Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Author Related

Posts that relate in some way to my books. Excludes administrative posts and most reviews of other people’s books.

  • Bibles with a Viewpoint – The Green Bible

    Those who read this blog regularly are probably already aware that I have mixed emotions about study Bibles.  I would say “love-hate relationship” but none of my feelings about study Bibles attains the level of “love.”

    Via Sun and Shield I found a review on First Things of The Green Bible.  I recommend reading the review.  I have not purchased, nor have I read, the Green Bible, and I don’t plan to.  None of my comments here are based on anything specific written in the notes to that Bible.  It is to the very idea that I object, not this particular implementation.

    Now let me state for the record that I am not offended by the idea of discovering reasons for taking care of the earth properly in your Bible.  I think that much of that is covered under the theology of creation, if one pays attention.

    No, my problem is more general.  Think of it this way.  Supposing someone took one of my books, sliced it up, and then inserted comments about some particular theme everywhere.  Let’s say, for example, that these comments had to do with the ecology.  I support recycling.  I support reducing carbon emissions.  I think we’re doing too little.  But that’s not really my field of study, so there would be a few sentences here and there, just like the ones in this paragraph that indicate what I believe.  So instead of focusing on the topic I intended the book to focus on, the new book, whilst being anchored by text I had written, would be focused on something that was quite incidental to the earlier work.

    How would I react?  Easy question.  I’d say, “Go write your own book.”

    The Bible is different in many, many ways from one of my books.  It is a collection, it is ancient, it comes from a different culture than mine, and it is regarded as sacred, which nobody has or likely will do with mine.  There are reasons to apply commentary to the Bible.  But when that commentary is interspersed with the Bible text, it becomes easy to confuse the reader and slant the result toward a particular topic.  That’s as true of The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America
    as it is of The Green Bible.  It doesn’t matter which of them is more compatible with my own views (The Green Bible, for what it’s worth).  Both Bibles are offensive to me.

    Some may not believe that anyone would be confused.  Surely they know the difference between the Biblical text and the commentary.  But I have found in Bible studies that when people use study Bibles they very often take the notes as the true word of God, while spending little time on the text.  Even more frequently they take the theme of a passage from the introduction and notes rather than, again, reading the text itself.

    Simply the fact that a single theme is taken and emphasized throughout is enough to introduce unbalance.  I believe that’s a substantial problem.

    My suggestion to people who want to emphasize that the Bible is green as green can be, or that every word of scripture supports American patriotism?  Write your own book!

    There is good reason to have study Bibles, but I think those who write notes for such Bibles have a great responsibility to point back to the text.  Thus providing background information, interpretational options, and structural notes can be very helpful.  The problem comes in when the notes begin to direct the study and its emphasis.

  • On Evangelizing Atheists

    Caraleisa has reposted her essay
    Repost: Sick and Tired of God-stuff; an open letter to theists    . This is something she first wrote several years ago and has reposted unchanged. I think every Christian should read it.

    Just as Caraleisa stuck with her original post, I’m just going to link to my previous response: Witness Without Being a Pest. I don’t think I’ll change anything either!

  • Do We Live What We Believe

    When one edits a book, one has an extraordinary opportunity to think multiple times about some of the statements. In the case of a revolutionary book such as The Jesus Paradigm, which is in the final stages before release, there are quite a number of such sentences.

    One of these impressed me enough that I quoted it on Twitter, and also used it in an ad for another book on discipleship. It reads:

    The key to church renewal is very simple: every follower of Jesus is to live what is believed.

    Now on the face of it, it’s a fairly straightforward statement. I have very often said myself that the one tool of evangelism I would prefer above all others is a church congregation living the message of Jesus. Now please don’t bother with comments about legalism and about how we are not perfect. Certainly none of us are perfect. I’m not even close to a candidate for that adjective.

    But “I’m not perfect” quickly becomes an excuse for any level of inaction. Jesus does give commands, such as “love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). One suspects that Jesus anticipated some sort of response to this command.

