Posted by Eliza on: 07.31.2006 /
This paragraph comes from a book I’ve been reading lately:
“…In liberal Christianity, Bible teachings…on slavery and…relating to social issues, including, for example, the place of women, marriage, the obligation of the church to meet the physial needs of unbelievers, and the relation of the believer to secular, civil authority, that are neither progresive nor democratic, are taken simply as reflecting the prejudices of the times and localities in which the Bible authors found themselves, and, by Holy-Spirit-given discernment, [are] to be severed from the inspired part. It is easy to see that, in practice, this gives the pastor, if not everyone in the church, the right to discard whatever he wants of the Bible’s teaching and to keep whatever he wants of what is left. By picking and choosing, one can make the rules into whatever one wishes. If followed to the ultimate extreme, the Bible can be emptied of its content altogether in this manner.”
p. 56, Chapter 1 “What the Bible Really Teaches on Social Issues” in The Mind of the Bible-Believer by Edmund D. Cohen, 1988.
Comment by: Helen M.
1 07/31/06 3:50 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, thanks for posting this! I think it’s interesting that Andrew raised some similar concerns just a couple of days ago, yet from a different angle. He believes strongly in the Bible and is appealing to other Christians not to depart too far from the truth of it.
Edmund Cohen doesn’t believe in it at all, based on something I read about how he was a Bible-believing Christian and now doesn’t believe in God at all. The question this quote of his seems to implicitly address is: “Can Bible teaching be made ‘ok’ if Christians ‘update’ it?” And his answer is - such updating is arbitrary and changes the Bible so much that the resulting teaching can’t truly be claimed to be Biblical at all.
It seems ironic to me that liberal Christians’ handling of the Bible draws similar criticism from those people who believe it should be taken more literally and from some people who don’t believe it at all. Here we see people who are more extreme in one direction or the other coming together with the same criticism of those ‘in the middle’: “What you do is arbitrary and inconsistent and takes you unacceptably far away from what the Bible actually says, given that you claim to care about its teachings”.
To be fair to Andrew, he has made his appeal graciously and his approach is: How can we help people “in the middle” not get too far away from Biblical truth?
I can’t tell from the quote what Edmund Cohen’s motive is but based on reading his testimony he is not so gracious towards any Christians as Andrew is towards those whose approach to the Bible concerns him deeply.
Comment by: Helen M.
2 07/31/06 3:54 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, in regard to your question(s), my sympathies lie with those who want to ‘update’ the Bible to reflect the world we live in today.
As a women I have had to put up with the consequences of a few verses here and there being taken very literally and rigidly as prohibitions against women fully exercising their gifts within the church community. It’s not just the overt role prohibition that’s a problem, but the covert attitudes, expectations and beliefs that go along with it, that women should ’stay in their place’.
Comment by: Julie Marie
3 07/31/06 6:59 AM | Comment Link |It doesn’t take the Holy Spirit to study scripture with the cultural context in mind. And it is no simple thing for me to pick and choose, although trying to adhere to a few statements Jesus made helps - the point he made about discerning false teaching by looking at the fruits it produces, for instance, set bells and gongs clanging in my head when I observed the attitude and actions of many religious folks today towards homosexuals. Thats not relying on the Holy Spirit, thats using my God given brain and my loving heart to say WHOA!!!! This teaching is producing bitter fruit. The teaching surrounding this issue needs closer examination….
Comment by: Helen M.
4 07/31/06 7:10 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comments, Julie Marie.
I feel that way too.
Also, looking at the fruit is a very Biblical way to assess whether something is on track or not - I like your approach.
Comment by: Eliza
5 07/31/06 7:57 AM | Comment Link |Julie Marie, I thought Cohen’s comment about Spirit-given-discernment was odd - he seems to be setting a hurdle too difficult to pass for almost anything other than literal interpretation. I like your comments about looking at the fruit, and looking at how it got that way.
Helen, thanks for your comments and additional background on Cohen. He’s Jewish, but converted to Christianity, went to seminary (he doesn’t say for how long), then left the seminary one day after realizing he didn’t believe. He’s a Ph.D. psychologist and J.D., and his book is mostly about psychology. Some of the reader-reviewers on Amazon.com commented that they thought the psychology discussion in his book was good, but that he got over his head in deep water when he tried to do any commentary on the Bible in this book - having read most of it, I wouldn’t disagree!
