[+/-] God-Breathed and Useful

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

- 2 Tim 3:16-17

A recent conversation with my friend Lucid Elusion got me thinking about this verse. I've decided that I don't think it means what a lot of people think it means - that the Bible is inerrant or infallible. (I'm not saying that the interpretation I'm challenging is that of my friend, only that it seems to be a popular reading.) Here's why:

To begin with, it goes without saying that a statement in the Bible about the Bible cannot be used to prove its infallibility. A good skeptic will not be at all impressed to hear that the Bible says it's infallible. But most Christians already have great trust in the Bible, and if the question is not "is the Bible at all reliable" but "given that the Bible is reliable, just how reliable is it", then such a statement is of some interest. The logic is something like CS Lewis' famous Liar/Lunatic/Lord argument - if an author claims to be infallible, either he is attempting to deceive his readers, or he's badly mistaken (and probably a bit crazy), or he's correct. I'm not sure that I accept Lewis' argument, particularly in this revised form, but I won't get into that here. What I want to examine is not the truth of Paul's statement, but its exact content. Is Paul really claiming inerrancy?

First of all, there's a question of what the Paul (assuming Paul wrote 2 Tim) considers to be scripture. I'm told that the early Church used the Septuagint (an early Greek translation of the OT, plus additional books), which includes many books and additions that we no longer consider to be "inspired", by which we mean inerrant. Perhaps Paul, an educated Jew, would have made a distinction between the OT and the Apocrypha, but his Greek readers would not. The NT gives no indication that any attempt was made in the early Church to clarify exactly which books are "scripture", and if anything, Jude's matter-of-fact references to contemporary myths suggest a fairly loose understanding of the word.

So when Paul says "scripture", it's unclear precisely what he means. We can be certain he doesn't mean the 66 books to which we now affix the term, because some of them were yet to be written, and the exact content of our Bible was not finalized until centuries later. Hard-line infallibilists are obligated to believe in the inerrancy of not only the Biblical authors, but also the members of the church councils that determined which books would be included. Thus for the sake of clarity, I propose that this verse be read "All books which are accepted by the church as scripture are God-breathed and are useful..."

But this does not help the infallibilists' case, because for the original readers, this statement would apply to the Apocrypha as well, which no infallibilist I know considers to be scripture. Instead, they might wish to read this verse as "All books which were ultimately recognized by the later church councils as scripture...", but this is problematic because it means that both the author and his original readers were mistaken about this verse's true meaning. In fact, for the early church the verse would have the deceptive and somewhat dangerous effect of seeming to claim inerrancy for writings which we now know to be errant. The only other readings I can think of would be "All books which are considered scripture by God, regardless of any human opinions...", which is even less helpful because it gives us no indication of to which books it applies, or "All books which are considered scripture at the time of this [Paul's] writing...", which no one I know would agree to.

Some will resist my interpretation of "scripture" as here meaning "all books which are accepted by the church as scripture" because of the apparent implication that the inerrancy of certain texts could change as they were added or dropped from the canon. But I don't think this verse is about inerrancy at all. What it says is that scripture is "God-breathed" and "useful".

"God-breathed" is not a word found anywhere else in the New Testament. According to my concordance, "God-breathed" is a literal translation of the Greek word, which comes from the words "God" and "blow", and which refers to the inspiration or communication of a deity. It's not unreasonable to think that something inspired by God would be without error, and I can see why some people understand this as a claim that the Bible is completely accurate in all matters - theological, moral, historical, scientific, etc. - from beginning to end. If a God-breathed text contained errors, they argue, it would mean that God is either lacking in knowledge or lying to us.

But no one will argue that hopeless wails of the Teacher in Ecclesiastes, the anger and bitterness of the Psalms, or the self-righteous condemnation of Job's friends represent ethical and metaphysical truths. Of course not. These are examples of the human element of the Bible. Truth cannot be plucked from the pages of the Bible as from a creed (yeah, right) or even a physics text. No one argues that the Parables of Jesus are historical truths, and anyone who looks to Psalm 137 for moral instruction is headed for trouble. Even the staunchest literalist does not claim that every statement in the Bible is true.

