seminarian confusion
07/11/2009
In most Christian seminaries of international repute today, the subject of textual criticism is taught to the extent that if brought to its logical conclusion, will raise up more agnostic than christian clergy.
Biblical textual criticism is a subject about the biblical texts – their history, compilation, authorship, etc. The latest in textual scholarship will bring to light the very “human” nature of the bible and its less than stellar record of its alleged infallibility and inerrancy as espoused by fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.
Most clergy are taught that the Penteteuch (or the Torah, as the Jews call them) – the first five books of Moses – were not written by Moses himself literally, but by different authors over a certain period of time. There are also historical inconsistencies as well as textual inconsistencies in the variant manuscipts of the hebrew scriptures. Most professors, if they are intellectually honest with themselves, will always tell their students to “choose for themselves” what to believe and what not to believe. Nothing is certain. Nothing is black and white.
The New Testament has also its fair share of historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies and variant texts. The gospels were not really written by the apostles themselves, but by anonymous writers whom the Church decided to designate Matthew, Mark, Luke and John respectively. It is also common knowledge that the first gospel written was Mark, and it was written with the Old Testament (Hebrew scriptures) in mind. There were also numerous other “gospels” that were not included in the canon by the church. Much is just speculation and circumstantial evidence, without much real justification of why some books are included and why some aren’t.
If taken to its logical end, one would arrive at the conclusion that the bible is not that “divine” after all, but a collection of very shoddy and “man-made” ancient literature, just like any other ancient literatures.
This is only a small part of the problem.
Another equally serious issue is the issue of theology. No one really knows what is the “real” christian stance on baptism, gifts of the spirit, tongues, miracles, predestination, free will, eternal security, covenant theology, dispensationalism, end times, etc. Hence the proliferation of so many denominations and christian sects with so many different understandings on the biblical texts. It’s all a matter of subjective interpretation. It also depends on which tradition you’re rooting for, be it baptist, methodist, episcopalian, anglican, presbyterian, etc. Each tradition has its own theological hobbyhorse to ride on.
In the end, seminarians are to pick and choose which position they believe in, without being really dogmatic about it. The problem begins when they start pastoring churches. So what will they say to a questioning parishioner? What will they say to a sincere layperson?
Most just follow the status quo and give the politically correct answers, knowing that the typical church goer do not have the intellectual finesse to take the honest answer. Most clergy will just say things that will comfort the parishioners, without “stumbling” them, so to speak.
Honestly, you will be agnostic about the Christian faith when you’re through with seminary. No doubt about it. That’s the case with numerous clergy in the States and the UK today. In Singapore, the situation is slightly different due to our already conservative asian culture. We tend to put “religion” on the pedestal, protecting it from criticism and rational thinking. You can’t just criticise the numerous silly practices of Taoism, Hinduism and folk Buddhism without incurring the wrath of the people. You can’t just criticise some of the ironic stances of the monotheistic worldview without being labeled as arrogant and rude. It’s religious harmony, as they say.
So as with Christianity, most seminarians would just ignore the logical conclusions of their study and ignore the difficult parts. After their studies, they would just return to their blind faith, in spite of the evidence.
Of course, unless you’re attending a fundamentalist or conservative evangelical seminary. These institutions are a disgrace to the academic enterprise of free learning. There are a few theological colleges like that in Singapore.
To me, that is a wash-out and a cop-out. A very lonely vocation, the pastor is.
Sometimes, there is just no choice. A godless, indifferent universe is just too much for most people to bear. Life becomes meaningless and metaphysically insignificant if we realize we’re just primates that happened to evolve in this huge drama of natural selection over billions of years. Even if it is the truth.
So we continue to choose, in spite of scientific rationalism, to believe in God, a parental figure in heaven who will look after us and take care of us.
It is easier to live with that way.
The truth still hurts.
Sometimes it just cuts deep to the core until there’s nothing left.
quiet at last
07/11/2009
It is now 2.30pm on Saturday, and all is finally quiet in the Chew household. The rumbunctious kids have slipped into dreamland after a morning of cacophony and chaos (getting them to take a nap is one tall order).
I’ve also took out the laundry to dry in the afternoon heat.
frustrated father
06/11/2009
Oh bullocks!
I’m bloody frustrated with Samuel. He is now developing a sense of personal will, a sense of knowing what he wants. As such, he can be very stubborn in wanting to get his own way. He chanced upon an old pair of shoes last night that was too small for him – he decided to wear them this morning for school.
It was a tad too tight. It was too thin for his fat feet. I told him so but to no avail. He stamped and stomped his feet on the floor in defiance, creating a ruckus in the morning.
I’ve no patience for such rubbish.
I screamed. I called him “stupid” (which was a bad thing to say to a child).
I smacked him hard on the side of his backside. A few times.
Of course he bawled.
I know I would have incurred the divine wrath of most parents by now – you just cannot holler such words to your child, let alone other more profane expletives like the deliciously naughty F word. I know it’s also not an excuse that I got angry. But any alternative to stop a child from stomping and throwing a fuss because he doesn’t get his way? I have no time to spend 30 minutes to discipline him by calling “time out” or shutting him in his room. Smacking him was the only alternative. Then again as an adult male, it’s not easy to judge my strength. Child abuse is an easy crime these days.