Rachel’s comments, #9 from isaone’s questions, are also pertinent here (emphasis added):
Seems like that balance needs to include the effect on actual people in actual, current times - like Julie Marie said, looking at the fruit and seeing whether it fits with the big-picture message. Since the expectation of what is fair and just can differ over time and between cultures, the application of the big-picture message may look a bit different - bear somewhat different fruit - at different times and in different places.
Also, the idea that letter-writers were addressing different groups in different places with different needs - which Rachel also brought up in post #9 on isaone’s questions, and others have brought up in other threads - seems to instill a cultural context that wouldn’t necessarily have been applicable to everyone even at that time.
Comment by: jim
6 07/31/06 8:29 AM | Comment Link |There is no such thing as balance - life is too chaotic to draw lines around it. The Bible is certainly not a book of balance. It seems clear to me that you can make it say ANYTHING you choose.
After 25 crazy making years of this I decided to make up my own method for trying to decide what was really important ( I still didnt get it all right but I got closer) Thats when I adopted the Jesus Movie approach- Essentially what were the things Jesus thought to be most important. Instead of starting with his words ( which are what most people fight about and dispute) I started with his actions and his non actions(which most people ignore for the time being)
It is like watching a movie with the sound turned off it is a different kind of discipline and doesnt solve all the problems or remove all the inconsistencies but it provided a more peaceful way of running all the wierd ideas people come up with thru some kind of grid.
Bottom line- the next big revolution will be about the bible and it will be among people who call themselves evangelicals- its inevitable
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
7 07/31/06 9:00 AM | Comment Link |there’s a song we sing at my church with a line that says something about
not using the bible as a weapon.
Perhaps this is why Jesus himself did not write his own book. We would have ended up killing each other over the interpretation of it.
For me, i try to match up my understanding of the words of the bible with what i know about the character and nature of Jesus. How did Jesus treat women? What did he do about those declared immoral by the religious police? (he hung out with them and made friends)
Well let’s hope it’s a revolution of intimacy and grace that will lead to reformation.
Comment by: Helen M.
8 07/31/06 9:05 AM | Comment Link |Jim wrote:
I think so too.
I think everyone has a grid, whether they acknowledge it or not (maybe some can’t acknowledge it because they haven’t realized they have one).
I don’t see any reason why the “Jesus Movie” grid is less justifiable than the other ones I’ve come across.
In fact, I think it does better than a lot of other grids, if we go back to Julie Marie’s test regarding the ‘fruit’.
Comment by: Helen M.
9 07/31/06 9:06 AM | Comment Link |Pam wrote:
Pam, I love how you express yourself - what a beautiful way to put it!
Comment by: Eliza
10 07/31/06 9:34 AM | Comment Link |Would it be the Re-reformation? ;)
Jim or anyone - could you give examples of what you notice as Jesus’ “non actions”?
Comment by: Julie Marie
11 07/31/06 11:22 AM | Comment Link |Yes, and imo, thats a straw man. The As in this discussion have demonstrated a literal interp is falsifiable. I’ve been thinking about my fundy roots, in light of some of the other discussions here, and right now I am looking at it from an evolutionalry standpoint….starting out with the basics, the law, the rules….just like we teach our kids….all black and white until they are able to understand the why behind shades of grey. But once we are able to tolerate ambiguity, really, a whole new world opens up. Rachels perspective on the widow’s mite story is a fine example of that…taking that outlook to heart is extremely convicting.
Comment by: NCxian
12 07/31/06 11:28 AM | Comment Link |It seems to me that what keeps us from making the Bible say what ever we want it to mean is other Christians. Including dead ones who have written about it for our benefit.
When one person’s interpretation becomes completely unfettered from the rest of the community, you get Jim Jones and David Koresh.
Maybe a legal system is a useful analogy for the way I think about it, (although I can already see it falling apart in spots in the few minutes I’ve been thinking about it). Anyway, the US constitution, for instance, contained much wisdom and our current legal system couldn’t do without them. But in every generation there are changes in the world. So cases come up that interpret those laws in such a way that they make sense today. And the cases today will be precedent for the decisions made tomorrow, but precedent can change. And why can things change? Because humanity changes and, being infinitely diverse, we act as our own checks-and-balances. If you think something dumb, I tell you about it. And vice-versa. I know this Pollyannaish, but I think humanity is on an upward trajectory. And I think the Bible allows for growth and maturity. Just as a good legal system does. But the community, checks-and-balances piece is critical.
