This book is based on a series of Earle lectures on Biblical Literature at the Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri, held on November 16-17, 2015. It is a theological exploration by the scholars and researchers on current issues and Christian thought, shared to the larger Church for their edification. Society is becoming more secularized. Bible is perceived as less relevant than before. Faith is increasingly under attack by atheists and non-believers. As a result, some Christians are backpedaling on their fundamentals just to appease the modern hostile climate. Unfortunately, for the ardent skeptic, no arguments are sufficient if they do not wish to believe in the first place. Author Moberly tries to defend the Bible not by way of historical evidence or persuasive rhetoric, but by walking with the company of trustworthy people both past and present. He argues that there it is not clear that historical evidence should lead to faith. Moreover, the words "history" and "historical reliability" could mean so many different things to different people.


The problem is this: Is Christian faith losing touch with intellectual progress? Can the Bible be studied just like any other book without having to privilege it? In a culture of disenchantment, the Bible is no longer given the special place it used to have. Instead of simply accepting it by faith, the focus is now on "Why?" and "Why should I?" In other words, the conventional way of taking the Bible by faith and to be accepted as authoritative is no longer enough. It needs to be argued for as well. This is the purpose of this book. The primary reason why there is a need to make a case for the Bible as authoritative is because not only the culture is changing from hope to disenchantment, people's expectations are also changing from faith to doubt; and from doubt to skepticism. Moberly does not simply gives in to the cultural mood without asking for something in return. He says that if we were to read the Bible like any other book, does it also mean that the biblical deity is to be understood like any other deity? This should put the question back to the questioner that because worldviews are already different, one must level the playing field. They have to meet believers halfway. Just like they do not like religious people to force religious views on them, they too cannot force non-religious views on others. Even secular society must have a form of respect for all. Scholarship is limited by evidence and research. They are also limited by varying levels of bias. One can study something with a neutral mindset, but honestly speaking, there is no neutral position. Every scholar, researcher, theologian, and interpreter has a biased worldview already.

How does Moberly deal with this problem? He proposes reading the Bible in three primary ways: "As history; as classic; and as Scripture." As history, we approach the Bible using the "historical-critical approach" which is a study of the texts based on historical facts, circumstances, authors, dates, time, other factors so as to construct as close as possible to what actually happened in the past. Yet, just like the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" project, it could be done by non-believers as well. As a cultural classic, people can still read the Bible and understand cultural wisdom during those times and wisdom that are timeless. This approach is also applicable for those who want to understand cultural heritage and a worldview of the human condition. The author argues by comparing narratives, one non-biblical and the other a biblical source. The moment the texts are laid side by side, the differences are noticeably stark. There is no book like the Bible.

He engages Richard Dawkins's atheistic views and shows us that even though Dawkins does not believe in God, he still believes that it is good to know the Bible. Moberly also compares the early century work, Aeneid with the Old Testament book of Daniel, comparing and contrasting Roman deities with the Bible. He shows us the path forward back to putting the Bible in a privileged mode, not because of our perspectives but because of simply recognizing there is no other book in the world like the Bible. He believes that the way we privilege the Bible is not any different from the way people privilege their respective texts or perspectives. Special attention is given to the four "plausibility structures" in which the contexts and social consensus resist the common problems of individualism and rationalism. In other words, the way to faith is not to overcome skepticism and doubts per se, but to see faith being practiced and accepted by the community we are in.

My Thoughts
First, this is a bold attempt by the author to tackle head on the cultural challenges being put to Bible believers. Skeptics are no longer doubters but challengers to the way Christians view Scripture. Instead of accepting sacred texts as they are, they are questioning them and casting shadows of doubts on them. In keeping non-believers and skeptics engaged, Moberly proposes a brilliant three ways to read the Bible. The historical way would appeal to the scientific and evidential mindset. The cultural way would appeal to the larger sense of humanism and the awareness of the human condition. The Scriptural way is a point of reference that would appeal to those who are open. After all, not everyone is a skeptic. As an apologetic, Moberly takes a unique approach that is refreshingly real. He does not stray away from the key cultural challenges but to describe them and engage them thoughtfully and constructively. He opens many doors and is ready to meet anyone who chooses to come and chat.

Second, one needs to be open-minded in order to see the arguments Moberly has set before us. Closed-minded individuals will never be convinced anyhow. Not everyone is ready to be convinced. They might simply be throwing spanners into the religious works. Hi plausibility structures are key to building a bridge between faith and doubt; individuality and community; nominal to sacred. The song, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" may be seen as privileged lines of the song, but to people of faith, it means a lot. Perhaps, people who are doubtful about religious beliefs simply needed someone to patiently show them the way. For that matter, not everyone is as open and honest about their curiosity of faith. Some may simply be mischievous and show no honest inquiry at all. For such people, a book like this would be easily be dismissed. For those who are open, Moberly gives them multiple doors of entry into seeing the Bible as privileged texts.

Third, we are creatures of bias. We all privilege something. Thus, it is not unusual for Christians to privilege the Bible as sacred texts. This practice can be argued not only from the traditional biblical view of taking the Word of God as authoritative, it can also be argued from the perspective of human bias. We are all people of a certain worldview. There are no neutral positions. In fact, insisting on a "neutrality" is already a form of bias in itself. Far better than privilege is the place of truth. Jesus has said that the truth shall be known and the truth shall set us free. Is it then possible that persistent skeptics are not people who don't know the truth, but people who refuse to accept the truth? Os Guinness reminds us:
"Followers of Christ are not simply fair-weather believers. They are realistic believers committed to truth, people who “think in believing and believe in thinking,” as Augustine expressed it. They are therefore like experienced pilots who can fly in bad weather as easily as in good, by night as well as by day, and upside down as well as right side up. Faith’s rainy days will come and go and dark nights of the soul may threaten to overwhelm, but safe flying is possible for those who have at least two things: a solid grasp of the instruments (God’s truth and promises) and a canny realism about the storm and stress of doubt."
The way to deal with skeptics and doubters must go beyond challenging them through debates or pressure tactics. The way forward is to build bridges, that even when we disagree, we can still be friends. In a disenchanted age, perhaps, that is the real need for all of us. Friends who are willing to listen, to learn, and to link together under the same umbrella of humanity. This book shows us the way to do just that.

R. W. L. Moberly (PhD, University of Cambridge) is professor of theology and biblical interpretation at Durham University, where he has taught for more than thirty years. He is the author of eight books, including Old Testament Theology, The Theology of the Book of Genesis, and Prophecy and Discernment. He is also an ordained priest in the Church of England.

Rating: 4.5 stars of 5.

conrade
This book has been provided courtesy of Baker Academic and NetGalley without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

In The Bible in a Disenchanted Age, Walter Moberly writes in a clear and logical way, not tolerating weak and glib arguments.

The book explores “How might one articulate an approach that combines taking the Bible seriously with the dimension of faith?” Moberly makes some great points and quotes including “If you believe, the evidence is all around you. If you don’t believe, no evidence can be enough.” And the Bible “belongs also in the life of Christians as a fundamental resource for understanding the realities of God and of life.”

The author’s wisdom and sharp mind make for an enjoyable read, and Moberly does not flinch from facing the difficult questions. I found he answered questions I hadn’t realised I was asking. One thought I particularly enjoyed was Moberly’s suggestion that believers view the Bible as “trustworthy” instead of becoming entangled in arguments about infallibility.