Please, Don’t Read the Bible Literally…

Earth-rise

…  read it literarily.

Seems Christians get themselves into trouble when they don’t take a Bible passage like its author meant it.  For example, I came across a bizarre Web-Site the other day: Geocentricity.com (i.e. belief that the Earth is the stationary center of the universe).  On their website I found this curious statement:

This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always astronomy—that is, our “reading” of the “Book of Nature,” not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. [emphasis added].

As I read this I wonder why he added “our reading.”  On the one hand it seems quite humble of him (and somewhat protective of the Bible).  On the other, it’s horribly arrogant because he takes authority away from the Bible and places it in himself.  If reading the Bible literally gets you here, we need a better way to understand the Word of God.

In cases like this I’d say the problem is not with what the Bible says but a misunderstanding of how it’s said. In other words, the way the Bible says something is just as important as anything else.  If we misunderstand how it speaks in a given instance, we almost certainly will misunderstand what it speaks.  As for our Geocentric friends, they read passages like Matt 5.45 “He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good” or 1 Ch 16.30 “The earth is firmly established, it cannot be moved” and their commitment to reading the Bible literally forces them to a Geocentric view of the cosmos.

Here are just a few of the ways (i.e. literary forms and devices) that the Bible uses to communicate truth: history, poetry, prophecy, law, instruction, proverb, parable, song, apocalyptic, metaphor, synechdoche, and many more.  While this is a somewhat daunting list, the reality is that properly understanding many of these forms is spectacularly intuitive if you simply relieve yourself of the pressure to take as literal those things that were never intended to be taken as as literal.

Note: Reading the Bible literarily means taking miracles contained in historical narrative at face value; it’s pretty clear the authors of the Bible intend us to understand that Jesus actually rose from death, that He literally fed the 5000, that He factually raised Lazarus, and so on.

The Bible is Bull[oney]

I’m not passionate about apologetics – I used to be, but I guess I felt like I was arguing around the block with too many skeptics without ever getting to explain the message about Jesus because of red herring after red herring.  That or the death of modern thought moved me to more of an interest in proclamation rather than debate.  Nevertheless, I am a college pastor and the importance of apologetics is being awakened in me as many of my students have been vocal about their faith on campus and, to no real surprise, have also been getting it shoved back in their faces.  One student was shown the following video and she forwarded it to me:

So what’s the best approach here?  What should apologetics look like?  Answering every objection item by item?  Defending a skeptic’s inaccurate view of our faith (in other words, defending a straw man?)  Do we just bypass the objections and yell the gospel louder?  What to do about the cosmic gulf between where skeptics like Penn & Teller are and where we are?  Is it even possible to find a common or neutral ground to have a discussion or will one or the other have to go on the road (sports analogy-wise)?  Do we focus apologetics on those who do not believe or on those who already believe?

Discussion “Question”: Answer any of the questions above or describe the role apologetics play in the way you tell people the message about Jesus.

Guest Post: What is Essential? by Ryan Carter

An oft quoted dictum in theology states, “In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in everything charity.”  As with most oft quoted dictums, it is simple to say, but difficult to apply. For most believers, getting a sense of exactly what is essential and what is not essential is about as easy as fitting the proverbial camel through the eye of a needle. Christian leaders have an unfortunate tendency to blur the distinction between the essentials and the non-essentials.

It took me years of growing in Christ before I was able to understand that someone’s view on the end times was not the central and defining feature of their Christianity. In my childhood church, a pretribulational premillenial eschatology was an absolute essential. It also took me years to accept that Arminians are Christians too. In that same church, Calvinist predestination was taught as the only legitimate form of Christianity. I had similar experiences with baptism, Bible translation, women in ministry, alcohol consumption, and other issues. These non-essentials were treated like essentials.

So what is the answer? How do we discern those things upon which we must have unity from those things in which we have liberty?

In my opinion the answer here is two-fold: 1) We look to our great tradition to see what has been held everywhere and always by those who call themselves Christian. 2) We dialogue about our differences on the non-essentials so that we can understand the legitimate variety that exists within the body of Christ.  At first glance it may seem strange that we would not simply look to the Bible for the essentials. The difficulty with this is that the Bible assumes certain things about God which the creeds have effectively synthesized.  So although it does not explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, etc… these doctrines are present in the Bible and are essential for identifying Him against counterfeits.  Recall, the Bible has been used by genuine believers and heretics alike to prove disparate positions. The Bible must be interpreted.

