Chapter 2: Misconceptions
Misconceptions about truth and knowledge, the Bible, and the claims of Christianity
[ Index | (i) Background: 1 / 2 / 3 | (ii) Problem: 4 / 5 / 6 | (iii) Solution: 7 / 8 / 9 ]
In Chapter 1 we discussed possibilities concerning revelation. We turn now to consider various misconceptions. Readers who are already persuaded that the statements that follow are indeed misconceptions may wish to skip to the next chapter.
2A. Misconceptions about truth and knowledge
“Truth is relative”
Truth is intrinsically linked with Christian revelation. But in a culture that is heavily influenced by postmodernism, the very existence of truth is often questioned. Consciously or otherwise, many people deny the existence of absolute truth and embrace the idea that truth is relative. Sometimes such denial is stated explicitly. Very often it is more subtle, sometimes to the point that it goes unnoticed.
For the purposes of this discussion we may note two general points. The first is that when we are considering knowledge of the truth, it is quite reasonable to acknowledge that there are limits to what we can know for certain. But while we cannot know truth exhaustively and perfectly – in this life at least – this does not necessarily mean that we cannot know truth at all.
The second point is that the claim that “truth is relative” is itself relative. Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom observe that “it is surely of the nature of truth that it has to be all of a piece. Its norms have to apply here as well as there, if they are to apply at all. That’s why relativism about truth is always self-undermining. If we say ‘there is no truth, truth is an illusion, a myth, a construct, a mystification,’ then that statement is not true – so there is truth then. If we say ‘your truth is as true as mine’ then you can say ‘my truth is that your truth is not true’, and round we go” (Why Truth Matters, p17). As we shall see, this lack of inherent consistency is common to various strands of postmodern thought.
“When it comes to religion, it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere”
Relativism can be found in many spheres, but it is particularly prevalent where religious belief is concerned. There are various underlying ideas that might lead to a statement such as “when it comes to religion, it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere.” One such notion is that all religions are basically the same. But even a very basic knowledge of the major world religions renders this idea untenable. Another such notion is that religions in general are without foundation. But even if this were the case, it would still matter very much what religion – or branch of a religion – people followed. What we believe has a profound effect on what we think and say and do. Consider for example the difference that a few religiously-motivated suicide-bombers can make. Can we really say that when it comes to religion, it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere?
Perhaps the most common reason for believing that it doesn’t matter what you believe is the relativistic worldview that we have discussed. But as we have already noted, relativism has inherent flaws. In the words of Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson again, “the ideas which motivate scepticism and relativism are false… as we move through our daily lives, we very rarely question the epistemological status of those things we take to be more than just probably true: walls are solid; fire burns; knives cut; jumping off a cliff will cause serious injury; it hurts more to be hit with a rock than with a violet; rain is wet; heat cooks food…”
Furthermore, “we hold beliefs of this kind in a ‘they are true all the way down to the bottom’ sort of way. So for instance if a friend from another culture offers to apply a lighted match to our face, because in that other culture fire does not burn, we will not light up with smiles and eagerly accept. This is not because it might turn out after all that there are facts of the matter about fire and human skin, it is because we already know… that there are, and we know it all the way down” (Why Truth Matters, p40-43).
If there are unalterable facts about the material world – and we certainly live as though there are – we may reasonably ask why it should be any different when it comes to other things, including spiritual matters. In any case, when it comes to beliefs, sincerity makes relatively little difference. I may believe sincerely that my house is not on fire, but I may be sincerely wrong. It is true that if someone tells me my house is on fire, I can choose whether or not to believe him or her. But whatever I believe, and however sincerely I believe it, it does not change the reality of what is happening.
“We cannot know what has happened in the past”
Related to the nature of truth are questions concerning how much we can know about the past. Today, in some quarters at least, there is deep scepticism about the certainty with which we can know about historical events, even those of the relatively recent past. In this context it is no surprise to find scepticism about the historicity of the events described in the Bible.
