Interpreting Away what is Clearly Taught

In this week’s Christian Blog Carnival #CL, now posted at Brain Cramps for God, I found an excellent post from Amanda on Imago Dei titled The Limits to God’s Grace This goes back to an article by Bart Campolo on which I commented about a week ago in my post Conceptual Idolatry.

Amanda has written a thoughtful post which is well worth reading. She has avoided some of the rhetorical heat and settled for a great deal more light than the average post on this topic does. But my interest here is not on the correct answer to the question of grace, heaven, and hell and the nature of God that Campolo presented (though in general that is a central, perhaps the central question), but rather on the issue of who in this debate is more Biblical, and how we can know such a thing.

Accusations, and in Campolo’s case confessions, of picking and choosing, interpreting away, or just plain ignoring various scriptures or scriptural teachings are a dime a dozen, and they are rarely examined, especially by those who agree doctrinally with whoever is making the claim. In this case Campolo says outright that he will interpret away any text that disagrees with his basic conception of God. Quoting him as quoted by Amanda:

This is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it, and honestly I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.

OK, he’s open and honest, but he clearly sets up the almost automatic evangelical response, which Amanda duly provides. How could she do otherwise?

And this is where my first big problem is within this article. On the one hand, I have to give him props for not being afraid to say it. And admittedly, a lot of Christians do this. A lot of Christians preach about the authority and infallibility of the Bible while doing this. That doesn’t make it right. Either you believe the Bible or you don’t. Don’t pick and choose the verses that mesh with your own brand of theology.

In addition to the simple point of picking and choosing–and announcing the fact in advance, it is quite appropriate to note that this type of behavior is common, even pervasive amongst people who don’t admit it at all.

A bit later, responding to Campolo’s embracing univeralism, she again notes:

And here’s problem number two. Some of the doctrine that he is completely blowing off here is clearly Scriptural (of course, what would I expect from someone who just said he would ignore the verses that don’t mesh with what he believes). John 14:6 says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” The concept of hell is also clearly taught in Scripture.

Now we contrast to Campolo’s view two standard doctrines, hell and Jesus as the one and only way to salvation. Again, what evangelical could fail to note these particular disagreements? At the same time, what person can be human and not see the terrible difficulty for someone who engages in ministry to the people who are caught in abuse and violence, who live lives that are not at all comfortable, whose existence in this world holds great horror? Amanda has managed to respond thoughtfully rather than merely doctrinally, which I appreciate. Rather than simply saying, “Well, Biblical teaching means God isn’t like you want him to be, get over it,” she grapples with the issues. I hope more evangelicals will do so.

But I want to go back to this issue of picking and choosing and clearly scriptural. For Christians who hold any reverence for the Bible, whether it’s the doctrine of inerrancy (which I reject) or some other form of infallibility, or simply the belief that the Bible conveys God’s message in some way, picking and choosing parts of God’s message or denying something that is clearly scriptural must be troubling. I know of very few people anywhere on the spectrum who will say that a particular belief is clearly scriptural and yet reject it outright. Campolo himself comes as close as anyone to that position when he says that he will interpret away any scripture that disagrees.

The fact is that we all pick and choose and we all interpret, though perhaps “interpret away” is an unjust accusation. My recent devotional reading has come heavily from the Pentateuch. I’ve been reading and rereading material in Hebrew. I’ve been through Leviticus in Hebrews twice during the last month. I write devotionals for my wife’s devotional list (Jody’s Devotionals), since she’s at a busy time in her schedule. I take these devotionals out of my own devotional reading. If you look through the archived devotionals you’ll see me “picking and choosing” the material that I use. Frankly, while I find much of the material extremely interesting and helpful, only a small portion is devotionally useful.

That, of course, is simply a selection of passages of scripture for their usefulness for a particular purpose. But to go further within those passages, I find that there are some commands to Israel that translate almost directly into principles for my life today, others that imply things that I find applicable, yet others that are useful because they show how God worked with Israel at a particular time and place, a few more that I believe were probably concessions to the culture of the time, and finally some commands that were so specific that I know they don’t have any reasonably accessible application to my life.

Now don’t ask me to make exhaustive lists of all of those elements, because each time I study through these books I find that some of my understanding changes–growing, I hope! You can look at the devotionals to see some of the things I found most immediately applicable.

What I am doing, again, is picking and choosing. Now some of you are going to say that for a Christian there is some obvious picking and choosing to do in reading from the Pentateuch. After all, Jesus brought an end to the sacrifices, some of the laws are civil laws with variable applicability, and so forth. But if you think about that carefully, you are simply saying that you agree with the principles on which I am picking and choosing. You might also agree generally, but disagree on specific points. While I make no claim to general orthodoxy and am quite willing to risk charges of heresy, I believe my picking and choosing in the Pentateuch will be acceptable to a broad range of Christians.

Since I myself pick and choose, if I accuse someone else of picking and choosing, what am I doing? Actually, if I take the time to think of them, it means that I disagree with their criteria, the principles on which they choose. My most common reason for disagreeing, I know, is that I believe that they lack a consistent basis for their choices, but instead use a sort of ad hoc system that allows them to choose what fits their doctrinal preconceptions and reject what doesn’t.

