The Bible as Idol
Featured, Meditations — By Richard Dahlstrom on November 1, 2009 at 12:00 am
The Bible: Maybe the most dangerous idol?
In Exodus 20, the very first of God’s ten commandments is His declaration that we must “have no other gods”, and right on the heels of that, we’re warned against “graven images”, which is a warning against fabricating gods out from our own creativity as representations of the true God. God warns against this, of course, because He knows that our attempts to represent God will, always, misrepresent Him, as we can do none other than make God in our own image. If you’d like an example of this ‘re-shaping of God’, you don’t need to go to a new age bookstore, though you can find it there. Just jump over and check out the Conservative Bible Project, where God’s character and truth is being reshaped according in the image of American political conservatism. Idols, it turns out, can thrive on the left AND the right.
The project appears to have been born out of a legitimate concern that political correctness has, over the past years, created a push towards rewriting the Bible, by adding gender inclusive language. Conservatives have responded with their own rewrite, which goes back to the original gender based pronouns, but excludes disputed passages, removes “any and all socialist language”, and “celebrates the free-market parables”. They also intend to “identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as “government”, and suggest more accurate substitutes”. This new version also declares it’s intent to “Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms” whenever possible, in order to combat the liberal biases that come about when a more literal translation is offered.”
I’ll begin by observing that the left messes with the clear meaning of the Bible all the time, so in critiquing this new project, I’m not advocating that some other ideology has the “pure way”. This project, however, is fraught with flaws that make it perhaps even more dangerous than the errors on the left. What kind of flaws?
1. Political and Economic Conservatism isn’t “God’s favorite way”. I say this because when people declare openly their intent to celebrate free-market parables (supposedly, like the talents), and villify the term ‘government’, their obvious intent is to shape the Bible into some sort of capitalist, free-market manifesto, as if Jesus would celebrate the opening of franchises, and the unrestricted growth of big business.
This is nonsense. The Bible does contain free market parables, perhaps to the dismay of the left. But the government God invented for Israel defies the modern economic categories we’ve created. There’s land ownership (capitalist), but there’s mandated care for the poor (socialist). There’s banking, in that there’s the possibility of loans and interest. But there’s also an ‘every fifty year’ reversal of fortunes that would have had the effect of preventing the disappearance of the middle class, as well providing for liberation of slaves, a concept which any pure capitalist might well regard as wealth redistribution, or what Libertarians would call “theft”. Did I mention the health code that “big government God” imposed on Israel? Provisions were made for dealing with the outbreak of plagues, the disposal of human waste, the disposal of dead bodies, and more. How families and farms dealt with these things were imposed on them as law.
2. God’s “Good Leaders” defy Conservative Values. We’re prone, all of us Americans are, to throw people out of leadership after a moral failing. God, though, obviously isn’t American, because he stuck with Abraham when he slept with maid; stuck with David when he used his power to seduce and sleep with his neighbor’s wife. Sure, the left ignores God’s calls to sexual purity, and sometimes presses interpretations to the breaking point in order to justify sexual libertarianism when God clearly has ethics and high standards about this stuff. The Bible is also clear in pointing out the dramatic consequences of our sexual failures, on heart, soul, family, body, even nation. But it also seems that God is more patient with people’s moral frailty than most people are. That’s why, even though Jesus’ forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery will be removed from this new Bible, the truth that God is patient with sexual failure will remain.
3. Who is shaping Who? God is supposed to shape us and He uses the Bible to do it. I’ve a firm conviction that when we let it speak plainly as the living Word, it will cut us to core – all of us. The left, for example, will be offended by the consequences of sexual libertarianism, and reality that we’ll ‘always have the poor with us’. They won’t like that Jesus sided with the woman spilling the perfume on his feet, because they’ll agree with Judas that the money could be given to poor. The right will be offended too, by the passages I’ve articulated above, and more.
After we’ve wrestled with the meaning of scripture on an issue, and come to an understanding that challenges our current beliefs or practices we have a couple of options. We can either: 1) change our ways of thinking and living. That’s called repentance. 2) reframe the text to mean something that fits into our current beliefs and lifestyle without requiring anything of us. That’s called idolatry.
When all my interpretations of God’s Word must pass through the grid of my conservatism, or liberalism, or Calvinism, or the worldview of my pastor, I’d better be concerned, because I’ve become an idol worshipper, and I’ve made a god in my image, out of my own interpretation of a book called, “The Holy Bible”. That might be the most dangerous idol of all.
Your thoughts?
20 Comments
Oh. Yeah.
