tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post5607543264274307016..comments2024-03-24T11:30:08.199-07:00Comments on Can you believe?: Why it's hard for me to criticize biblical literalistsJohan Maurerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-56519985830046413502007-05-28T01:48:00.000-07:002007-05-28T01:48:00.000-07:00My favorite Quaker blogger (with the too-long toes...My favorite Quaker blogger (with the too-long toes) has got a shiny tag now to emphasize his gifts.<BR/><BR/>I lived in the Midwest for a while and I cannot recall that any of the...fundamentalist, literalist, conservative, whatever the incorrect label for this is, Christians I knew were at all perturbed by textual criticism.<BR/><BR/>The argument they always gave was that every jot and tittle (indeed!) in the Book, KJV only, of course, had been vetted by God. Every meeting of men to decide on the canon had been guided by God. Every slipping of an additional line into the text by a deceptive scribe, and every removal by an errant one, had been guided by God whether those scribes knew it or no. All the decisions of humans on the canon, every alteration to the translation, every misspelling, every seeming contradiction had been shaped by God and God alone, and humankind could claim no credit either in the Book's authorship or in its design. The contradictions would right themselves when the reader chose to read in submission instead of in defiance. The canon was God's canon! God had chosen to thrust out the Infancy Gospel, or the Gospel of Judas, and on and on...<BR/><BR/>As for the other versions of the Bible, they were in terrible, devastating error, and their devotees would come to know this on the Lord's day.<BR/><BR/>The story Johan tells of the book of Nehemiah and its personal meaning to its reader reminds me just a little, too, of the old stories of church members who would divine the right course of action in a quandary by going to the Bible and opening it at random, choosing to interpret whatever verse their eyes rested upon first as God's means of speaking to them.<BR/><BR/>Few of us would turn back to the days when the hierarchy of the church made up the only convoluted conduit a peasant had to God. This acknowledgment must be the answer to the question of whether the democratization of God is sufficient recompense for what seems, at times, like a turn to bibliolatry. Would that every woman and man could keep a peace with life after turning to the book of Nehemiah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-49724003725305862532007-05-27T12:09:00.000-07:002007-05-27T12:09:00.000-07:00In the Born-Again Evangelical church I grew up in,...In the Born-Again Evangelical church I grew up in, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 was used to prove not only inspiration, but divine Authorship of the 66-book canon. I was shocked when I heard for the first time about the last 13 verses of Mark, in a Divinity School course I audited in 1971.<BR/><BR/>I recently finished reading Bart D. Erhman’s, “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.” Erhman describes the history of the Textual Criticism field. How the scholars came up with the rules of thumb they use to decide most cases of discrepancies. (For more info on textual criticism: http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html )<BR/><BR/>In my web-surfing I found out that most of the facts in Erhman’s book are well known, and pretty much "ho-hum" within Divinity School circles. They are only a BIG DEAL, because of the shock for average pew warmers who had no idea about the complexities of Textual Criticism, the decisions made for them when it comes to Canons, and when it comes to Translations. But more importantly, it is a MAJOR DEAL because the Bible has become for many their primary source of belief.<BR/><BR/>In his introduction Ehrman writes about how after graduating from Moody Bible Institute, he was warned by many that he wouldn't find too many Christians at Wheaton College, where he was headed next.... Then, after graduating from Wheaton, was warned by many that he wouldn't find too many Christians at Princeton Divinity School, where he went to pursue his Doctorate... <BR/><BR/>I'm sure most of us can relate to this... <BR/><BR/>It has taken me a lifetime to accept that some of us need the type of "narrow" focus preached at Moody, while some of us need the different type of focus preached at Wheaton, while some of us are doing just fine with a “personal” revelation as you describe in your blog. (I’m not looking forward to those Meetings for Business in Heaven, and how we will achieve consensus...)<BR/><BR/>The “hot topic” in the Born-again church I grew up in was whether going to the movies is a sinful activity. Sometimes I feel our discussions then are not that different from the discussions within Quakerism: Some Christians need a spelled-out list of rules and regulations. (For the Jewish equivalent see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_mitzvot.) The problem begins when we try to impose our style of relationship with God on everyone else.<BR/><BR/>Faith implies uncertainty. Some of us try to eliminate this uncertainty by coming up with interpretations of Scripture which support our theories. We all do it, some of us less conscious of where we divide literal from allegorical.<BR/><BR/>If our Faith is based solely on Biblical Inerrancy and on Church Traditions, then we have a problem. Especially since the core issue -as I see it, - is how to explain my experience, my own relationship with God. I’ve always thought it a bit of a contradiction, to push for personal relationships with our Lord, but at the same time try to dictate the content of that relationship. <BR/><BR/>The problem is many congregations seem to be making -what would appear as- an effort to base our Faith on a book: The story of Jesus is true because a book says so. So that any doubts regarding the book would affect directly belief in Jesus. Belief in the book would seem to be primary. This may be why the sign on a church near my house drives me crazy every time I drive by it: “A Bible-believing Church.” <BR/><BR/>I have a relationship with God. I can’t explain this relationship. By definition it surpasses all understanding. However, the description of this relationship closest to what I experience is contained in the books commonly known as the bible. (Belief in the book is secondary.) The change I would propose to the church sign mentioned would be at least “A church believing in the Jesus of Scripture,” or simply “A church striving to follow Jesus.”<BR/><BR/>Bibles continue to be published with the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman (Whomever is without sin cast the first stone,) which is not in the oldest manuscripts. Bible publishers have the thorny issue of trying to decide what corrections to insert into new Bibles. Whole denominations could boycott if passages supporting favorite doctrines are messed with.<BR/><BR/>Does it matter? <BR/><BR/>It matters if you've been taught that every word of the KJV is inerrant. This is what many of us grew up with. (Actually I grew up knowing the Reina Valera was God's own version.) <BR/><BR/>What does taking out of the KJV the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5.7–8 do for our Faith? Apparently not much, since a good portion of todays printed bibles do not have this formula, used at a time to support belief in the Trinity. (The NKJV still has it.)<BR/><BR/>I’m not suggesting abandoning the bibles. Keep on reading and studying whatever version or canon you feel led to. But I’m concerned about the effects to believers whose Faith is based on the book first. I know it is possible to survive the cataclysm of abandoning the current Bibliolatry of the Fundamentalist believers. But it is very painful; and so unnecessary.<BR/><BR/>The Bible continues to be used in Christian congregations as if what we have in our hands is the Literal, Inerrant Word of God. You and I may know better, but when the rest of the congregation finds out that scholars have known all along, and allowed thirteen verses of Mark and the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman to continue to be printed in current bibles, the logical conclusion most of us would take is that we have been lied to: by people who judged it made no difference for orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>So, Do I have issues with Literalists? I guess I do. But I have not figured out the balance between respecting someone’s personal journey toward God, and condemning beliefs that make our Faith more and more unbelievable. With friends like these...<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work!<BR/>RickyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-22718324995331786452007-05-25T19:54:00.000-07:002007-05-25T19:54:00.000-07:00Bill and Robin, thanks to both of you for slogging...Bill and Robin, thanks to both of you for slogging through a long and dense post!<BR/><BR/>Bill, I remember our then-superintendent of Indiana Yearly Meeting, David Brock, addressing a plenary session of our yearly meeting. With unconcealed frustration, he basically asked how many centuries we'd be preaching equality before yearly meeting superintendents would stop having the "one-third" experience in pastoral searches. As superintendent, if he suggested a woman as candidate for a pastorate, one third of the meetings would find a way to say no right up front, one third would put the candidate at the bottom of the pile, and only one third would treat her equally with other candidates.<BR/><BR/>That was ten or twelve years ago. I wonder whether the situation has changed.Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-51306269464318686232007-05-25T10:57:00.000-07:002007-05-25T10:57:00.000-07:00Johan, even if I didn't already agree with Lynn's ...Johan, even if I didn't already agree with Lynn's tag, this post alone would qualify you as a thinking blogger. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for helping me to understand a little bit better.Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-24261683613423179222007-05-25T08:20:00.000-07:002007-05-25T08:20:00.000-07:00Back when we had the "traveling meeting" in our ar...Back when we had the "traveling meeting" in our area where Conservative Friends and other Christian Friends would visit liberal meetings, I have never forgotten something that happened when the traveling meeting was at my then home meeting.<BR/><BR/>Someone from my meeting, in an after-meeting session, queried the Conservative Friends about whether their vocal ministry was usually based on the Bible or on their personal experience. A Conservative Friend responded that they don't make this distinction, that for them these are not separate.<BR/><BR/>This represents the kind of identification you observe as common among Southern Christians. It also relates to the "emerging church" perspective of a continuing story including the Biblical narrative, the story of the church in all its forms, and our contemporary story. This rejects the distancing from the Biblical story that can occur in both fundamentalist (putting it on a pedestal or making it a set of rules really limits your true interaction with it) and liberal thinking.<BR/><BR/>George Fox would sometimes indicate that he had a revelation of truth, and then later would find it in scripture. This is very interesting, as he was someone who had already read the Bible numerous times.<BR/><BR/>Early Friends emphasized the primacy of direct revelation. Fox and the others understood that you couldn't get to the truth just by reading scripture, although they firmly upheld the truth of scripture. Rather, their view was that Christ our present and living Teacher shows us truth, and then we can search scripture and confirm that it was indeed Christ we heard.<BR/><BR/>I assume other readers have had the same experience I have had of reading a passage many times and just not understanding it or it sounding like something that did not seem to be from God, and then at some point reading it and the truth speaking clearly to me through it. This is described as the scripture being opened.<BR/><BR/>I've had far less experience with Southern Quakers than Johan. My impression is that you'll find them all along a continuum ranging from the early Quaker experience to a fairly typical fundamentalist view.<BR/><BR/>Quakers have no theological problem with women in ministry in any role we accept. However, my impression is that pastors are predominantly male in every mainly Anglo North American YM which is mainly pastoral. The only North American YM where this is not true, to the best of my knowledge, is Alaska, which is rooted in a very different culture and has very few Anglos. Unlike Vineyard, our YMs don't say that while we at the larger level don't have any problem with women in ministry, local churches are free to have a different perspective. However, most any YM Superintendent will tell you that there are churches in their YM who don't want women presented to them as possible senior pastors.Bill Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00752443575410023776noreply@blogger.com