My mother and I often get into theological debates. Well, “debate” is a strong word. We often discuss, and disagree, on many theological issues. Yesterday, for example, while riding in the car to take my wife out to lunch, we were discussing what it means when Jesus says:
So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matt. 6:25-33)
The good life, the life where all of our needs are met, is the result of righteousness – according to my mother. To my mom, this means that God always takes care of those who serve him…always. No questions asked; no “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts.” Always.
I, in turn, asked whether it is possible to be both righteous and homeless.
The question was a leading one. I was intending to lead her down the logical road she had chosen given her interpretation. We debated about it for some time and, among other things, I realized that my mother processes things quite differently from me – and my assumption is that I am like others and my mom is the one with a different way of thinking. But I could be wrong.
Regardless, at one point in our disagreement she said something quite interesting, “I just read the Bible literally.” Of course, I took offense at this and said, “Well that is a rather rude thing to say!” And this is where I found my mom’s thinking rather odd. You see, she wasn’t attempting to say anything bad about me, though that is how I took it and assume most others would take it as well, she was merely trying to tell me how she approaches the Bible. Though we didn’t get to this point in our conversation, my mother is a “plain” reader. What is written is what is meant, end of story. I, on the other hand, want to establish context. Additionally, I balance what is being said against the rest of Scripture and against reality – at that point, I make a determination about what the author is intending to say – and that is subject to change when new information emerges.
The sentiment that my mother shared is one I’ve heard put a little differently. I have been involved in several theological debates with peers and, when things were rather heated, someone says, “Well I choose to believe God, not man,” stating, of course, that the Bible is God’s Word and what is written is what is meant and that any attempt at understanding the text that diverges from a “plain” reading is man’s attempt at twisting it. This phrase seems to be thrown around particularly in relation to whether Genesis 1 is indicating a literal 6-day Creation or whether the language is poetic and not necessarily indicative of a 6-day Creation. You can guess which one is “believing God” and which is “believing man.”
The problem with these two phrases: “I just read the Bible literally,” and “I choose to believe God rather than man,” is that one necessarily sets themselves up as being on God’s side which means the other person is not on God’s side (for the record, this was not my mom’s intention) and this is the result of simple disagreement.
It is, quite frankly, an intellectual copout. Its cowardice.* It is being too lazy to examine competing interpretations simply because one represents a challenge to the status quo. More importantly, it is a defense mechanism that some put up because their entire faith is wrapped up in specific interpretations. Removing or changing their mind on a given issue will inevitably result in the downfall of the whole thing – they have, as Rob Bell says, built a brick wall of their faith with each brick being critical to the whole. So they protect these interpretations and lash out – sometimes very subtly and sometimes not – at those who challenge them. And they use these phrases as trump cards, and in the process they insult their opponents.
More importantly, however, it is pride and/or arrogance dressed up as faith – which is the worst kind of sin. It is one thing to disagree with one’s conclusions (and by the way we have every right to do so – in many circumstances, we are even obligated to do so) and it is quite another to begin questioning motives, judging another’s faith, and measuring one’s commitment to God. We see but the external, God sees the heart. That’s why judgment is reserved for him.
Finally, and this is important for those who might otherwise use those phrases to hear, despite your insistence to the contrary, you are believing man…at least to some extent. Many of us suffer under the fallacy of individualism, believing that any/every conclusion we come to about the Bible is the result of our direct and personal relationship with God. The truth, however, is that our conclusions are often heavily influenced by preachers, authors, friends, television, etc. – essentially, any and every avenue by which we discuss or learn about God and the Bible is influencing the conclusions we come to. None of us live in a vacuum and therefore none of us come to these conclusions apart from others’ interpretations being thrust upon the text. It is our responsibility to weigh these interpretations and accept those which have legs to stand on and reject those that do not.
The question, then, is not whether one is believing God and one believing man; but of which man we are believing. And keep in mind that the man in the mirror is perhaps the most dangerous, deceitful, and manipulative man of all.
*I want to emphasize that I am not accusing my mother of these things. Once again, she processes this all quite differently. Without attempting to offend her, she doesn’t think logically, which is fine. She just needs to be very careful when having conversations with those who do.
Filed under: Uncategorized Tagged: | Bible, Theology
I recently came across the term “selective literalism” which I quite like. The author shared the observation that many Christians who wish to be quite literal about Genesis’ 6 days are quite figurative around issues such as the Apostles in Acts selling their items and living together– there simply aren’t many fundamentalist socialists.
A third cop-out I’ve heard from people is “I take the bible literally unless it is clear from the context that the passage isn’t meant to be taken literally.” The problem here is that there are inevitable disagreements around what is obvious and what is not, and as you point out, this changes over the centuries. (Once, for example, the idea that the sun stood still for Joshua to create a longer day would have seemed quite literally true. I hope most people would agree, in this day and age, that it’s the Earth that would have to be held still in order to extend a day.)
Good point, Jeff. I don’t understand why we can’t just say, “I disagree with your conclusion” without trying to set ourselves up as more holy or devouted than those who disagree with us.
I recently purchased a sweatshirt from a band I listen to called ‘Sleeping Giant.’ On the front of the sweatshirt are the lyrics ‘DONT YOU JUDGE ME.’ Simple but provocative.
We have no place to judge other people in any sense, and yet we do so very often. Only God can truly judge the heart of an individual, so I would say that we human beings must reserve our judgment of other people.
Many, like your mother, use the Bible as God’s irrefutable word that must be taken literally in our lives. I do not read the Bible so literally. I think that it is important, like you said, to establish the context of given passages and to apply them how we see fit. I can see how this may be controversial, given that some may interpret the genocide in the Old Testament as justification for war in modern times, and I regret this. Ideally, every Christian would THINK and REASON to reach conclusions about what the Bible tells us. This, however, is wishful thinking.
Not necessarily, Evan. There is also faulty thinking with the notion that if everyone where to be as objective as possible that we’d all come to the same conclusions, but that’s not always true. Certainly, much of the time, it is and that is sad. But we have to realize that because of our experiences and whatnot we may come to different conclusions on what a given text means and we need to give one another the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, ALL of the usual stuff that is written and spoken about “God” and “faith” in 2009 is entirely a product and extension of ones personal and collective cultural conditioning—with NO exceptions.
Plus ALL of the proposed possible “alternatives” are limited by ones inherited cultural back-ground too. All of it being the invisible sea or cultural script that patterns EVERY minute fraction of our lives.
It has always been so. How could it be otherwise?
It takes extraordinary discipline, intelligence and above all freely Given Divine Grace to even begin to dis-entangle ones “self” from ones inherited cultural patterning. ALL of the usual media, including every single person (beginning with mom & dad), conspires to keep the collective trance/illusion in place.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx