From Evangelical Roots to Liberal Faith
While my online writing might suggest a very liberal approach to Christianity, I want to clarify my background. I actually come from a small, evangelical church with many traditional, even fundamentalist, beliefs—though they certainly wouldn't use that label themselves. These beliefs undoubtedly shaped me to some extent.
However, many of those early beliefs are no longer my own. I've become strongly liberal in my views. I firmly believe in evolution and science, and I think their literal interpretation of scripture is far from how we should read it; I believe it should be read as allegory, among other things. These shifts mean I'm no longer the person I was when I first started on this journey.
The Enduring Value of a Christian Upbringing
I'm reminded of my grandfather, who, despite being largely agnostic, believed that a solid Christian background was beneficial for a child. He felt that understanding Christian morality, its stories, and the teachings of Christ provided a valuable foundation. So, when my aunt decided to take us to church, he had no objections. I've always admired his perspective, especially given his significant questions about Christianity and mainstream faiths. Many of his personal beliefs he largely kept to himself.
My Journey of Faith
Over my next few writings, I plan to explain how I developed a love for the Christian faith from that small childhood chapel. Then, I'll detail my transformation into the more liberal person I am today, a journey significantly influenced by my university education and the people I've met. It's a long story, and it will take some time to tell, but this is the beginning. Let's see where it leads.
Getting From There to Here
Let's start with the small church I attended. I'll omit the name for now, but suffice it to say, it was a small church rooted in the Plymouth Brethren faith. For those unfamiliar, the Plymouth Brethren are a Christian movement characterized by a lack of hierarchical structure. The church is essentially run by a group of elders. These elders discern and utilize individual talents, making decisions based entirely on what they believe to be the correct interpretation of the Bible.
This approach has its merits, as it avoids entanglement in rigid rituals and external influences that might distort the core message. However, there's one significant challenge: how does one arrive at that interpretation?
The problem lays in differing views on biblical interpretation. Some adhere to a literal interpretation, forming the basis of fundamentalist churches. Others believe the interpretation is more flexible, allowing for selective reading of the same text – though this isn't always the most sound approach. Then there are those who advocate for re-analyzing the original intent by delving into the Greek, Latin, or Hebrew texts. While this is a wise method, I lean towards a slightly different perspective.
While I agree with the importance of accurate interpretation from the original Greek and Hebrew, I believe it's crucial to also examine the Bible as allegory, metaphor, and simile. These rich literary devices offer wonderful insights into earlier times and the historical context in which the Old and New Testaments were written. For me, the most important aspect conveyed through these texts is the teachings of Christ.
Furthermore, we must consider modern society. I don't believe we fully embody the idea of being "in the world but not of the world" if we view ourselves as a separate unit, deeming everything else as inherently bad and needing to be "taught" otherwise.
Now, regarding their teachings: they primarily focused on the teachings of Jesus Christ. When they delved into the Old Testament, they taught the stories – Genesis, Noah's Ark, and other historical narratives – in relation to the messages those stories aimed to convey. Of course, they would have misinterpreted many things, as interpretations weren't always accurate. The King James Bible, while a valuable tool, does contain errors. Many might balk at the idea of errors in the Bible, but they are indeed present, whether one chooses to believe it or not.
I can point out one specific example that is crucial to understanding my more liberal perspective. There's a passage in Leviticus 18:22, which reads: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" This is frequently interpreted as a condemnation of homosexuality. However, in many translations of the Bible into languages other than English (i.e., not the King James Version), the phrasing is closer to "Thou shalt not lay with a boy as with a woman," or similar variations. The reality is, it's a significant misinterpretation based on a single word. We must be very careful about such interpretations.
We also need to consider culture and the idea of living "in the world but not of the world." The truth is, we do live in the world, whether we like it or not. And regardless of whether one believes God "hates" the world, He doesn't; He loves us.
It's important to understand that when the Bible was written – and it is a book, not a magical, divinely "whamming" decree – the concept of homosexuality was not openly discussed. People were still being stoned for it. We now live in a culture where we are not so naive as to believe there's only a binary sexual relationship of male and female; there's far more diversity. (Regardless of your personal opinion on this, I simply want to state my perspective before any metaphorical stoning begins.)
This brings me to my university experience, where my learning began to open up different avenues in how I approached my faith. I took a course on fundamentalist religions, taught by, I believe, Professor Cornelius Jannen, whose original education was when the University of Ottawa still had remnants of its former Catholic origins. To my surprise, one of the fundamentalist beliefs he tackled was that of the Plymouth Brethren. He was quite open about them not being entirely fundamentalist and having progressed away from it to a large degree, though many Plymouth Brethren remain fundamentalists. He then contrasted these with existing religions, demonstrating that while we might perceive the Catholic, Anglican, or Pentecostal churches as restrictive, they are often more open than the Brethren, even if elements within those churches are equally fundamentalist.
I believe that by transitioning away from the idea of literal interpretation, I've actually grown to understand more about Christ and less about sin. And that's the core issue: fundamentalists, in my opinion, tend to concentrate on sin. Their belief seems to be that if we eliminate sins, we become better people. I, however, believe that if we embrace the love that Christ preached, we are less likely to sin in the first place. It's a different approach.
So, that's how my faith evolved: from fundamentalist to liberal. There's much more to it, and many more things I could discuss, but the primary takeaway is this: start with a basis of Christianity, which you can find in a fundamentalist church. From there, move to an understanding that it is not a perfect interpretation, and then discern how you fit within the world as a Christian, outside of a fundamentalist ideology."
No comments:
Post a Comment