Quote Mine Update

Today, I happened to catch the latest blog post from Michael Patton, Christian author and founder of Credo House Ministries. He was writing about how the misuse of Matthew 18:20 can imply some harrowing things about our view of God if we're not careful.For those of you who read my post on quote-mining, it is a quick read that will drive home what  I touched on in my post even more. It is an almost perfect example of the end-result when the "quote-mined" version of Christianity becomes too familiar, rather than careful, contextualized thoughts and studies. Michael Patton also makes the point with more grace than I ever could.

If you're not too familiar with Credo House Ministries either, you should check them out in more detail. Consider this an unofficial plug. The original "Credo House" is a traditional coffee house with a theological aim. That is, as you're enjoying your coffee, the material available for passing your time is all theological. Aside from that, the ministry mostly publishes apologetics-oriented books and videos for the laity (average church-goers). In that, it shares much of the same goal and audience as myself. It is clearly a great ministry to support, and I believe he is looking to open more coffee houses for those who may be more business-minded.

I still have some posts to write with follow-up thoughts on my Geisler/"emergent" rants; specifically, I want to look at an objection related to Bible study that implies it should be simple (and not require "scholars"). From there I want to share my experience with Sunday School materials. When I'm satisfied I've tackled all related issues there, I may open my blog back up to finishing my philosophical arguments for God. So stay tuned! I may not update regularly, but I will never stop writing and sharing what I know needs to be said.

Jason

Intellectual Elite Or Evangelical?

 

My recent writings on the Norman Geisler issue has brought to mind a topic related to the importance of using knowledge (rather than instinct) to interpret the Bible. That is, whether the search for such knowledge is one that should be exercised within certain limits. And if so, to what degree? Can one go too far in learning about the contexts needed for good Bible's interpretation? Should we be suspicious of the perceived "intellectual elite" in Christianity - scholars like Licona, NT Wright and such who challenge people to deeper study of the Bible? This is worth considering when such studies reveal conflicts with the interpretation of Biblical texts assumed true by the majority of church-goers.

This issue first came to mind for me months ago as I was following the Facebook posts of a prominent Christian author of the "emergent" philosophy (which includes such individuals as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, etc). I say it was a few months ago because it has honestly been that long since I have read any of his posts. Why? The more I read his writing, the more I saw a disturbing pattern develop as the author's biggest enemy became more clear and concise. That enemy? Nothing more than what he perceived as an 'intellectual elite' in Christianity, that being scholars, theologians and individuals running seminary institutions. In short, the very people responsible for mentoring and training the next generation of Christian leaders.

Relating his own personal experiences, our emergent friend saw in these individuals a hindrance to the practice of Christianity. By over-emphasizing studying, doctrinal integrity and context, the author saw his professors holding him (and likely others) back from authentic life-changing ministry . In his mind, after all, the early church was not so stuffy and organized. It was more “organic” in structure and “dynamic” with their preaching – shouldn't he be the same?

The crux of this conflict was wanting to “do” ministry and make a difference for people, but not wanting to get overly concerned about the details. He wanted to be active – and for this I think anyone can respect him and identify. What he continuously found frustration with (and where I think his childishness comes through), was that his mentors warned him that, without more schooling, he could do as much harm as he perceived he was doing good.

So, can one be too concerned for doctrine? Was this author onto something important for Christians to consider? Are apologists, scholars and like-minded individuals keeping too many people away from Christianity? Are we not putting enough emphasis on “sharing Christ”? This is an important issue - in the balance is whether or not the efforts of seminaries are overdone; whether or not orthodox Christianity panders to an exalted cadre of modern Pharisees. In question is whether or not the gospel is even communicated effectively. Take every thought captive with me as we look to investigate this further!

First, it is important to point out that variations of statements such as “the early church was organic and dynamic” are well-meaning but ill-conceived. Justification for the emergent over-emphasis of “sharing Christ” is found in this perception of the 1st century Christians. But while we don't see the level of organization that would exist in the 16th century Catholic church, the Bible has clear indicators the early church relied on structure and order. Paul spends much time in his letters to Timothy laying out qualifications for positions of hierarchy – deacons, elders and the like – the whole time preparing Timothy himself to serve as a pastor. Without structure, after all, how would a deviant and unpopular movement like Christianity even expect to thrive?

Structured or not, the evangelistic tactics of the church in Acts is portrayed as emphasizing Christ, right? Well, yes - Christ was the focus of every message delivered by the early church to the Gentiles. Christ was the founder of the movement, the catalyst for the entire religion. But what was it about Christ that was so critical for the apostles to share? Missing from the words of Peter's early sermons are anything about “relationship with Christ” or personal therapy. When Christ was mentioned, what was important was proof: of his identity (Acts 2:22, 36; Acts 3:13, Acts 5:31), of his death and resurrection (Acts 2:31-32; Acts 3:15, Acts 5:30, Acts 10:40) and of his fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:33; Acts 3:18, 24-26). It is only in the letters of Paul, written to fellow believers, that we see any emphasis towards how we treat others (that is, within the church).

This should not be surprising – many apostles, though often considered to be something like the cast of “Twelve Angry Men” (ordinary citizens called to jury duty), were the scholars and intellectuals of their day. Luke was a physician, and many scholars of Greek have pointed out how advanced and polished his mastery was of the language. Paul was a devout Pharisee and scholar of the Old Testament literature before his conversion. Matthew was no “drug store” tax return specialist but a “chief tax collector” - someone responsible for getting the Roman government their money. All individuals more concerned with knowing and proving their point, not making friends!

In other words, these were not average Joes, but individuals who worked hard at what they did, and were likely chosen for that reason. They could be trusted to go more than halfway with Jesus. Perhaps that is why Paul admonished Timothy to present himself “as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed” (2 Tim 2:15) and to be “diligent...so everyone may see your progress” (1 Timothy 4:15) This being the same Paul who encouraged the Corinthians to “eagerly desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1, emphasis mine) Examples are plentiful, if I would continue, but if we consider this a model for our behavior, doesn't it seem as if we should work harder to show appreciation of the gift we are given?

