The Human Faces of God – Before and After

Before reading Thom Stark’s Human Faces of God I accepted that I was probably not a believer in the inerrancy of the bible.  I was willing to admit that there were mistakes in scientific issues, historical accounts but I was still convinced of the infallibility of the bible in theological and moral and ethical matters.

I probably would have described myself as a “neo-orthodox” in regards to my opinion on the authority and inspiration of the scriptures.

Before reading Human Faces I read the bible with a somewhat confrontational attitude. I read the stories and the letters and lists with the idea that the best way to understand them was to pull them apart, to examine the pieces, to break them open and to see what was hiding inside – because I believed that in the end it would be possible to put them back together again and that once reassembled, the texts would retain their divinely inspired Truth (even if some of the details were found to be in error).

But there too, I was standing at the edge of a precipice.

I would sometimes tell people that I could understand Martin Luther’s impulse to excise certain books from the cannon, and that if I had supreme executive power (derived from a mandate from the masses and not from some farcical aquatic ceremony) I would remove the book of Nahum from the bible.  It seemed to me that Nahum was like a fire burning green and wet wood - producing more smoke than light and obscuring more than he revealed of God.

I kept my scissors put away, however. I was being facetious (mostly). 

It’s funny.  I argued with the scripture. Asked questions that it couldn’t or wouldn’t answer.  I wrestled with it and refused to give up, even after it broke my hip and left me hobbling toward home. But when I started reading Thom Stark’s book, I found myself defending that same book against his arguments which, to be honest, were sometimes my own arguments.  (Perhaps I was arguing with him because I was afraid to be convinced by his answers. Perhaps…)

Stark’s conclusion is that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, while being inspired, suffer “from scientific and historical problems, but also – and much more significantly – from moral, ethical, theological, and ideological problems. (pg. 208)”

The first part of that conclusion seems obvious to me now.  Sometimes I wonder how I could have missed it or how I could have ignored it.  It’s the second part of his conclusion – that there are theological and moral problems in the bible – that has me standing nervously at the edge of that precipice again.

The Bible is a mirror. Stark argues that when we read the scriptures what we see isn’t God, but rather ourselves. And if we’re reading carefully and confrontationally we’ll see the good parts of ourselves and also the ugly and depraved parts of ourselves that we’d just as soon hide from view.

I can accept this.  But it seems to me that this can be true of any text.

Reading John Steinbeck’s explosive novel, The Grapes of Wrath, rocked me to my core and challenged me to be more than I was before.  It still does.  A People’s History of the United States by the historian Howard Zinn forced me to confront history as more than a recitation of dates and events – forced me to see the morals and motivations that underlie the histories we tell (and the stories that we don’t tell).  It was, in part, the lyrics (another kind of text) of U2’s Joshua Tree that began me thinking about what it means to pursue social justice in our world.  

These texts then showed me the good and the bad in myself and in the world around me.  These texts – though not divinely inspired and clearly not inerrant– showed me new and better ways to be.  Is there a difference between the writings of Steinbeck and the writings of Amos? Is there a difference between Zinn’s history and the history recorded by the Chronicler of the bible? Is there a difference between Bono and the Psalmist? 

I hate reducing the argument to such a trivial expression – but I am still wondering: Are the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments words from God (if somewhat corrupted and distorted by human error) or are they merely words about God?

I recognize that I can’t hold a belief in the inerrancy of these words. I’m still wrestling (broken hip and all) with it, trying to learn from it all.

But a recent post concerning the “Insufficiency of Scripture” at the blog – Exploring Our Matrix -  gave me some comfort with these words from 2 John 12:

I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

“For those of us who are at times tempted to focus too much attention on the Bible, or to believe that it contains all the answers and solutions to all problems, this verse is a helpful reminder that an author of a letter that is now part of Scripture thought some things were better said face to face – that there were things that could not be accomplished as well or as effectively or simply as joyfully through written words as through personal interaction.”  - James McGrath

When I struggle to understand, or when I struggle to accept, the ugly parts of the scriptures, I trust that it is the relationship that I have with God that will carry me through – even when I doubt and disbelieve. 

I'm glad that I've read Stark's book.  It's challenged me.  It's pushed me.  It is pushing me.This is an issue that I'll continue to consider.


To see my other comments and questions - and the author, Thom Stark's, response (!!) read here.