Filed under: bible
I write about the Bible a lot on this blog. I’ve challenged the idea of the Bible as a moral authority, and I’ve talked a little about the complications about the idea of “Inspiration.” I hope through all of this, you understand that I value the Bible very much. I believe it to be an incredible God-given resource for all Christians, scholars and laypeople alike. I’m not making any formal doctrinal statement with what I wrote. I’m just trying to express to you that I value scripture very much. I’ve dedicated a big chunk of my life to trying to better understand it.
Some interesting things are happening right now in the “Bible translation” world (for lack of a better term). First, Zondervan is pulling the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) because of apparent “mistakes” in translation. In other words, people complained and they backpedaled (can you tell how I feel about it?). You can read more about this decision here.
At the same time, something very exciting is taking place. A new translation is in the works right now called the Common English Bible, and those involved hope to give us with a translation that provides, “Clarity of language, as in ‘plain speaking,’ a reliable, genuine, and credible power to transform live, an emotional expectation to find the love of God, and a rational expectation to find the knowledge of God.” Read more about the translation here.
Here’s where I think this is especially fascinating: We are living in a world where information is at the tips of our fingers, quite literally. We have access to more data than ever before. We can see in real time what is happening all over the globe. Because of this, we can get a little glimpse into the process of creating a new version of the Bible. In other words, we can see the faces and read the bios of the people who are actually translating scripture. And because of that, we’re confronted with realization that the translations we already have didn’t just magically appear. People translated them.
For instance, take a look at both the board of editors (one of whom is Fuller prof Joel B. Green) and the translators of the Common English Bible. All of them are scholars and experts in Hebrew and Greek. They come from so many different faith traditions and bring to the translations process so many unique points of view.
Think about this – These men and women are inspired to do what they are doing, or at least they better be. They are doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves – translate ancient languages into something readable for today. Talking about God’s inspiration in terms of David and Paul and Luke and Isaiah is somewhat pointless if we don’t talk about God’s inspiration in terms of these editors and translators. Think about that. That’s pretty huge! And it really complicates the idea of Inspiration and Biblical authority in big ways.
“Plain sense” gets a little tricky. “Surface readings” become dependent on translators. “Simple faith” means ignoring a lot of serious and valid questions. Are we OK with that? Can we reject the principles of reason, interpretation, hermeneutics and scholarship, but then so heavily rely on the scholars and academics who must translate the Bible for us?
Think about the process. Whatever version you read, remember that it went through a serious translation gauntlet with many men and women just to get in your hands. Let that sink in. It’s a beautiful thing, especially when you think about God’s inspiration through the whole process.
There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
gay people, curse words,
Democrats,
sexuality in general,
tolerance,
a person who tries to promote unity,
and happiness.
Wait, that’s not right. Let me double check that on biblegateway.com…
There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that hurry to run to evil,
a lying witness who testifies falsely,
and one who sows discord in a family.
Oops, I was way off! Hopefully other people haven’t made that mistake.
And now, enjoy a funny picture of a baby.
I inherited a jet pack from my dad. It’s just like the kind you see in the old movies – silver with two little rocket engines on the back. The thing is pretty incredible. My dad tells me that you can fly over 100 mph with this thing. He heard so many stories about his grandfather’s exploits with the jet pack – how he would do circles around Philly and race birds and take his wife for rides. This thing is really cool!
Right now it’s hanging in my garage. It’s been there for years. I’ve never tried it out or really thought much about it, but I know it’s the real deal. The stories are so compelling, and they’ve been handed down through my family for years. I don’t have to take the thing out for a spin to prove anything to anyone. It’s the genuine article.
A friend of mine came over the other day, and I took him in the garage to show him my prized possession. He was impressed! But then he had the nerve to ask me if it really worked. “Of course it does!” I told him. I was blown away that such a good friend of mine would mock my family history in such a blatant way. Needless to say, I don’t speak with him anymore. He’s not welcome in my house.
But I can’t say that his comments didn’t make me think. I mean, I’ve never seen this thing used, and neither has my dad. I don’t know what kind of fuel it takes or how to start it. For all I know, it could be made of cardboard and Elmer’s glue. I guess I could try to see if it works, but in all honesty, that’s just too much work and too scary. I guess I’ll just chose to have faith that the stories are true.