In case my focus on the apostles has you wondering “what about Jesus? Didn't he still want people to take it easy?”, allow me to share with you some things Jesus said about hard work. In Luke 10:2, Jesus laments a plentiful crop of souls without enough people working to harvest it. In John 6:27 we're told by Jesus to work for the fruits of eternal life. He tells the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) to warn against laziness in responding to God's generous gifting. Jesus even warns us to count the costs of following him before doing so (Luke 14:27-33) – implying that it is not an easy life by any means, but one that is difficult and committed to learning.

Clearly, Jesus wanted us to work hard for the sake of his kingdom. This means individuals who persist in working hard and growing more will ultimately stand out against the pew warmers of the faith. Some sort of “elite”, in other words, will exist within Christ's body - by nature! Viewed another way, there will always be Christians more prominent in the public than others. The reason is their dedication to studying, teaching and evangelizing persists beyond what others are capable of (Billy Graham comes to mind). Otherwise, why do we remember these individuals, or the apostles themselves, so well?

In fact, I can find no place in scripture where God has put limits on hard work and knowledge, beyond the basic need for discernment in being sure such was used properly. In fact, a high emphasis on doctrine can merely be seen as the result of an intellectual Christian hard at work! But this is as valuable as a serving Christian whose life is all inner-city ministry and soup kitchens. Neither one is dangerous to the work of the kingdom. Both help advance it and serve to ensure God's full and complete message is communicated.

Our emergent author's insistence that doctrine is over-emphasized also fits poorly into the bulk of New Testament scriptures warning against false doctrine. (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 18-20; 1 Timothy 4:1-8, 2 Peter 2:1-3, Titus 2:1-2, Hebrews 2:1)  It would almost seem our friend thinks too much emphasis in churches is put on learning, but clearly is afraid to emphasize learning himself! In fact, the level of education, discernment and discipline we expect from our leaders should be high. Allow me to share examples of well-known teachers and preachers who pressed on in pursuit of ministry without the relevant education of their day. JP Holding has pointed out:

“Joseph Smith was a barely educated teenager...Mary Baker Eddy...didn’t have any serious education to speak of and was mainly self-taught. Jim Jones, head of the People's Temple, had a degree…in education. Ellen White of Adventism had no formal schooling.”

Each of these individuals is very well-known in Christian circles today. But if you didn't recognize them, they are all well-known for having started unorthodox Christian groups (often called 'cults'). They are all individuals who taught the Bible in ways that are questionable or contradictory to the majority consensus. (whether or not you believe their teachings wrong is a matter of your own discernment).

To be sure, studying hard and reaching high levels of achievement are not a fool-proof barrier against doctrinal error. One can certainly ignore the other disciplines and virtues Christ has called us to practice and overdo their learning. History has clear examples of such individuals. Marcion, a bishop in the early church who first proposed a New Testament cannon be formed, clung to many pro-Gnostic philosophies [1]. He started countless churches where he taught that YHWH, the God of the Old Testament, was distinct from and antithetical to the God of the New Testament, which Jesus was born of. His interpretations on the Bible, in fact, led the Roman church to realize a need to define orthodox belief apart from heresy! Arius, a presbyter and student of St. Lucian, was known as someone of strong convictions, and yet stirred up a controversy that led to the church's first ecumenical council. [2] He was convinced that if Jesus was born of God the Father, then Jesus at one point did not co-exist with God.

But these individuals were rare, and for a reason. In their time, they were part of the few, the proud, the literate – less than 10% of their population. They were the small pool of people from which your teachers could come.  This meant there was an equally small pool of people who could challenge and correct them. The people warming the pews simply weren't able to understand such matters themselves. They could only hang on every word they were given. And this is why such a position had immense, unfathomable responsibility - one only met with equal care in learning and training. Otherwise, why would James give such a harsh warning to teachers? (James 3:1) 

With a larger pool of people being literate in modern days, it ensures it's harder for people in positions of power to cause doctrinal delusion. However, such literacy does not guard against delusions – it only means individuals themselves are now more responsible for them. Whether it's predicting the end-of-the-world, making Jesus a therapist or legitimizing Jedi as a personal religious choice – many literate and intelligent people develop weak beliefs like this by not being trained and disciplined. “Emergents” who fight against the mentors concerned about discernment and influence are merely mistaken in thinking they can help more people. Help them how – by making them feel better but still letting them create a false God, in their image?

In case you still struggle with the importance of working hard over any “personal” connections to Jesus, I submit this practical example of how hard work paid for a special 8 year old boy. By simply putting in effort to study what was put before him - not expecting it to be spoon fed – he achieved something rare and unusual. So do we thumb our nose at him because his exceptional focus on learning rather than living? I hope not! Does it not at least feel natural to marvel at his accomplishment? So should it be with our brothers and sisters as well, working hard to ensure doctrine improves in the church. These people should be respected and heard, not rejected and ignored. Do we desire, after all, for the church to have a semblance of intelligence? Or do we wish it to only be a place of wishful thinking wherein Peter Pan might find a home, too? 



[1]  "Marcion." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 June 2012. Web. 26 July 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion>. 
[2] "Arius." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 July 2012. Web. 26 July 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius>.

Author's Intent, Part 2 - Fortunes and Figurative Language

 

For the 1st post of this series, I made a case for how important it should be to consider an author's intention when interpreting the Bible. Though often overlooked, we should seek such information when possible, and be open to what insights it provides when presented. As I made clear with the example of Norman Geisler – the more we ignore informative contexts for Bible studies, the more absurd conclusions we reach in our studies. And this, subsequently, creates greater separation with a culture today that feeds on information from an ever-present cycle of blogs, newspapers, tweets and discussion forums.

For this post, what I will do is clarify my point by applying it to some popular Bible study topics. I have at least 3 examples that should showcase this concept – 2 of which have the potential to completely change an entire theological basis. All based on considering what an author intends to say, as opposed to what one thinks is being said. As I share these examples, keep in mind I am trying less to instruct someone in a specific believe, but hope instead to just show how much consideration for an author's intent is responsible for vastly opposing views on a topic.