So what might "God-breathed" mean if not "free of human emotion, bias, and error"? I'm not sure exactly, but I think the rest of the verse gives us a hint: "All Scripture is... useful". Useful for what? Understanding science? History? The mechanics of salvation? No. Useful for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". And in case you didn't catch it the first time, he adds "so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

A story doesn't have to be historically accurate to be useful for training in righteousness. Jesus knew this better that anyone. And if we believe that this great storyteller had a hand in the crafting the rest of scripture, why are we so certain that the other stories it contains are historically true? And why do we think it matters?

It just occurred to me that "God-breathed" has a different feel to it if we call God "Daddy", as Jesus suggests. What might it mean for something to be Daddy-breathed? Parents tell children what they can understand, embrace, and learn from. They don't read them historical tomes or ethical treatises, they read them fairy tales. I think there's a temptation to think of the God who breathed the scriptures as more of a professor than a father, as if a book can only be useful for training in righteousness if it's true the way a physics text is true (only more so).

I'm not saying there is widespread historical inaccuracy in the Bible. (How would I know?) I'm just saying I don't think it really matters one way or the other. Paul could have said "All scripture is God-breathed and true", but he didn't. So I don't know what exactly Paul thought of the inerrancy of scripture, but it seems that he didn't consider the matter worth writing about. What was more important to him, apparently, is that the Bible is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". I like that.

[+/-] Father, Forgive Them

When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." -Luke 23:33-34

I think it's significant that Jesus does not merely ask for their forgiveness, but adds "for they do not know what they are doing", as if their ignorance ought to (but does not automatically) absolve them. I think this passage, among others, suggests a far more complex model of guilt and grace than I'm used to.

Whose forgiveness is he talking about? It seems that there were a lot of people involved who didn't grasp the significance of their actions. The soldiers who crucified him didn't realize he was innocent; they merely followed orders. The crowd that called for his crucifixion were told to do so by the chief priests and elders - their spiritual and social leaders. The priests and elders were acting on the ruling of the High Priest, and the High Priest believed Jesus to be guilty of blasphemy, and thus deserving of death. Pilate found Jesus innocent by Roman standards, but certainly didn't realize he was killing a sinless man. (And from a utilitarian perspective, he probably did the right thing.) Even Judas didn't fully understand what he was doing, because he didn't believe Jesus to be the Messiah. (He did realize that he'd shed innocent blood, but for this he seemed to genuinely repent.) If we take Jesus' statement as normative (i.e. all those who sin unintentionally ought to be forgiven) it seems that there's an awful lot of sin that qualifies, at least in part.

More food for thought: Jesus forgave people who didn't ask for it. (Didn't he know about the fourth spiritual law?) He told some people to stop sinning. (Stop all sinning, or just the major ones? Did Jesus think that certain sins aren't a big deal?) He said that he came to call sinners to repent, not the righteous. (I thought no one was righteous.) He even forgives a man because of the faith of his friends. (Can I save others by my faith?) And here he seems to be saying that God should forgive those who sin in ignorance. (This is especially weird because it sounds like the Father is less willing to forgive than Jesus.)

I like the weirdness of this verse because there's a lot of talk in the Bible about sin and guilt that really bothers me. I don't understand why Adam's sin would create a "sinful nature" in humanity, or why this would be passed down to his descendants, or why individuals in the Bible were consistently punished for the sins of their nation, king, family, or ancestors, or why I deserve judgment for being imperfect if it's impossible for me to be perfect, or why anyone at all would deserve to suffer eternally for finite sins. My issues with these concepts run pretty deep, and I doubt I'll be able to fully accept any of them any time soon. But maybe part of the problem is that words like sin and guilt have very narrow, specific definitions in my mind, whereas the Bible's use of these words may be different, and more complex.

[+/-] An Extravagant Hope

Have you ever read a story and not been sure if it was the happy-ending kind or the sad-ending kind? Or have you ever read one where the hero keeps getting into hopeless situations, and you can never see a way out of them but he always comes through? Or one where you've got a hunch that it's the happy-ending kind, but you're not sure how it could be, and you just have to trust that the hero's got a plan, and whatever it is, somehow it's going to work out?

I've got a feeling that the story of creation is that kind of story.

I couldn't tell you why. No good reason, I guess. Stupid hope, overoptimism, I don't know. But remember the story of Jesus, and how unexpected and strange and backwards it was? The Jews spent centuries waiting for him and studying what he'd be like, and they still didn't know him when they saw him. I don't think it was their fault either. I think God threw them a hell of a curve ball.

And remember the crucifixion? Even the people he explained it to weren't ready for it. They knew God was up to something with Jesus, but they had no idea how big it was. They had no idea how high the stakes were, and how far God would go to love us. And when they thought the story had come to a very bad end, in fact it was just the beginning of a very good ending - the best of any story yet. And the next surprise what that this story wasn't just for twelve guys, or a few hungry crowds, or one nation in need of deliverance; it was for all the people of the world, even all of creation. We never guessed the ending could be that good.

But lean close, and I'll tell you my secret hope:

I don't think we've seen the last twist yet. I don't think we yet know the best of God's plan. I just can't believe that he's come this far merely to snatch up a few fortunates, burn the rest, and start new. I believe in re-newal. I believe in redemption, and reconciliation, and reunion, and I believe in them bigger and deeper than I have any good reason to. You can call me greedy or starry-eyed, but there it is.

It's not that I see a whole lot of redemption in creation today. In fact I see a shocking amount of senseless pain and evil - things broken that can never be fixed, things lost that can never be restored. Longings without hope of fulfillment, pain without purpose, faith betrayed. But in God's plan (what I've seen of it so far) good things are always born out of broken ones. Even the perfect man was created in a carnal womb, and new life is given through the spilling of blood.

If I have a reason for believing that there's more to come, it's only that I see a whole lot of pain and evil in this world that has yet to be redeemed, and I can't help but think he's got a plan to work even these things for good.

I don't know how this world came to be so broken, and I certainly don't know how it could all be fixed. But "I know whom I've believed, and am convinced that he is able".

You're welcome to disagree with me, but that's my hope.

[+/-] The Problem With Hell

Every Christian ought to sit quietly for an hour and think about hell - its foreverness, its remorse, its darkness, its torment. They should think about relatives, friends, neighbors, men everywhere who will soon be there. They should think about it long enough so that they will never be able to live normal, routine, complacent Christian lives again.

-William MacDonald

There are several reasons I don't believe in Hell (at least as a place of eternal torment for those who do not become Christians) but one of the biggest is the affect of this doctrine on those who sincerely believe it. I've seen more than one of my friends an emotional wreck over the idea of their loved ones burning in hell forever. Once they really think about it, about "its foreverness, its remorse, its darkness, its torment", it breaks their hearts. How could it not? I marvel that Christians are able to cope with this belief. Never mind complacency - just to function in this world with the knowledge that some people you love will suffer for eternity is a herculean task. I don't know how people can sleep or laugh or work or worship God while believing in Hell. I really don't know how it's possible.

I think most people cope with Hell by ignoring it - effectively not believing in it. But there are also those who do think about it - who believe in the sense that it changes the way they live their lives. I admire these people for their honesty and their courage, but I don't like the ways this belief affects their lives. For example:

1.The significance of hell is so great that it overshadows all other concerns. What are social issues, ethics, abundant life, even our relationships with God next to the horror of eternal torment? If our actions can affect the eternal destiny of those who would otherwise burn in hell, how can we invest our energy in anything else? (What would be better: ending world hunger, or saving one person from eternal torment? Pascalian wagers abound.) Thus converting others to our religion becomes our raison d'etre as Christians, and community, spiritual growth, and concern for others (beyond their eternal destination) become secondary concerns at best.

