The Necessity of Criticism Pt. 1
Why this study? The Necessity of Criticism
Dr. Barry Fike
The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel. H.L. Mencken
While God waits
For His temple to be built of love
Men bring stones.
Rabindranath Tagore
John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous; however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Man seeks to explain the cosmos: it is his unabandonable quest in which his own mind is endlessly and persistently creative. Each age, according to its own best lights, arrives at its favorite answer; and each answer, no matter how absurd (man alone is permitted the privilege of absurdity), is a part of that scaffolding of thought whereby he builds the cathedral of Knowledge.
Religion is founded upon this cathedral of learning so far as it is founded upon truth and the knowledge of truth. The Bible is a written communication from Heaven to man and must be studied in order to be understood, believed and obeyed. To withhold from the myriads the means of reading and understanding the Book of God—the volume of human destiny—is the greatest sin of omission of duty to God and man that any community, acknowledging the Divine authority of that volume, can be guilty of. As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, “Truth, when not sought after, rarely comes to light.”
Religion, in its mystical, emotional or practical expression is, to me at any rate, of little value if divorced from intellectual integrity. I think that the reason “many believers” are so repulsive is that they don’t really have faith but a kind of false security. They operate by the slide rule, and the Church for them is not the body of Christ but the poor man’s insurance system. It’s never hard for them to believe because actually they never think about it. Leo Tolstoy put it this way: “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”
Unfortunately the reality is simply that it is not easy to get vast masses of men to think in advanced terms.
Your thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and worldviews are based on years and year of experience, reading, and rational, objective analysis.
Right?
Possibly not.
It is possible that your thoughts, opinions, beliefs and world views are based on years and years of paying attention to information that confirmed what you already believed while ignoring information that challenged your preconceived notions.
If there’s a single lesson that life teaches us, it’s that wishing doesn’t make it so.
To turn slowly away, step by step, from theologies which one has cherished, which were vital and are vital to friends past and present, to feel that these theologies are now but the skeletons of religion, this cannot be done without mental anguish. With all his “enlightenment” there are still times when modern man must long to hear even old Triton blow his wreathed horn or for the stately dogmatic mansion which the souls of the fathers built. Still, as a tortoise cannot dwell in the dry shell which its father shed but must grow a shell of its own—so much we!
The slogan ‘ecclesia semper reformanda’, “the church must always be reforming itself,” is a concise statement of this reforming agenda. The church must always reexamine itself and ensure that its patterns of behavior and belief correspond to its God-given models in Jesus Christ and in Scripture.
Let’s be honest—the controversies that exist in the Christian church are a source of trouble and perplexity to every thoughtful mind. Theologians have everywhere been the enemies of analysis and new ideas, and in whatever field they have appeared—feeling, quite correctly, that, once admitted, there is no setting limits to them. Akin to the intellectual stagnation in the old South, many theological circles have put a ban on all analysis and inquiry, a terrified truculence toward every new idea, a disposition to reject every innovation out of hand and hug to the whole of the status quo with fanatical resolution.
It is precisely when theologians have claimed biblical authority for their own beliefs and practices that they have been peculiarly exposed to the universal temptation…of jumping to the conclusion that the biblical writer is referring to what they would be referring to, were they speaking the words themselves. Further discussion on any point of “accepted” theology is as needless as that on the modern day topic of “Global warming”. As many of its advocates have stated over and over: the debate is over. Just accept what we say. Further discussion is unfruitful and will show nothing more than “deniers” who don’t want to look at the “facts”. I’ve come to believe that anytime that anyone, whether in theological circles or political ones, tells me that there is no more debate on any issue being looked at, that it’s precisely the very thing that is needed. Sin affects the structures of the church as much as it does the personal lives of individual believers. The Christian church, as a human institution, is as prone to all the temptations and weaknesses of fallen nature as any other institution. However, to face that dilemma is usually the one thing that isn’t done. Therefore, the word heretic becomes a favorite sword welded by the “church” for many years.
Originally, the word “heretic” had little of the sinister meaning that was later attached to it. But it was gradually melted down into a fanatical weapon which, according to the contemporary language of orthodox theology, was used to designate any doctrine held to be “unsound, false, and eternally wrong.” It might naturally be supposed that those who profess to follow one and the same Master, to venerate one and the same Book as the final court of appeal in matters pertaining to religion, would agree on all questions of faith and ecclesiastical order; but this is far from being the case. Thus, who is the heretic?