    So I think this little sentence expresses a critical principle of renewal in the church.

    But then I started thinking of it the other way around. This reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend who is an atheist. Somehow the misbehavior of a televangelist came up in conversation and after we discussed a particular incident, she said, “You know, Henry, if I believed in God I would be terrified to do something like that.”

    I carried that sentence in my head, and even used it in a sermon that I titled “Practical Atheism.” (It was on a Sunday night, and was one of the best attended services, if I remember correctly! Perhaps many Christians would like to know how to be atheists.) I told this story and then quoted Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart: ‘There is no God.’” I suggested that in the modern world, an atheist observing our church services–and our reactions to them–might not be a fool to say “There is no God.” He might simply be observant.

    This keeps coming back to me as I study through Leviticus again. It isn’t a popular book, to a great extent because very few people understand it. It takes lots of work to understand, and even then there is much that is very difficult.

    But there are a few themes that are very clear. First, approaching the holy is both desirable, even essential. Second, approaching the holy is dangerous. Third, God’s presence is powerful and active. Things change when God gets involved. I’m not going to develop or support these themes; I’ll leave that for another time. Suffice it to say that they seem quite clear to me.

    These days, however, I hear frequently about the presence of God. “Wow! God was really present in our worship service this morning. I could feel it!” Now don’t take me as deriding the idea that one can feel the presence of God, though I prefer to say that God is present everywhere and everywhen, and we should discuss how aware we are of his presence.

    What I do question is how God can be especially present at so many worship services with so little impact. People go back again and again to experience the presence of God and then leave and go on living in the same way.

    Either we are not experiencing the presence of God as much as we say we are, or that presence is having much less impact on us than it should.

    I’m afraid it may come back to belief. We need to practice what we believe. That’s true. But is there another dirty secret in many of our churches–that we don’t actually believe the stuff we claim. I’m not talking here about doctrinal statements or theological propositions. I’m talking about belief that there is a God and that he does have expectations, that he might get involved in our lives in some way.

    Perhaps if we become certain that this is important we can get on with discussing those particular beliefs more effectively. I don’t know, but I’d like to try.

    So let me ask one question, of myself as well as of my readers:

    Do we really believe what we say we believe?

    I think that if we do, we’re going to live it, or to express it better, let Jesus live it through us.

  • A Bowdlerized Lectionary Passage

    There are a number of lectionary selections that skip part of a passage. Sometimes this is for time. Sometimes it relates to topic, but sometimes it is simply used to remove material that might offend.

    I like lectionary preaching and teaching. I think it forces pastors to get out of their comfort zones and expound on passages they might otherwise not read. I don’t think it’s the only way to go. I think preaching through the Bible has a place, as does topical preaching. But topical preaching is especially subject to the limitations of a pastor’s particular interests.

    Further, I like a worship service that includes all four passages of the lectionary. As Christians we have remarkably little patience for hearing the scripture. I sometimes get the feeling that people prefer the sermon because it has less Bible in it. I have encountered very few services that do include all the passages, but I have truly been blessed by those that do.

    But having said all of that, the Revised Common Lectionary can get no my nerves, and this week was a case in point. The Old Testament passage is from 2 Samuel 6. The story, as told in 2 Samuel, brings out many aspects of worship as seen then in Israel.

    We start with the ark of the covenant in exile, away from the center of Israelite life. David wants to bring the ark to Jerusalem, so he proceeds to do so joyfully. But joy is turned to sorrow when Uzzah tries to steady the ark and is struck dead.

    Now I know that’s a difficult passage in the Old Testament, but you might as well not try to understand the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures at all if you don’t want to recognize that the writers viewed contact with the holy as a very dangerous thing. (This is one of the difficult passages that my friend Alden Thompson discusses in his book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?.

    After the ark is kept in a home for a time, David again comes to move it to Jerusalem with better preparation. The story ends with David dancing before the Lord, and his wife Michal despises him for it.

