Infallibility

I have recently been reading about the history of				which is good in all religions is a commendable
various				one. But
religions of the world, and something that seems				they still take an "ultimate" approach to their
to have				founder,
caused a lot of trouble over the centuries has				assuming that he is a step up from all the rest. I
been the				personally
tendency to expect and/or look for infallibility,				find this frustrating when I see that the ethic
either in				Jesus taught
human leaders/founders, or in holy writings. This				goes far beyond that taught by their
tendency				prophet.There is this tendency for each religion to
also seems to have led to exaggeration with				see itself as not
regard to				only an improvement on all of the others, but
supernatural events. The whole thing seems so				also as the last
terribly				and ultimate improvement, i.e the final step to
pointless, especially when one considers all of the				perfection or
problems that have resulted from it.We have				infallibility. This tendency really stifles their ability
dealt elsewhere with the rather hollow attempts				to grow
by				and prosper according to the will of God.I have
various Christian denominations to claim infallibility				to admit that I do see God himself as infallible,
on the				and I
behalf of the Bible, when even the Bible itself				also see Jesus as His ultimate revelation. I have
does not make				no
such a claim. The Bible does say that all holy				problem with calling Jesus the Son of God,
writings				accepting the
('scriptures') are "inspired", but no mention is				Virgin Birth, his resurrection, or even that he is
made of				worthy of
infallibility, nor does it establish the bounds of				worship in the same way that we worship God.
what				But I think
constitutes a holy writing and what does not.				there is room even here to understand that such
Nevertheless,				concepts
most Protestant denominations say (or imply)				are fairly pointless in the real world. What
that it relates				matters most is
to every word of the 66 books of the Bible				whether or not what he said actually works, and
(preferably the				not some
King James Version for many), and to absolutely				theological argument about his divinity/infallibility or
nothing				lack of
else. They further argue that "inspired" (because				it.If, for example, "infallibility" means that Jesus
it means				never wet the
that the words come from the Spirit of God in				bed as an infant, never harboured germs in his
the person				body, or
writing them) necessarily implies				never missed a question on tests at school, then
infallibility.Common sense tells us that these				I think we
conclusions represent				are taking it too far. The Bible says that Jesus
incredible leaps of logic.It is part and parcel of the				"learned
message of the New Testament				obedience through the things that he suffered".
that "inspiration" (or the presence of the Spirit of				In fact, it is
God in an				quite likely that it was his human-ness that made
individual) is now available to all believers. Indeed,				it so hard
we				for Jesus' friends and relatives to accept the
regularly talk of being inspired to do various				Spirit of God
things, and of				that was working through him in his adult life. As
inspired sermons, inspired songs, and inspired				he said
writings.				himself, "A prophet is not without honour except
Yet there is no suggestion that all of this				in his own
inspiration implies				house and amongst his own people."I see things
infallibility on the part of any person being				like Jesus more or less blowing up at the
referred to.Most of us are able to accept quite				businessmen in the Temple in the best possible
easily that we are				light... as
surrounded by people who are capable of both				an expression of loyalty to God, and not one of
good and				hatred for
evil, moments of great inspiration as well as				either the money changers or the animals that
moments of				were being
great error. Even in the midst of the inspired				sold there; but I can understand others saying
moments, we				that this
generally consider ourselves free to pick and				seems to be an instance of him losing his cool,
choose which				and thus
aspects of the sermon, song, or writing we will				behaving in a less than perfect manner.I say that
embrace,				to underline the need to do the same thing with
and which we will reject.So why can't we do this				Muhammad, Baha' Ullah (founder of the Bahais),
with our holy books as well? I have				Siddhartha Gautama ('the buddha'), Confucius, and
frequently been told that such an approach to				many
the Bible				lesser religious founders and leaders, whether it
would be dangerous, because people would then				be Joseph
be free to				Smith, Ellen White, Charles Russell, William
take the parts that suit them, and to reject the				Branham, or
parts that do				even myself. Not that I am in the same field as
not. But, hey, isn't that what people do already?				these other
All the talk				people, but just that it is important that no one
about infallibility in the Bible has not resulted in				teach a
widespread				standard for others that we would not wish to
agreement on what it is saying. Instead, it has				have applied
been used				to ourselves.It seems to be the nature of fallible
as the basis for arguing some of the most				human beings
spurious				everywhere, to overstep our divine authority.
teachings, based on an absolute literal approach				Joan of Arc
to any				heard God speaking to her through some church
isolated "proof text". Anyone questioning the				bells, and
teaching is				the result appeared to be somewhat miraculous.
seen as wanting to rip that proof text out of the				She, a
Bible, and				young girl posing as a military commander, led
thus of being a heretic.Of course every				her country
fundamentalist (for that is what these				to victory in battle after battle (an imperfect