First, I believe we look to the great tradition for the things we must hold in common. In particular, we should look to the creeds and decisions of the 7 ecumenical councils. In our work, we use the Nicene Creed in particular.

Second, I believe we need to listen to each other. We need to hear sincere Christ-loving believers say, “I do not agree with you about this or that.”  I believe that this process is the best way to open our eyes to places where we have turned non-essentials into essentials. My blog, Christian Matters of Taste, is designed to facilitate this kind of discussion.

Discussion Questions: 1) What do you see as the absolute essentials of the Christian faith? 2) What non-essentials have you seen turned into essentials?

Ryan is a friend of Bern’s from seminary. He is the husband of Amber, and the father of Ben. Ryan trains leaders for inner-city churches. He is also helping plant a church, Christ the Victor, in the inner-city of Wichita, KS.  You can read more from Ryan at his blog: Christian Matters of Taste.

Here It Is: Who Is Truth?

Below you’ll find the message for the most recent W.E.L.D. where I asked the question “Who is Truth?”  Built largely on the post of the same name and my obituaries of Modern and Post-Modern thought, the message took the following path:  First, I introduced the problems people of faith are confronted with in a Post-Modern, Post-Christian culture (such as we have in Nor Cal).  Then I offered a very brief discussion on the history of Pre-Modern, Modern, & Post-Modern views of truth.  Next, I explored the assertion of Jesus in John 14.6 that He is the truth as well as the implications of God’s self existence on truth based on Exodus 3.14.  Finally, I offered three big-idea, general applications.

Listen to: Who is Truth?

Discussion Question: If logic and reason aren’t the bedrock of our faith, but the existence and revelation of God (albeit it understood in large part with the help of logic and reason) – how should that affect the way we interact with outsiders about matters of faith, especially the message about Jesus?

Who is Truth?

Now that the unChristian series has wrapped up I’m about to begin sermonizing (yes, Keith, sermonizing) for the first message of the next series for our progressive worship service, W.E.L.D.  Rather than rehashing Pilate’s question of old—”What is truth?” (John 18.38) that seemed to define the modern and post-modern period—in my quest for a return to a pre-modern mindset, I’m asking the question “Who is Truth?”  When truth is abstract or propositional it is quickly and easily reduced to nothing more than a subject for discussion or a series of ideas to be mastered.  It becomes something to be determined and defined by people—whether by the scientific method, ever-evolving philosophy, or both.

My thought is that this is what it all comes down to: either (1) some ideas are so preeminent, so pure, so essential and elemental that even God Himself is bound to them and only operates within them (such as love, holiness, justice, and righteousness) or (2) God is utterly free and His existence defines not only these ideas, but Truth itself.  In other words, either truth defines God or God defines Truth.  Or again, the first option leads to the question “What is truth?” and the second “Who is Truth?”  Now the question is whether and what practical difference it makes to ask one question rather than the other (the answer to “whether” seems obviously yes; only what it might look like remains).

Perhaps the ultimate question (at least for my purposes here) for those of us who have previously thought we could determine Truth is whether we can, after all, put the fruit back on the tree and re-enter the Garden where God Himself is Truth and we truly believe and thereafter seek understanding through knowing Him.  (I wonder, could eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil be assuming the ability to discern between Truth and Error?  And by doing so, do we thereby exalt our knowledge over God and try to control Him as a result [explicitly or implicitly]?).

I’m early in my thought here; please ask constructively critical questions, ask for clarifications, or any other comments that might help me refine these thoughts.

Post-Modern Post-Mortem

In my last post on the subject I formally declared Modernism dead (b/c I have that kind of authority) and found to my surprise that Post-Modernism itself had also died (thank you, Greg)—of course you might say that Post-Modernism is simply the frog to Modernism’s tadpole.  So if the tadpole has croaked, the frog must have also.  So what’s next?  What can the Church do to be on the cutting edge this time, blaze a new trail, or something in between that doesn’t put us 2 decades behind the culture?  I’m great with a different track (and I’m pretty sure the Bible is too), but being way behind on the same track is just plain foolish!  One commenter made the statement:

One problem … is the fact that the very concept that truth is primarily propositional [ideas stated in language] is a thoroughly modern/postmodern concept. So then when we talk about deriving our propositional truths from revelation rather than reason or dialogue, or something else, we are still captives of the modern era. Maybe its time we stop thinking of truth as [propositions] and start thinking of truth as a person to imitate/incarnate (-Ryan the wise, buddy from DTS).