    Besides the inherent danger of approaching that which is holy, this story also illustrates the combination of fear and joy. We want to separate the fear of the Lord from the joy of the Lord these days. We don’t understand how these things can co-exist. But the Bible writers had no such problem.

    Now what about the lectionary passage? Proper 10B gives us 2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19. This splits the story as all the people are making merry and before Uzzah touches the ark in 6:6, then resumes it when David starts taking the ark on from the house of Obed-Edom. It skips 6:12a which tells us how David is motivated to do so when he sees that Obed-Edom is blessed while the ark is present.

    We now continue the joyful procession, with our scripture reading skipping a funeral and three months of time, heading on into Jerusalem. Presumably, the congregation is not supposed to ask just why the ark is in Obed-Edom’s house.

    Finally, the story ends with verse 19 as everyone goes home happy, and skips Michal’s story, which provides the other counterpoint. Worship can be destroyed by disobedience to God, but it can also be destroyed by those who despise the joy.

    You may tell me that people can read these additional passages for themselves, and that the extra reading will not contribute to the service. I don’t think one can be certain of these things. For many church people these days, the scripture reading is pretty much all the scripture they get.

    In this case, I think the story is made to say something completely different than it does in its full context. It’s like a different story all together.

  • Not Hating Sarah Palin

    Mary Fairchild has a post today titled Sarah Palin: Why Some Love Her and Others Hate Her.

    Along with some other discussion, she writes:

    …Personally, I think it might have something to do with her allegiance to another kingdom, her ‘higher calling.’ As a follower of Jesus Christ, could it be that Sarah Palin knows her mission? If she recognizes her membership in God’s heavenly kingdom, that charge would come before any duties of this earthly realm. If she is committed to the call of God on her life, a sense of divine purpose would give her boldness and uncompromising courage to do the Lord’s will, no matter what this world expects—just like John the Baptist.

    Now let me be clear. I think a complete commitment to Jesus Christ, in fact, even a complete commitment to being an ethical person, will bring one into conflict with the culture. One may be despised or hated for doing what is right.

    Further, the gospel does offend our selfish human nature. It offends our sense of fairness. Grace, after all, is not fair. It’s wonderful to receive, but doesn’t follow our rules concerning what one deserves.

    But it is dangerous to reverse those propositions. Just because a follower of Jesus Christ will offend doesn’t mean that everyone who offends is a follower of Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean that when a follower of Jesus Christ does offend, it is the gospel, or their discipleship that is offending.

    I have seen this repeatedly in evangelism. I hear it regularly from people who report on evangelism. Someone talks about Jesus and then reports that people were offended. Yet very often, if one listens to the details, there are many things that are offensive that are not part of the gospel. It might be pride, a desire to be acknowledged as “right,” an unwillingness to listen, or hurtful remarks. We must be careful to make sure that if anything in our lives and work offends, it is the gospel that is doing the offending, and not our own offensiveness.

    But all of this might not be relevant to the discussion of Sarah Palin. Is her commitment to Jesus Christ what distinguishes her from all other politicians? Is she the “greater” disciple who draws more hate?

    I do not want to judge her discipleship, but I certainly see many other politicians who also make the claim that they are followers of Jesus. There are other Republicans who share her political philosophy and profess to be disciples, yet they do not draw the same reaction. There are others all across the spectrum who make the same claim and again, they do not draw the same reaction.

    There are many things on which I would disagree with Sarah Palin. I don’t find her or her political philosophy all that attractive. At the same time, I was amazed at the strength of the antagonism that she drummed up. So while I don’t think it is her discipleship that is her distinguishing problem, I do think there is a phenomenon here that needs some explanation.

    I’m going to suggest the word “frustration.” There are several other factors that contribute to the result, but I think the thing that brings people’s blood to a boil about Palin is that it is so hard to explain her attraction to someone who doesn’t agree or see it.