infallibility teachers really are) reverts back to a				mission in itself,
non-fundamentalist approach with regard to the				in my opinion). But then she stopped hearing the
proof texts				voices,
used by the opposition... which is why you can				and she went on trying to do the will of God. Her
often listen to
a debate between two fundamentalist factions				accomplishments from that point on were not
and never				nearly as
hear either side give a truly satisfying answer to				dramatic, and actually led to her execution.Was
the proof				Joan a fraud? Or was she just an imperfect
texts raised by the opposition. Neither side is				human
really				being doing her best with her limited
interested in getting the bigger picture, because				understanding of the
they have				will of God? And was God even prepared to
been so heavily steeped in a doctrine which				assist her at the
actually				level of spiritual growth that she
originated from some other source. As a				represented?Stories like the miraculous (though
consequence,				disappearing) gold
they will only cling to those bits and pieces that				tablets that Joseph Smith was supposed to have
support their				used to
doctrine, and usually have very little problem with				write the Book of Mormon abound with regard
simply				to the sacred
closing their ears to the rest.But I wasn't going to				writings of various religions. They tend to push
dwell on Christian fundamentalists in				people into
this article. I was going to note how the same				an all-or-nothing approach to the writings as well
attitude has				as to the
worked in other religions, and, more importantly,				lives and ministries of the people concerned. Was
how it				the story
frustrates efforts to see how God may be				about the gold tablets an elaborate hoax to
working through				generate an air
virtually all religions to accomplish his will in today's				of infallibility about the book? Or could it have
				been
world.Muslims have been called "The People of				something that really happened, maybe even
the Book"				something
because of their dedication to the Qu'ran (or				that God felt was necessary in order to get
Koran), a book				Joseph to do
that was supposed to have been miraculously				what he wanted him to do?The Catholic Church
given to them				has protected itself (at least slightly) by
by their prophet Muhammad. Muhammad himself,				refusing to declare anyone a "saint" (which really
was				just
unable to read or write, and so he would				means a Christian believer) while that person is
memorise sayings				still alive. In
that he felt were coming to him through				other words, there are no "living legends" in the
inspiration, and				Catholic
teach his followers to memorise them as well. It				Church. People are allowed to take or leave any
was quite				living
some time before all of these were recorded in				Catholic, including (within limits) the pope himself.
the book				(Infallibility is something only a few popes have
which is now known as the Qu'ran. Yet the book				claimed,
is treated				and only on rare occasions.) But this whole
with such honour that a true Muslim would not				business of
even				waiting until after a person is dead for some
translate it into any other language than the				years before
language in				deciding whether they are a true believer seems
which it was originally written (Arabic). While				to be a
some				practice which has only been made necessary by
Christians behave as though God, Jesus, and all				giving
of the				credence to the infallibility thing itself. Why can't
prophets of the past spoke only in King James				people be
English,				saints, prophets, even founders of new religions,
strict Muslims officially teach that the language of				and still
God is				be quite fallible... maybe even downright wrong or
Arabic.Once again, we see how a doctrine of				bad at
infallibility about a				times?It should be the right (indeed, the duty) of
book works to trap God inside its pages, and to				every believer, to
negate so				do a bit of picking and choosing to work out
much that he may be doing elsewhere, especially				what is right and
if it takes				what is wrong in every religion. Sure, you can do
a slightly different slant on some issues. If, for				it selfishly.
example,				And what you get will be exactly what you pay
Muhammad (or Krishna, in the Baghavad Gita)				for. On the
talks of				other hand, if one makes great effort to be
going to war, and another prophet happens to				honest and
espouse a				unselfish, this picking and choosing can get us
higher ethic (that of turning the other cheek and				closer to the
loving our				real thing than the all-or-nothing approach ever
enemies), the other prophet must, of necessity,				will.Jesus himself said, "You can be forgiven for
be treated				rejecting me,
with suspicion. Each time someone mentions				but you can never be forgiven for rejecting the
infallibility,				Spirit of God." I
they are implying that there can be no higher				think he was saying that it is the responsibility of
revelation. And				each of us
anything seen to contradict the infallible revelation				to extract the truth (i.e. the Spirit of God) from
pretty				everything that
much has to be seen as being in error.Even				we experience, without necessarily having to
attempts at picking the best from various other				embrace the
religions (whether it be the Sikhs drawing on				messenger through whom the truth comes.Dave
Islam and				McKay and his wife, Cherry, are co-founders of
Hinduism, or the Bahais taking bits from all of the				the
world's				Jesus Christian communities in Australia, Kenya,
great religions) often result in yet more				England,
"packages" that get				and the United States. He may be contacted
the same infallibility treatment. The Bahai idea of				directly at
uniting that				.au. The community's website is jesuschristians.

Dr Ahearn

Infallibility