As with the nature of truth, there are some things that we can learn from the postmodern perspective in relation to the nature of history. But there are also things that we must reject. As Amy Orr-Ewing puts it, “we may reject the pure historical objectivity of the nineteenth century. But surely a realistic and balanced approach leads us to a [middle way] between illogical, nihilistic relativism and the steely optimism of pure objectivity… [a] pragmatic approach, which recognizes both the possibility of access to history and the frailty of many historical sources.” Orr-Ewing goes on to quote the historian James Kloppenberg who writes that, “Beyond the noble dream of scientific objectivity and the nightmare of complete relativism lies the terrain of pragmatic truth, which provides us with hypotheses, provisional syntheses, imaginative but warranted interpretation which then provide the basis for continuing enquiry and experimentation… Historical truth… must be made, questioned and reinterpreted. As historians we cannot aspire to more than a pragmatic hermeneutics that relies on the methods of science and the interpretation of meanings. But we should not aspire to less” (Why Trust the Bible?, p34).
As we shall see, historical events are particularly important when considering the evidence concerning Christian revelation. When we read the accounts of historical events in the Bible, we should do so with a healthy scepticism and an open mind. It is, of course, possible that the authors had genuine motives but were actually mistaken or deluded. And we have to be open to the possibility that the authors wrote with the intention to deceive. But it is also possible that the authors really were seeking to convey the truth, and that what they wrote was accurate.
“Understanding the Bible is all a matter of interpretation”
Related to the nature of truth and the nature of historical events are interpretative questions. Many people would contend that any “truth” that we can derive from the Bible – or indeed any other book – is all a matter of interpretation. Some would go so far as to assert that words and texts cannot have fixed meanings, arguing that there is a whole range of valid opinions, and that each and every interpretation is valid. Some would go further, and argue that someone who tries to assign meaning to words is seeking to use force and assert power over the reader or listener.
The question of whether words have meaning is very important, and there are useful things that we can learn from a postmodern perspective. It is undeniable, for example, that words change their meaning over time, and that language evolves. And when we are considering interpretation, it is quite reasonable to acknowledge the limits of what we can know. But while we cannot know absolutely everything regarding (say) the intention of an author, it is something quite different to say that we cannot know anything at all regarding that author’s intention. At least some degree of communication is surely possible, even across different times and cultures.
Moreover, communication in the most general sense rarely comes down merely to a question of interpretation. D. A. Carson observes that “…in the real world, for all the difficulties there are in communication from person to person and from culture to culture, we still expect people to say more or less what they mean (and if they don’t, we chide them for it), and we expect mature people to understand what others say, and represent it fairly. The understanding is doubtless never absolutely exhaustive and perfect, but that does not mean the only alternative is to dissociate text from speaker, and then locate all meaning in the reader or hearer. True knowledge of the meaning of a text and even of the thoughts of the author who wrote it is possible, even if perfect and exhaustive knowledge is not. That is the way things are in the real world – and that in turn suggests that any theory that flies in the face of these realities needs to be examined again” (The Gagging of God, p103).
Whatever we are reading, be it a postcard or a letter or a newspaper editorial or a thesis, the author usually has something to say. And having written down words for others to read, he or she expects a fair hearing. When an author seeks to communicate ideas, there has to be an element of interpretation, particularly if the author originally wrote in another language, from another culture, and at another time in history. But it is something quite different to say that an understanding of such material is “all a matter of interpretation”. And this is no less true of the Bible than other books.
Finally here, we may note again that relativistic claims are by definition relative. It is easy enough to argue that words and texts cannot have fixed meanings, and that each and every interpretation is valid. But if that is so, then statements such as “words and texts cannot have fixed meanings” cannot have fixed meanings. And each and every interpretation of “each and every interpretation is valid” is valid. Similar reasoning can be applied to those who argue that someone who tries to assign meaning to words is seeking to use force and assert power over the reader or listener. Those espousing such a view are themselves seeking to use force and assert power. As Carson notes, “Any statement of relativism, whether grounded in culture, linguistics, or hermeneutic, is fundamentally self-destructive” (The Gagging of God, p176).
2B. Misconceptions about the Bible
“The Bible manuscripts are not reliable”
If we are serious about giving Christian revelation careful consideration, the reliability of the Bible is plainly important. And given that the documents that constitute the Bible were written many years ago, we may reasonably ask how today’s versions of the Bible compare with the original manuscripts.
The documents that comprise the Bible were originally written in three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic (a Semitic language related to Hebrew). They were written across what we now view as three continents, although still within a relatively small area of the world. The process of writing documents anywhere in the ancient world was, of course, quite different from what we are used to today. There were no electronic writing devices, and the ancient equivalents of paper – papyrus and parchment – were sufficiently expensive that they were reserved for documents considered to be of great importance. The documents that we now know as the Bible were evidently highly regarded. As such, they were copied and spread throughout the known world, and many manuscripts were produced.
In relation to the Old Testament, N. T. Wright observes that “Our knowledge of the original text… has been enormously enriched by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. They include copies of most of the Old Testament books, and show that the much later manuscripts upon which mainstream Judaism and Christianity have depended are very close, despite small variations, to the texts that would have been known in Jesus’ day” (Simply Christian, p151).
For the New Testament, there are many more documents in existence. Furthermore, the oldest surviving documents date back to relatively soon after they were written. As N. T. Wright notes, “it needs to be stressed that our evidence for the text of the New Testament is in a completely different league to our evidence for every single other book from the ancient world. We know major Greek authors like Plato and Sophocles… through a small handful of manuscripts, many of them medieval. We know Roman authors like Tacitus and Pliny through similarly few copies, in some cases just one or two, and many of them again very late. By contrast, we possess literally hundreds of early manuscripts of some or all of the New Testament, putting us in an unrivalled position to work back from the small variations which creep into any manuscript tradition and discern the likely original text… Yes, scribes may have introduced alterations here and there. But the massive evidence available means that we are on extremely secure grounds for getting at what the Bible authors actually wrote” (Simply Christian, p152-3).
Claims that “the modern Bible has been changed from the original” should thus not go unchallenged. The source documents of the Bible are open to scrutiny, and, contrary to popular misconception, they stand up to it remarkably well.
“The content of the Bible is not credible”
The fact that the biblical documents have survived largely unchanged over 2,000 years is remarkable and significant, but it says little about their content. And for some people, it is the nature of some of the content of the Bible that casts doubt on its credibility.
For example, what are we to make of Genesis, the first book of the Bible? The opening chapter (Genesis 1) depicts the world as being made in six days. And only two chapters later we encounter a talking serpent (Genesis 3:1-4)! Reading on through the Old Testament, we might wonder how Aaron’s staff could become a snake (Exodus 7:8-10), or whether God – if he exists at all – really spoke through a donkey to rebuke Balaam (Numbers 22:21-41).
In the New Testament the content is no less striking. Here we are presented with the remarkable figure of Jesus Christ, a man who walks on water (Matthew 14:22-32) and turns water into wine (John 2:1-11). Both implicitly and explicitly, Jesus is recorded as equating himself with God (e.g. Luke 5:17-26, John 10:30). And then to cap it all we read that he rises from the dead (e.g. Luke 24:1ff)!
We shall consider some of these issues in later chapters. For the purposes of this discussion, here are three brief but important observations that should at least provide some food for thought.
Genre
When considering any literature, it is important to establish what sort of writing we are reading. This is especially important for the Bible, which contains many different types – or genres – of literature, some of which are rarely encountered outside its pages. Such passages need careful interpretation and we should be cautious in jumping to conclusions. The early chapters of Genesis fall into this category, and we shall discuss them in some detail in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.
Context
When considering any literature, an appreciation of context is crucial. This is especially important for understanding the Bible. If we read parts of the Bible in isolation, we risk drawing conclusions that are completely wrong. Every sentence needs to be read in the context not just of the chapter and book, but of the whole Bible. Verses wrenched out of context, sometimes by people who should know better, can be used – or misused – to “prove” all manner of things.
Possibilities
When reading the Bible, it is important to consider carefully what lies within the realms of what is possible, and to keep an open mind. The Flatland analogy that we have considered suggests that it is at least reasonable to be open to the possibility of the miraculous. And if God can raise the dead – the claim on which the whole of Christianity stands or falls (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:17-19) – other miracles in the Bible become much more plausible.
“The Bible is outdated and thus largely irrelevant”
Another objection to the content of the Bible is that it is outdated and thus largely irrelevant to people today. The situation is not helped by the use of dated translations of the Bible, parts of which are increasingly incomprehensible to modern readers.
It is undeniable that even the most recent parts of the Bible were written a long time ago. But if the Bible is principally a book about God, and if God’s character and purposes do not change, then the fact that it was written a long time ago makes little difference. Moreover, according to the Bible, human nature does not change much either – try reading through e.g. Genesis 12-50 or the gospel of Mark for example.
