on the "truth" of the bible

Scott Bourgeois has given us an interesting article in a recent edition of the Gateway.   There are more than a few things in the article I would like to address, but for now let's say that it appears to be based on Ruth Gledhill's article in the Times, which has been addressed throughout the blogosphere (like here). 

A reply to the Gateway:

Mr. Scott C Bourgeois has given us an interesting article on the Catholic Church’s “new” attitude to Scripture.  I may be incorrect, but from the text of his article it appears he is borrowing quite a bit from Ruth Gledhill’s recent article in the TimesOnline, an article which has been fisked for its misinterpretation (google it) since its publication.

The original document in question (The Gift of Scripture) points out that there are a variety of genres of literature in the bible – some claiming to be what moderns would recognize as “literal-historical”, some claiming to be “symbolic-poetic”.  This understanding of Scripture is not “new”, it has been around, well, for a couple of thousand years.  A reading of Augustine’s “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis” (4th C) is evidence of that.  Distinguishing between genres may be a thorny issue for Christians, but the existence of such genres is not.

Mr. Bourgeois has presented us with a false dilemma – either all of the bible must be “literal”, in an Enlightenment-scientific sense, or none of it is “true” in any sense.  I think of the bible’s Song of Solomon:  “Your lips drip with honey” one lover says to another.  Did a kiss take place?  Evidently so.   Was there honey involved?  Perhaps not.  Are we being told that lovers must be like Winnie the Pooh after a foray into his famous jar?  What, is this not literal, is it not “true”?  The poetic image is conveying a truth, the full depth of which, in my personal experience of a particularly excellent kiss, goes beyond a limited literal and scientific description of such an event.

yours, etc...

 

Comments

[Troy Lamoureux]

Joseph,

I am so glad you addressed this. I admit that I read the article and was outraged by its ignorant contents. I seldom read the Gateway anymore, since when I do, I find that somewhere someone has said something prejudiced against Christians, perhaps I am over sensitive.

[Joseph]

Perusing the Gateway today, I see they publilshed my letter.

[Scott Bourgeois]

Hey, folks.

Yes, I'm the Christian-bashing student journalist who wrote this article. I just wanted to throw in a quick word, mainly in response to Troy Lamoureux's comment.

Personally, I have nothing against Christians - I count myself amongst them, believe it or not. In fact, I'm very pro-spritiuality in general, and think many religions have interesting things to say. What I really hate is organized religion - the dogma, the hippocracy, and the heirarchy seem to be very... well... oppresive to me. I choose to not engage in them.

Anyway, I've never taken the bible literally, so when this peice of news hit the shelf, I took it upon myself to write about it, mainly to draw attention to the issue, as opposed to the article itself. And I think I succeeded in that. It sparked debate and thought on the subject, and that's all I ask with most of my articles. You don't have to agree with me, and you can label me an idiot with a pen - but at least it made you stop and think for a minute.

But this is all a little tangental. Mr. Lamoureux pointed out that The Gateway seems a little anti-Christian. I don't think that's necessarily the case. The fact is, we're a university student paper, and as such are going to attract and pander to a more left-leaning group. But - and this is our secret weakness I'm leaking here - we are a volunteer society. If people with differing viewpoints wanted to have their voice heard in The Gateway, they could. Just show up to the Opinion Meetings, or meet with the Opinion Editor, and away you go.

Believe it, or not, we won't censor a differing opinion, or not run something that we don't agree with. Heck, Tim doesn't agree with half the stuff I write and it still makes it into the paper. So there you go. If you feel there's an anti religious bias in the Gateway, YOU can change it. I know a few writers - such as Andrew Teal - have been doing just that.

We're not an anti-Christian cabal. We're just a bunch of opinionated clowns with a public forum.

[Joseph]

Scott - I'm glad you dropped by; thanks for your input.

I appreciate your thoughts about provoking students to think, and especially those who would put themselves in the "Christian" camp. Too often Christian students have failed to get involved in their communities at a broad level, or try to engage with those who might challenge their worldview. I try to discourage the "holy huddle" approach. Rather like my blog - I try to provoke thought on a variety of issues and viewpoints. Public discussion of issues is always a good thing.

Your second point is really well taken. Like the election just passed - everyone has an opportunity to make an impact, and let their voice be heard. Students who have something to say can just write it down and join the club (for those who haven't noticed, there's been a Gateway link on my blog for over a year).