I call this
moving from a devotional approach to the Bible (not always bad) to an
historical-critical approach. When I looked at the Bible only devotionally, I
was forced to ignore the contradictions and inherent problems I saw within its
pages. But I wasn’t being biblically and intellectually honest. When I learned
how to look at it historically and critically, I could finally reconcile being
honest (about what I read and studied in the Bible) with my faith in
Christ. For me, when people only look at
the Bible devotionally, with no deep questions about its origins and
inspiration, they can’t have a wholly genuine faith. Authentic faith only comes
when we are intellectually honest about our doubts and misgivings. It also only
comes when there’s a desire to find the original intention of Jesus and his
earliest followers, or else one’s faith rests on later human tradition.
Many Christians fear Bart Ehrman because he has written several books that challenge the traditional view of the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity. (By the way, this is a pathology soon to be categorized in modern psychology as “Fear of Bart” or “Bartophobia”). They think embracing his views will cause people to lose their faith. After all, Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical, is now an agnostic. These people forget one very important point. Bart Ehrman never claims historical criticism of the Bible logically leads to agnosticism. “It did not lead me to become an agnostic,” he confesses. He continues: “My personal view is that a historical-critical approach to the Bible does not necessarily lead to agnosticism or atheism. It can in fact lead to a more intelligent and thoughtful faith.”[1] In truth, he admits many of his scholar colleagues, who also agree with most of what he reveals in his books, are still strong believers. Ehrman’s agnosticism didn’t come from studying biblical origins, but from a separate philosophical problem: how to reconcile faith with “the powerful reality of human suffering in the world.”
Many Christians fear Bart Ehrman because he has written several books that challenge the traditional view of the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity. (By the way, this is a pathology soon to be categorized in modern psychology as “Fear of Bart” or “Bartophobia”). They think embracing his views will cause people to lose their faith. After all, Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical, is now an agnostic. These people forget one very important point. Bart Ehrman never claims historical criticism of the Bible logically leads to agnosticism. “It did not lead me to become an agnostic,” he confesses. He continues: “My personal view is that a historical-critical approach to the Bible does not necessarily lead to agnosticism or atheism. It can in fact lead to a more intelligent and thoughtful faith.”[1] In truth, he admits many of his scholar colleagues, who also agree with most of what he reveals in his books, are still strong believers. Ehrman’s agnosticism didn’t come from studying biblical origins, but from a separate philosophical problem: how to reconcile faith with “the powerful reality of human suffering in the world.”
Historical
criticism of the Bible has led me and others to a more reasoned faith and it can
do so for Christians who fear the implications of reading a critic like Ehrman.
Bart Ehrman has done Christians a great
service. He has opened the door that most conservative theologians and pastors (many of whom learned the
logic and reason of the historical-critical approach in seminary but were
afraid to share it for fear of confusing their audiences) have kept closed for
too long. This is a door to an intellectually-satisfying and therefore more
genuine faith. Not one that is one hundred percent certain about everything
because “the Bible says so,” but one that follows where the historical,
cultural, and linguistic evidence leads and finds much to trust about the Path
of Christ without insisting everyone
believe the same thing. Thanks Bart Ehrman, for opening that door and
helping many of us to walk through it. And,
thanks for being intellectually honest in the way you have defended the historicity
of Jesus in Did
Jesus Exist?
What are your thoughts on Bart Ehrman? Do share your opinions, pro or con.
What are your thoughts on Bart Ehrman? Do share your opinions, pro or con.