    This frustration would be fairly ordinary, but there are some factors that feed into it. First, the media gets fascinated by fascinating figures. Palin was a surprise nomination, and there was some bungling in how she was handled. That’s like blood in the water to the media sharks. So, second, they attack.

    The attacks fuel responses and help set these feelings in concrete. If the left had really wanted to see Palin diminish as an issue, they should have stayed away from exaggerated attacks and rumors. But the right should have done the same thing with Barack Obama. Despite huge differences in personalities, stories, and political views, I think very similar frustration has fueled hysterical anti-Obama rhetoric on the right. Those on the right simply could not and cannot understand Obama’s personal popularity.

    But frustration alone doesn’t explain it. The frustration and fascination fueled frenzy has turned Sarah Palin into a symbol. She is now, like it or not, something beyond herself. To argue details of her intelligence or character will generally miss the point. She is a symbol of the Republican right, and the right and the left along with the media share the credit–and the blame–for putting her in that position.

    If I might illustrate with the story of Joe the Plumber, who is really a rather ordinary man. He asked a fortuitous question and was rocketed to fame–as a symbol. Again, those who want to argue that Joe the Plumber is not all that bright (or that he is), or who looked for deficiencies in his tax returns and licensing during the campaign completely missed the point.

    Knowing that his business isn’t going to make a particular amount of money or that he didn’t have a plumbing license was again quite irrelevant and only served to harden and brighten the symbol. Liberals could laugh about “Name the profession“, but there were thousands of people who identified with the symbol.

    Those who don’t get the symbol, whether it’s Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, or Joe the Plumber will find the whole situation frustrating, because they see any character or policy flaws as disqualifying. But they do so because they don’t identify with that particular symbol.

    I don’t think we can explain hatred of Sarah Palin based on any single characteristic. I think it is dangerous to suggest that what distinguishes her is her commitment to the gospel. That tends to make the gospel an inextricable part of her political philosophy.

    Like it or not, Sarah Palin has become a symbol. Whether or not she can use that fact to carry her to national office remains to be seen. But people should not make the assumption that she can’t.

    Symbols are dangerous things, often much more powerful than he realities on whom they rest.

  • My Country, Right or Wrong?

    Back in 2007 I wrote a post about patriotism in which I said:

    I’m going to annoy quite a few people with this post, but I have noticed for a number of years that Christians in America often conflate Christianity and American patriotism. …

    I didn’t post on July 4th this year, but I did continue to think about this just a bit. What allegiance do I owe my country?

    I think it is clear that a disciple of Jesus owes his or her allegiance first to the kingdom of heaven, and only second to any earthly power. The question automatically comes up as to whether I am a reliable citizen of my own country if that country does not have my first allegiance.

    Some might think this was an accusation to be used by the anti-religious against Christians. But I think that suggestion is perhaps a bit too hasty.

    Let’s take my father as an example. He was a Seventh-day Adventist and objected to bearing arms in war. As a Canadian during the 2nd World War, he was denied a request to be given a medical role. Since he still refused to bear arms, he was given alternative service, so to speak, planting trees for he war. Many people despised young men such as that, thinking them cowards.

    This is a case here the laws of the land, in this case Canada, conflicted with someone’s understanding of the laws of God, and he chose to obey God rather than men. As such, he was certainly a less reliable citizen of the country–from one point of view–than those who were willing to do whatever their country demanded of them.

    Many were in a similar situation in the United States. In the churches I attend, most people make the assumption that the patriotic–and Christian–thing to do is to serve your country in time of war. To them, it’s just right.

    I served in the U. S. Air Force for 10 years and was honorably discharged. (I became a U. S. Citizen when my parents were naturalized when I was 12 years old.) For many people this is an indication that I am truly a patriot. (Well, some of my Marine friends think that service in the USAF is a substitute for real military service, which can only be performed in the Marines!)

    Now let me note that I am proud of my service to my country. I’m no hero. I just served honorably and moved on. But I am also very proud of my father’s service to his country.