I’ve been thinking this for a long time. Thanks for articulating it so well. The lack of humility when it comes to interpretation of Scripture and assumptions about God’s will are astounding. Having opinions is one thing, but to think that we know the mind of God — or even to think that the Bible somehow supercedes they God’s infitude — is indeed idolatry, narcissism at best.
That website blows my mind. Changing the Bible to fit conservative politics? Isn’t that a bit ironic?
Thanks, Richard.
When we were talking healthcare, I made the point that if the current system is bad, it doesn’t mean that the solution being offered is a good one, either.
This example is a similar one. There are many people, including some scholars, who have stripped the bible of its intended meaning in many ways, including the political correctness reasoning already mentioned. Sadly, the folks in the conservative Bible Project are clearly in error, offering to fix a bad situation with a bad solution.
In this, I agree with the author of this post. I also agree that Christians who insist that God is Republican or politically conservative are in error, and because I am surrounded by such people (being a political conservative myself), I see it all the time, and it drives me nut. I personally became convinced of my political ideology through my understanding of Economics and History, not Scripture.
I do, however, disagree with the author of the post and the first comment in some other ways, but we have been down that road so many times, there’s nothing new to be said.
I think God is above politics, why do you bother??
God is neither liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, he is God. Religion and politics should never mix.
Yonny:
Because a person’s religion shapes their worldview, politics will always be influenced by religion or a persons lack thereof.
Matthew:
I understand, I’m more bitter at people claiming God is this or that. If we can define God, then are we even dealing with God?? Who are we to claim who he is? Who are we to claim that a book solely defines God?
These are my questions. I, in no way, am not trying to offend anyone. Conflict isn’t what I’m looking for, I just want insight.
Yonny, God seems to imply that one book is His way of sharing what’s on His heart.
Yeah, the Bible is infallible, just ask like the Bible says!
Ryan, either it’s His word or it isn’t. If it is, then why would He populate it with so many verses about how it will stand forever, unless He planned to keep it intact for us?
You left out another possibility. That the Bible was written by people who had spiritual insight yet were still fallible mortals using human language which is inherently limited in its capacity to communicate Truth. Furthermore, it was written in languages that came from eastern cultures that thought quite differently than we do in the West and therefor do not translate directly into English.
As for God’s word standing forever, could it be that the “word of God” does not necessarily refer to the words written in the Bible? According to the Vedic traditions, the “word of God” would be the cosmic vibration that permeates all of time and space which they refer to as AUM. The Rabbinical traditions even refer to the name of God as being unpronounceable except by the high priest during certain religious holidays.
I would like to point out that it sounds pretty silly to point to Bible verses that speak about the word of God (which do not necessarily point to the Bible itself) to prove the infallibility of the Bible.
Also James, and this goes out to pretty much all Biblical literalists, the Bible was written by PEOPLE. In fact many of the books of the Bible were written by people about the teachings of other people, after those other people had died or otherwise left the planet. (That being many of the prophets, and almost the entire New Testament). In those cases the books were not even written by the people who supposedly had Divine Revelation, but rather by others who witnessed the teachings of those individuals who had and did the best that their limited minds could do to preserve those teachings for you and I.
It can create a warm fuzzy feeling thinking that you have found the ultimate document on Truth and that you have figured out the entire cosmos through it, but doing so can create spiritual complacency and, as was pointed out in this article, you can end up worshiping an idol.
Ryan, I disagree with your entire comment.
Ryan, I came back to elaborate.
1. Because Scripture’s self-referential does not make it incorrect or inaccurate, nor is it, to use your word, “silly” to believe that it’s enough. In fact, Jesus says something to the effect of “I bear witness of myself, and so does my Father, and that’s enough (John 8:18)”. So if Jesus didn’t have a problem with self-referencing, or circular reasoning as proof, why should I?
2. Yes, I have thought about the phrase “the word” being more than the written word. In fact, the tone of your post makes me think you think I haven’t put a lot of thought into my position at all, as if only on conclusion were possible for the thinking person.
3. If only a couple of verses here and there mentioned the importance of keeping the written word intact, I could accept the idea that perhaps things got added or changed and it cannot be trusted. But the claims of scriptural inerrancy are all throughout Scripture.
Think about that for a second. If Scripture is a collection of books and letters, written independently by 40 or so different men, what are the odds that almost all of them mention this same idea? Wouldn’t you need a Holy Spirit to tie them all together and ensure that kind of congruity?
