believing the bible

Before we were married, sometimes when Nicki and I would talk about our faith, she would ask me, "Why don't you believe the Bible?" What she meant was, "Why don't you believe that everything in the Bible is factual?" It was a frustrating question, because it presumed a framework that I did not, and could not, fit into. It was doubly frustrating because she could explain her view concisely, and I couldn't. I'd like to have a simple sound bite so I wouldn't need to give a detailed explanation that a lot of people can't (or won't) understand anyway.

Lacking a sound bite, I'll delve into the details.

The fact is, I love the Bible. Within the 66 books are stories covering a wide range of human experience. It seems clear to me that its writers did not set these words down lightly. They may not have realized that their writings would be considered Holy Scripture and would be revered thousands of years later, but they must have put a lot of thought into what they were going to say.

In today's world science, history, and factual knowledge are king. Many Christians therefore read the Bible as a history book. They've developed a theory, intelligent design, to make Genesis acceptable in science class. They claim that if the Bible stories are not historical, they're worthless.

But that's all wrong.

The prophet Nathan told King David a patently fictional story to illustrate his point. Jesus, too, used parables to explain spiritual concepts. It does not matter whether there was ever a good Samaritan or a sower who scattered seeds on every imaginable surface. These stories have a lesson for those who have ears to hear.

I think most of the Bible writers had that same mentality. In fact, we can see it in the way the New Testament writers used the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul, in Galatians, refers to the two children of Abraham -- Ishmael and Isaac -- as representing two covenants. He even says in Gal 4:24, "This is an allegory." Paul doesn't care whether it happened or not. His point is that there is a lesson here. Similarly, the author of Hebrews refers to the law and the temple as "shadows" that represent something better (vv. 10:1 and 8:5 respectively). The gospels offer the story of Jonah as a sign for Jesus' resurrection (Matthew) or his judgment (Luke). For Paul, God's covenant with Abraham is a sign of Abraham's faith apart from works (Romans 4); for James, the same covenant is a sign of Abraham's faith and works acting together (James 2).

In all of these cases (and more), the New Testament writers were more interested in the lesson to be learned than the historicity of the Old Testament passage. And it wasn't a problem for the early church that Matthew and Luke could get different meanings from the same saying, or that Paul and James could get the exact opposite meaning from the same passage.

The Bible is a book of faith, and faith is not about the past; it's about the present. The truth of the Bible is in the way it applies to our lives today, not in merely giving assent to the notion that these things happened long ago. Whether we can love our neighbors and take care of those in need is much more important than whether we believe in a literal six-day creation or a global flood.

So, why don't I "believe the Bible?" It seems to me that that's the wrong question.