    No, I’m not talking about the service of planting trees, though that is what was required of him. I’m talking about his service of obedience to his conscience.

    I don’t know if patriotism is the right word. It gets used in so many ways. But often love of one’s country is defined in terms solely of obedience. I think the most valuable citizen is one who gives country the value of his or her mind and conscience.

    You see, I don’t think this should just be a Christian issue. The greatest danger to a country, I think, is a citizenry that accepts “my country, right or wrong” as their approach to decision making. That is the road to tyranny.

    I have a hard time imagining the ethical atheist giving first allegiance to country either. If you give first allegiance to your country you abdicate your responsibility to make ethical decisions. Face it, sometimes an ethical decision is going to disagree with what the country orders.

    Let me bring up a more recent example. Supposing you have legal authorization to torture, as some people thought they did under the previous administration. Your superiors order you to do so. The relevant folks support their decision as lawful. What is your duty to your country?

    I think there is no doubt as to what the ethical person should do, on the assumption that you are opposed to torture. You would have to refuse to participate, and I personally would fell obligated to take measures to try to prevent such a policy from continuing. (While I do not find any convincing arguments in favor of permitting the use of torture, that is not my point here.)

    A country that wants ethical citizens should endeavor to make room for such ethical decisions and actions.

    Let me illustrate this from another ethical issue. Quite a number of physicians would consider it immoral to perform abortions. (My father, true to his principles, also rejected abortion absolutely.) Many Catholic physicians have objections to providing birth control services. Some believe that the law should require all doctors to provide all services, in other words, it would be illegal for a physician to decline to provide a service he or she found morally reprehensible.

    I believe such a law would tend on the one hand to create immoral and unethical citizens, while on the other forcing those who are ethical out of those professions.

    The best thing for the country is to make such ethical decisions possible. The best thing for each individual is never to abdicate such decision making to others.

    My country–when right. Otherwise I owe my country my best judgment.

  • The Privilege of Being a Father

    On previous Father’s Days I have blogged about my own father or about the experience of becoming a stepfather after 40.

    But yesterday and today as I received cards, phone calls, e-mails, and text messages I was thinking about what a privilege it is to be a father and to have some part of guiding and shaping young lives.

    With the privilege, of course, comes an incredible responsibility. I’ve found that one of the great responsibilities is to filter all the ways in which I think I can help with children and grandchildren, and try to say and do only those things that are constructive.

    It is so much easier to be destructive than it is to be constructive. You see, children–indeed families–can take quite a bit of time and effort. When trouble comes, the best course is often to listen and let people work things out. But when you just know the right thing for everyone to do, it’s so hard to keep quiet!

    The fact is that we will all make many mistakes in the process, but I’ve made one observation when looking at my own parents and friends and relatives. It seems that those who simply care, and are willing to take the time, have a great deal of success in spite of mistakes. I know I have been mistaken time after time. I take great comfort from the number of truly wonderful parents I know who also admit to mistakes.

    We’re not any of us perfect, but we can all try. We can all take some time. We can all care. That is both our greatest privilege and greatest responsibilty.

  • Ministry Mistakes (or not)

    The Internet Monk has a list of his most bone-headed ministry mistakes. It’s worth a read. Some of them aren’t really mistakes, in my view. For example, #4:

    4. Two of my deacons made a big deal about me taking the a.m. service ten minutes too long two weeks in a row, and they humiliated me in front of the rest of the deacons over it. No affirmation of my preaching at all. Just p.o.-ed that I had gotten them to the restaurants a bit late. I was angry; really angry. The next week I preached for 12 minutes total and dismissed the service at 15 minutes till noon. The reaction was predictable. I actually consider that one of my finer moments. If your view of preaching is “How soon do I get to dinner?” you deserve to be accommodated.

    Enjoy!

  • Mistakes, Love, and Parenting

    … or any other human relationship, for that matter.

