"If you still say the bible is not true, I will say that no book is more honest."
My latest literary diet has consisted of an obscure historical novel entitled Honor's Kingdom. Written by Owen Parry, it is a nineteenth century tale surrounding espionage in London between Confederate and Union agents and their attempts to secure European support during the Civil War.
In one chapter the lead character is bemoaning the decline in respect for the bible brought on by the Age of Reason and the scientific explosion of that generation. Wrestling with the tenants of Darwinism, he brings to light the doubt that many have for biblical authority. In frustration the character shares his personal credo on the matter: "If you still say the bible is not true, I will say that no book is more honest."
Indeed, there is no more honest writing to, as Parry declares, "Show us who we truly are." But I wonder in this age of enlightenment, super computer technology and instant communication, if this honest book is really authoritative to most people's lives?
Do you know what I mean by "authoritative?" To me that means seeing the bible as the guide, the source, and the inspiration for my life. In other words, through the writings in the bible I find the directions for how I choose to live. Through the bible I am introduced to God, to Jesus, to the Holy Spirit and the expectations for how to model my existence.
But there is a challenge here that is at the heart of what defines the Christian community in particular and human relations in general. And at the sake of being called a heretic, I think many folks are confused about what to do with the bible.
For instance, there are many who insist on taking the bible literally in every aspect. They refer to it as the "literal word of God." They then suggest if you or I do not believe it, accept it literally, then somehow we are wrong. And if you are wrong about that, then you probably better get it right or suffer eternal consequences.
When I was ordained back in 1980 the first church I served was in a town of about 350 people. I preached my first sermon that morning and then that evening I led the bible study. I will never forget standing up to read the scripture from the bible my bishop had given me when a member of the church stood up and shouted at me: "That's what's wrong with you seminary boys. You don't read from the real bible!" He got up and left in an angry huff. Of course, the "real" bible was the King James bible.
There is both the implied and literal assumption that if the bible is not literally true in every aspect, every KJV "jot and tittle", then it is somehow flawed and not to be trusted. I've heard it called "the perfect word of God." (Isn't that designation reserved for Jesus as The Word made flesh? John 1 for reference.) I have always struggled with that kind of belief. Is my faith to be in the bible? Or is my faith to be in the One the bible reveals? I choose the latter, regardless of the translation. For me, it is just more honest.
Of course, folks who think the bible has to be taken literally are threatened when someone who does not believe like they do are still confident about going to Heaven and serving God. Gives 'em the willies!
Take the bible literally? Here is what that would look like. We would stone homosexuals to death ... along with adulterers and misbehaving children. Sorry, but we would never, under any circumstance, allow women to preach the word of God. (But they can teach it to children in Sunday School?) And don't forget, you must tithe 10 percent of your income. Before taxes! Then there is that whole business about handling snakes.
We preachers are notorious about moving in and out of scripture like it is some worn out back door, ever struggling with the temptation to use it to prove a point or leverage a position. I am guilty, I confess. But, if you will pardon the biblical quote, Jesus said we are to use our hearts, souls and minds in this faith adventure. Do you suppose he was saying there should be a logical dimension to our faith? I do.
Of course, the biblical belief pendulum swings the other direction, too. There are many who see nothing absolute, nothing "true" about the bible. It is fiction, it is myth to them. Like reading of Greek gods and Roman mythology, it is just fable and literary meanderings that have defined a culture's pre-occupation with mortality and immortality.
A few years ago I participated in an archaeological dig with the University of Oklahoma. The site was a 10,000 year old bison kill with artifacts from Clovis man. One day about a dozen professors and professionals from across the nation drove in to view the excavation. I chatted up a number of them and when I announced I was a volunteer there for the experience, they asked me what I did for a living. "Me? I'm the pastor of a church in Texas." It was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. One of those learned men turned on me with a challenging tone. "How do you reconcile what you are seeing here with what it teaches you about creation in your bible?" I told him that if I believed the bible was a science book, I might have some problems to explain. But in that it is a book of theology, I saw no conflict. His wife drug him off, huffing.
Literal? Nope, not for me. Authoritative? Absolutely! Important to my life and faith? Without it, I would be lost.
But, I must always remember, it is not through the bible that I am found. No, that is more about the one God I understand the bible to be revealing. And in that sense, it is more about honesty than anything else. God is the author of grace, not the bible. The bible reveals that grace, but can never dispense it. And as one reads the very real, very human struggles of biblical characters that, in all honesty, have the same failures and hang ups as the rest of us, we actually begin to see ourselves. Honestly.