2. This can lead to an "any means necessary" approach to evangelism. If souls can be saved through deception, emotional manipulation or scare tactics, how can these things be bad? Hell houses are a result of this mindset, taken to the extreme. Most Hell-believers will feel that such an overt attempt to "scare the hell out of" sinners goes too far, but many have no qualms about making converts through less brazen forms of manipulation - emotional "worship" services, spiritual parlor tricks, dishonest marketing, hidden-agenda friendships, and so forth. I once worked at a week-long children's camp where the gospel (that is, a plea to believe in Jesus and be saved from hell) was presented at every opportunity - generally about four times a day. To me, this seemed like a desperate and unscrupulous attempt to nag, scare, or brainwash small children into joining our religion. To other staff, it was taking seriously our mandate to save souls. In short, people burdened with the responsibility of rescuing others from hell often resort to tactics that they would consider unconscionable if applied to any other end, even (or especially) the missionary efforts of another religion. I admit that not all who truly believe in hell give in to this temptation, but surly all must feel its pull.

3. Given the prevalence of any-means-necessary evangelism, it's no surprise that far more children become Christians than adults, and that child-like trust and gullibility are often conflated with faith. This misconception leads to a distrust of rationality and critical thinking (a.k.a. "the wisdom of this world"), and the idea that doubting "God" (or anything that claims to be of God) is a weakness or a sin.

4. If God has given us some responsibility for "winning souls", then we must be able to tell which ones need to be won. We may not be able to say definitively whether another person has fulfilled the criteria for salvation, but we need to at least know definitively what the criteria is. This leads to a compression of complex and nuanced Biblical teachings about faith and works, eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven into a very simple, clear-cut and dogmatic understanding of what salvation means and how it is acquired - something along the lines of praying a prayer. This thinking not only misses the complexity that these concepts (as I understand them) were meant to have, it denies the possibility of such concepts being complex. Shades of meaning, ambiguity, and deliberate unclarity about matters of salvation are luxuries that hell-believers cannot afford.

5. Of course, if the method of obtaining salvation must be clear and beyond doubt, this requires not only the Bible to be infallible (I don't have a big problem with this view) but also our interpretation of the Bible (I have a big problem with this view). Few Christians will say in so many words that their interpretation of the Bible (or their pastor's, or whoever's) is infallible, but many act as if it is. Because if it's possible that we're mistaken about what the Bible says about salvation, then it's possible that all our efforts to "witness" have been in vain. It's even possible that we ourselves are hell-bound. Surely God wouldn't let this happen. (Experience has taught me to be suspicious of "Surely God wouldn't" arguments.) My concern is that once we decide that there are certain things God wouldn't allow us to be wrong about, it's easy to lengthen the list.

6. If you believe that God has made the method of salvation clear and obvious, you've got to explain why lots of people don't go for it. The easy explanation is that they're blinded by sin. I won't dwell on this point (which I've discussed before), but I see some pretty big problems with believing that anyone who disagrees with you is lying, corrupt, confused or ignorant. And as with the last point, once you believe that everyone else is blind to the truth about salvation, you have to wonder if they're blind to truth on all sorts of other issues which seem clear to you.

7. Not surprisingly, people who believe that they escaped eternal suffering through a single decision made when they were four often have some anxiety about the possibility of other decisions they've made or will make negating their salvation. Thus it becomes necessary to stress that only this one act has eternal, irrevocable consequences. No other choice or behavior, however willful, however cold-blooded, and however often repeated, can undo the decision you were prompted to make way back when you still believed in Santa Claus. Of course, someone who prays a certain prayer today may feel differently tomorrow, or 20 years from now. So why does a single decision, so often provoked by emotion and fear (or "the prompting of the Spirit" to the less cynical) and generally made at a very young age, make the difference between heaven and hell, regardless of anything - anything at all - that happens afterward? This seems absurd to me. But more importantly, reducing salvation to escaping hellfire through a single act of repentance trivializes all our other acts, for example, our treatment of those in need. (Which Jesus seemed to think was a big deal. Note that he doesn't say "I was hungry and you used the promise of food to lure me in for a sermon.")

