As the Psalmist says (Psalm 137:9), "Happy is he who seizes your babes and dashes them against a rock." And in the Gospels we read, (Luke 10:37b), "Jesus said to him, 'Go and do as he did.'"
Now, this exercise actually "proves" nothing of the sort, except that one can pretty much "prove" anything if one grabs a verse here and a verse there from the Bible, puts them together, and insists they say whatever we want them to say. As someone who has been subjected to the practice of having Bible verses thrown at him, I can say that it is infuriating (to say the least) to try and wriggle around this kind of nonsense. How does one respond, how can one respond? The real response seems so tepid, so weak-kneed and namby-pamby that it might actually be easier to give in and say, "You know what? Your reading of the Bible is far superior to my own."
Except, of course, I refuse to do that. How can I? While I freely admit that there are as many ways to read the Bible as there are people who do actually read it, and that no reading is necessarily normative (unless an individual or church accepts it as such). All I can do is explain that I find the practice of tossing around Bible verses like candy at a Fourth of July parade to be a gross misuse of Scripture. As I showed above, one can use the practice to "prove" anything one wants, which, of course, only shows that one has actually "proved" nothing except one's felicity with scanning a Concordance.
While I think it's kind of fun to do what I did above (it really rankles some people who think they have a monopoly on the Bible to have it shown how truly insipid they are), a much more mature approach when confronted by those who use it to "prove" this or that or the other thing is simply to deny the legitimacy of the method. Reading the Bible is the beginning of one's journey of faith. One starts there, never wandering far from that starting line, of course, and always wrestling Jacob-like with the angels (and demons) who reside within its pages. If one never gets further than the Bible, if one assumes there is nothing in the two-thousand-year history of the Church to teach us, or the five-hundred year history of Protestantism, or however far one wishes to reach back; if one believes that some confession or tradition is illegitimate (as I do of fundamentalism; I admit it freely, but only because, after repeated exposure to it, I find it wanting of any modicum of grace, love, peace, humility, gentleness or pretty much any other fruit of the Spirit; I am speaking more here of fundies who dismiss liberalism, Roman Catholicism, my own Arminian heritage [they tend to be Calvinist], pretty much any tradition other than their own) and refuses to engage it; if one denies the reality within which they live for the pages of a book they cannot even read in its own original tongue (I am speaking here of fundies who deny the veracity of science, history, or pretty much anything else that might "contradict" scripture); if these and other conditions not names apply, then one is not so much seeking to live out a Christian life as defending a dead ideology. Fundamentalism is not so much a stance of faith, but rather the fearful reaction of those for whom life and world have grown far too complicated. For me, faith is open to life, living, breathing, brave yet humble, willing to admit error while not surrendering the prerogatives of the faith. For fundies, it is a stance of constant vigilance against the threats of reality to their little enclave. The only weapon at their disposal is the Bible, from which they think to fashion the weapons to fight off the ever-encroaching world.
When their own weapon is turned on them, however, watch out. This doesn't prove I know nothing about reading the Bible. It only proves that a literal reading of Scripture, and using such a reading to "defend" a position one has taken is intellectually nonsensical.
10 comments:
Of course. Biblical literalism is neither Biblical nor literal, it is merely an ill-informed interpretation. Of course, your excellent exposition of this fact is unlikely to marshall enough arguments to convince anyone of the veracity of your art.
Witty, DL, very witty. . .
Bravo-O!
Yeah, he's a pistol, that DL is. Too bad he's of such small caliber and doesn't shoot straight.
Geoff,
First of all, thanks for using the word "Concordance". For some reason I can never think of that word and I wanna get me one-a those.
Next, I can concede the frustration of having a verse misapplied in the effort to prove a point. Your Psalm offering is a great example. (I don't know what the you were doing with the other one---misapplying your snotty misapplication?) Dan Trabue does it all the time. In fact I've seen examples of Biblical encourageements to treat aliens well used in support of illegals. Maddening it is. Frankly, there are as many ways to read the Bible as there are liberal progressive post-modern Christians looking for ways to smooth their paths. Most everyone else has pretty much the same take big picture-wise.