I’m sure your mind, like mine, jumps to John 14.6, typically referenced by Christians only for Jesus’ claim to exclusivity (“no one comes to the Father but through me” NIV), where Jesus first says “I am … the Truth.”  Without denying that truth is in many ways propositional (able to be thought about as ideas), we also need to relate to Truth as a person, not simply as an objective standard that lords even over God himself.  For example, I’m sure you’ve heard a preacher say that God cannot have sin in His presence b/c He is holy and holiness demands separation from sin (Though, I guess they mean in Heaven – cause the Spirit seems to be in sin’s presence a lot if you believe He permanently indwells believers).  What a dishonoring thing to say about God!  It’s not that God cannot be in the presence of sin, He will not—it’s His perogative, He does what He wants to do!  I came across a brilliant quote the other day that elevated Truth beyond the confines of mere propositions, ideas, notions, values, or laws:

It is blasphemy to say that there is a higher reality [truth] than God to which he must conform in order to be holy. God is the absolute reality beyond which is only more of God. When asked for his name in Exodus 3:14 he said, “I am who I am.” His being and his character are utterly undetermined by anything outside himself (John Piper).

God is truth, God’s existence defines reality, defines holiness, defines righteousness, defines justice and mercy, and of course, God defines truth.  When we separate Truth from God the 3 Persons, we elevate so-called truth over God.  When we approach Truth as we approach 3 persons, we honor both God and Truth.  Now, what does that look like?  I guess I’m asking you.

Modern Thought, R.I.P.

[I'm not quite sure sure I'm ready to go to print with this idea, maybe others have already thought it; but in the final analysis I need a new blog and this has been on my mind... - Special thanks to my wife Kat and Amy Carbo for their constructive criticisms]

Anyhoo, there were a few moments in Seminary that stand above the rest – several are from Dr. Glenn Kreider who in any given lecture either made me mad, struck me with his brilliance, or did both.  One (probably miserable) day in Dallas in our perfectly air-conditioned classroom we were talking worldviews and epistemology (how you know that you know that you know…) and he made the comment that Modern thought had actually been harmful to the church and we should not fear, but welcome, her death.  Indeed, while many in the church are trying to defend Modern thought against the conquest of Postmodernism and her goon squad (e.g. pluralism & relativism), it is actually Modern thought that has done the Faith more harm than good.  This post briefly explains how I hope the death of Modernism will prove beneficial for our faith.  Forgive me if I oversimplify things.

First, a little history.  Generally, from the genesis of man to the Enlightenment (18th/19th Century) we had the Pre-Modern period where people believed that Truth was revealed by God to people and the purpose of study was to understand that truth.  After Reason took her throne during the Enlightenment, the Modern period now looked at Truth as something to be discovered by the human mind through careful study.  In other words, Modern thinkers believe truth is concealed rather than revealed.

Now, Post-Modernism is commonly thought of as a rejection of absolute truth rather than (as the name would suggest) a rejection of Modern thought.  I would argue, though, that Post-Modernism is really just frustrated Modernism.  Post-Moderns take a gander at the overwhelming evidence and data to sift through before conclusively arriving at Truth and they determine that the objective is impossible (and it is!).  Though many end up rejecting absolute truth as a result, a Post-Modern’s view of truth is still derived from reason and the ability of the human mind to discover truth; they have only given up because they have rightly determined that the finite human mind could never discover absolute truth through searching and study.

To quote En Vogue, now it’s time for a breakdown (I hope you get it though)!  Here is each worldview’s understanding of truth:

Pre-Modern: Truth is revealed by God, our job is to believe it and then seek understanding.

Modern: Truth is concealed, our job is to discover it through reason (which we are able to do), and then believe it. In other words, mankind is the master of truth.

Post-Modern: Truth is concealed, we tried to discover and master it through reason but found we aren’t able, we are frustrated and are left with nothing to believe.

So, how again is the death of Modernism good for the people of faith?  I believe that since we have recognized absolute truth cannot be discovered through reason and study, truth will once again have to be revealed by God (now I recognize that people of faith have pretty much always maintained this view of truth; I am speaking largely about how someone comes to recognize truth).  Perhaps such realizations will have to be on an individual basis where a person encounters absolute truth in Christ and in the Word of God rather than on the large-scale, social-movement level, but isn’t that better than a mindset that lords itself over truth, whether Modern or Post-Modern?  I, for one, will not fear the death of Modern thought (nor will I eulogize her) for with her death may come a people who depend on God’s Revelation for Truth rather than their own ability to reason.  Thus, in any one person:

Post-Modernism leads to: (1) Pluralism and relativism; or (2) If there is Truth and God reveals it to us, then our job is to believe it and then seek understanding.