It is also worth noting that Jesus repeatedly refers back to the Old Testament – which was many hundreds of years old even in New Testament times – as a source of reliable information about God (cf. e.g. Matthew 19:4-6, Luke 10:25-28). Something similar may be said of the writings of the apostles (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, 1 Peter 2:4-8). (The apostles – literally those who were “sent” – were those people specially chosen and called by Jesus Christ to take his message to the wider world.)
That said, it should be noted that it is clear from the Bible itself that parts of the Old Testament are outdated and thus – it could be argued – largely irrelevant. In the New Testament, the Old Testament covenant between God and his people is described as “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13). It thus seems reasonable to assume that the associated “law with its commands and regulations” (Ephesians 2:15, cf. Hebrews 9:1-10:14) is similarly redundant. However, while some Old Testament laws are evidently no longer applicable, that is not to say they have nothing to teach us (cf. e.g. Matthew 5:17-18). When carefully considered in their original context, the Old Testament laws – even those which are now obsolete – can be seen to reveal and reflect God’s unchanging character.
“The Bible is anti-women”
Linked with the misconception that the Bible is outdated is the notion that the Bible is anti-women. When we read about anything, we naturally tend to make comparisons with what we know. So when people in 21st century Western society read about women in the Bible, they naturally draw parallels with women in 21stcentury Western society. And such comparisons are not always favourable.
But as we noted earlier in this chapter, it is important to consider the context of whatever part of the Bible we are reading. The events of the Bible happened in times and places where the status of women in society was very different from that of women in the Western world today. And when we read the Bible with this in mind, the way that women are treated looks very different.
While the historical context is not always easy to discern, it is sometimes evident from the Bible itself. Consider for example Jesus’ encounter with a Samaritan woman at a well. This meeting is notably counter-cultural not only because “Jews [did] not associate with Samaritans” (John 4:9), but because it would have been shocking for a Jewish teacher to approach a woman as Jesus did (cf. John 4:27). And yet this woman, with a chequered past (cf. John 4:16-18), is the first person in John’s gospel to discover Jesus’ identity (John 4:25-26). When carefully considered in its proper context, Jesus’ attitude to women is remarkably progressive.
More generally, it is worth noting that the New Testament records women having significant roles in the early church. In Romans 16:1-3 for example, the apostle Paul writes warmly of Phoebe and describes Priscilla as his “co-worker” (cf. Acts 18:24-26). In Acts 21:8-9, Luke records how the four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist prophesied. And in each of the gospels, the writers record women as being among the key witnesses of Jesus’ death and resurrection in a culture where the testimony of women counted for much less than that of men.
2C. Misconceptions about the claims of Christianity
“The claims of Christianity are only for ‘religious’ people”
Some contend that the claims of Christianity are only for ‘religious’ people. If this is so, then those who do not consider themselves religious need not concern themselves with what the Bible says.
But many people who are quick to dismiss the claims of Christianity do not know much about what the Bible actually says. How many such people have read (say) 10% of the Bible, or perhaps even 1% of it? And how carefully have they considered what they have read? It is ironic that in the Western world, where people enjoy relative freedom of expression and free access to the Bible, many are simply not interested in what it says.
By way of contrast, in some countries, and particularly those where people have long been denied freedom in all sorts of ways, there are people who are desperate to know more about the claims of Christianity. As Amy Orr-Ewing writes, “In some countries of the world the [Bible] is contraband. Smuggling operations exist with the sole aim of getting Bibles secretly across closed borders and into the hand of those who want to read them. I will never forget getting off a train in the middle of China at four o’clock one morning and making my way to a rendezvous with three Chinese church leaders. A team of us [was] delivering bags filled with Bibles which were to be distributed amongst the churches further north. When our Chinese friends unzipped the bags and looked inside the tears began to flow down their cheeks. These books were so precious to them that they were prepared to risk imprisonment and persecution in order to get hold of them” (Why Trust the Bible?, p11).