Before I get to the more popular and controversial examples, I have a brief example from a book I am reading[1] to display just how this works. Some critics of the resurrection narratives in the Bible point to Acts 13:27-29 as an example of an alternate (and conflicting) tradition of the events. At first glance, it appears Paul is saying that Jesus was taken down and buried by his enemies - the very people who wanted him crucified. This, as opposed to declarations in the gospels (Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:42-46, Luke 23:50-54) that Joseph of Arimethea was responsible for this deed. But this interpretation assumes Paul's intent is to recount a detailed history or narrative. However, in a large context of Acts 13:16-41, Paul has been giving a 1 page summary of the Old Testament history and trying to draw parallels to Jesus. It could be argued this shows Paul's intent is not to present a detailed history, but to “preach” his point without boring his audience with irrelevant information. One interpretation assumes contradictions, the other disproves them. But both interpretations revolved around what one thinks Paul intends to report.

Moving along, the first of my controversial example relates to what is a popular topic as we get closer to December 21st, 2012 (you know, the day when nothing will happen but people still panic about). That is, the issue of “end-times” as it relates Bible prophecy. “Wait a minute!” you say. “Everyone knows the point of Bible prophecy is to foretell what will happen in the future. We know it's intent by it's very nature.” Assuming this is true (which is at least questionable by historians, by Bible scholars and even Jews), this only speaks to part of the intent – why. One consideration often overlooked is who the author intended the information for. For instance, if Bible prophecy is intended to foretell the future, whose future?

Consider first that most Bible prophecies, in context, were revealed to a specific cadre of Israelites, and involved very detailed judgments – sometimes specifying regions and nations. For each such prophecy, then, we should at least ask a few things of ourselves. Was the author's intention to foretell the future of those Israelites? Or was it to speak of ancient places where things would be happen in our future? If it is meant to foretell our future, we should figure out where those ancient places are today (something archeology has a hard time doing with 100% precision). One location can take on multiple names as successive people move in or conquer, which is why most Biblical sites now have Arabic names. Not only that, each culture in the surrounding area can have different names for the same location, even with similar languages. Further still, within Israelite culture itself archaeologists have shown some Biblical sites to have changed names over the time that passed.

If, instead, you believe a prophecy was meant to speak to the future of the people hearing it, one must work hard to find clues in the past that these events may have been fulfilled. This too can be challenging, with limited historical texts and information available as general knowledge. But if this were not attempted, it could be easy for one to assume the prophets (Jesus included) were mistaken (since the often use words such as “now”, “coming soon”, “this generation”), were purposeful liars, or were not expected to experience things they were given vision about.

All of these are possible interpretations, and all of them have been offered as solutions in material I've encountered. The point is, which conclusion you make depends solely on who you believe the prophet intended to speak to. With the Bible containing hundreds of prophecies, it is not hard to see the magnitude of how these considerations might impact one's entire view of the Bible. Either everything begins to become focused around the past, or everyone keeps looking to things to happen in the future. Dozens of entire novels have been written speculating about the future, too, so it is not as if the understanding of these things is of little importance to people.

The second example I will share takes us into the creation / evolution debate. This is a very hot area of debate that has polarized Christians against each other for decades, just as much as it has worked up non-Christians. After all, further knowledge and understanding of our universe (or lack thereof) can be at stake. Aside from the scientific aspects of this controversy, however, I am going to of course focus on the theological ones. And this will be easy to do, as all such discussions ultimately revolve around 1 thing - how one interprets the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

While you probably know what your interpretation is of those 3 chapters, why you have it and how strongly you believe it – you may not have considered why other people believe differently. It is a tendency for both sides to think something like “if the other person only knew...” or “if they were only listening!” However, while it is perfectly acceptable to be confident of your interpretation, it is presumptuous to be certain someone else's interpretation is wrong without considering how they may have reached that conclusion. But how do we do this? As you may have guessed, of course, we consider what the author may have been trying to communicate in writing Genesis. To ignore this is to give in to that tendency to create conflict with others. And this only further prevents Christians from bonding more with people of dissimilar beliefs, and dare I say also hurts what could be productive witnessing attempts. 

At this point, you may be thinking “How can there be any debate? The issue is easy - Genesis is recording history. One side is agreeing, the other side is disagreeing. Only 1 side can be right. It doesn't matter what arguments they make – it only matters what they believe.” But in reality, it is more complicated than that – the real difference is whether a person approaches the passages of Genesis with a literal or figurative understanding. Those who are convinced the literal reading is proper would see, in a figurative interpretation, paradoxes and conflicts with other areas of scripture. On the other hand, individuals who lean towards a figurative understanding of the passages are not as convinced of such conflicts, being more concerned instead with conflicts to the conclusions of scientific research and observable phenomena in our world.

But further masked by this figurative-literal paradigm (and other interpretations of these 3 chapters) is, of course, an issue of author's intent. Did the author of Genesis' early chapters intend to convey the literal, material origins of the universe? Literalists will of course answer yes, but figurative interpreters see the issue differently. They tend to ponder if perhaps the author intended to use a figurative story as an attempt to explain the uniqueness of a Hebrew world view in conflict with the world around us.

Beyond this are further questions one might ask, all of which can inevitably lead to opposing conclusions. For instance, was the author intending to speak to everyone who might ever pick up the book in the future? In other words, did he have a future universal purpose in mind? Or was he simply speaking only to the Israelites of the day, who would become God's chosen. Was he helping to clarify their identity amongst other cultures and beliefs? Or was he intending to present a scientific account of origins? All of these are valid questions at least, and answering each will take you to a radically different place. And why? Because of the consideration for what an author might be trying to say, rather than assuming it.

If you've followed with me and taken every thought captive so far, allow me to give you some final questions for consideration. How much of the questions raised here have you asked about your beliefs on prophecy? What about Genesis 1-3? What about the resurrection? You may be certain of what you believe – but do you know why someone else might disagree with you? If so, you may better be able to make progress with your arguments, learning to rebuke and correct your opponent (2 Tim 3:16). If not, you may find yourself tending instead to insult and scold them. These, too, are radically different directions that can be taken. May you choose the right one.

