Book Burnings for God

From North Carolina comes this story [as found at: http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-pastor-bible-burning,0,7909354.story],

A church leader in North Carolina is burning versions of the Bible he doesn't agree with.

Pastor Marc Grizzard of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton is building a bonfire on Halloween to destroy Bibles that aren't the King James Version.

His reason for burning the holy books?

"What we're doing is we're burning books that are satanic. I believe the King James version is God's preserve, inspired, in erect, infallible word of God."

The pastor also says well-known Christian ministers like Billy Graham and Rick Warren are heretics whose books belong on a long list of negative influences and should be thrown to the flames.

I am not quite certain what Pastor Grizzard means by his description of the KJV Bible in the 4th paragraph of the story, but it is obvious that he is following many others who hold the inerrant and infallible, God inspired version of the Bible is the KJV. Having been in Canton, NC, I can believe he and many others hold that view. This position certainly eliminates the issues of textual variations and the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words used. This position also gives ample justification to many who believe the society described in the KJV is the one they want to exist now.

I do not agree with this position. For my money, a person who is serious about being faithful to God ought to use a translation that is based on the best manuscripts available. The KJV does not.

Even with that, however, what purpose does it serve to burn other translations other than a self-seeking desire for publicity?

The Case for 'Faith', not 'Belief'

In an article written for the Washington Post "On Faith" section, noted author Karen Armstrong discussed her new book. Here are part of her comments:

Why did I write "The Case for God"? I was becoming increasingly concerned about the nature of the discussion that followed the publications of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam HarrIs and wanted to bring to the table some of the things that I have learned from my study of world religion during the last 20 years

First, on both sides, the discussion was often aggressive and antagonistic. To quarrel about religion is counter-productive and an impediment to enlightenment. When we are talking about God, nobody has the last word because what we call God lies beyond the reach of speech. It also violates the Western rationalist tradition: a Socratic dialogue was a spiritual exercise and, Socrates insisted, would not work unless it was conducted throughout with gentleness and courtesy. Nobody 'won' the argument: a Socratic dialogue always ended with participants realizing that they knew nothing at all, an insight that was indispensable to the philosophic quest.

Second, on both sides people were equating 'faith' with 'belief'. This is a recent aberration and one that is peculiar to modern Western Christianity. We do not find it in either Judaism or Islam. The Middle English 'bileven' meant 'love, trust, loyalty, and commitment' it was related to the German 'liebe' (beloved) and translated the Greek 'pistis' ('trust, commitment, engagement') in the New Testament and the Latin 'credo' which derived from 'cor do' ('I give my heart'). It was only in the late 17th century that 'belief' came to mean an intellectual assent to a rather dubious proposition. Just look up 'belief' in a good, historical dictionary!

At this time, truth was becoming more notional in the scientific West. We were losing the more traditional form of faith which saw religion as a practical activity. Like driving, swimming, dancing or gymnastics, you learn the truths of faith only by constant, dedicated practice - not by reading texts or adopting a metaphysical 'belief'. Like a myth, a religious doctrine is essentially a program of action. It makes no sense unless it is translated into practical action that helps you to dethrone egotism, selfishness and greed by practicing compassion to all living beings. In the book, I try to show how doctrines like the Incarnation or Trinity were originally a summons to selflessness and compassion and that we only discover their truth by making these qualities a reality in our own lives.

Finally, in the pre-modern world people knew that it was very difficult to speak about God, because God could not fit neatly into a human system of thought. People like Aquinas, Maimonides or Avicenna would find much of our modern certainty about God frankly idolatrous. They knew that we could not prove 'his' existence, that even revelation did not provide us with privileged information about the divine but simply made us aware of what we did not know, and that all our God-talk - even the language of scripture - could only be symbolic, pointing beyond itself to transcendence, because when we speak about God we are at the end of what words or thoughts can do.

And this only sounds amorphous and vague if you are not a dedicated practitioner. If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!

This is the second discussion I have found in recent days - the other being from Harvey Cox - drawing a clear and sharp distinction between faith and belief.

Do you think such a distinction can be made? Do you agree with Armstrong that people like Aquinas would find our certainty about God 'idolatry'?

By the Numbers

Some interesting data has come my way.