Why do we approach theology and doctrine the same way? We have these “truths” that have been handed down to us through the years, and we refuse to test them. We don’t want to hit them with any hard questions because we’re scared they will just shatter – and if one aspect of our faith shatters, what’s to stop the whole thing from being blown to bits?
Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” and in the same way, unexamined doctrine is not worth holding. So take some doctrine that you or your faith tradition holds dear. Hold that doctrine in your hand. Look at it. Study it. Ask some tough questions of it. Find out what the critics of that doctrine have to say and listen to them. See if their tough questions are valid. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t. In the end, your faith will be better for it. You will understand why you believe what you believe or you will realize what you believe is not as essential as you thought. And that’s OK. Things change.
With any doctrine or theology, there comes great complexity, and to ignore that complexity and refuse to examine the doctrine or theology is dangerous. That’s one of the things that I would like to do with this blog: talk about the complexities of issues that we take for granted. We always want to push people to take stands on issues – “Are you pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage? Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Do you believe in hell or don’t you? Are you a liberal or a conservative?”
Dear God, please help us to be OK with complexity. Help us to understand that you created this world with many shades of color and not just black and white. Help us to be a little less “absolute” and a little more loving, gracious, and connected to you. Help us to be flexible not for flexibility’s sake, but for the sake of the gospel. Help us to stop examining the leaves and start seeing the forest.
Help us to identify doctrine cautiously and with great fear and trembling instead of harshly with no regard for those around us.
Help us to start now.
Time for another rant. Apologies to all. Those who think I complain too much can stop reading after this period.
Still with me? Thanks for letting me have an outlet for my “Christian frustration.”
If I hear or read someone quote Paul out of context one more time, I’m going to lose my mind. I feel like I have read Paul’s list of “who will go to hell” far too many times in the last month or so. You all know the list. I don’t need to post it here. Just read Paul’s letters to Timothy, and you’ll find it.
First, let’s talk for a quick second about context. When someone says “read that verse in context,” they don’t necessarily mean “read the verse that are before it and after it.” Of course this is helpful and usually adds a lot to an interpretation of scripture, but it doesn’t end here. Context all means all things historical, cultural, geographical, related to genre, etc. All of this must be accounted for in order to arrive at a workable interpretation.
I know what you’re thinking (well, maybe I do): “But Jon, we can’t all be theologians or Bible scholars. We have to be able to pick up the Bible and read it at face value. We can’t all read the Bible so critically as you seem to want us to.”
Fair enough. But is this really reality? We all read a lot of things every day. I would venture to say that with everything we read, we are acutely aware of all things “context.” Sure, we may not necessarily have to think long and hard about the context, but that’s mostly because what we read was written very recently and from a context we all know very well.
In other words, you’re reading my blog right now. Some of you know me. You know where I live. You know why I write. You know from what worldview I write. You know my family background. You even know my audience (since I’m usually writing to US Christians). So you already are well-versed in context before you even read one word of my blog.
Why not be this well-versed with Biblical texts? Sure, it takes a little work, but it’s not impossible. There are even some Bibles out there that will give you a quick contextual analysis of a book or author to get the ball rolling.
My point is that we read critically and we take context into account whenever we read something… but not so much with the Bible. We seem to want the Bible to be a magical book that speaks directly into our personal lives whenever we pick it up. We can read six words at face value, and from there, we build doctrine. Honestly, that scares me.
Let’s work with an example. Someone I know recently quoted the following passage from Galatians (I’m being deliberately vague):
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
This person wanted to make the point that “liberal Christians” such as Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, and others are presenting a different gospel than the “correct” gospel. Seems fair if you work backwards on this text and approach it with only a surface reading.
What I mean by “work backwards” is that this person, on his own, decided that the message of “liberal Christians” is contrary to the gospel. He then found Paul’s words very affirming to his own point of view, and retroactively made Paul agree with him. In other words, he takes his own bias and uses the text to express his bias.
Rob Bell could do the same thing. He could use Paul’s words to support the gospel he has taught at Mars Hill. He could easily say, “I have preached to you the ‘true’ gospel. If you hear another gospel from fundamentalists that is different than my own, it is not the ‘true’ gospel. Let them be eternally condemned.” Then he could slap down Paul’s words and seal the deal.
But we can’t work backwards with scripture. We can’t take our own point of view and make it the point of view of the authors.