[1] "Alternate Burial Traditions." Defending the Resurrection. Vol. 3. N.p.: Xulon, 2010. 48. Print. Tekton Building Blocks.

Author's Intent, Part 1 - Rainbow Chronicles

 

A few months ago, my 2-year old daughter took a sudden interest in Dora the Explorer. Likely, her grandmother had something to do with it, but the fact remains that Claire suddenly is as excited by the mere mention of Dora's name as I get about the latest computer technology. As a matter of fact, just mentioning Dora's name sometimes can turn sour moments into happy ones - for everyone involved!

I was blown away by how quickly this became clear to me when our evening bedtime routine changed almost overnight. One night, looking for books to read, I was asked by Claire repeatedly to "read Dora!".  After asking my wife a few questions, I discovered we actually owned a Dora book, which had been given to us by friends. Pulling it out of the stack, I began to read. And in the 2 minutes it took to read, my daughter became so enthralled with it that she asked for it to be read again - and again and again.

Being the good parents my wife and I are, we did this for days on end without complaint, knowing in the end it was making everyone sleep happier. As a matter of fact, knowing Claire enjoyed Dora so much (and no longer being able to tolerate the same book) we naturally made an effort to get her more Dora books. Or, the cheapskates we are, we got her 1 big book with 6 different stories in it. As you can predict, this has meant we are now reading her multiple stories over and over each night. But it has allowed us to engage her interest for Dora more often without getting bored as fast.

The reason for this post is that I recently noticed something in one of the Dora stories that I think helps teach a great lesson about context, and how we interpret books (ie, the Bible) when we read them. In this story, Dora finds a kite that is stuck in a tree, and rushes off with Boots to rescue it. But that is only the start of the adventure. Their goal? To take the kite to the nearby Rainbow Kite Festival, where a myriad of colorful kites play happily under a smiling rainbow at the top of a mountain.


Upon finally making it to the top of the mountain, Dora's excitement is almost dashed when she discovers the rainbow to have disappeared. The kite she has spent so much time bringing to the festival may not have a chance to enjoy the rainbow after all. Of course, Dora being the optimist she is, has no fear and merely proceeds to call for the rainbow to re-appear. And, like magic, the rainbow promptly responds - Dora acknowledging it for having listened and returned. All problems solved! The kites may now enjoy the rainbow a little while longer, and Dora has given the lost kite a dream vacation.

So where in this is a context lesson, you're asking? The lesson came when I noticed Dora's ability to make rainbows appear on command. I struggled with the logical implications of this. Dora, a mere youth of school age, should not be able to command rainbows to appear whenever she likes. Rainbows are tricks of light reflecting off water, after all. Does she really have that kind of control over nature? Only God should be able to perform such a supernatural feat! How dare the author of Dora the Explorer even think to write this into a story for kids!

Of course, I am joking here. These were the parody thoughts I immediately conjured while reading the book. I clearly recognize that, as a children's book, the author's intention is not to paint Dora as able to command light to reflect off water at her whim. Dora is not intended to be some sort of "nature god" or buddhist monk. It is just a device for entertaining children, ensuring the story has an appropriate climax involving the rainbow. It's as much a source of delight for children as it is for the imaginary kites.

But, had I not considered any of this, do you see where I could have easily decided to picket against the creators of Dora and all of Nickelodeon? I could have recruited Westboro Baptist to drive across country and join me in a trip to Broadway. We could hold up all sorts of "Dora is Satanic" signs (though I imagine someone in the Westboro crowd would still bring their signature "God Hates Fags" signs). I could then give Nickelodeon headquarters an earful for their attempts to trick kids from believing in God. While I'm at it, I could mention how it's anti-science as it does not accurately portray rainbows as a phenomena of light reflecting off water.

The moral of the story is that what an author intends to write is critically important to how a story should be interpreted when read. Yes, I realize some stories can be purposely ambiguous for the sake of art and critical thinking (A Modest Proposal comes to mind), but aside from that it would have been stupid to start a campaign decrying the creators of Dora as Satanic and threatening people to stop buying Dora merchandise. It would have shown a severe inability to grasp the intent of the story. I would have been laughed at on YouTube and parodied by over a dozen amateurs.

The problem - much as it would be for uninformed readers of A Modest Proposal (read it if you haven't!) - would be taking the words too literally, ignoring the obvious (but subtle) cues indicating the work's genre (children's literature) - this is clearly a fantasy tale for kids. It was never on the author's mind to make a statement about nature or control over it. It was only an attempt to engage the imagination of preschoolers. It was not an intention to form a theology or develop a worldview on the supernatural - just to form a world where children straddle the line between fantasy and reality.

At this point, you're thinking "that seems clear; what can we learn about the Bible from this? Does it have to do how certain cults interpret the Bible?" Well, yes and no. Not unlike the series on Marriage Myths, it has more to do with ways in which cults and orthodox believers alike misread the Bible while trying to present it as unchangeable theology, self-obvious to anyone who would just let the Holy Spirit teach them (except, apparently, discern whether or not their "feelings" are from the Spirit). Instead, the only thing obvious should be a greater level of study is needed amongst those who accept responsibility for teaching the Bible (James 3:1 comes to mind).

To illustrate this, there are many examples I encountered in my own studies, where thinking about an  author's intent reversed something  I understood about the Bible. In addition, it became easier to avoid embarrassment when further defending my faith. Of these examples, I will outline at least 3 for you here, some of which are no doubt controversial. But when I am done, I hope you further consider the role author's intent plays in your own studies.
 
The first example is one relevant to recent Christian news and speaks volumes to the need for change in the current environment of Christian theology. It starts with a book published in October 2010 by Mike Licona called The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. To date, this book is the greatest and weightiest defense of the Resurrection of Jesus as a historical event (this is important to note!). It is a milestone in the history of Christian scholarship, building on the work of previous scholars and at the same time clarifying how the method is consistent with proper studies of ancient history.

At one point in the book, Licona speculates whether or not Matthew 27:51-3 was intended by it's author to be taken as literal history. To make his case, Licona compares this scripture to similar examples of "extraordinary" events in ancient literature. He then expounds on how the known intent of such authors was not to report literal history, but to clue readers in to the significance of other events. Hence, it is possible that the author of Matthew is doing the same (considering there are other potential issues seeing the event as real).

