Retractions

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

The Bible is a Hard Book

Several weeks ago after Wednesday night prayer meeting and choir practice, I went home, sat on the couch, and turned on the television. I watched the end of the show The West Wing. I do not normally watch this show. I do not know the characters or the plot, but this particular episode caught my attention. One of the characters in this show was a senator with presidential hopes. In the news it came out that, he was not a person of faith. A plot in the show was the political question of whether an atheist could be elected president. At the end of the show, the senator and the president were sitting alone, and the president asked the senator why he did not believe. The senator responded that someone had given him a Bible...and he read it. In his response, he did not cite the usual concerns, at least what I expected. It was not that miracles were too difficult to believe. He did not mention any conflict between science and religion. He said that he did not believe that a loving God would condemn people for the things he found in the Bible. He did not believe a good God would call for the execution of children who did not obey their parents (see the Ten Commandments). He did not believe a good God would make it a law that a man who raped a woman had to marry her. He did not believe that a good God would command people to go to war and kill every living thing. Anyone who reads the Bible will find passages, books that are very difficult to understand. I am taking a class at Southeastern, where the professor observed that “liberals” like to say a passage is difficult when what they mean is they do not like what it has to say. The students in the class chuckled and gave a small hurrah for the importance of the bastion of faithfulness to THE BIBLE. Often times the difficulties popularly discussed about the Bible tend to focus on the first chapters of Genesis, or in the miracles, or of course, the “apparent” prohibition of women in leadership, but I think the concerns expressed by this fictional television character are a more difficult question. The Bible is to my view a record of God's work in history. The fundamentalist demand Genesis chapter one to be interpreted in a narrow sense. By demanding uniformity with some controversial issues they create for themselves an illusion that the Bible is without difficulty. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. When people have this attitude I wonder how much of the Bible they read.

4 Comments:

  • Hey Luke. I appreciate your thoughts. Even though I still consider myself an inerrantist (if a modified one) and still believe than many passages can be harmonized with other passages and with other fields (e.g., science), I sometimes find having an open distaste for certain passages a more honest approach than that of trying to "save them" through clever, but unconvincing, exegesis.

    Your post reminds me of a somewhat tangential anecdote that I may have shared with you at school. A fellow student in one of my seminary classes mentioned that several years ago his youth pastor was tempted to walk into the "traditional service" with a t-shirt that read "I love hookers" (referencing Jesus' eating with prostitutes) in order to make a point to the more "judgmental" members. As you can imagine many of the students (including myself) loved the idea as a way to stick it to the sticklers. Interestingly enough, I don't know that a t-shirt reading "I love rich people who cheat poor people out of their money" would have gone over so well with my seminary peers, although Jesus ate with tax collectors also.

    I guess we can all find things about the Bible (and about the God it reveals) that we don't really like. For a certain German reformer it might have been an entire book. For me, it may be an entirely different book--you may know me well enough to be able to figure out which one.

    To paraphrase Howard Hendricks, "If you want to know what God is trying to teach you, try reading the parts of your Bible that you have not underlined."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:18 AM  

  • Neal,
    Thanks for the comments. I like the t-shirt idea, with your eye for potential beach shop best sellers I am surprised it hasn't made it to market. I have no idea which book you want to marcionite....?

    What really strikes me as odd is how bizarre readings of scripture are totally accepted, as long as their intent is to safeguard innerrancy. Not that any scripture reading is thought to be okay...however as long as the presupposition of innerrancy is behind the reading it is seen as a "safe reading".

    blessings,

    Luke

    By Blogger Luke, at 9:57 AM  

  • Hello Luke. To be fair, I must say that I find equally appalling the tendency of some to ignore a convincing explanation of a difficult text for the chance to berate the biblical author, after projecting upon him some absurd reading.

    By way of example, I know of a preacher who once lamented Matthew’s use of the pronoun them in his account of Jesus’ triumphal entry: "They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them" (Mt. 21:7). After arguing that it was impossible for someone to ride a donkey and a colt at the same time, he questioned Matthew’s honesty by saying that he was more concerned with trying to make Jesus fit prophecy than he was with accurately recounting the facts. He followed that up by ridiculing "inerrantists" for ignoring the difficulty in the text. Finally, he sought to salvage everything with some nebulous symbolic drivel about Jesus having one foot in this world and one in the next. He seemed rather proud of his "creative" exegesis. Not once did it seem to occur to him that maybe Matthew was using the pronoun them to refer to the cloaks and not to the animals.

    And don’t get me started on the argument from one of my undergraduate professors that inerrantists cannot possibly be correct because the Bible says that Job owned 7,000 sheep: "I’ve lived on a farm, and I can tell you that there is no way someone can have exactly 7,000 sheep."

    This is what passes for scholarship in some circles.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:00 PM  

  • Neal,
    I agree. I think thereis a tendancy on both the "critical" scholarship side and the innerantist side that tend to see what they are looking for. I am especially wary of the search for the "original meaning" of the text. The interesting thing about interpretations to me...is the move of an interpreter to apply a given text to their context. I think perhaps this is one reason why modern commentaries are so unhelpful. It could mean this maybe that...let me tell you about some coins I found digging in Palmyra!

    blessings,

    luke

    By Blogger Luke, at 9:02 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home