Contrary to popular belief, the claims of Christianity are not only for “religious” people. We see from the records of Jesus’ life and ministry that he went out of his way to take his message to the outcasts of society: to people with infectious and ordinarily incurable skin diseases (Luke 5:12-13); to tax collectors hated for their corrupt ways (Luke 19:1-10); and to “sinners” generally (e.g. Luke 15:1-7). Etc. Moreover, Jesus reserved some of his harshest words for the religious leaders of his day (e.g. Matthew 23). Both implicitly and explicitly, it is the testimony of the Bible that the claims of Christianity are addressed to all people, at all times and in all places (e.g. Acts 2:38-39).
“The claims of Christianity cannot be checked out”
Finally here, one of the most important misconceptions to dispel is the notion that the claims of Christianity cannot be checked out. “Religious belief”, it is sometimes said, is not like belief in other things. Christianity is “all a matter of faith”. And faith claims, by definition, cannot be verified – can they?
As with many of the most insidious lies, this misconception contains elements of truth. It is true, for example, that claims concerning “religious belief” cannot be checked out by experiment in the way that scientific theories can. But that is quite different from saying that such claims cannot be checked out at all. If the “religious belief” in question is based on historical events – as in the case of Christianity – there is certainly some checking out that can be done. And any religious belief can at least be tested against what we know about the world. More generally, it is a mistake to think that scientific theories always fall neatly into the category of rational “fact” and religious claims into that of irrational “faith”.
While Christianity is undeniably at least in part “a matter of faith”, the broad idea of faith can apply to many things. When I sit on a chair, it can be said that I have faith that it will support my weight. And when I board an aeroplane, I have faith that it will not fall out of the sky. In these instances, “having faith” involves believing – rationally believing – that certain things are true, and acting on that belief. And in these examples the important thing is not the amount of faith that I have but the nature of the object in which I put that faith. If I sit on a broken chair or board a faulty aeroplane, no amount of faith will help. Faith has no value in and of itself; its value depends on the trustworthiness of its object.
Having faith in Jesus Christ has some similarities. Like many others, I am a Christian not because I like going to church or because I am naturally “religious”. Nor am I a Christian because I particularly like what God has to say. I am Christian because I believe God’s revelation to be true on the basis of the available evidence. I am a Christian because I believe that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ make sense of the world in a way that nothing and nobody else does. Having faith in Jesus Christ involves believing – rationally believing – that certain things are true, and acting on that belief. And the important thing is not the amount of faith that I have but the nature of the person in whom I put that faith.
While useful parallels may be drawn between having faith in Jesus Christ and having faith in chairs and aeroplanes, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the analogy. There are some obvious differences, not least that we can readily see and experience chairs and aeroplanes. But the underlying point is that the Christian faith has a substantial rational basis. For the object of a Christian’s faith is not a set of ethereal beliefs but a person, Jesus Christ, who once walked this earth. The Christian claims are grounded in history both in the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 2:1, Luke 3:1-2) and the Old Testament (e.g. Daniel 1:1-2, Haggai 1:1). They can be checked out, at least up to a point, not least by carefully considering the biblical accounts. So while Christian faith goes beyond reason, it is also undergirded by reason. As such, it is quite different from some other “faith claims”. It is inextricably linked with things that have actually happened (or at least things which many people claim have actually happened). Indeed one New Testament writer went so far as to say (to Christians) that “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14).
More generally, having faith is an unavoidable part of life. We make what we might call “faith choices” not just in relation to things that we can see – like chairs and aeroplanes – but also in relation to things that are hidden. Sometimes faith choices are fairly obvious, such as when someone follows a version of one of the major world religions, or perhaps a lesser-known one. But sometimes faith choices are rather less obvious, not least because those who make them would much prefer not to describe them in terms of faith at all. Such a faith choice may entail someone having faith in there being no afterlife, or in there being no God (or gods) at all. Or it may be that someone has faith in the view that it does not really matter what we believe. Etc.
Whether we like it or not, we cannot escape making choices when it comes to spiritual matters, even if that choice is to believe that there lies nothing beyond this world and this life. And as we discussed earlier in this chapter, our beliefs concerning spiritual matters – whatever they are, and whether or not we describe them in terms of faith – affect how we live our lives. What we believe has consequences, in this life and – if there is such a thing – the life beyond it.
Next chapter (Chapter 3)
Outline of whole book for reference
Part (i): Background
Part (ii): Problem
Part (iii): Solution
Main index with additional outline structure
The Big Reveal homepage (or search Substack for “The Big Reveal”)
Text © The Big Reveal 2024