In short, Licona is saying what already appears to be a strange event in the Bible may have possibly been intended by its author to highlight the significance of Jesus' death to 1st century readers, rather than report a real event for 20th century westerners. Sounds simple, right? One would only hope that the rest of Christendom were smart enough to follow. Well, perhaps, but this is not for the great and wise Norman Geisler

One of the most prominent names in Christian philosophy and apologetics, Geisler made a public online campaign to insult and rebuke Mike Licona over suggesting that this may not have been considered a real event. Enough condemnation was raised over the event to even cost Licona his university job. And why? Precisely because in Geisler's world, and that of much of the SBC honchos supporting him, such a notion betrays a more literal reading of the passage. Clearly, it mentions a bunch of people were ressurected, and the gospels intend to represent 100% historical events in every chapter and verse.

I will not elaborate on the full extent of the controversy here - much more interesting analysis can be found at the Tekton Ticker. But it is sufficient to notice that Geisler never considered a number of things before starting his tirade. First, that Licona only admits the plausibility of his interpretation. He never lifts it up with full confidence, and later would go on to make a case for why he still thought the event was historical. None of this matters to Geisler (whose attitude is representative of the more prominent understandings of "Biblical innerancy"), who sees little more than a violation of the principles that uphold the foundations of Biblical interpretation. That is, clearly the author's intent should never be considered to be anything other than 100% history.

The fallout from this event has been interesting to watch, and no doubt it has given many Bible skeptics and atheists reasons to further expect the Christian theology kingdom to crumble under the weight of it's unacknowledged absurdity. And for what? To reject the notion that an author's intent might be more important than what we want to read out of a passage? It is no wonder things like Marriage Myths are perpetrated as fact: the same reasoning would have genre, social and cultural contexts in the Bible be irrelevant to meaning.

In short, I am not questioning the innerancy of the Bible, as Geisler might accuse me and Licona of doing. I am merely highlighting how Biblical innerancy has been defined for a majority of Christians - as something existing in a vacuum where context is irrelevant unless given to me by a pastor or popular author. Can we really afford, as Christ's earthly representatives and soldiers of God's army, to continue to represent ourselves this way as the world moves on and gains understanding of the cultures around it?

Of course, I said I would share more examples, and so I shall...in the next part of this series. For now, thanks for following me and taking every thought captive on this issue! The true mental challenges are yet to come!

Working In A Quote Mine

Whether or not you are a Christian, chances are good if you were born and raised in the US, you can quote a handful of Bible verses. Most of you reading this probably know John 3:16 and (for better or worse) Matthew 7:1 by heart. If you sat down and read a Bible for any length, you'd also recognize how many verses in it are part of everyday speech in the US. For instance, to "see the writing on the wall" is a reference to King Belshazzar's experience in Daniel 5. (for more, see this Squidoo page)  "The blind leading the blind" was imager  Jesus used to warn others about following the influence of the Pharisees in Matthew 15:13-14. 

It's a great reward to many people then to not only read the Bible, but recognize and memorize the scriptures within. Because the words have so much life, memorizing them can be inspirational. It also serves to lift others when they need words of encouragement. It can even communicate to non-Christians how practical the Bible's advice is for daily life. And when teaching, knowing scriptures can add an air of competency to your material (and support to your arguments). Indeed, being familiar with what the the Bible says is something to strive for and cherish. 

In fact, this phenomena parallels how Jews in the 1st century approached the scripture. To take different scriptures and apply them to something happening was a source of great honor for a speaker or teacher. It showed respect for tradition and mastery of intellect. It was also something almost every New Testament author did to help others see how God's hand was moving amongst followers of Jesus – just like he had for Israel. So why do I write this? Could there be any reason not to praise the memorization of scripture? Of course - allow me to share a brief personal story that will show why.

Every quarter, my wife and I have 1 month during which we are not teaching Sunday School. During that month, we make an effort to attend other adult classes and see what other people are doing. We of course like to socialize as well, but last month we stopped by to catch up with the adults in our age group, and caught the middle of a study on the book Not A Fan. The scripture reference being discussed was a chapter in which Jesus proceeds to fire off about a dozen accusations of “hypocrites!” to the Pharisees in what is clearly not a moment of affection and endearment. 

During the study, this example was used to help explore one of the major characters in the Not A Fan plot, who similarly seemed to have the air of being religious but little understanding of what things looked like in application. And what was one of his defining characteristics? That's right – true to stereotype, he had a Bible quote for just about everyone and everything. And as we are exposed more to his personality, we realize he was hollow in his ability to act and serve Jesus in a useful way. He was proof of one thing - memorization and quoting of scriptures doesn't always lead to real knowledge and application.

Many of you may know such a person. You may have grown up with one in your family, or been exposed to a few in your congregation. Your Sunday School class likely even has such an individual. For the first few years of my Christian walk, I even wanted to be that person! Their memorization of scripture is amazing and often overwhelming (or encouraging, if you value learning). Their verses were the meat of every Jack Chic tract, or any other attempt to make you aware of your sinfulness. Not only impressive, but successful!

No doubt you also know many of the scriptures they quote by heart, and have heard them more times than you can count - passages like Jeremiah 29:11, Revelation 3:20, Romans 8:28, Phil 4:13, Proverbs 3:5, Ephesians 2:8, and so on. BibleGateway (a popular website for reading and searching the Bible) has even compiled a list of these verses, and it is impressive. Some people, like Jack Van Impe, even have a television ministry because of their ability to memorize and quote scripture for every thing they say. It is a feat that certainly demands recognition; a skill that can be very valuable.

It doesn't take much time of me listening to an individual like Jack Van Impe, however, to realize things are unusual with his use of the Bible. So why do we not get the same impression from that person in our Sunday School class? At first, I imagined it's because there are too few people who know a public figure like Jack Van Impe. They don't have anyone to compare their brother or sister to in order to suspect they suffer the same malady. The smoke and mirrors that often accompany such magic acts go unnoticed. But certainly, it must be more than that. After all, not everyone would spot Van Impe's nonsense right away – right?

