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!