First, there is a new Pew research survey that puts the number of Muslims in the world at 1.5 billion+. That means that 1 of every 4 people on the planet is a follower of Islam. Previous estimates had numbers that were similar - as in 1.1-1.2 billion - so this is not a complete shock. It does, though, underscore some realities for us. Christianity still has the largest number of adherents, but that numerical superiority is declining. That would speak to the need for us to know more about Islam and to understand it better.

Second, again according to the Pew Research Center, 57% of Americans support civil unions for homosexuals, while only 37% oppose it. Quoting from the report:
A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples, a status commonly known as civil unions.
This continues a trend that started in 2004.

Third, another report from Pew Research on what we called the "Generation Gap" when I was a teenager. This investigated the number of Americans age 16 and over who say there is a big difference between young people and their parents on the following issues:
Moral Values - 80%
Work Ethic - 80%
Technology Use - 73%
Music Tastes - 69%.

Do any of these reports generate any comment on your part?

Finally, a push for a 'Conservative' Bible.

Scott Schlafly has a mission. He wants to produce a fully conservative Bible, free from all liberal bias. According to the Conservative Bible Project website (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project):

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:
1] Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2] Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3] Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
4] Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5] Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6] Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7] Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8] Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9] Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10] Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

What do you think? Has your faith been corrupted by a "liberal" Bible? Do you think those early Christians who compiled the Biblical stories were guilty of liberalism? Do you see a need for this new version, which may or may not be true to the best manuscripts and principles of translations?

Health Care Thought Experiment

In the July 19, 2009 NYT Magazine was an article by the utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer. Singer asserted in the article that health care should be rationed.

He begins the article with this hypothetical situation. Suppose you have advanced kidney cancer. Within the next year or two, it will kill you. Suppose there is a drug that will slow the spread of the cancer to the point that you might live an extra six months. But, the drug costs more than $50,000. Is the potential extra time alive worth the cost? Singer supposes that, if you had the money, you would probably pay for the drug.

He then alters the scenario. Suppose it is not you with the cancer, but some stranger who is covered by your health insurance. If this stranger gets the drug, and if others with the same diagnosis do as well, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is worth it? But, suppose, the drug costs $1,000,000 or $10,000,000? Is there any monetary cost at which you would say the drug is not worth the possible extra 6 months - whether for yourself or anyone else?

Let me add some other variables. Suppose as a result of providing the drug, even at $50,000, the health insurance carrier raises its rates so much that the company for which you work and through which you have coverage drops all of its insurance coverage. Or, suppose the carrier tells your company to fire you or anyone else who used the drug. Would you still take the drug? Would you support having it available to anyone else?

What is the ethical decision in this case?

The Glad Scientist

In the Canadian magazine, The Walrus, is an interview with the Jesuit scientist Guy Consolmagno. It can be found at: http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2009.10-profile-the-glad-scientist/1/.

I am attracted to such conversations for many reasons. I have something of a scientific background and a scientific turn of mind. The battles between science and religion have a long history and have again become an important confrontation encounter between faith and doubt.

At the close of the article is this quote:

Consolmagno has little patience for intelligent design. “Science cannot prove God, or disprove Him. He has to be assumed. If people have no other reason to believe in God than that they can’t imagine how the human eye could have evolved by itself, then their faith is very weak.” Rather than seeking affirmation of his own faith in the heavens, he explains that religion is what gives him the courage and desire to be a scientist. “Seeing the universe as God’s creation means that getting to play in the universe - which is really what a scientist does — is a way of playing with the Creator,” he says. “It’s a religious act. And it’s a very joyous act.”

Reactions? Comments?

Faith Versus Belief, a la Harvey Cox

Harvey Cox has been a fixture on the American theological scene for more than 40 years. As a professor at Harvard and a prolific author, he has great standing within the religious community. In his new book, The Future of Faith, Professor Cox argues that Christianity is moving from an age of belief to an age of the Spirit. Religious News Service did an interview with him. Here is a snippet:

Q: What’s the difference between faith and belief?
A: I think of belief as having to do with subordination to ideas or doctrines, a kind of mental assent. Whereas faith is far more deeply rooted in life orientation. It comes from the Latin word “fides,” which means “loyal to.” I think the confusion of faith as loyalty or adherence to ideas or propositions is a mistake.

Would you agree with his distinction between belief and faith? Do you think Christianity has been characterized more by belief or faith? Which one describes you - are you a believer or a faither? What difference does it make to you and to your church?