All religions have their creation myths; their explainers about how the earth, the heavens, and we humans came about. All these myths posit the notion of some creator beings that set the whole process in motion. Religions, like genes, like memes, are subject to evolution, the survival of the fittest. Stronger religions have displaced ones less well adapted to evolving societies. Christianity has evolved and mutated into forms that the founders of the early Church wouldn't recognise.
Out of many texts written in the first century AD about the life and times of Jesus Christ, many fell by the wayside, dismissed as apocrypha or even as heretical. A canon of 27 books (four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St Paul and the Book of Revelations) constitutes the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
The question is: how should a Christian approach the Bible (Old Testament and New) – as literally being the word of God? As a metaphor? Or viewing the texts through the prism of metaphysics?
Literal interpretation holds that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. It asserts that as such, the texts should only be interpreted according to their plain meaning. This approach stresses the Bible's historical accuracy and scientific precision (the world was indeed created over the space of six days). Metaphorical or symbolic interpretations are rejected as heresies, because the Bible – being the word of God – contains no errors or contradictions. Everything is simple; read, believe – don't question.
Metaphorical interpretation sees the Bible as containing spiritual truths often expressed through metaphors, allegories or symbols. This approach focuses on the deeper religious significance of the texts, rather than their literal meaning. Biblical stories are there for us to interpret them for their moral and theological lessons. This approach allows for greater flexibility in interpreting the Bible, but it can also lead to subjective interpretations (In Monty Python's Life of Brian, the misheard saying "blessed are the cheesemakers" is "not meant to be taken literally, it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products". )
Metaphysical interpretation (and this is my position) is to understand the Bible (and indeed any religion's holy texts) by seeking the deeper spiritual and philosophical implications in a search for universal spiritual truths and commonalities. This approach allows the seeker to explore the nature of God, humanity and the universe by drawing on philosophical and mystical traditions to interpret holy texts. This offers profound insights into their spiritual dimensions, but may also diverge significantly from traditional interpretations.
Many Christians believe that the Holy Spirit guides their understanding of the Bible, and that the Holy Spirit was there inspiring the original authors, and the church fathers who set the canon and edited subsequent translations and versions of the Bible over time. This notion squares with my view that intuition is of great importance in guiding one's spiritual journey.
Confronting the God of the Gaps
[Cartoon by Google Gemini Imagen 3.0. Prompt: "Confronting the God of the Gaps"]
So. As science unfolded from its cradle, more and more of the phenomena that touch our day-to-day lives became understood. Lightning, volcanism, infectious disease, one by one, these became processes explainable through testable hypotheses, proved through repeatable experiments. The scientific method pushed back the need for God as an explanation for the unexplainable. If, in 1641 Descarte uncoupled the physical world from the spiritual world, by 1882 Nietzsche had declared the spiritual world non-existent. There is nothing but matter. Matter is all, all is matter. And Darwin proved we came from the apes, rather than from Adam.
In such an intellectual environment, taking the Bible literally is no longer a tenable position. For instance Genesis 1:1 suggests that God created grass and fruit (on the third day) before filling the heavens with stars (on the fourth day). Examples like this are enough to prove to militant atheists that all human spirituality is wrong, rather than just taking the literal approach to religious texts is wrong. Literal interpretation has been discredited by advances in scientific knowledge – human spirituality has not. As one Jewish comedian observed, Leviticus should have written: "Ye shall not eat of the swine – at least, not until ye hath invented the refrigerator".
Sticking to metaphysical interpretation of holy texts, drawing on mystical traditions, cross-referring them in the search for commonalities, common factors that unite rather than divide religions, is far more fruitful than sticking rigidly to the literal interpretations. In stating this, I draw the ire of religious fundamentalists and militant atheists.
Lent 2024: Day 18
Do we have Free Will? (Pt II)
Lent 2023, Day 18
Intuition, Consciousness and the Physical Universe
Lent 2022: Day 18
Zen in the Art of Meditation
Lent 2021: Day 18
Possibilianism
Lent 2020: Day 18
Teetering on the Edge of Chaos
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment