The role of faith in Bible study

hingram · Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: The role of faith in Bible study

Since the focus of the Syneidon Research Project is to examine how the academic approach can be applied to the faith context and visa versa, I am intrigued to learn how the role of faith, or lack thereof, influences our own personal bible study.

I realise that this is a wide topic of discussion, but there are a number of questions that I would like to raise. For example; does anyone strongly believe that faith is a valuable, or even necessary, tool for bible study? Are those with little or no faith (a category into which I personally belong) disadvantaged someway in their bible studies? Equally, does anyone feel that their faith is a hindrance to their study of the bible? Does it hold you back from asking questions that contradict your own particular beliefs?

Thanks, Helen

True54Blue · Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

That's a good question Helen!

Personally, I find that the more I study the Bible, the more I understand my faith. Conversely, the more I understand my Faith, the easier it is to study the Bible. The word faith in Greek is pistis and it does not mean "blind faith" the way some seem to think. The word can be used in regard to loaning someone money; their credit record gives you the assurance, the faith, that they will repay the debt and therefore you are willing to loan them money. See Liddell, Scott, Jones, 1408 for more information. The point being, that although pistis became a Christian technical term its basic meaning is that you are confident of something because of its inherent trustworthiness (based on the evidence). I find that as I study the Bible the evidence becomes clearer and I am continually surprised at the connections that occur between what is revealed in the various books of the Old and New Testament. The Bible comes to be seen as something "living and active" when you approach it with this frame or mind. I also believe that Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Bible with regard to our own personal life. This may or may not have an impact on our academic pursuits but it certainly compels believing Christians to seek to study their Bibles.

I write this as someone who has lived through eight years of Bible college and seminary. The journey has not always been easy but the end result has been worth the perseverance/succor. I could not always have answered this question so affirmatively but the more I learn the more I am challenged and the more questions that are answered.

I addressed your question over at http://epistlesofthomas.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/faith-and-bible-study/ as well. I hope you don't mind. Very Happy

Tom

Hildegarde · Joined: 04 Jul 2007 Posts: 8 Location: Birmingham

Hallo Helen and True54Blue,

I find it interesting that anyone would want to study the Bible without having at least some faith.

I used to write some notes, years ago, for a Bible-reading organisation and found it very difficult: I wanted to put in all the scholarly stuff I knew (such as it was!) about the passage, but was confined to a couple of hundred words and supposed to end with a devotional "thought". I felt a bit uneasy / hypocritical having to simplify it so much, and shoehorn in the devotional stuff. It's easier face to face with people (e.g. in a Bible study group) as one can see where they are and how much they want to know about the academic stuff, and the devotional aspects can arise more naturally.

On a personal level, I find occasionally that Bible passages can be very helpful, but have got out of the way of regular reading of, e.g., a whole book of the Bible. I'm not sure if that's a good thing.

Hildegarde

hingram · Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject:

Thanks for this, True54Blue and Hildegarde. It has been good to read your comments! Although I am interested in the study of the bible and have pursued this to PhD level, I have not been brought up into any faith, I do not consider myself to be a religious individual and I have very few friends who would consider themselves to be religious in any way. So I ask these questions in an attempt to understand the view from the other side of the ‘faith fence’, as it were Smile

I am heartened when people tell me that their bible study enhances and strengthens their faith. Such individuals appear to be secure in their faith and open-minded to the challenges that the academic approach to bible study might throw at them. However, I have also encountered individuals who reject the academic approach on the assumption that it is harmful to faith in general. I regularly work with some local religious groups and individuals who express a measured disdain for my involvement in the academic study of the bible and tell me that good bible study cannot be carried out without a strong underlying faith. From what I can gather, the suspicion appears to be that I am seeking to disprove the bible in some way. And, to an extent, I can understand their concerns. For example, a number of students dropped out of my first-year undergraduate B.A. theology group blaming the detrimental effect that their classes were having on their faith. So I am sympathetic to this suspicion and always attempt to belay any fears that academics are aggressive, pedantic types who heckle priests during sermons or haunt seminaries ready to pounce on grammatical and translational errors in their textbooks!

I personally *suspect* that a degree of tension between the faith-based approach to bible study and the academic approach to bible study is centred around (from the faith-based p.o.v.) the suspicion that bible scholars are seeking to discredit the bible and (from the academic p.o.v.) that the faith-based bible reader is purposefully ignorant to questions that might challenge his/her personal faith base. Maybe it is the case that these, or similar, concerns have caused the apparent communication stalemate that exists between the two approaches…?

Helen

True54Blue · Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

Helen,

I think your personal suspicion is right on target. Given the number of academic "scholars" who write narrow-minded drivel about religion it really is not surprising that religious people are somewhat suspicious. I really began to notice this tendency among academics when studying other religions. Those authors who are religious can at least understand where religious people are coming from and why they are led to believe in something (no matter how wrong it may seem). Academic religion scholars on the other hand show their complete ignorance of all things religious and miss the mark entirely. If I can see this in reference to belief systems that I reject then how much more must those within a belief system feel slighted when their core beliefs are rejected/belittled/explained away as socio-psycho-pathological fantasies or something like that.

Can I ask you what motivates you to study religion and why you would pursue it to a PhD when it really does not effect you ontologically? Sorry to compare you to C.S. Lewis but he is a Brit that comes to mind who might sympathise with you. Have you seen Shadowlands? I've seen it at least seven times as I used it in a movie class. It is worth a view!

True54Blue

Quaestor · Joined: 25 Jun 2007 Posts: 58 Location: Chorleywood UK

As an ex-Christian, I have been interested to read the various comments on this subject and I think it germane to set out my own position. The reason that I am interested in the study of the Bible, is because I would like to show that it is no different from any other religion in being a human construct which has grown syncretically and that divine inspiration is a quality attributed to it by human beings without justification. On the subject of syncretism, I would ask you to consider the 15 tenets of Zoroastrianism which I have listed under that subject. Since these can be dated to 1200 BC and therefore antedate all of the old and new Testament, and since those same themes appear in the intertestamental literature which is written in the 200 years before the birth of Jesus, it is quite easy to see that there is a developmental progression of theological thought going on, which is no more than men trying to understand their place in the universe in the same way as a philosopher. Like Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Huxley, I am trying to construct a natural history of Christianity and it is not very difficult.

rgoode · Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject:

This is obviously an issue that lies at the very heart of SYNEIDON and one that raises a number of questions. Speaking from the academic side of things, I am acutely aware that the texts I study and have grown to love can also function on a completely different level for other people.

You are absolutely right Tom in suggesting that the faith/sacred/cultic side is often overlooked by academics. A significant part of my background is textual criticism and it is very easy to forget that the things which excite text critics are not necessarily those which excited Christians in the second and third centuries. Whether or not I believe that God directly inspired these texts or still speaks through them should be immaterial to the fact that if we are to understand these texts (I am speaking as an academic here) we need to study them in their context - which are as sacred artefacts.

Furthermore, I recognise that a person’s faith is not like their taste in music or hairstyles, but it goes to the very depth of their identity and understanding of themselves and the world. If any biblical text underlines the approach taken by this project it would be Mk 9:42; not because I am too concerned about my personal safety, but I know how very deep and critical faith is to the lives of many people.

However, the thing which concerns me relates to how we can communicate together. It seems that language can be a major problem here. I recognise that you initially placed scholars in apostrophes and have assumed that you refer to Dawkins et al. However, your later remarks suggest a wider ranging critique of the study of religions. Is this a case of being overly sensitive? Very few people like to feel that they are being pigeon-holed or categorised. And I still have not found a scientific definition of love which lives up to the real thing. Nevertheless, that does not mean to say that scientific studies cannot contribute to our understanding of love (you no doubt are already very well versed in these types of arguments Smile

). Or if it is not over sensitivity (even here I am aware that this is phrased pejoratively – sorry I don’t mean it negatively), do these academics appear in your eyes to “miss the mark entirely” because of the language they use?

You see what particularly worries me, is that so much emphasis appears to be placed on sensitivity and recognition of insider/outsider perspectives, together with phenomenological (whatever you think of it) and anthropological approaches, that feelings of “dismissal”, “rejection” and “being explained away” should, at least to some extent, be ameliorated. If this is the case and those who are ‘being studied’ still feel alienated or misrepresented does this indicate a problem with language rather than the conclusions of the author? In other words, I am concerned that unintentionally I could cause offence or be interpreted as being dismissive because I do not use (and certainly do not feel qualified to use) the language of faith in discussing the Bible.

Quaestor · Joined: 25 Jun 2007 Posts: 58 Location: Chorleywood UK

The essence of study in my opinion is the attempt to obviate as far as possible any pronounced subjective leaning and to follow as far as possible the conclusions which follow from an objective study of the material. I recognize that this is virtually impossible since our study is inevitably influenced by the particular subjective prism through which we view the material. This however does not invalidate the attempt.
Since faith is a subjective experience of the strongest kind, this inevitably means that the resulting study is necessarily heavily influenced. In my view therefore, academic study and devotional study are two very different things and if they are mixed, this can only damage the impartiality which should be a feature of academic study.

Dennis

ickthoos · Joined: 09 Jul 2007 Posts: 8

I have a few points of thought in relation to dennis' last post. One, Christian faith should never be conceived as a purely subjective experience or even a largely subjective experience, though there are individual subjective elements to it, but those aren't nor should be the focal point of our worship and praxis. Christian faith has always been rooted in and grown out of history, and it's only when it's lost its root in history or ignored history that Christianity has drifted towards a Gnostic, largely subjective faith.

Two, while I agree that impartiality is a great ideal for critical thinking the myth of impartiality has too often been abused as a power play. The Jesus seminar provides perhaps one of the most recent classic example. Their published results carried with them the rhetoric of authorities impartiality, but their results were largely a joke. Their results were ruled more by their presupposition then by any sort of impartiality. I suggest, along the lines of Ben Meyers, NT Wright, and others that a better epistemology is needed, one that acknowledges our own presuppositions and prejudices, while critically reflecting upon them, all the while humbly acknowledging the tentative nature of the results. That's not to say we need to slide back into pure subjectivism, only that our results are only as good as the data and hypothesis they are built on, and hence should be part of a larger critical public dialogue. I'd like to suggest that critical realism goes a good way to addressing this need, but only time will tell.

Thirdly, and related, the faith and knowledge split that has lately characterized the relation of the academy and the church is deeply destructive and is a result of much of the dualistic nature of some post-enlightenment thinking. The church and the academy need to continue to address this most unfortunate result of the post-enlightenment thinking.

my 2 cents
-Craig

Quaestor · Joined: 25 Jun 2007 Posts: 58 Location: Chorleywood UK

If the academy has parted company with the church it is perhaps because the function of the of the academy is primarily to engage in the study of the documents of the Christian faith. It will always be possible to pick holes in the work of the Jesus seminar, since much of this work turns on subjective interpretation. The work however of respected scholars such as Geza Vermes may not go so far as the Jesus seminar but still points inexorably in the same direction.
The Christian faith rests on on two legs today, one is Scripture and the other is faith. Since faith is subjective, it is right that Scripture should be subjected to study to determine whether or not the subjective faith is justified. If important matters of fact are found to be wrong in Scripture, one is entitled to suggest that by the same token it is perfectly possible that the theology embedded therein is defective also.
This is why the impossibility of reconciling the facts implicit in the nativities of Matthew and Luke are so important. The date of the birth of Jesus implicit in Matthew is 6/5 BC and the date in Luke is clearly 6 AD. No one, but no one, has yet squared this circle.
Dennis

hingram · Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:52 am Post subject:

I believe that a dialogue between the academy and the church would lead to great mutual benefits for both approaches. For instance, from the academic perspective, I have found that maintaining an indifferent, academic approach while having an appreciation of and engaging with differing opinions has enhanced my academic studies in a number of ways.