    I got back yesterday from displaying books at Methodist annual conference for Alabama/Northwest Florida. We had the joy of having our daughter Janet join us there to help out, and we got to chat a bit. We were talking about raising children–she has two–and I mentioned how I used to regard myself as completely ignorant of child raising when I was a bachelor, unlike some singles I know, who are pretty certain their children wouldn’t behave “that way!” I noted that when I married Jody, and acquired a ready-made family, I discovered that “completely ignorant” was not an adequate description of the depth of my ignorance!

    One observation survived the passage from bachelor to married with children–I had always observed that the particular child-raising theories expressed by the parents seemed not to be reflected in the children. There were disciplinarians with behavioral disasters and seemingly permissive parents with well-behaved, polite children. The one thing I always noticed was that the children of involved parents seemed to do well, while the children of distant or absent parents tended to do, well, not-so-well.

    Today I found this wonderful article on Inside Higher Ed. Rosemarie Emanuele, Mama PhD, talks very personally about the mistakes one makes, and the love that is still there–and works.

    I loved it! I hope you will too.

  • Interpreting the Bible VIII: Biblical Literalism, Attitude, and Avoidance

    This is a continuation of my series on interpreting the Bible. The first post in the series is Interpreting the Bible I: Obvious Exegesis, while the most recent one was Interpreting the Bible VII: Christians Contribute to Confusion.

    As a reminder, my starting point was a number of comments that suggested that those who take the Bible less literally are thereby less serious Christians. These suggestions were not coming from conservative Christians, but from non-Christians. In some cases, I question the motivation of such suggestions. I believe that Richard Dawkins, for example, prefers to debate hard-line fundamentalists, and so would like to dismiss the rest of us from the Christian faith.

    What I believe I have done so far is to show that interpreting the Bible, broadly called hermeneutics, is a bit more complex than these folks would like, and that just taking the Bible literally, as best as I can understand what they mean by “literally,” is not the way Christians have read the Bible historically. I have further noted that even basic exegesis, which I define as looking for the text as it was intended to be understood by the original audience, is more complex than these folks let on.

    Those who are eagerly waiting for me to solve issues such as the violent passages in the Bible or gay and lesbian marriage will still have to wait. While I will discuss those issues, my primary purpose here is to look at the method. I believe that our discussions of the Bible would be much more profitable if we would simply think and talk more about how we come to our understanding, rather than simply trying to defend that understanding. Two people may mean very different things by saying that a concept is “Biblical.”

    Let me reiterate here, as I believe has been demonstrated previously with the help of commenters, that the issues I’m discussing do not hinge on belief in inerrancy. Belief that the Bible is inerrant does not limit one with reference to determining what type of literature a particular passage is.

    I want to clarify this further by using a couple of examples. Two controversial books amongst conservatives are Jonah and Job. There are quite a number of people, even conservatives, who will claim that these books are fiction. To make that claim doesn’t mean that the books contain error. Rather, it means that they intentionally present whatever it is they present in fictional form. Now there are those who regard fiction itself as evil, but that is a different argument.

    Let’s say you have a historical novel, written with the intent of accurately portraying a certain place and time in history, but doing so using fictional characters in a fictional narrative. What would constitute an error? Well, if one introduced an historical event connecting to the story, and placed this event at the wrong time, it might be an error. Suppose one had an historical building, and it didn’t exist at the time in question. That might be an error as well.

    The key in all of these points would be the author’s intent. Such an author might well introduce a house or a small street that was not historical, but wouldn’t presumably introduce a new city hall. There are things that the historical novel wishes to convey that are facts, and there is a story to be enjoyed along the way. Similarly, C. S. Lewis is not in error in the Screwtape Letters if there is no demon named Screwtape, nor is he in error in the Chronicles of Narnia if there is no Narnia.

    I find this comparison to be of interest in the books of Jonah and Job, because I think we often get to argument about little houses and back streets in the story, while missing the big things.