There were expositors of the Scripture in the Church long before Christians were divided into Roman Catholics, Greek Church, and Protestants. Which of them shall we follow? Shall it be Origen or Chrysostom, Jerome or Augustine? The answer that the Church of Rome, in common with all other Churches, has to give is that no interpretation of Scripture by an individual, however learned, are to be regarded as infallible; all that can be done by the authorized leaders of the Church is to indicate a certain line of faith, ecclesiastical order and practice, according to which the Bible ought to be interpreted, (emphasis mine) and by which all commentators ought to be guided and tested.
Many books in my library are now behind and beneath me; I read them years ago, with considerable pleasure; I have read them since with disappointment; I shall never read them again. They were good in their way once, and so were the clothes I wore when I was ten years old — but I have outgrown them. Nobody ever outgrows Scripture; the book widens and deepens with our years. The deeper you dig into Scripture, the more you find that it is a GREAT abyss of TRUTH. It is because of this TRUTH that each individual should study to show himself approved unto God.
There is a need for each individual to study the Bible, or else be prepared to take someone else’s opinion. In the 1600’s Faustus Socinus, in his “Catechism of Rakow” made the following observation: “Let each one be free to judge of his own religion, for this is the rule set forth by the New Testament and by the example of the earliest church. Who are we, miserable people, that we would smother and extinguish in others the fire of divine spirit which God has kindled in them? Have any of us a monopoly of the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures?”
I’m a strict believer in the scientific principle of believing nothing, only taking the best evidence available at the present time, interpreting it as best you can, and leaving your mind open to the fact that new evidence will appear tomorrow. Because of this attitude there is a need for each individual to study the Bible for themselves, or else be prepared to take someone else’s opinion. In the 1600’s Faustus Socinus, in his “Catechism of Rakow” made the following observation: “Let each one be free to judge of his own religion, for this is the rule set forth by the New Testament and by the example of the earliest church. Who are we, miserable people, that we would smother and extinguish in others the fire of divine spirit which god has kindled in them? Have any of us a monopoly of the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures?” It would be well to remember that what is invisible is what God sees, and it is precisely that which the Christian must look for.
Originally it was written in a context of ancient times in another language for other people. It reflects customs that differ from our own, and its message may well be foreign to the understanding we bring to it. For many reasons we need to proceed with diligence, thoroughness, caution, and rigor if we wish to glean from the Biblical text the message its authors sought to convey; otherwise, we risk imposing our views on it instead of discerning its claims on us. The scriptures can be twisted, distorted and slanted. When this happens they may be used to undo the very purpose of God who gave them. When the written word is so wrested as to defeat the purpose, plan and prayer of the living word, something is indeed seriously wrong.
It is necessary that we should have a thinking people. Boswell tells us that Goldsmith once said: “As I take my shoes from the shoemaker, and my coat from the tailor, so I take my religion from the priest.” There are many who are like that; and yet religion is nothing unless it is a personal discovery. As Plato had it long ago: “The unexamined life is the life not worth living,” and the unexamined religion is the religion not worth having. It is an obligation for a thinking man to think his way to God. No one is poor except the man who is poor in knowledge. If he has knowledge, he has all; if he has none, what has he? As Mark Twain once said, “Just because you’re taught that something’s right and everyone believes it’s right, it don’t make it right.”
In Jesus’ day and time, the Rabbis believed that studying the law and uncovering ever-new layers of meanings constituted genuine piety. The rabbis contended, therefore, that study of the Decalogue—in face of all biblical materials—might uncover the underlying rationale and purposes of Jewish law; such study represents the most vital act of the religious Jew. As R. Tanachum b. Haniliar said, “He who hungers—makes himself hungry—for the words of the Law in this world, God will satisfy him in the world to come.” The rabbinic treatment of the Ten Commandments finds holiness in submission to rabbinic law as a system, to the rabbi as a sage, and to the entire corpus of rabbinic teaching, itself the ultimate object of study because of its status as God’s ultimate gift to humankind.
