A friend asked me recently if I was qualified to teach people about the Bible. She knew I hadn’t been able to answer a couple questions about ancient Israelite kings on a crossword puzzle we had been working on, so when she heard that I had been invited to help teach a class at The Adventure, she was a little dubious.
Her question made me stop and think about it.
It’s all opinion, right? Really. I mean, there’s evidence of the supernatural, and every religion that claims the existence of a deity or deities has some logical or experiential evidence for its claims, but no one has irrefutable proof for their claims. Evidence exists, but there is always a step of faith.
And the same is true for science. There is evidence for all scientific theories, but if anyone believes the theories, they’ve taken them on faith. Every issue of Scientific American or Nature has a scientist with new evidence that calls into question earlier beliefs and theories. The earlier theory didn’t have 100% proof, but a lot of very intelligent people believed it. They felt it had enough evidence to accept the unproven parts of the theory on faith (and even faith in the evidence itself).
So we all have faith. We all have evidence. And no one can prove any set of beliefs absolutely.
I have a set of beliefs, but why should I think they are any more right than anyone else’s belief set (God vs. atheism; Christianity vs. Hinduism; SDA vs. Methodism; liberalism vs. fundamentalism)? I won’t address these topics here, but really. What makes a person qualified to teach others about any of these topics.
Some possible reactions:
A: Maybe no one even can be qualified to teach about God. If there is a God; maybe only It/He/She/They can teach us. Maybe our assumptions, conclusions, facts, and opinions are so flawed that we should all be quiet and let God speak for “himself” if “he” ever chooses.
B: Maybe everyone is qualified. Since we’ve established that we’re dealing with non-provable foundations of beliefs, maybe everyone is qualified to share their beliefs and experiences and to invite others to do the same. So maybe I’m qualified to share my beliefs, why I believe them, the evidence, my questions, my experiences, and my hopes for the world, and you are equally qualified to share all of that as well. And then we humbly sort out what we need, or what resonates with us, or what coherently fits together for the world we want to see.
Given that I accept the Bible, I am taught these values in Jeremiah 9:23-24:
23 This is what the LORD says:
"Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom
or the strong man boast of his strength
or the rich man boast of his riches,
24 but let him who boasts boast about this:
that he understands and knows me,
that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,"
declares the LORD. (emphasis mine)
In the Judeo-Christian perspective, God can be known and understood because he has revealed himself in a special way to the prophets and in a unique but consistent way to all who seek to know him. “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13).
And here’s when I must be honest. I have sought God, and I believe he has revealed parts of himself to me. But I have not sought God with all my heart, which means I don’t know him as well as it is my privilege to know him. I don’t spend nearly the time in prayer, meditation, and study that I could, which would open my eyes to see his work in the world, which would open my heart to love the world, which would open my hands to help the world.
That is probably the greatest factor disqualifying me from teaching a class about God. And yet maybe the paradox is that admitting I’m not qualified is the thing that qualifies me. Because then it isn’t teacher and student, but friend walking with friend on the journey—both seeking answers; both aware that there is more to learn and live; both aware that they can learn from each other.
I may point out a verse like Jeremiah 9:23-24, and someone else may show me another good one, or demonstrate how to live the same verse, or add new depth for me. Since no one has all the answers, we can get rid of that as a criteria for teaching anything (grammar, history, God, etc.)
In conclusion, I won’t draw any firm conclusions, but only say that I am looking forward to the class—sharing my thoughts, hearing others’ thoughts and experiences, getting to know God better, seeking him more diligently, learning to be more like him (kind, just…), working to make this planet more like I believe he wants it to be.
Dedicated to Erin.
4 comments:
Is it a Bible class or a religion class? That's a key distinction for me.
Because the question (or doubt) was raised based on your (lack of?) knowledge of certain details I assumed the challenge was claiming that since the Bible is a work of literature it must be taught by someone who has studied and identified the motifs, patterns, structure, history, and related texts, and who has developed a sophisticated criticism that takes as much of the detail and context into account.
The same challenge regarding Shakespeare would be "if you don't know that Laertes is Polonius son, how can you teach Hamlet. You'll miss the entire thesis/antithesis juxtaposition of revenge vs thought, conscience vs abandon!"
But you focus then on a devotional agenda for the class. In this case I would argue alongside your claim (as I see it) that the faith and empowerment that you find in the text can very easily influence the students even if you admit that there is much to learn about the Bible. In fact you can more easily model for them the process of inquiry as you learn with them.
Then I have to go back and entertain the thought that if you are indeed a good reader and you can count on yourself to uncover key insights into any book you could probably do a decent job with Hamlet even if you haven't read it before you teach it. Same with Leviticus. Or Psalms. Or Hebrews.
But it really depends on your favourite form of criticism or interpretation. If you want to do a "Bible Swords" approach where your students will learn to find texts quickly that win arguments you can do that with a concordance and a stopwatch. No need to know the Bible at all really.
If you want to do a formalist approach where the patterns and structure are of most interest then I'd say you should probably focus on a few books in the canon and read each one at least three times while taking copious notes and commenting in your margins.
If you want to do a historical approach where you consider the process of canonization and temporal context, while considering the effects of transcription and translation, then I would suggest becoming aquainted with as many of the apocryphal and the deuterocanonical works as you can find, while studying other early works as the Epic of Gilgamesh and later works such as the writings of Josephus while getting a hold of the multivolume Interpreter's Bible by Abingdon Press.
Then learn Hebrew and Greek. And some Aramaic if you have time.
Yes, I will include some Aramaic if I have time.
The class is a combination of God-stuff, religion, SDAism, and the Bible. Erik (the leader) named it "So What? Seeker Class."
Our first week we had "seekers" from Catholic, Baptist, SDA, Methodist and Buddhist backgrounds. Maybe also Presbyterian; I can't remember. It's a part of The Adventure (www.theadventure.org), which meets in a rented school.
My part for the first week was about questions. We looked at Abraham, Moses, David, Mary and Jesus asking hard questions of/to God. Then they wrote down questions that they have. I won't list them out here, but they were awesome--honest, deep, confounding.
I won't personally have many answers to those questions, but hopefully it will be an environment where they can own their questions while sorting out this life and journeying together. I want it to be a place where people can have questions in one pocket and faith in the other.
The "so what?" title captures Erik's idea that faith is for something; it's not just to have as an idea in one's head. It ties in well with Chris Blakes "so that."
We'll study different Christian/SDA doctrines in 3-week cycles. Wk 1: Exploration (what the Bible says about different topics). Wk 2: Application (how the topic matters for life on planet earth). Wk 3: Deeper and Broader (q&a, mini-topics...).
We'll try to balance cerebral (wk 1) with action and experience (wk 2).
The diversity of backgrounds and mix of raw questions should prove interesting. I have a lot to learn.
I'm not sure how much attention (if any)you have paid to the Spectrum Blog (link also on my page).
The people who comment too often get stuck on the literary and doctrinal arguments that attract pedants and blowhards like me.
But if you pay attention to Alex's ideas (he's the administrator) you should find that his focus on application and activism is just your style. Johnny Ramirez contributes a lot as well. And he has his own web log.
Perhaps nobody can trully "teach Bible" in the most holistic sense unless the Holy Spirit intervenes. As you said, Jeff, if you seek him, He will speak through you. I feel It is not about what you or I can do - it is about what God can do.
So...how are you? It has been so long since I've seen you =)
Post a Comment