It was, I believe, Robert Schuler who warned Christians to beware of "bibliolatry". That is, worshipping the bible to the same degree that we worship the God the bible reveals. To be consistent, that means remembering the Trinity only has three sides, not four.
Maybe we should stop buying those fancy versions bound in Moroccan leather with gold tipped pages and red letters for the words of Jesus. Maybe the bible should be made like a laminated auto mechanics manual or a good, serviceable travel atlas. You know, something we can handle and not be afraid of, something that is viewed as the honest tool we can trust as we negotiate the repairs we need to make and navigate through life. Ultimately, I think our engines of faith will run better and we will arrive at that final destination just fine.
Greg Carey: My Old Bible: An Honest Look at Young Faith
King James Bible marks 400 years as authorized version
Clips From Last Night: Joel Osteen talks politics, wealth and... Victoria's Secret
This does not mean that we can just give up on trying to understand what God wants us to find in scripture--it just means that we should approach the matter with suitable humility and open-mindedness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bible was not treated as the Word of God until well into the 3rd century, but the sayings of Jesus (gospels) were usually bound in rich cases of gold,often with precious stones. The Gospel of John is largely a collection of fictional stories. The "synoptic gospels", particularly the Aramaic Matthew is the most "honest". The old testament is largely a collection of fables and fantasies which became part of Jesus' Jewish upbringing. He is more a product of the rabbis associated with the religious zealots of his time. He was one of many itinerant rabbis roaming around stirring up anti-Roman sentiments.
Christians invest Jesus with traits for a variety of reasons, especially to give him divine attributes to attract the neo-Platonic Greek speaking Gentiles. When Jesus ceases to be a Jew for early converts, he becomes a diety.
"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’ "
(Matthew 15: 1-9)
If considering the Bible to be divinely inspired, inerrant, and as the Word of God qualifys one as a "Bibliolater" then Jesus himself was guilty of such idolatry.
Only historians, artists, and archaeologists can show us the real Jesus, and they haven't found him yet.
John 1:1, NLT
What are your thoughts on this verse?
Even if you buy into the Bible's own mythology, the Books of Mosses were written by Mosses, the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew... that bad acid-trip that is Revelations was written by John of Potamos.
Thank you for your article. I appreciate your tone, though not all of your points. I agree with you one several points:
-The Bible is not to be worshiped. God is God alone.
-The Bible cannot dispense grace.
I disagree with the overall gist of your article:
-You propose a middle ground between a literal interpretation and total write off. However, when we misinterpret the Bible, or choose only the parts we agree with, we MISS the message God would communicate to us through the Holy Spirit. Either the Bible is the inspired word of God, which, when understood correctly, is totally true, or it is a book of fairy tales, history, and poetry written by men. If the first, we must understand it correctly and take it literally. If the second, its worth no more than other books except perhaps as good literature and history.
I wonder what you mean by "literal". If you mean correctly understanding what God is seeking to communicate, in context, then yes, literal is good. If you mean taking some verses out of context, then no, literal is bad. I suspect the second is the case, for that is exactly what you have done (to some extent) in the eighth paragraph from the bottom.
When we read the Bible only for those parts which we agree with, we can twist it any way we like, something you have already said is no good.
Peace,
Willis
http://musingsofwdw4.blogspot.com/
The irony here is that most of the people who lack such a reverence for the Bible also think that the Christian God is not a jealous god, and therefore wouldn't mind us worshiping anything else, the Bible or otherwise. They cry "Bibliolatry!" but they don't care whether you worship the Christian God exclusively to begin with.
I think that the overall philosophy was neatly stated as, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your might, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself." I try to use this as the guiding principle of my life, and believe me, it gives me plenty of work trying to figure out how to apply it in the twenty-first century!
Do you believe god came down to have sex with a teenager to birth himself? For that is just as silly...
Just from the start it does lead some to believe that the Holy Spirit, Jesus and God were all there from the begining. It takes time to study, and prayer for understanding. A small still voice, for those who wait on God guiding and not man. "Peace be still. (to the wind) Mark 34:39-40 Picking one or two verses a Faith does not make but it is progress to knowing the whole thing.
Make yourself a Good Day.