    In Jonah, I frequently hear discussions of two major issues: First, was Jonah really swallowed by a “great fish” or a “whale”? Second, was Nineveh really so big it would take three days to walk across it. (Those who know some Hebrew may laugh a bit at the particular rendering there–I’m using the form in which I normally hear the question.) But are those really the questions?

    I would suggest several themes in the book of Jonah:

    1. God can call you to uncomfortable places and missions on which you would rather not go.
    2. Even when you’re going the other direction, God is likely to take note.
    3. Intervention may be uncomfortable–note how Jonah ends up on shore.
    4. God offers repentance even to people I may hate.
    5. God is gracious and merciful, even to the worst of sinners.

    … and a few more, none of which are really impacted by whether the story is fictional. All of these points have annoyed someone at some time, and indeed according to the story, they annoyed Jonah, and presumably were controversial amongst the readers of the book. I am not here trying to argue these points. I’m simply saying that finding fiction in the Bible is not the same thing as finding error.

    I consider Job even more interesting. If the book is historical, then we have an individual who suffered because God allowed him to be attacked and tormented. This may, of course, be extended by analogy or in principle to others. On the other hand, if the story is fictional, then one would have to assume that Job is presented as a type of sufferer, and that it is quite possible that God might call on me–or you–to suffer to make a demonstration for him. Are you concerned that bad things seem to happen to good and bad people alike? Here are some bad things that happen specifically to good people.

    Now you can get that second idea while reading Job as historical, though I have heard some folks argue that this is something that happened only once (they forget about Jesus, apparently), but I think that if you read it as a fictional account, you are forced to the conclusion that it applies broadly in principle–God’s servants may be called to suffer in the fight against evil, and they may never know just why. Note that Job never receives an explanation of his suffering.

    So you note here that the issue is not whether the text is in error or not, or whether one takes it literally or not, but rather just what are the literary characteristics, what is meant by them, and just how that might apply. If I could delete one statement from the vocabulary of Christian conservatives it would be: “I take the Bible literally.” If I could delete one statement from the vocabulary of liberal Christians: “I don’t take the Bible that literally.” Both are misleading. (As I note in my review of his book How to Study the Bible for Yourself, Tim LaHaye makes this his first rule of hermeneutics. Needless to say, I disagree; in fact, I regard it as one of the worst rules.)

    If I might pound this point into the ground a bit, some interpreters, including LaHaye, have applied this to the book of Revelation. But just what should one take “literally” in the book of Revelation? Personally, I tend to take the introduction quite literally when it uses a variety of literary indicators to show that John saw a vision. Once we’re in a vision, I take things as a vision, which may have varying degrees of attachment to physical things, and I believe that is the correct way to take them. Even where there are likely literal connections, such as with the churches, or with a number of symbols, the vision context warns us to look for more than meets the eye. Revelation 12 & 13, for example, while containing symbols that may be attached to specifics, also provide a very good general appreciation of the battle between good and evil, and numerous principles for living in the midst of such a battle. The literal/non-literal dichotomy is terribly inadequate to the task of understanding such a passage.

    Some may be wondering how one would take the vision framework non-literally. There are many commentators who would treat the “vision” as a literary device used to present a set of symbols. It is quite possible to understand it in that way, though I disagree. In fact, I think assuming an ecstatic state, in vision, for some of the writing of Revelation will explain some literary and linguistic peculiarities, but that is a completely different topic.

    Now I would maintain that conservatives, liberals, and those between are all susceptible to coming up with ad hoc interpretations that allow one to avoid the impact of a text, or to make a text have an inappropriate impact. Let me start with a controversial one.

    Leviticus 18:22 is commonly presented as a text demonstrating that homosexuality is sin and unacceptable. (Note that “I don’t take it that literally” doesn’t seem to work here. It’s pretty literal.) I like to present people with Leviticus 19:33-34, which says to treat an alien living among you as one of your own citizen. Now I’m not arguing what applies here and what doesn’t. Both are literal commands given in the same general body of law. A valid approach would be to ask just how commands given to Israel in Leviticus apply to others.