Taken a step further, all of Scripture fits together way too well to have been written by several men who mostly didn’t know each other. To be blunt, it takes more blind faith to think that all these guys managed to write it without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit than to think He guided them. I’m the one using solid logic here.
4. Just because some people make the bible to be an idol is not a reason to not believe that what God says about Scripture is true. You can make anything anyone says or thinks seem, well, silly, by taking it to illogical extremes that they never called for.
And for the record, I lose respect for anyone who uses, as a point of debate, any false accusation. In your case, you state about those who claim the bible is inerrant:
“It can create a warm fuzzy feeling thinking that you have found the ultimate document on Truth and that you have figured out the entire cosmos through it”
I never said I figured out the entirety of the cosmos, and in fact, the more I read Scripture, the more I realize I don’t know. But saying the above gave you a way of looking down on those with whom you disagree, so it sounds to me as if it is you who creates a comfortable feeling for yourself with your supposed grasp on the truth.
“but doing so can create spiritual complacency and, as was pointed out in this article, you can end up worshiping an idol.”
And if I drive a car, I could end up dying in a car accident. If I shave, I could end up cutting myself. Lots of things *could* happen. I don’t see how that’s a valid argument at all to those who see Scripture the way I do.
James, I’d first like to apologize for the condescending tone of my previous post. That is a disrespectful way to conduct a discussion and was uncalled for. I would like to note that even though you did not explicitly claim cosmic understanding, the Bible starts at the Beginning of the cosmos and gives an account (though not very detailed) of how it unfolded, so to take the Genesis narrative literally would imply a certain degree of “understanding the cosmos”. Nonetheless I did jump to an extreme conclusion and that was unfair of me.
As for the points you made:
1. Jesus did far more than “self reference” in his witness of the divine. There may have been a few examples where he chose not to engage certain groups in philosophical debate, however he also performed many miracles including raising himself and others from the dead.
2. I didn’t mean to imply that there was only “one conclusion that a thinking person could come to” but rather was addressing the question in your above post: “If it is, then why would He populate it with so many verses about how it will stand forever, unless He planned to keep it intact for us?” The two points I made regarding this are that the biblical authors (humans) made those assertions and that the “word” being referred to may refer to something more metaphysical than the Bible sitting on your desk.
3. I never questioned that there was Divine Inspiration behind the authorship of the Bible, but rather challenged the notion that inspiration = transcription. I believe that the Bible is very much open to interpretation in the mind of every reader. In response to the fact that it fits together really well, I would agree that it is evidence of divine inspiration, I would also submit that another possible cause is the fact that all of the authors were raised in the Jewish tradition and therefor were taught more or less the same stories and likely had access to the same authors that came before.
4. In response to having a supposed grasp on truth: I was raised in a church where the Bible was considered inerrant and that gave rise to all kinds of distasteful (my opinion of the ideas that arose in my former church, not calling you distasteful) ideas such as condemnation of those who were raised to believe in and worship God differently and a strange mistrust of all those outside of our circle. It was painful and scary to open my mind to the possibility that perhaps God had revealed Him(Her)self to other cultures through other narratives. However, as I began to explore what some of the other religions in the world teach I continually found myself placing those teachings in the context of biblical narrative which had the effect of enriching my understanding of many aspects of the Bible (from a symbolic point of interpretation) as well as showing me that at the core of the teachings there is little if any real disagreement at all. (Note that I have not studied all of the world’s religions nor do I claim expertise in any of them, I just haven’t come across anything that contradicts the “way, truth, and light” of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels) It is really only when I took the Bible to literal extremes that I was closed off to exploring how God was understood universally, across cultures.
Ryan,
I offer the following in response to you not to beat a dead horse, but to (1) clarify where I think you have misunderstood what I was saying, and on some points, to (2) present why I see it differently than you. I do the latter not that you should change your mind to fit what I think you should think, but simply to express where I’m coming from.
You said:
“I would like to note that even though you did not explicitly claim cosmic understanding, the Bible starts at the Beginning of the cosmos and gives an account (though not very detailed) of how it unfolded, so to take the Genesis narrative literally would imply a certain degree of “understanding the cosmos”. ”
I really don’t think so. The ratio of what I understand about life, the universe, and everything is probably in the neighborhood of 1:100. It’s very clear to me that, even if Genesis 1-3 were literally true, there are a lot of details left out, and even with what’s in there, I don’t profess to understand most of it. That’s why the line about feeling warm and fuzzy because of some grasp of the cosmos struck a nerve: it was exactly the opposite of what felt.