I could probably go on, but this post is already too long, and I've been working on it (or putting off working on it) for over a month. I should say in closing that my criticisms are primarily against a very conservative view of hell and salvation - essentially, pray-the-prayer-or-burn-forever - and that there are various conceptions of hell that are less susceptible to these criticisms. I trust the reader to determine how well a given concept of hell avoids these problems. If you'd like to share how you deal with the problems I've mentioned, if you'd like to hear my opinion on a certain view of hell, or if you think any of the problems I've listed aren't problems, I'd love to hear from you.

[+/-] God's Plan for Rape

Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

- Lev. 18:14-16

My Religion prof pointed out that the reason repeatedly given in this passage for not having sex with a female relative is that it would bring dishonor on the male to whom she belongs. Of all the reasons not to have sex - consensual or otherwise - with your mother, the one given (ostensibly) by God is that it would dishonor your father. Not you. Not her. Her husband.

It occurred to me that this might explain why a Biblical prohibition on premarital sex is difficult to find. (Maybe I should have another contest.) Apparently the violation of a woman is less deplorable if she has no male lord to be dishonored by it. Indeed, Deut. 22 says that a man who rapes a betrothed woman must die, but a man who rapes a woman who is not betrothed must pay her father the bride-price and marry her. And they can never be divorced.

If I understand this correctly, a man who rapes a betrothed girl has committed a far greater sin than a man who rapes a girl who is not yet betrothed. (Bear in mind that in this society everyone gets married, and does so as soon as they're physically able to bear children. So a girl who is not yet pledged to be married is probably younger than one who is. Probably prepubescent.) Following the logic of Lev. 18, it seems that in the first case the rapist brings disgrace to the girl's betrothed, for which he must die, whereas in the second case he has sinned against the girl's father (who had the right to choose his daughter's husband) for which he must pay the father a pound of silver. This second sin is not a serious one because he has not stolen what is another man's, but merely claimed it for himself - albeit in a somewhat unscrupulous manner.

I'm not going to dwell on what I think about forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, but the word "abhorrent" comes to mind. In fact I can't think of many things forbidden in the Bible that strike me as so cruel and reprehensible as what is commanded here.

I've heard the argument that the ancient Near East was a brutal and barbaric place, and that the Mosaic Law was far less brutal and barbaric than anything else at the time, and that it would have been impossible in that context to introduce a 21st century - or even first century - legal code, so God just did the best he could. I can accept this argument, to a point. (I'm not a Kantian.) I can accept that ancient Jews may not have been ready for the concept of gender equality. And I might be able to accept that God would permit slavery in this context (I'm not entirely sure) so maybe I can accept that God would permit women to be treated as property. But I cannot accept that God would order rape victims to marry their attackers.

Bear in mind that I've only been thinking about this for a few hours, and I haven't really done any research yet. So if you have some insight in this matter please let me know. Either way, I'd like to hear what you think of this. Are you as sickened by this law as I am? Can you worship a god who wrote it?

[+/-] Ages Four and Up?

Something struck me in church today. We had a baptism, and one of the guys who was getting dunked gave a little testimony. He mentioned that he became a Christian at age four or five, at his parent's prompting, and that he wasn't baptized at that time because his parents figured he was to young to grasp the significance of baptism.

So here's my question: why is a four-year-old old enough to become a Christian, but not old enough to be baptized? What is it about these two actions that makes the former suitable for a kid who can't tie his own shoes, and the latter not appropriate until adolescence? I don't mean to pick on this guy or his family - I think a lot of Christians (obviously excluding those who baptize infants, or who believe baptism is necessary for salvation) have the idea that baptism requires a level of maturity (physically? spiritually? intellectually?) that repentance (whatever we think that means) does not.

I really don't understand this position. Can anyone explain it to me? What are your thoughts on the matter?