So, why do we fail to recognize the dangers of such individuals? Why do we admire their abilities so highly? Is their memorization skill a badge that grants them equal credit in understanding the Bible? Perhaps not, but I think that often becomes the case. The vocal personality of such "quote-miners", as I'll call them (not just because it seems that is what they should be called, but it is also a nickname for the logical fallacy of quoting out-of-context), ensures they receive attention. Lots of it. As a result, individuals in their presence come away with as much insight as the quote-miner shared. In some sense, the quote-miner literally dominates discussions. After all - everything talked about triggers more scripture in their memory, waiting to be shared to the perceived benefit of all. 

Can you put your finger yet on the potential problem with memorization? If not, allow me to share another personal story that should help us take every thought captive here.  

This past Wednesday, during the weekly “Clubs” our Jr. High class meets for, I had my kids investigate the idea of a “7-day” creation as opposed to interpreting the creation week as happening over a long period of time. If you are familiar with the debate, a verse often “quote-mined” to support 7 days as long periods of time is 2 Peter 3:8. Because 1 day is equated to 1,000, many people propose this allows the 7 days of creation to be long periods of time. I presented this example to my students to show them that, in-context, Peter is not inventing a mathematical equation. He has talked about false teachers and false prophets (in those days, the Jews) who enslave people with distorted teachings. As Chapter 3 rolls along, he begins talking about people in 2 Peter 3:3 (probably those same false teachers) who in 2 Peter 3:4 scoff at waiting for a return of Jesus because it seems to take longer than people will wait.

By the time we come to verse 8, Peter has re-assured his readers that God, having created everything out of water and not hesitating to use water to flood the earth, is also storing up a similar judgment against such scoffers. And when we continue on to 2 Peter 3:9-10, we see Peter also reminding his readers of God's patience, and his timing – reassuring them that he is not acting slowly, even if it may appear that way. In summary, 2 Peter 3:8 seems to be give readers a reminder of how God works outside our time scale and is assuredly working on the world's problems. Peter is exhorting his followers to patience – not inventing a mathematical formula.

So what was the difference in both understandings of the verse? One was given based on context and careful evaluation; the other was given without context. And this is the problem with quote-mining, what I know happens with many verses that are recited - the recollection of the text is great, but the application is off. The study methods that accompany the memorization need improvement. Yet in the end, the impressiveness of memorization and recitation overwhelms people (and not surprisingly, since for thousands of years this was a sign of honor), leaving them with a low quality contextualization or interpretation of the Bible.

If case you're thinking "but the New Testament writers quote scripture constantly!", allow me to clarify something. It was one thing for the New Testament writers to quote-mine their work (which they did, liberally). They lived in and were exposed to the same culture that produced Old Testament writings. They knew the contexts and used them properly, or they would not have received recognition for their work (you could not earn a reputation in those days without public acknowledgment). 

What I think happens today is quote-miners achieve reputation without acknowledgement, or perhaps even without challenge. And this is because, just as we discourage heaping too much praise on people we discourage being too critical of them. This is why anyone in the US even knows who Harold Camping is. Rather than publicly shame and ridicule his beliefs (or at least ignore him), people were careful to do little more than vocalize their disagreement with his beliefs.

Another reason why many people miss out on good scriptural context is it takes time to learn and discover, not to mention the effort to teach it. Most church-goers, then, end up as ignorant of the information as the quote-miner. Over time, the quote-mined version of Christianity becomes all people are exposed to and quote-miners become the heroes of Christian teaching. All the while what is lacking, as with the Pharisees, is an ability to use scripture properly. 

Furthering the problem is the fact that the only people in churches not prone to such a shallow knowledge of scriptures are those often not involved in much teaching. They are pastors, overseers, deacons, or seminary students who will go on to counseling or research jobs. And some who do want to teach even meet resistance and conflict along the way (I can think of a specific example at my church, and it's not myself).

Before I wrap up, I want to point out how much I still hope to encourage people to read their Bibles and commit scriptures to memory. Alone, there is nothing wrong in doing such. Part of daily life as a Jew in the 1st century was reciting certain scriptures, multiple times per day. Scriptures that communicated the core message of their belief – their covenant status with God and God's awesome power over all other created things. And this is a good model for us to follow as Christians as well. It helps shape and focus our personality around Christ.

What I am advocating, however, is not to stress memorization of scripture over studying of it. I memorize and recite basic verses that are encouraging when needed (for instance, Galatians 6:9)  But I long ago stopped trying to be a quote-miner. Why? The more I've learned what scripture teaches, the more endeared I've become to Christianity and the more confidence I've had in my beliefs. Knowing what passages mean is more valuable than just knowing what they say.

Thanks for taking every thought captive here with me today! I've been working on a 2-part post about author's intent as it relates to context, so stick around to hear more about related issues!

The Great Divide

One reason I started this blog was to share what I've learned from extensive studies of theology and Christian apologetics over the years. And I've found through much study that an honest analysis reveals Christianity to be as reasonable a belief as it is homiletic (devotional/emotional). Sure, I may never be able to convince some people of this, but that lies in the fact that truth in this world is complicated enough to require lots of study. And since few people are committed to publicizing such an image for Christianity, perceptions on this matter will always be slow to change.

I think this is why religion in general is passed over by many smart people - it is never presented to them in logical or rational ways – ways they can actually understand. But in order for me to present Christianity in such a way, I naturally must respond to the objections brought up by people who reject religious belief. And for this reason, people could easily perceive me on the opposite side of such individuals – constantly fighting them off as enemies of the faith. It would not be unlikely for skeptics and Christians alike to take this view either, since humans naturally tend to simplify conflict in terms of duality - a sort of “good vs. evil” where only one side wins.(Even worse, they interpret the Bible this way)

To me the extremes of this dualist thought are most evident through popular dichotomies of “religion vs. science” and “democrat vs. republican”. I hate how such ideas become divisive in ways beyond what is necessary. There is more to being religious than whether one rejects science, and more to rejecting science than lack of knowledge, concern or understanding. (Recent studies have shown the most stubborn “creationists” are also the ones with the most schooling). There is also more to being a scientist than one's views on evolution or creation. Being a Democrat is about more than taxes and women's rights, and being Republican is not just all religion and big business. Like the issues themselves that divide us, as humans we are more complex than such simplifications allow.

This is why I have always seen problems with the “atheist vs. Christian” portrayal. There is more to skeptics than hatred of religion or inability to understand in it. There is more to Christianity than blind faith and anti-intellectualism. While I'm not afraid to point out problems with skeptical arguments, I actually owe much to skeptics and credit them with developing my insights into religion as much as many Christian resources. In some cases, I have more respect for some atheists than Christians I know, and the even rarer agnostics may be closest to sharing my views!

Does this seem odd to you? Perhaps shocking? If so, it shouldn't be. Only by embracing skepticism could I achieve the confidence in my belief I now have. Only then did I feel empowered enough to engage and evangelize others in a way that is educational rather than condescending. Only by clearly understanding my belief was I convinced enough to communicate it more intelligibly, not only to those who need it but to Christians who need better discipline and teaching.

So how can I embrace skepticism without being it's champion? How can I find anything in common with “enemies of God”? Simple - it is an over-generalization to even see skeptics as enemies to start with. Certainly their disbelief separates them from God and blinds them from knowing the true peace offered by Jesus. And this makes them enemies of God - but so was I before I believed. Skeptics have rarely done anything to offend me personally (except the ones that ignore anything I'm saying and parrot their point to death), and are therefore hard to see as enemies.

The real issues for me lies in what motivates the disbelief. Is it fueled by honest questions or doubts about religious belief? Or is it fueled by a negative perception of religion, formed from bad experiences with individuals close to them? Is the individual simply rebelling against status quo, failing to put effort into understanding religion more than popular perceptions allow? Did the individual leave their rebellion phase behind them, or are they just looking to be contentious? How these questions are answered does much more to shape whether I will see someone as an enemy. People committed to poor logic and personal tirades are therefore my enemies, whether they are Christians or skeptics.

What endears me to skeptics is they almost all can answer that first question (“Do you have honest questions or doubts”) affirmatively. Most did not choose to walk away from God for malicious reasons, although that can motivate them later. What typically begins their exodus is they considered serious questions about religious belief, but were not fortunate enough to be shown concern for such matters by Christians who should have cared. Instead, they were told to “just believe” or “have faith” - as if that were possible for someone who is constantly analyzing every detail of the world around them. In short, many skeptics have just been unable to make sense of popular belief, and without having careful or caring responses in return they cling to disbelief.

You see, I discovered early in my Christian walk that many questions asked of skeptics are natural to anyone who is simply inquisitive. How? Because I discovered the answers to such questions on the Internet only after having asked them myself! Yes, many skeptics fail to make the effort getting legitimate answers, but that is a separate issue and not any less commonplace in Christian circles. The reality is that Christian belief, as parroted from many pulpits and Sunday School rooms, lacks deep thought and scholarly engagement. So when deep thinkers try to engage, they find themselves still underwhelmed, and this is a bigger problem than whether or not the skeptic believes in God.

If I have so much in common with skeptics, as I claim, then why am I a Christian? The answer is simple – while I go through the same processes of questioning information, my approach to finding answers can be fundamentally different or more thorough (depending on the individual). That, and I find myself okay if I can actually be proven wrong by evidence. But to reach that place, my flow for analyzing information involves a series of questions designed to make extra certain I know my topic. A few examples are as follows:

1. Do I like this material because it merely says what I already believe? Or did it truly engage a clear conflict of logic and information? For example, I am careful of this when reading through creationist materials. Sometimes the material contains legitimate questions of the scientific conclusions in current research. Sometimes it contains nothing more than hollow logic that begs questions. Do I accept the whole of the material then because I want to believe it? Is it not more responsible to sort through and believe only what is proven? (In case you're wondering, my beliefs on origins are too complicated to pigeonhole into most theories)
2. What is the source of this information? What expertise does this person have? For instance, when a scientist speaks about religion, what level of exposure have they had? Do they have degrees in either topic? If not, how much of their criticism is worth even considering? Is it really the result of intense theological studying (on top of their scientific research), or is it merely trying to exploit flaws in popular belief without considering other avenues? Going with the creationism example above, I often look to see if am I reading critiques of geological research from an active geologist with a PhD, or if am I reading the words of a self-proclaimed expert and pundit (like Kent Hovind) wanting more attention.
3. Does this information appear to have an agenda? Is the critique I'm reading just trying to disprove Christianity, or is it merely speaking to explain what it knows and laying out flaws that could apply? How much is the author staying within their expertise? Conspiracy theory often fails on this point. Most such sources want only to find ways government looks bad (this is an agenda!), assuming anyone with a secret agenda must certainly have criminal or evil intent and want to abuse power. Not that theories against Christianity are better, but isn't it possible that sometimes governments have good reasons to be secretive?
4. How much does the material speculate, and how much does it deal with fact? This is related to the others in the sense that speculation leads to problems forming solid conclusions. But more specifically, it deals with whether or not a case is even made with facts or opinion. There are millions of internet posts, comments, forums and places to visit where opinion is all you will see. Facts loom in the background like the proverbial straw in the hay. Are these places from which to read, believe and adopt patterns of thought and opinion?

Now, to make this point I generalized from my experiences. There are certainly some skeptics who are not guilty of failing to ask these questions with their research. They know how to check information. What often is true is they are simply unaware of what scholarly materials are available on a subject, or what competing opinions may exist. The theology they are then exposed to continues to remain little more than what is caricatured by the vocal "know-it-alls" that saturate the entertainment industry.

Nonetheless, you can hopefully see how skepticism can be healthy. By definition, after all, it relates more to doubt and asking questions than it does actual disbelief. It is a process which helps one be certain their beliefs are not just personal, but in fact reflect reality. And this itself, dare I say, is actually the lost spiritual art of discernment – something not only encouraged by the Bible, but seen as something seek after more than other spiritual gifts.