    But avoiding all of those issues, it’s very interesting to watch people’s responses to this connection. First, it is almost universally assumed that simply because I present Leviticus 19:33-34 I believe that Leviticus 18:22 is not applicable. Liberal audiences often assume that because they want to; conservative audiences assume that because they can’t imagine why I would present them with such an alternative text if it isn’t to undermine the impact of the first text.

    But the real question here is why and how either text should apply. I would suggest that there are similar tasks of interpretation and application that need to be used in both cases. In actuality, however, with most lay audiences I find that these two texts apply according to cultural inclinations. Those who favor gay and lesbian inclusion exclude 18:22 and very often the same people are delighted to include 19:33-34. Those who oppose homosexuality accept 18:22 as applicable, but will explain that 19:33-34 was for a different time and place.

    I would suggest that the processes of interpretation and application for both are complex, and that in neither case is the best approach simply trying to interpret the individual text. If your question is how should our nation treat aliens residing in the country, I doubt you will find clear direction as to what the law should be. If the question is how you, as an individual Christian, should treat aliens, I think you will find many scriptures that you can group together in finding the proper principles to guide your behavior. Similarly with homosexuality, I think the approach that says, essentially, “How many texts are there that forbid homosexual acts, and how can I (or can I not) explain them,” is precisely the wrong approach. A better approach to any question is to try to discover God’s ideal, and then look at how we might approach that.

    To continue with my examples, however, let me look at another passage:

    32Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. — Acts 4:32-35

    Here again you have a verse that can split interpreters right in the middle! Out of the characteristics of the early church just what are we supposed to apply today. Many of my more liberal brethren are pretty happy with the common ownership thing, and there being nobody in need in the church. They will take various attitudes toward the rest, such as whether this should be done entirely by the church, testimony to the resurrection, and so forth. There are many who would make Christianity a matter of the distribution of wealth, without any regard for the testimony to the resurrection.

    On the other hand, I can cite my own uncle, Don F. Neufeld, an interpreter in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, associate editor of the SDA Bible Commentary and editor of the SDA Bible Dictionary. In a personal conversation he was quick to point out to me that this practice was quickly abandoned by the church and didn’t appear to be the norm in Paul’s congregations, for example. This strikes me as an example of finding trajectories in scripture, something I think is quite appropriate, yet is often criticized as too subjective.

    I have heard many other explanations for common ownership, most aimed at keeping the early church from being too socialist. So here we have otherwise conservative interpreters finding the exit ramp in the middle of this verse. But liberals need not crow, because Christian unity, power, and mutual support is inextricably linked to the testimony of Jesus risen from the dead, and I think it would be difficult to build a case that the author of Luke-Acts would think it possible for it to be any other way.

    (I am aware that liberals do not necessarily deny the resurrection, though many do deny a physical resurrection. I am called liberal, and I personally accept a physcial–or bodily–resurrection. Nonetheless I believe that it is a liberal weakness to attempt to separate good works from the incarnation, and that is a weakness I see as ultimately fatal to Christianity.)

    The issue, I think, is our attitude in approaching scripture. There can be quite a variety of approaches to understanding scripture, and none of them are necessarily related to whether we take scripture seriously. What I would say characterizes a distinctly Christian approach to (Christian) scripture is the attitude of openness to correction. Each approach to interpretation can be used as a means of avoiding things I don’t like, i.e. of making scripture simply the excuse for what I wanted to do anyway.

    Liberal and conservative Christians don’t differ so much on the basic desire to avoid certain passages as on which passages they avoid and how they go about avoiding them.

    (I will continue next time by trying to look faithfully at some of the violent passages in the Old Testament. Don’t get impatient–this series will go on for a long time. Apologies to those who want a quick answer; I don’t believe in quick answers.)