For the record, I don’t know why the creation account made its way into this discussion. I am convinced the bible is 100% without error, but metaphors and allegories aren’t errors. There’s a difference between saying that the bible might use word pictures to explains some events (a point which I agree with) and saying that Scripture might have been corrupted over the centuries (an assertion I’m not buying). It was only the latter that I was ever trying to defend.
“Jesus did far more than “self reference” in his witness of the divine. There may have been a few examples where he chose not to engage certain groups in philosophical debate, however he also performed many miracles including raising himself and others from the dead.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I simply stated that you didn’t like circular reasoning (the bible is true because it says it is) and I responded that Jesus Himself used circular reasoning (I bear witness of myself).
“I … was addressing the question in your above post: “If it is, then why would He populate it with so many verses about how it will stand forever, unless He planned to keep it intact for us?” The two points I made regarding this are that the biblical authors (humans) made those assertions and that the “word” being referred to may refer to something more metaphysical than the Bible sitting on your desk.”
I understand you believe that. I do not. I think the authors were used by God to write what He wanted them to write, down to the last letter. Further, I believe that because He referred to the written word as “His word”, for example in the Satanic temptation, where He quoted Scripture, started with man not living by bread alone, but by the Word of God, that’s pretty clear to me.
“I never questioned that there was Divine Inspiration behind the authorship of the Bible, but rather challenged the notion that inspiration = transcription.”
I know. But I don’t see how it could be inspired and inaccurate. That’s why I said “Either it’s His word or it isn’t”. I don’t think God does things half-assed. I don’t think He would inspire the human writers, only to have them produce something that is fallible, and in the process, inspire those writers to write that His Word will never fade away. If He’s gonna plant the seeds, it’s not gonna yield second-rate fruit.
“I believe that the Bible is very much open to interpretation in the mind of every reader.”
I dunno. I don’t have the exact verse handy, but there is the account of the guy who was struck dead because he didn’t handle the Ark correctly, according to precise directions. He had good intentions, but his interpretation was off, and he died because of it. But that’s probably a weak point on my part. I’m sleepy.
“I was raised in a church where the Bible was considered inerrant and that gave rise to all kinds of distasteful … ideas”
Ryan, I am sorry you witnessed that. I have, too. In fact, most of us have encountered churches or Christians who have done this. But that doesn’t make His written word any less infallible.
“as I began to explore what some of the other religions in the world teach I continually found myself placing those teachings in the context of biblical narrative which had the effect of enriching my understanding of many aspects of the Bible (from a symbolic point of interpretation) as well as showing me that at the core of the teachings there is little if any real disagreement at all.”
By other religions, I assume you don’t mean denominations. If so, which of the religions, besides Christianity, has a God who became one of us in order to save us. Which ones have a Savior who would stand in the gap for us? Which ones say that there is only one mediator possible, and anyone else is an inferior substitute?
James, thanks for the reply I feel like I better understand where you are coming from.
I agree completely that there is a difference between metaphor and error. I have found deeper truth (in my estimation) through a metaphorical interpretation of much of the Bible. The root of some of my assumptions regarding your thinking comes from the fact that I live in Oklahoma where there are many extreme literalists when it comes to the Bible. So when the people I know talk about a “literal interpretation” they leave absolutely no room for metaphor or allegory. I shouldn’t have assumed that to be the case with you.
To clarify my point regarding circular reasoning:
If Jesus had said that he bears witness of himself and that was the end of it in the gospel accounts I would not regard that as satisfactory and I very much doubt that the pharisees he was addressing did either. The fact that he was recognized by John, healed thousands, and resurrected the dead is what tells me he is divine.
You also brought up a really good point when said that God doesn’t do things half-assed. I would agree with you there. Our point of disagreement would be that you seem to believe (I may be jumping to a conclusion here)that God is fully revealed in the Bible whereas I believe that God is far larger than any book could describe. I believe that God reveals Himself to every sentient being at every moment for those who are willing to see. Isaiah 55 states that “As high as the Heavens are above the Earth, so high are my ways to your ways, says the Lord” (paraphrased). I take this to mean that we have to have our minds fully present and wide open to receive Divine Revelation (which is what I regard as the Word of God) because it is way different than we would have thought.
Regarding the fallibility of the written word: it is pretty clear to me that you and I are having a certain degree of difficulty communicating through the written word, why would it be any different for someone who has beheld Divine Revelation to do the same. It may be that words are true, but is your understanding of them (or mine) true? Jesus gives us a pretty clear indication of what believers will do: “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12) Part of my problem with modern Christian theology is that it is taught be people who do not “do the things Jesus did” (at least not the miraculous things) and therefor there must be more to believing in him than what is present in the modern church. Perhaps there is more to the story than what is currently understood from scripture.