Post-It Notes: Faith in a Post-Modern & Post-Christian Culture

Right now we’re doing Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University and one of the key points Dave hammers early on is living below your means so that you can stop living paycheck to paycheck and actually start to build momentum.  As a pastor its easy to preach paycheck to paycheck where each message is self-contained and isn’t worked on or even thought about until the week of.

Well, I’m trying to think and work ahead since July 5th brings the last message in the unChristian series and I’m staring at August with the question, what’s next?  The direction I’m thinking of going is what Christianity looks like in a post-modern, post-Christian culture.   That means addressing a variety of issues including worldviews, objections to faith & Christianity, and following Christ in a culture that no longer pretends to do so.

Discussion Question: What issues with believing amidst a Post-Modern, Post-Christian culture do you most want to have addressed?

Freedom Pt. 2: Is Mankind’s Problem with God Relational or Legal?

One of my least favorite aspects of parenthood is discipline.  Hearing my daughter say “I love you, Daddy” – wonderful!  Hearing her scream at the top of her lungs as she runs to Time-Out Corner, ugh.  Every time I have to stand up, point my finger, and speak those four words, “GO TO TIME OUT!” I think to myself, “Here we go again.”  Its not really important what started the whole thing, throwing couscous on Keves’ head or just being plain rude; however it begins we give her the chance to say she’s sorry and start over.  But inevitably there are those days where my darling little girl gets all wound up and there ain’t no stopping her.  On the other hand, its pretty sweet when she’s all cried out and ready to make peace.  So I ask the question, is her time-out, her discipline, her punishment primarily a legal matter or a relational one?  Does she sit in her lonely corner simply because she broke my rules?

Last week I spent a lot of time on a buddy’s blog (Truth Finder) where we were talking about unity and somehow we began riffing on worldviews.  Most of us in America, especially in Evangelical churches, have a Western worldview.  That means we think linearly, we prioritize the immaterial aspect of people and disregard the material (e.g. our body is an earthsuit and we envision the eternal state as purely spiritual), and we tend to think of God like the government: a faceless, impersonal, something-er-other whose primary role is to make and enforce laws.  Jesus, of course, came to pay a legal debt on our behalf and by believing in Him we are declared not guilty.  Writing from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, however, another commenter made a few points that have been bouncing around in my head the past few days.  He wrote,

“Humanity’s problem is primarily existential (living out of communion with the Giver of Life), not legal.”

and

“The root of our problem was/is not a legal one. Christ did not come to make bad men good. He came to make dead men live. Life is only found in union with the Wellspring of Life.”

As I thought about these statements it occurred to me a little clearer than before, we in the West think of freedom almost exclusively in legal or socio-political terms.  We are incapable of understanding Christian freedom because it means we still have a king or sovereign over us.  Our country was founded on personal and national sovereignty and I’m pretty sure we’d rather have a crummy president than a good king for the simple reason that a even the worst president (whether you consider him Nixon, Carter, Bush, or Obama) is still accountable to us.  So Jesus says “I will make you free” and we struggle to understand how we can have a lord or master and still be called free.  Accordingly, people seek spiritual freedom that lines up with their worldview and democratic values; that means being your own boss and throwing off the restrictions that God (or gods) place on us (spiritual anarchy).

But in John 8 Jesus offers a freedom that isn’t socio-political, he offers a freedom that’s relational.  He says,

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.  32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”  34 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.  35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.  36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (NIV).

His opponents misunderstand this freedom at first, supposing it to be socio-political (v. 33); but Jesus corrects them offering a freedom that is instead (1) from sin and (2) a permanent place in the family of God.  Mankind’s problem with sin and with God is not simply a legal problem; though we break God’s rules and there is a penalty associated with that, the greater problem is the disruption in our relationship with God – slaves to sin will one day be sent away.

Here’s how I’m thinking of putting it all together (let me know what you think).  Mankind has a relational problem that causes his legal problem.  He is disconnected from God and that leads him to sin and all the penalties that follow.  But Jesus comes to restore our relationship with the Father.  Fixing our legal problem only gets us back to level ground, it makes us innocent for all practical purposes, but that’s not all Jesus did (nor would it be enough).  We need to be reconciled, to be brought into the family, into the house as a son.  So Jesus offers freedom from slavery to sin and its sentence.  But He doesn’t offer freedom from God because true freedom is a positive relationship with God.  Spiritual anarchy (what some would call freedom) is actually slavery to sin.  Thoughts?