I really don't know the shape of the fundies with whom you deal. From way over here, I can't tell if they're really as goofy as you and others like ER make them out to be, or if your frustration with them is because they use the exact tract that really gets your collective goats, and it riles you to no end. I'll assume you believe your perception of those with whom you've had contact. Perhaps they're just not as schooled as you seem to be and thus aren't articulate defenders of the faith. That's always a bitch, but it makes it easy for you to dismiss them.
For my part, I don't use Scripture all that much, largely because I don't have enough of it committed to memory even to remember which Book I saw what. Of those I have used, they could not be more specific and obvious and blatant in their meaning, though it didn't stop the revisionists and progressives from dismissing them as well. And how could that be? Well it seems that a major difference between you and fundies is that the fundies maintain a sense of the Bible's authority, and progressives like yourself appear to have stripped the Bible of It's authority.
Or to put it another way, you said, "if one assumes there is nothing in the two-thousand-year history of the Church to teach us, or the five-hundred year history of Protestantism," as if either is God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost. The statement is even more curious given your tendency to crap on the notion of Biblical infallibility or inerrancy. But of course the Church and Protestantism has all the answers we need. We need to determine if the Bible aligns with the Church and/or Protestantism!
And therein lies yet another stark difference between fundies and you: Fundies seek to adapt their lives to the Bible and the teachings found therein, while liberal progressive post-modernists try to adapt Christianity to the changes of the world. Of the two factions, yours seems to be of the world as well as in it.
You see there ARE threats, subtle and not so subtle, of reality from which one must remain vigilant. We don't deny reality in the least. Rather, we see it for what it is and quite clearly in fact. We don't fear it, because we don't have to if we live for the Lord.
So, when we use Scripture, it is to remind and/or teach what the Lord wants for us using the only source that has any idea of what that could be. We don't assign authority to experience, for experience can be deceiving, nor to tradition, for tradition might have strayed, nor even to reason, for that can certainly be corrupted, by only to God's Word as revealed in Scripture first and foremost, and THEN we look to the other three. If any of them should contradict Scripture, it is not likely to be worth anything.
Your response, then, to verses thrown at you, should be contingent on the appropriateness of the verse. You're right that many use the Bible to "prove" something. Some simply aren't equipped to do so properly. For them, what a beautiful teaching opportunity for you. Some nail it exactly. For them, what a beautiful learning opportunity for you. Heck, Jesus did it all the time.
As I said earlier...
Since I am of such small caliber, I'll just let you great minds fight this one out. It always helps a dialogue when both parties are able to listen to one another and take in the information that the other provides. Geoffrey, you have certainly done your part.
So, when we use Scripture, it is to remind and/or teach what the Lord wants for us using the only source that has any idea of what that could be. We don't assign authority to experience, for experience can be deceiving, nor to tradition, for tradition might have strayed, nor even to reason, for that can certainly be corrupted, by only to God's Word as revealed in Scripture first and foremost, and THEN we look to the other three. If any of them should contradict Scripture, it is not likely to be worth anything.
I am amazed when I read this. So,we ARE to dash babes against the rocks,because the scripture says so,and the thousand or more years of living experience as humans should not be considered? Wow....
I guess as a heathen,I should be glad that i can make my own decision in this and other matters and not have any kind of inner turmoil because I find some of 'd irectives'in scripturehard to digest. I guess this gives new meaning to 'WWJD'
Sis
Ah, Sis, you make far too much sense. And DL, it isn't the size of the gun, it's the way it's used . . .
Touché Geoffrey.
You all are so proud of Sis's comments. But Geoffrey, I'm surprised at you the most. The Psalms are not the words of God, put the words of people TO God. Thus, the Psalm you presented is NOT a mandate for us to do anything. Goodness, Geoffrey, you've got these seekers coming here and they find nothing if that's how you respond.
As a believer, I love the scriptures. However, not every Christian church is biblically literalist - nor should it be. The scriptures do not claim infallibility, and of course when they were written, most were not even considered to be scripture.
What they are is a faithful record of the People of God's struggle with their relationship with God. Read as such, they make sense and help us grow closer to God without making the bible into God.
Post a Comment