That brings me to the final point of this post, regarding other religions. Many religions have a “God that became one of us to save us” the Hindus call such people avatars; the Buddhists do not really have a concept of God the way we do, however they do have a saviour figure in the form of Buddha and the Bodhisattvas; Islam has a prophet who claimed Divine Revelation in the form of Muhammad; and the yogic traditions, namely the Swamis rely on the grace of a Guru in order for the initiate to experience Samadhi (oneness with God) until he becomes adept enough to experience that on his own. Furthermore, the idea that Jesus “stands in the gap for us” is not really gospel so much as it is pauline and I did specify “the way, truth, and light of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels”. I tend to take Paul with a pretty big grain of salt due to the fact that he did not come onto the scene until after the resurrection. I could go on about the various similarities I have found between the faiths that I have investigated, but intead I would like to close with this belief: God is so ineffable that every religious narrative on the planet describes the one God of all and that God does reveal himself to all people in all cultures in all time periods through narratives, practices, traditions, creation, and ultimately the Human heart. I do not perform miracles and I haven’t experienced samadhi, but I do believe that it is possible to live in Christ’s example, to become one with the Father, and that is the highest goal I can strive for in this life.
Ryan I think we know where we agree and where we disagree, but I am going to ask you two questions which might sound confrontational, but are actual questions for you. I’m curious how your thinking lines up, is all.
1. If God inspired the writers, then how does it matter whether Paul had the necessary background?
2. If Jesus really was God, being all-knowing and all that, then why would He go through the persecution, unbelievably excruciating torture and beating, and then a brutal death on the cross, if He was just providing one more of many ways to get to God?
James,
In terms of the letters of Paul, there are many points where he gives beautiful and profound advice to the churches and individuals to whom he is writing. However, when it comes to the issue of salvation I have trouble with the notion that “God died for us”. It just doesn’t really make sense to me. I realize that is a cop out, however its the best I’ve got right now. There are examples in the yogic traditions (Paramahansa Yogananda gives a few in his book Autobiography of a Yogi, and other eastern traditions have examples of it as well) where enlightened masters would suffer pain and disease because they were working out the negative karma of their disciples through their physical bodies. In this way one might conclude that Jesus was doing the same for his disciples. Ultimately when I look at Jesus as an example that informs how I should live my life, I give most of my attention to what he taught and how he lived. After all, he only had one bad day. So whether the “passion of the Christ” was to cleanse humanity’s sins (since we have not fully realized God I have doubts regarding that) or the sins of his disciples I don’t honestly know. What I do see of value regardless is the fact that after he physically died he resurrected his flesh and began teleporting (for lack of a better word) all over the place appearing to people, which I take to mean that he had fully transcended the physical and thus had complete mastery over this dimension of consciousness. In terms of being an example, that act informs me that it is only when I am fully willing to do whatever it takes in enlightened service to God and my fellow man that I will ever gain mastery over death.
So ultimately in my thinking, I have doubts about some of what Paul says and I have full faith that applying the implicit and explicit teachings of Jesus one may come to enter into the kingdom of Heaven (which I also believe is something that can happen during life).
I appreciate your article a great deal. Like Steve, I have been thinking this thru a great deal lately. Finding a balance is much tougher sometimes than I think we would like to believe. We all come to the word with a certian “disposition” that we read in to the text. Some people who say they are “conservative” may mean that they are theologically conservative, and I think I know what they are saying.
Also I have been thinking about the link between what we see as “freedom” in the United States and the freedom that Christ offers. The freedom that Christ offers is a freedom that can be experienced regardless of political climate, and in a way the freedom that we enjoy in America is kind of an extension of freedom that we will ultimatly have in the kingdom. Would enjoy any observations.
Greg,
I have to agree. Christ so transcends any kind of political leaning. And as he made clear to the people of his time, he didn’t come to establish an earthly kingdom. And he still isn’t.
If we, as Christians, have hope only in a “free America”, then we disregard the lessons and spiritual blessings of our brothers and sisters around the world who are experiencing Christ regardless of freedom.
I didn’t even bother to go look at the website mentioned by the author because it seems less than worthy of my time merely by virtue of the advertising.
I wholly agree with the author, though, when he decries either the left or right changing (or trying to change) The Word. It isn’t broke, so don’t try and fix it.
Absolutely! fantastic