So although I'm Christian, perhaps you can see why it is not unusual to find me fact-checking numerous claims against Skepdic. Or how I can follow blogs like Skeptophilia, cheering the author when he speaks within his expertise (he is not strong on theology). This is also why I watch shows like Mythbusters regularly (I have over 3 dozen episodes on my DVR), having been known to even question their approach to experiments. This is why I get kicks out of shows like Mentalist, Bones and House – not because their main characters have a hatred of religion founded in flawed understandings, but because when they operate within their expertise, there is much that can be learned from them (despite the fact that they are impossibly smart by real standards)

Through all this exposure to negative opinions of Christianity, I still remain Christian. Why? Because each of these sources have only taught me how to think better in many ways. I have learned to recognize how knowledge is applied to real-life situations, whether it is scientific or religious (discerning where critics of religion are misguided). I have ultimately learned to develop a fonder appreciation for the idea of certainty applied to belief. I have only been more endeared to the uniqueness of Christian thought as I've come to understand it more, rather than being pushed further away from it, as I suppose many Christians fear would happen if skepticism is more embraced.

So, if you have found yourself believing in this great divide between believers and non-believers, between atheists and Christians – join my in taking every thought captive at this moment. Learn to see our fellow humans for what they can still bring to God's kingdom. Recognize their limits as well - they often attack popular Christianity but like most other Christians, they are rarely aware of its disagreements with scholarly Christianity. So be careful to be contentious. These individuals are still gifted by God, after all. The same God who can and has used his enemies to teach his people lessons. Israel repeatedly learned this way, and God's enemies still received the punishment they deserved in the end. Believing God will do likewise, shouldn't we embrace our enemies while there is time to learn from them? Who knows – in the process they may be able to learn a thing or two from us.

Marriage Myths, Part 9 - Conclusion

I started this series complaining about gay marriage, because frankly most people who cheer over this graphic do so for spite of those who oppose gay marriage. They find objections to gay marriage shallow, and are unafraid to stand for their position as an attempt to shame others in line with this now dominant position in America. And why shouldn't they? This will likely be a huge issue in this country for years to come until both sides can truly understand each other more clearly.


But other than briefly evaluating the gay marriage issue from a Biblical standpoint (I am not concerned for socio-political aspects), however, this series clearly was about so much more than that single topic. It was about the role and purpose of marriage. It was about cultural standards and social values. It was about taking a closer look at whether our values and priorities put us in a position of superiority from which to judge the ancient world.


The reason I allowed this series to stray into so many areas was that those who rave about this graphic are, in one way or another, implying it serves as an argument against accepting any Biblical standards for marriage. The entire reputation of the Bible's moral standards weighed in the balance! This is also why I looked so closely at each of the items the graphic depicted. I wanted to dissect what was being objected to. Was the information accurately portrayed? Did it show a clear understanding of historical and social context? Was the Bible being evaluated with objective hermeneutical principles?


In each case, I found the answer to one or more of these questions in the negative. As you hopefully saw as you followed me, this required more than simply saying "the Bible says x". Instead, I had to also ask "What does x mean?"  I had to put myself into the mind of a distant past time, a foreign culture and an unfamiliar language. I had to evaluate some seemingly uncomfortable circumstances and try to make sense of them. I had t o dig deep into various websites and books, and give all sides of an issue the benefit of doubt.

Needless to say, the work done for this was far more than I guarantee was done by any of the graphic's authors, or those who parrot it and reproduce it on social media. This in and of itself should serve as a lesson on the level of diligence Christians need to show in Bible study, but that may be a topic for another time.


So, how can I summarize this series in a way you can take something home for future use? First, one error consistent for each case evaluated was simply that our opponents appeared to see no distinction between ancient culture and modern. Either ancient people were held to modern standards, or treated as if they were nothing else than a modern day stereotype! This seems as if it would be something more obvious to people, but it truly is a cancer that plagues today's popular theology as much as it does the ideas of skeptics and critics. In short, the warning here is to be careful in your approach to comparisons when practicing theology. Without knowing it, you could be using the same kind of logic as critics of Christianity! Patriarchy is not something to insult as an oppressive and dark part of past history, but something to be merely understood in it's own context for it's own value and merit.


We also saw throughout this series how important it was to realize that marriage, much like "love", was historically unrelated to the mushy romantic ideals of the present. This was true not only for the world of the Bible, but for literally all pre-industrial societies. It could not be stressed enough how important this is for the church to understand today. People continue to ponder the poor state of marriage in America, holding it up as an ideal but  communicating little of its true substance. Can we ever expect things to get better if marriage is still believed to be something all rosy that makes us happier? We easily blame laws, politics or an influx of radical ideas for shaping our concepts. But such things are filling a vacuum created in the first place by our neglect to understand, study and teach that which we hold dear. As the popular Christian book by Gary Thomas asks - "What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?"


I hope this series also served to show you how important word studies can sometimes be. We saw more than once how words could take on different meanings by their context, and words shift in their meaning rapidly over time (this, btw, is why their continue to be so many Bible translations). One size simply does not fit all - even when it comes to Bible translations. Why is this? Quite simply, not all Bible scholars are translators, and vice versa. There is a tremendous amount of scholarly research put into the Bible by people who have no time to contribute to translation issues. Similarly, most translators could never possibly be aware of everything scholarship has to say about the issues they face.


Finally, and perhaps my most important point to make is that ancient forms of marriage ultimately served a purpose - for the good of society. If anyone is to hold up their own standards, or criticize those of the Bible, they need to show how such standards serve (or fail to) everyone's benefit. In other words, proponents of gay marriage need prove it will benefit everyone some way. But this can't be done. Instead, the issue has been more about the personal "rights" (for the benefit of self), or benefits married couples receive (which are not "rights"). Because this is still what we champion in our free, democratic society. But should we rush to change common law in this way? Are we even thinking about what kind of equality we want people to have?


Now that this series is over, I have dozens of simpler and shorter topics I will be commenting on in the months to come. Work has been busy and that's why this is coming so late, but this means you should get much more of my brain in much less time for a while. My busy schedule also means I've had to put off other writing (my book), but everything must come in it's proper time, I suppose. Thanks for following me, and helping take every thought captive on what Biblical marriage is!