If you take a minute to figure out what Paul is talking about to the Galatians, you see that he’s frustrated that some people would tell his precious Gentile believers that they must first become Jewish before they can be saved (i.e. get circumcised). In other words, some people were adding extra steps to the gospel of grace and faith in Jesus Christ. And Paul, rightly so, is pissed – so pissed he encourages those adding to the gospel to castrate themselves. Awesome!
Then Paul adds this bit about wanting to “please God” instead of “pleasing men (people).” Without belaboring this point, let me just say that he is addressing the Apostles. He has no desire to please them. He does what he thinks God wants him to do, not what the Jerusalem church wants. It gets even more interesting when you go back and forth from Acts to Galatians to see how both Luke and Paul present this discussion around circumcision. Fascinating stuff!
But we don’t get that without checking out the context just a little bit. I’m not saying we need to dive into the Greek or the heavy commentaries. We just need to get better acquainted with the places, people, cultures, lifestyles, worlds, etc. to whom the Bible writers wrote.
If we don’t do this, then we run the risk of making the Bible say what WE want it to say. If we don’t like a certain theological or doctrinal perspective, we can easily use Paul’s words to condemn it. But is that the right thing to do? Is that what Paul is doing? I don’t think so. Paul had a point to what he wrote. He had an audience. He was addressing a specific issue. But we want him to do the talking for us.
It just doesn’t work that way.
The book of Acts is a complex narrative. Let me just start with that. It follows many characters on their journeys to spread this new movement of God through the Roman empire. It’s epic and exciting, through-provoking and humbling. It’s a huge book! But bear with me for a second while I oversimplify it.
If you take a birds eye look at Acts, you see a bunch of people who think they have heard a new Word from God – specifically that Jesus is God revealed, and his death and resurrection signify a new way of life and the inbreaking reign of God. Being commissioned by Jesus to tell everyone they can about this new Word, they set out to make history. Despite stubbornness from the apostles (they didn’t really feel like leaving Jerusalem), this new Word spreads.
At several points, Luke reminds the reader of the great opposition these people face as they spread this Word. It comes from a lot of places, but mostly, it comes from the Jews. Think about that. This new Word from God was birthed out of the Jewish religion, and this new Word, while being connected to that parent religion, is also different from it. So naturally, the Jewish leaders don’t like it and fight it whenever they can. But the fact remains that it is from the same roots. Some would say it is the fulfillment of the parent religion.
But the point is that the Jewish leaders did not like the idea of anyone claiming he or she was given a new Word from God. They were the proud keepers of God’s Word, and to suggest that God was working something new was absurd.
A lot of them became quite hostile to these revolutionaries, claiming they were distorting the truth and destroying God’s name. Pretty serious stuff! But not all of them were quite as hostile. Gamaliel said to his angry associates about these revolutionaries, “I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” (Acts 5:38-39).
So Gamaliel seemed to be open to the idea that these people could be hearing a new Word from God, and even if he didn’t agree completely, he was wise enough to know that if it was empty and Spirit-less, it would fail.
What’s the point? I believe first of all that God did not stop speaking when the canon of scripture was closed. God continues to speak, and we can hear a new Word from God even now. I also believe many people today are hearing a new Word and trying very hard to make it known – but these people are experiencing hostility from the “mother religion”, i.e. fundamentalist Christianity.
Let me be a little transparent here – This blog post is very much a reaction to conversations I’ve had with others who are hostile to the idea that the Christian faith needs reframing. In particular, these people are hostile against the likes of Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Shane Claiborne, and others.
So what am I really trying to say? I’m not exactly sure to be honest. Since this post is mostly reactionary, it’s hard for anyone reading it to get the idea of what I’m trying to say because it’s very one sided. I admit that.
All I can say is that if you really think that people are not hearing a new Word from God right now, at least have the wisdom to shut up and wait and see if this new Word holds water. If it doesn’t, it will die out. If it does and you fight it, you’ll be fighting against God.
What if there was someone who could look inside you – look into your soul and see its color? What if you could go to this person, and she would tell you whether or not your were really a good person… if you really had a good heart? And this person was completely reliable. This was not a parlor trick to make money. This was the real deal – objective if you will. How cool would that be?
Now imagine this person exists, and you go to her, and she says, “Yes, you are pure of heart.” How profoundly would that change the way you live?