This concept of study is not something that, contrary to popular opinion, one gets theology right and then never has to open the Bible again. Any man who follows a profession knows that he dare not stop studying. No doctor thinks that he has finished learning when he leaves the classrooms of his university He knows that week by week, and almost day by day, new techniques and treatments are being discovered; if he wishes to continue to be of service to those in illness and in pain, he must keep up with them. It is so with the Christian. The Christian life could be described as getting to know God better every day. A friendship which does not grow closer with the years tends to vanish with the years. And it is so with us and God.
As Mark Twain once said, “Just because you’re taught that something’s right and everyone believes it’s right, it don’t make it right.” Whether we like it or not -- the Bible needs interpretation by each one of us. The Biblical text is complicated which makes textual studies so interesting. Easy and patented answers aren’t given easily. Sacred scriptures are notoriously complex, which means that they invite a lifetime a study. Such complexity helps us understand that people interpret the texts differently. Part of our challenge is to understand these differences and open up dialogue that allows our similarities to influence our ability to listen and comprehend the differences that divide our fellowship.
It’s our business to try to change the external faults of the Church—the vulgarity, the lack of scholarship, the lack of intellectual honesty—wherever we find them and however we can. It is a strange reflection on God that in spite of all supernatural support, revelation still lends itself to confusion and ambiguity. Notwithstanding all that men have said and done, it has failed to furnish the world that safe and steady light it set out to guarantee. On the contrary, it has more often led men into wild wandering in dangerous and toilsome ways. It is for this reason that while the seeking soul may find the basic message of the Bible in a single phrase or verse, like John 3:16, maturing believers are wise to proceed to a more advanced understanding of the Bible based on extensive study, careful analysis, and logical explanation in view of the full range of relevant evidence; nevertheless, the relevant question becomes “What is relevant evidence?” For many scholars, items like the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the Bible’s status as the Word of God, and the real presence of God in human affairs are highly relevant to how the New Testament ought to be read; however, it is precisely at this point that a great deal of our modern study disagrees. This brings us to another type of criticism – not just rigorous analysis, but analysis based on certain convictions quite different from many of our Christian predecessors.
[1] Thomas Woods, Jr., 33 Questions about American History you’re not supposed to ask. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007. 1.
[2] Osborne & Woodward, Handbook for Bible study. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979. 13-14.
[3] Ernet R. Trattner, The Autobiography of God. (Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1930), p. 24.
[4] Alexander Campbell, “Baccalaureate Address to the Graduates of Bethany College,” Popular Lectures and Addresses. Nashville: Harbinger Book Club, n.d., 507.
[5] Burnett Hillman Streeter, Reality: A new correlation of science and religion. London: MacMillan and Col, Ltd., 1926. 7.
[6] Robert Ellsberg ed., Flannery O’Connor Spiritual Writings. Marynoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2012. 81.
[7] Ernest R. Trattner, The Autobiography of God. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. 118.
[8] http://www.thedailysheeple.com/you-ca..., accessed 8/12/2016.
[9] G.B. Foster, The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle for Existence. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1909. 134.
[10] McGrath, Alister E. Intellectuals Don’t Need God. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993) 170, 171.
[11] W. J. Cash, The Mind of the South. New York: Vinage Books, 1991. 98.
[12] Cash, 98.
[13] McGrath, 173.
[14] McGrath, 167.
[15] Trattner, 135.
[16] Robert Baker Girdlestone, Girdlestone’s Synonyms of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983. 13.
[17] Girdlestone, 14.
[18] Trattner, 138, 139.
[19] www.publicspeakingproject.org, 7-1.
[20] Trattner, 138, 139.
[21] Ellsberg, 83.
[22] Carl Ketcherside, The Twisted Scriptures. St. Louis, Missouri, Mission Messenger, 1977. 30.
[23] William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976. 90.
[24] C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings. New York: KTAV, 1970. 6.
[25] Roger Brooks, The Spirit of the Ten Commandments. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990. xi.
[26] Montefiore, 23.
[27] Brooks, xi.
[28] Brooks, 91.
[29] Rabbi Evan Moffic. What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Jewishness of Jesus. Abingdon Press: Nashville, 2015. 94, 95.
[30] Ellsberg, 83.
[31] Trattner, 78.