Dispensationalists pick and choose systematically. I disagree with their system and thus their criteria but they are quite consistent about it. Some Christians express fairly consistent criteria, but apply them a bit inconsistently. For example, Christians who find the law against homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) applicable to modern times, but not the law about the treatment of aliens (Leviticus 19:33-34). To those who claim one is ritual or moral and the other civil, I would point out that not only are both part of the same code, they are both part of the same subsection of that code.

But when it comes to interpreting things away and its obverse, determining what is “really scriptural” I think things get a bit more difficult. Let’s use Campolo’s case here. I see at a minimum four doctrines in play, all of which at least a good percentage of Christians would regard as scriptural:

1. Jesus as the sole way of salvation
2. Hell
3. God is gracious and loving
4. People have choice or free will

Between these four doctrines I see a great deal of interpreting away taking place on all sides. For example if I believe that it is clearly scriptural that God is gracious, merciful, and loving, and I also believe that it is clearly scriptural that God will torment people for all eternity in hell, it’s just possible that I might see a conflict in those two clearly scriptural doctrines. (I’m not trying to beat up on anyone here for the use of “clearly scriptural.” We all use it, and we all need to think about it. I’m not excluded from that! I believe real people struggle with these issues all the time, but often we’re afraid to admit the difficulty.

As an analogy, let’s suppose that a teenager says to his father, “I hate you!” We can imagine it to be the end of a long argument and of numerous previous arguments demonstrating the son’s rebellion. Suppose then the father shackles his son in a basement room and burns him with hot irons every night for a month. I ask you to accept my assurance that the father is truly loving, but that the son in some sense deserves his fate, and thus this is consistent. Can you do it? Of course not! If I reduce the time to a week? A day? An hour? No, not even then. There’s no amount of burning time that we will accept as consistent with a loving father. I’m guessing that most of us will accept some form of punishment, but not what I propose above. We would say that the father is not loving, but rather evil.

Yet if we say that God is loving, with love surpassing knowledge, incredibly merciful, compassionate, and cares when even a sparrow falls, yet should you fail to express acceptance of his son Jesus, you will be tormented not for a month for for eternity in hell, somehow we’re supposed to view this as consistent. I’d suggest that any way you get out of that situation you’re interpreting something away. You may be adjusting the defintions of love, mercy, and compassion. You may be adjusting the meaning of hell. You may play with the meaning of “accepting Jesus.” But you are reinterpreting something.

So what might I call clearly scriptural? I would suggest, for example, that the idea that there is a judgment, that people will be held accountable for what they do in this life before God is clearly scriptural. What I mean by that is that if you were to talk to any of the Bible writers at any time, if they had thought about judgment at all, they would believe that there was an accountability. I would suggest that you would find no such unanimity on the matter of an eternally burning hell. I’m not saying there are not scriptures that seem to support that. What I’m saying is that it is not a broadly based doctrine clear throughout scripture. (I’m skipping over the question of the authority of something that is pervasive in the sense that I’m talking about here. Is this the right criterion for an authoritative position? I’m leaving that one hanging out there. I do have to end this post sometime!)

That God is merciful and loving is clearly taught in scripture, but again, it is less clear just what “loving” means in that context. Campolo clearly wants to believe in a God who wants nobody to perish (which is scriptural as well), and who will ultimately succeed. I think this extended belief is again not clearly scriptural in the sense I’ve proposed above. The simple reason is that Biblical writers clearly have combined the views that God is merciful with the view that God will judge together. For example:

⁶ The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed,
“The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
⁷ keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,b
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.”? — Exodus 34:6-7 (NRSV, emphasis mine)

At this point is where we have to ask about free will as well. If God gives choice, but those choices have no consequences, is that really choice? In my recent post on Isaiah 26 on the Participatory Bible Study Blog I wrote:

¹⁰When the wicked receive grace,
The don’t learn righteousness.
In a land of upright people he acts unjustly,
And has no fear of YHWH’s majesty.
¹¹YHWH, though your had is lifted up,
They don’t see it.
Let them see your zeal for your people,
And be ashamed.
Let the fire of your anger consume them. –Isaiah 26:10-11, my translation

There is a certain emotional conflict about the end times in that while many are being saved, God’s people know that others will be destroyed. God’s people have cried out for justice throughout history. There is the essential tension between God not wanting anyone to perish, and God’s unwillingness to allow sin to persist.

The apparent absence of God’s judgment gives sinners permission to carry on whatever they’re doing.

The goal of getting rid of sin seems, from a very broad Biblical point of view, to require some kind of consequences.

Personally, I tend to resolve this by believing in a final judgment, but not an eternally burning hell. Of course, I have by no means written enough here to support that particular resolution–I’m just telling you so you know where I come from on the topic.

My central point, however, is simply that all of us have to pick and choose. The question is whether we will do so in a principled manner. If we do, we can then discuss those principles with one another to determine how valid our choices are. Further, we will all have to resolve some conflicts and tensions in our understanding of God and of scripture. It is not just Bart Campolo who has a problem here. Everyone who starts form the combination of doctrines I mentioned will have to do some interpretation, redefinition, or just plan hammer and chisel work to make them fit together.

I simply pray that we will be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and to correction from one another as we go through a difficult process.

powered by performancing firefox