Doubt would be gone. The scream of guilt would be muted. The feeling of “not being good enough” would fade away. You would know that you are pure, good, healthy; that nothing was wrong with you.
Is that appealing to you? It is to me.
So often I feel like I’m a bit of a fraud. I feel like the downstairs of my “house” is in good order and ready for guests, but the upstairs is a mess, and no one is allowed up there. Maybe I’m the only one that feels this way, but I have a feeling that I’m not.
So what if someone could look at you and tell you, “You’re fine! Your house is clean. Let the guests roam!” To me, that would be incredible.
But isn’t that kind of what the sacrifice of Jesus has done for us? We can start seeing ourselves as “pure of heart,” no matter what kind of impurity we’re used to. Jesus is that person. He looks at us and says, “Run along now. It’s all good. Forget that old stuff. Live this new stuff.” How incredible!
And when we say, “But I didn’t make the bed! I didn’t put my clothes away! I think I left the seat up!” Jesus says, “Hey. It’s all good! Forget it. I took care of it.” I like that. God help me to live like that.
I read a blog today from a current Fuller student about the Bible, and here is one thing this person wrote:
“We must recognize that it is the Scriptures- not our conscience, not culture, not religion, etc.- that tell us about God and are the foundation upon which Christian thinking is built.”
(I won’t post his name or blog to keep it anonymous)
My thoughts: Why? Why is scripture the only thing that informs our faith? Is that really how it works? What about the billions of Christians who did not or never will have access to scripture? How is their faith informed?
Think about it: The Bible as we know it wasn’t really compiled until around 300 CE, and even then, there were few people who had access to it. There have been a lot of advancements in making the Bible more accessible since then, but the concept of having 10 different versions of the Bible within arms-length is an extremely new concept in the scope of Christian history.
So can we really say that the Bible is the only thing that informs Christian faith? Can we even go further (as the above quote) to say that conscience, culture, and religion have no bearing on how we live our faith? Is that really how God intended it? Did God want us to turn to the Bible for every little thing, or do we truly believe that God gave the Holy Spirit to guide us?
Rob Bell nails it pretty well in Velvet Elvis with his discussion on “Binding and Loosing.” If you haven’t read that, read it… but to summarize, “binding and loosing” is the act of determining a concrete response to God’s revelation. In other words, those who bind and loose determine how the Christian community will live out the commands of God based on God’s revelation. For Bell, it is the community of believers who do this difficult task of binding an loosing with the blessing of God (in light of Matt 18).
That’s kind of a terrible summary of a complicated argument, but the point he makes is that it is the Christian community, based on its interpretation of God’s revelation that plays a large part in how we experience this life of faith.
The Bible is not the sole contributor in this equation. Our conscience, culture, and religion play a big part.
…trying to do something different than “Christianese…”
Let’s start talking about getting rid of some of the common phrases in the Christian world. Here’s a few that bug me.
1. Heavenly Father
OK, maybe it’s not that bad of a phrase, but let me do what I do and pick it apart. Heavenly – not of this world, not earthly… not present, not near, separated, etc. Father – male, dad, patriarch, ruler, etc. Father is a good word, but not for everyone. So do we want to associate all those things with God? Do we really think about all those things when we say “Heavenly Father?” Or are we just saying it because other people have said it? Could using the phrase make people think God is distant and not present? Could some associate the negative feelings they have of their own fathers with God? Maybe…
Sure, I’m being a little over the top here, but come on! There are better phrases to use. How about “Loving God,” or “Gracious God,” or anything else that isn’t androcentric and outdated.
2. Man
As in “God’s ways are better than man’s,” and “Mankind,” and “With man, this is impossible, but not with God.” Can we finally get away from this androcentric, patriarchal stuff? Could it be that women would like to be included in the whole mix? I mean, haven’t we tried to keep them oppressed for long enough? I know what you’re saying – “When I say ‘Mankind’, I’m referring to men and women.” OK, so why not say, “Humankind?” Maybe women don’t want to be lumped in to a category that bears the name of the all-powerful (tongue ripping through my cheek), all-fallible “man.”
Same thing goes for “Brothers.” Paul used that word like crazy, and I’m sure he meant “brothers and sisters…” but that’s the culture in which he lived. His culture revolved around the man, so saying “brothers” to refer to men and women was what he did. We don’t live then. We live now. Let’s try to be a little more gender inclusive. I know we can do it!
