can't comprehend in its current state.
I'm not really arguing against science here at all. I've been thinking about the initial quote and thinking about how some people use a statement like that. This is post is mostly about how some folks want to hold the Bible at such a distance in the name of "mystery" that they show themselves to be the one's who are truly afraid of mystery.
As far as the finite tangent goes, we often think of our ignorance as being a bad thing or an effect of the fall. But the reality is we are creatures and have no right, no ability, and no reason to comprehend all that God does and how he does it. Perhaps we will be able to watch videos of the first creation, But I suspect we won't know too much more than what he's already revealed to us. What would the point be? It isn't a direct parallel, but when thinking of these things I am reminded of when Aslan says to Lucy in Prince Caspian, "To know that would have happened, child? No. Nobody is ever told that. But anyone can find out what will happen."
george, I'm not following you.
Yeah, strictly speaking, the answer to the question, "does this make sense?" is no. I am using two different definitions of mystery in the comparisons so it is naturally difficult to follow.
There are three ways you can look at apparent contradictions between the Biblical accounts and the conclusions of our scientific observations. One way is to trust the conclusions of the day as the interpretive guide for approaching the Biblical accounts. One way is to trust the Biblical accounts as the interpretive guide for approaching the conclusions of the day. The third I wil save til later. In our American context the dominant mode of evaluating reality is by trusting the conclusions of the day. And consequently, those who trust the Biblical record as their interpretive guide for reality are necessarly deemed to be ones who trust in mystery - mystery being a negative label conoting dogmatic fundamentalists, idiots, anti-science, etc. In some cases this negative label is well earned. But, with this use of "mystery," all of those who trust the Biblical account as an interpretive guide are, as labelled by the majority, more mystery trusting than those who are doing the labelling. So who are the ones afraid of mystery?
The third way of you can look at apparent contradictions between the Biblical accounts and the conclusions of our scientific observations brings us to the second definition of the term "mystery" - a catch all term to excuse oneself from engaging the issues with expectation of reasonableness. This often happens within the religious community itself. Some folks use "mystery," in what they deem is a positive sense, to describe their agnosticism. It is a way to put a happy light on their refusal to ground their faith in reality. And this is a danger on both sides of the interpretive guide fence. The anti-science fundamentalists can refuse to humbly engage the conlusions of the day and put the happy face of "mystery" on their proud stance (except they usually call it "faith"). Those affected by the conclusions of the day scoff at those who use the Biblical accounts as an interpretive guide for reality. And, not wanting to lose other good stuff from the Biblical accounts (like mercy, grace, and salvation), put a happy face of "mystery" on their own contradiction (sometimes they call this "faith" as well).
So, what I was confusingly trying to get at in the original post is that the negative use of "mystery" is actually the better mystery to be associated with. And the positive use of "mystery" is not really positive at all.
Post a Comment