"Dr. Hugenberger clearly points out that faith is not simply “believing something that you know isn’t true.” In fact, he says, you can use your brain, do research, and even listen to your critics. Many critics of the Bible state that evangelicals just “blindly trust” the Bible as God’s Word without being able to prove that the events the Bible occurred (eg. The Flood, Plagues in Egypt, or the Red Sea parting) or without being able to prove the fact that God even exists. How ought we respond to these critics? "
However one might choose to respond to a criticism of this sort, it serves us to name the reality that, in general, anyone who bothers to raise this particular critique often has very little appreciation for how we come to "know" anything at all; especially when it comes to matters of ancient history. To quote a bit of commentary from the NIV Archeological Study Bible; "If every narrative from the ancient world had to be specifically confirmed by archaeology, we would have no ancient history at all.” In truth, even some of the most historically 'tenuous' aspects of scripture have more documented and archeological support than some basic, extra-biblical historical facts which no one would ever think to question. The reason for skepticism on the one hand and 'blind' acceptance on the other? Why the seemingly endless campaign to discredit the record of scripture, while the majority of historical assertions are simply accepted at face value by most people? The reason, if we're honest, is that this debate is not really a matter of historical legitimacy at all. It is actually a conversation about basic, underlying convictions; convictions which precede and color our approach to the evidence of history. The reason this conversation is so loaded lies in the understanding, on both sides, that the story which scripture tells, if true, demands a response from us. The details of extra-biblical ancient history, on the other hand, are by-and-large merely informative, and do not impinge upon our sense of personal sovereignty in the manner which scripture does.
And so, while it might be tempting to merely parry historical evidences with a critic, I feel that the conversation would ultimately be better served by seeking to address the question underneath the questions. Namely, we must ask; why such a strong need for a skeptical outlook in these particular cases, and not in other areas of the historical record? What is the underlying conviction that motivates this skepticism? In the end, I believe you will find with most critics of this sort a basic aversion to the thought of a God like the God of scripture, interacting in and through history from outside the "closed course" of human affairs. To go yet deeper, I believe that this aversion is rooted in the often unconscious acceptance that were a God like this to exist, interacting with humanity in the manner which scripture asserts, this would not merely be interesting; it would be demanding. In the end, it is the essential rebellion at the heart of humankind that motivates much 'academic' skepticism: we have no desire to be called to change / worship / surrender, we know that to acknowledge a God of this sort would demand these responses from us, so we seek to rationally disallow any possibility of a God of this sort as an act of self defense couched, whenever possible, in academic concern.
Having gotten to the root of the issue, then one may be free to engage the evidence at hand more openly. For instance, if one does not automatically preclude out of hand the possibility of a God like the God of scripture, what is actually more likely; that Israel was freed from slavery in Egypt by a miraculous, "supernatural" work on their behalf, or that the Egyptian empire simply let a million slaves walk away from their labor, without making any mention of this supreme act of extremely costly charity on the part of Pharaoh? What requires more rational gymnastics to explain? The same goes for most every aspect of this debate; from creation to the resurrection - all of which, by the way, seem to be garnering more and more physical/historical evidence as the years go by; if we surrender the underlying conviction that that reality of a God of this sort is simply IMPOSSIBLE (which, consequently, is impossible to prove), we actually find that the foundation of most every criticism of this sort is critically compromised.
No comments:
Post a Comment