3. Just
Whenever someone says the phrase, “Let’s say a word of prayer,” I always think that the most common “word of prayer” is probably the word “just.” Think about it. “Dear God, we just come to you today ask you to just…” and the “justs” keep coming. What’s up with that? Are we trying to seem humble in our prayers? Are we trying to minimize our requests? “God, I’m just asking for this…” Or has it become a filler word, like “um” 2.0?
Maybe we could really become a little more “just” as Christians. That would be a good thing. Instead of saying “just” all the time, we could practice a little justice in this world.
4. Relationship
As in, “I don’t believe in religion. I believe in a relationship with Jesus.” Great concept, and I’m sure it was really profound when it was first uttered. But I think the time has come to retire that phrase. We do believe in religion. It’s what we do. It’s the particular way we have decided to have relationship with God. It’s the structure that we choose to use to respond to God’s revelation. Yeah, religion can and often is a really bad thing, but not always. It’s necessary.
5. Personal Relationship
Taking it one step further – the notion of a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Is that even biblical? God works in communities. Jesus saves the world. The Bible is a book written to and meant to be read in community. This personal stuff seems to be more of a product of American Christianity than anything else. Yes, there are personal aspects to our relationship with Jesus, but there are also corporate/communal aspects, global aspects, etc.
6. What does the Bible have to say about _____?
If you read my previous posts, you probably know where I’m going here. Why have we turned the Bible into the answer key/owner’s manual for everything with which we come in conctact? “Abortion? What does the Bible have to say about that?” “Republican or Democrat? What does the Bible have to say about that?” “Speeding on the freeway? What does the Bible have to say about that?” Are we really OK with stripping the Bible of all it’s beauty to turn it into some kind of how-to on life? Should we just consider it normal to treat the Bible like we do the US Constitution? Pastors have become Judges who interpret biblical law instead of shepherds who help people experience the kingdom of God here and now. There’s a lot more here, but I won’t get into it.
That’s a good start. Have any others you’d like to share?
I’m often inspired. I know… a little bit of a weird sentence to write after my last post. Let me explain.
I get inspired by a lot of things every day – great stuff I read or see online. Pithy quotes in movies. Profound lyrics colored by beautiful melodies. You know the stuff.
But I’m lazy. Really lazy. I want so badly to put this inspiration to words or music, but I end up giving a lot of my time to less meaningful things (hello facebook. I’m talking to you). Why is that? When does it change? I mean, I’m approaching 30 at a full run, and I’m scared that when I hit it, it’s going to hit back twice as hard.
What am I saying? Who knows. Maybe this is a prayer. God, help me give life to something significant instead of letting inspiration stir me and then fade. Yeah, maybe it’s a prayer… or maybe it’s just a rant.
Let me end by saying nothing at all.
I’ve been thinking about the idea of inspiration as it relates to the Bible.
Simple idea. Someone slaps down the NIV and says, “The Bible is the inspired word of God.”
OK, but what does that mean? You may say, “The authors were inspired by God to write.” Fine. But that’s not the end of the story. Much of what is written in the Bible are compilations of oral tradition. So how does inspiration fit with that? Were the people who passed on the oral tradition inspired to do so?
Maybe. But what about the compilation of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible? When the men who compiled the canon of scripture at the various councils in the 3rd to 5th century inspired to do so?
Probably. But what about textual variants? Were the scribes who decided to clarify bits and pieces of scripture throughout the centuries inspired to make those clarifications?
Probably not… So what about the people who decided to translate the various books into English? Were they inspired when they chose which of the many textual variants to use as the most accurate to what was originally written? In other words, were the scholars who saw three different copies of a certain passage, and who ultimately chose one, inspired to do so?
I guess. What I’m trying to get at here is that the idea of “inspiration” is a tricky one. When we hold our English version, it’s been in so many hands and so much scrutiny has already been placed on it that it’s tricky to say it is inspired.
Sure, Paul said that scripture is “God-breathed,” but what scripture did he mean? Revelation? James? Luke? Acts? His own writings? How did he know what would eventually be considered the canon of scripture some 300 years later?
I won’t even address the question of what the Bible is inspired to do. That’s a different post altogether.
It’s a tricky thought, really. And it deserves a little attention. Ultimately, I think the Bible as we know it stands the test of time. It’s an incredible book, and I’m more and more amazed when I think about how God is revealed in its pages.