Comment by: NCxian
13 07/31/06 11:34 AM | Comment Link |This probably should have said, cases today are precedents for tomorrow, but a decision tomorrow can choose to follow the precedent or choose not to do so. And why can things change? . . .
Comment by: jim
14 07/31/06 11:36 AM | Comment Link |Eliza
I love this topic
How about the fact that he spent the first 30 years of his life doing “nothing” ( I say that in jest but to make a point) because we get the impression that Jesus was always busy doing something important which means he could only be interested in me when I am doing likewise.
He lived an ordinary life - out of the public eye - doing everyday things that were so inconsequential that they didnt need to be written down.
Heres another non action
If is is true that people were dying and going to hell while Jesus was on earth - why didnt he try harder to get to the Persians and Egyptians who had no ability to know what it took to escape hell - not to mention all the people in Israel he ignored
Which leads me to one of my favorite Jesus non actions - John 5:1-15 he comes upon a man laying by a pool of water in order to get help from an Angel he thought came by - Jesus healed this one person and walked around or over a host of others (this was a kind of free clinic) who were in as desperate need as the (somewhat) reluctant man he healed.
he explains his thinking process in verse 19 but we do not spend enough time looking at -pondering or wondering about all the blank spaces in Jesus life and active ministry
O one more
Jesus walked on water once (at least according to our fairlytale) but the rest of the time he took a boat (and probably rowed) Why?
Comment by: Karen
15 07/31/06 11:57 AM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
Exactly! I find that all the time and it’s very interesting. In fact I happened upon a FE Christian “review” (actually it was more a straight lambasting) of Brian Flemming’s atheist movie “The God Who Wasn’t There” the other day.
I wish I could find it now, but what really cracked me up was that the reviewer went on and on criticizing the movie - but she did find ONE POINT to agree with Flemming on! Amazingly, the point of agreement she found with Flemming was his critique of liberal, non-literalist Christian belief being pointless and nonsensical!
Just imagine that. ;-)
Comment by: Karen
16 07/31/06 12:01 PM | Comment Link |NC wrote:
Whoa! NC, you’re obviously not a Constitutional “originalist.” Justice Scalia would be very unhappy with you! Tsk, tsk. ;-)
I think you’ve articulated excellently the anti-originalist political viewpoint here. And I can see exactly how it translates over to the scripture situation as well. Interesting that the “originalists” probably also tend to be the bible literalists, huh? It’s that “orthodox” black-and-white mentality that bleeds into every aspect.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
17 07/31/06 12:32 PM | Comment Link |I have recently noticed while studying the gospel of Mark that Jesus embraced obscurity. He would do amazing things like heal a person and than tell them, “Hey, um, don’t tell anyone about this. Let’s just keep it between ourselves.” Why would he do that? Some old (and dead) commentators speculate that he was worn out by healing the crowds so it was an effort to protect himself. I don’t buy it. What if he was modeling to the disciples (and to us) how to be on a secret mission for God? What if he was simply avoiding the Wow Factor… on purpose? Jesus could have manipulated the masses so easily. A few well-orchestrated miracles and healings and Bam! He would have had the pharisees in his back pocket and the local rulers in his front. But instead he chose to be low-key, nearly invisible, instructing healed people all the time, “Don’t tell anybody.” (which seemed kind of absurd to tell them that.( ‘Hey Isaac, you’ve been blind from birth. How come you can see now?)
Jesus did not go after the Superstar Reputation.
Comment by: Rachel
18 07/31/06 12:54 PM | Comment Link |I agree, Jim. And part of that conflict will be between those who call the Bible “inerrant” and the heretics like me who don’t. Tony Campolo has been saying for years that evangelicalism is headed for a split - I think it has already started.
BTW, I recently learned that the word “inerrant” to describe the Bible has only been around about 100 years.
Excellent point, NCxian. The Christian life is meant to be lived in community, with both love and accountability. Isolation makes us weird!
One thing I have been doing more of lately is studying what the early church believed and how they lived and reading some of what the early church fathers had to say. And boy, is it different than what the Religious Right preaches!