For example, during my PhD research here at Birmingham I studied a number of texts from the Greek Magical Papyri. These texts were believed by those who wrote and used them to have real, tangible effects upon their environment and their relations with other people. Now, beyond Harry Potter, we do not to discuss ‘magic’ in our contemporary society and we tend to ridicule those who believe in the reality of magic. With this in mind, when studying the magical papyri I consciously detached myself from my post-enlightenment world-view and attempted to read these texts through the eyes of the fourth/fifth-century magician who truly believed in the potency of these texts. Although this was an unfamiliar belief system, if there had been any opportunity to meet with these Greco-Roman magicians and hear first-hand about their ‘faith’ in these texts (short of a time machine) I would have jumped at the chance!! By adopting this approach, I could appreciate the concerns expressed by the author of these writings, such as the need for secrecy and severe warnings against their misuse. Understanding the underlying faith – as it were – in these texts helped me to fully appreciate the value of these texts in the ancient world. This does not mean that I now believe in the reality of magic, but my understanding of the papyri was enhanced by my engagement with the ‘faith’ in these texts that was expressed by their authors and users.

I believe that I accord the same detached appreciation and respectful reverence to the bible and this adds to my fuller appreciation of the function of the bible both in the ancient and modern world. (However, I can’t help but wonder whether those who encounter the magical papyri from a - particularly Christian - faith-based perspective would accord the same reverential approach to these texts that they require of the academic regarding their own sacred scriptures….?)

In response to True54Blue’s question - aside from the study of religion, there are a number of other academic subjects that interest me but do not affect me on a personal level. For example, I studied criminology for a while and I am interested in the lives of serial killers, such as Jack the Ripper. Although – thankfully! - the rationale of the serial killer is entirely alien to me, the criminologist often finds that engaging with and understanding the emotional/psychological factors affecting these individuals, such as jealousy, greed and lust, enhances their understanding of the motivations that lead them to commit serious crimes. However, I am sure that the criminologist would not be required to identify with his subject or possess homicidal tendencies in order to want to study or correctly understand his subject Wink

Also, I’ve never been compared to C. S. Lewis before, that’s a first! I think a trip to the local video shop may be in order!!

Helen

Quaestor · Joined: 25 Jun 2007 Posts: 58 Location: Chorleywood UK

I agree totally that the attempt to engage with the mindset of a person living 2 to 3000 years ago, whatever their belief systems, is a necessary precondition to engaging with ancient texts. This does not however require one to share those belief systems, only to know what they are.
On the subject of magic, it is interesting that the oldest surviving documentary quotation from the Hebrew Bible, comprising Numbers 6: 24/5 is a silver amulet from the seventh century BC inscribed also with the Tetragranmaton . The ancient Hebrews also believed in the magic of names, which is why they never wrote the name in full since that would release its magical powers. The wearer of this amulet would have been convinced that it protected him from black magic and the machinations of evil spirits.
Dennis

hingram · Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:59 pm Post subject:

True54Blue · Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

Helen,

Not to get too far off the topic but I hope that no matter how much I studied serial killers I would never be truly able to understand what makes them tick.

Tom

True54Blue · Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 17 Location: Canada

Sorry Richard, I missed replying to your message. I placed academics in "" to distinguish them from those who are academics but who also believe. I have also studied textual criticism (with Gordon Fee) and I agree with your statement. However, my paper that semester was on Romans 8:28 and the textual problem there. This is an important passage for believers and I found that textual criticism helped me understand it better and aided my faith. I would never want to say that academics are "bad" because I consider myself to be one. I have a BTh and an MCS in NT and am just finishing a second MA. I have studied Greek, Hebrew, Church history, theology, etc. along with psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc. In my last philosophy class my major paper was on an atheology of the existence of God; that is a study of the non-existence of God. I have no qualms about studying issues from both sides and I think that it is helpful in order to truly understand my faith and how it differs from what others believe in, whether atheist, agnostic, or religious.

In general I think that your questions stem from the fact that we do not know one another and do not understand one another Smile

. This speaks to the general problem between people of faith and those who do not have faith. As a fellow academic I respect your opinion and will not be offended but others who have not spent long years in the academy may think that your questions are an attack rather than a genuine query. I hope this helps and I look forward to the continuance of our discussion.
Tom

	SYNEIDON Forum Index » Biblical Studies and Faith	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2