In case you have not noticed lately, one of the dumbest
things a person could ever say in modern American culture is, “I believe it
because the Bible says it.” That answer to any question is likely to evoke some
of the most scornful responses you could ever imagine. The world has very
little regard for the sacred text. In most instances, the world expresses
absolute contempt for the contents of Scripture. Many people may be fine
discussing the subject of God, or they may delight in a conversation about
Jesus Christ. However, pull out the Bible, quote a verse, or even hint that
your beliefs and positions or worse, your entire worldview is informed by the
content of sacred Scripture and you are sure to see the eyes roll. This attack
is nothing new. It has been around since almost the very beginning of time
itself. What most Christians fail to recognize is the many forms of attack that
exist, both within and without the Christian Church. This is the primary
purpose of this blog post. I want to help you defend these attacks but at the
same time, I want to provide some “pastoral” perspective (though I am not one)
and help you recognize those times in your own thought process where you may be
unwittingly attacking the Scripture yourself.
The Original Attack – Did God Speak?
Satan’s first recorded words to Eve are “hath God really
said?” As Keil & Delitzsch points out, ‘ap̄ kî “is an interrogative
expressing surprise (as in 1 Sam. 23:3, 2 Sam. 4:11). In other words, “is it
really the case that God has prohibited you from eating the fruit of every
tree in the garden?” Satan not only plants the seed for distrust with the content
of his words, but he even uses some expressive creativity to play his
destructive game of seduction and deception. The question of whether God has
actually spoken is the inaugural attack against God speaking. The attack takes
many forms, but this is the first one and perhaps the most common among fallen
humans. One thing is certain: an incorrect response to the question of God
speaking has devastating consequences.
A letter of Albert Einstein,
dated to 1954 was auctioned off in 2008. In that letter, Mr. Einstein provides
a glimpse into his views on the Bible. He says, "the word God is for me
nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a
collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless
pretty childish." In other words, God has not spoken and what some call
God-speak is nothing more than a collection of primitive legends that are in
fact, quite childish. These kinds of attacks against the idea of God speaking
are direct frontal attacks. Man asserts, as did the serpent, that God did not
speak.
The Second Attack – Did God Mean?
In his unsurpassed skills and ability to deceive, Satan moved immediately
from his question regarding God’s prohibition to one of hermeneutics and
exegesis. He begins with a direct contradiction of God’s word. God had said
that violating His prohibition would bring certain death. Satan says, “not so,”
and offers a new interpretation of what God meant. According to
Satan, God is merely trying to prevent Adam and Eve from having their best life
now.
In Matthew 4, we have the historical account of the
temptation of Christ. This text more than any in Scripture, reveals a
hermeneutical attack against God’s word. Satan is not going to bother with the
idea that God spoke or even with what God said. His tactic and strategy has to
be different in this case. He is dealing with the Son of God who knows full
well that He has spoken, and what He has said. In hermeneutical attacks against
Scripture, the attempt is still the same. Hermeneutical attacks against the
word of God are designed to silence God on a specific subject by corrupting the
meaning of God’s communication. What difference does it make if one person
overtly denies the divine nature of all of Scripture that condemns
homosexuality for instance while another person corrupts the specific text so
as to present the view that God has not spoken against it? In the first case,
man is the measure of all things. However, man is also the same measure of all
things in the latter case. In both instances, the measure for God speaking is
not God, but human rationality, that is, unaided human reason!
One of the most destructive philosophical approaches to
hermeneutics comes in the form of what we call deconstructionism. Kevin
Vanhoozer makes this observation: “Derrida, like Bacon, is an iconoclastic
thinker, thought the idols that he seeks to overthrow concern meaning and
interpretation. We might term these the idols of the sign: the idol of
reliability (the sign corresponds to reality), the idol of determinacy (the
sign has a single, fixed sense), and the idol of neutrality (the sign is a
descriptive, not a prescriptive or political, instrument). Derrida is an
unbeliever in the reliability, decidability, and neutrality of the sign. He
seeks to “undo” their privileged place in Western culture through another
reflection on signs that focuses on their instability, undecidability, and
partiality.” [Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? p. 39] Derrida takes
Satan’s second approach to a whole new level. Satan attempts a different method
of interpretation in order to tempt Christ. His method is devastating to
biblical hermeneutics. Jacques Derrida takes the whole idea of hermeneutics to
the world of complete subjectivism. In this world, all meaning must be
deconstructed and reconstructed in the world of that individual. “Deconstruction is a painstaking
taking-apart, a peeling away of the various layers – historical, rhetorical,
ideological – of distinctions, concepts, texts, and whole philosophies, whose
aim is to expose the arbitrary linguistic nature of their original
construction. Deconstruction is an intense analytical method, occasionally
perversely so, that results in the collapse from within of all that it touches.”
[Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? P. 52]
The metaphysics of meaning cease to exist in the philosophy
of deconstruction. If signs do not correspond to reality, if they have no
single, fixed meaning, if they are not intended to convey stable meaning, then
communication is impossible. Hence, Derrida’s entire system collapses in on
itself. All one needs to do is ask Derrida what he means when he says these
things. As soon as he attempts to explain, he refutes himself. If he is
consistent, he must be silent when the question of his own meaning is put to
him. Either way, deconstruction, in attempting to deconstruct all meaning in
the text has also deconstructed itself and is incapable of rebuilding any meaningful
structure of interpretation, because all the tools necessary for reconstruction
have been removed from the tool-box.
While all attacks against Scripture are not as laced with
complex philosophies like this one, nevertheless, they share a common goal. Every
attack against Scripture ab initio seeks to dispense with understanding
the divine communication, either by eradicating the idea altogether or, by
means of corrupting the message. What do we hear? We hear the Bible is not the
word of God. The Bible is a book of fairly tells, myths and outrageous legends.
The Bible is pro parte the word of God and pro parte the word of man. The Bible
is nothing more than the projections of men writing within a specific culture
and projecting their own ideas of God onto the pages of Scripture. We hear that
certain parts of the Bible are good, such as thou shalt not murder, but other
parts are oppressive to women and hateful toward homosexuals. We hear that God
understands when we violate the sacred text, even when we do so in premeditated
fashion because He knows we are weak humans and that He loves us nonetheless.
In our reading and especially in our instruction of the
text, our motto should be primum non nocere, first, do no harm! Do no
harm to what? Before all else, we must do no harm to the text itself. Pastors,
teachers, and individuals treat Scripture with reckless casualty today. We
approach the text without regard for the living word of the holy God that it
is. What right do we have to form opinions and draw conclusions about what God
is saying to us without expending the greatest degree of energy necessary to
arrive at those conclusions? In some cases, we arrive at an understanding of a
stated text because it is the least threatening to our lifestyle or previous
theological commitments. In other cases we get there because we just don’t want
to spend the time reading five or ten pages in Kittel, listening to BDAG and
Louw-Nida, running references to understand how key words were used elsewhere,
diagramming the pericope, parsing the words, looking at syntax, researching the
historical setting, understanding the social aspects, etc. After all, this can
turn into a very time-consuming and cost lots of energy. In our age of “I want
it now,” this is just not realistic. However, when we fail to display the kind
of respect and regard for Scripture that it demands by the very nature of what
it is, we do the same to God.
Attacks against Scripture come in a variety of forms. The
external attacks I deal with often. Most recently, I have been in dialogue with
an atheist about the credibility of the NT documents. In these kinds of
attacks, there are no shortcuts. I realize this can be difficult for some of
us. Having studied textual criticism as well as the canons, I have answers to
these objections. If you do not, I would encourage you to study something about
the history of that book we call the Bible. You don’t have to take a graduate
course in textual criticism. You don’t have to take one in the canon. However,
you should have a book or two about it. The atheist I have been chatting with
is a Harvard Grad with access to Bart Erhman’s materials. This means he knows a
thing or two about the subject. Most people are not going to be so informed. My
point is that if you believe the Bible is the word of God and you agree that it
is going to continue to come under serious attack, then it follows that you
should not only know what is in it, but you should know a little about its
history so that you can answer those questions. I know, it comes down to time,
right? No it does not come down to time. It comes down to priorities. It comes
down to what you think is important and what is not. You spend your time doing
the things that you think are most important. If you don’t spend time with Scripture,
then you simply don’t think it is important enough to demand your time. Those
other things that you spend time on are more important in your mind, than
spending time on Scripture.
There is lot more I wanted to say about this subject, but I
simply am out of space. Perhaps I will pick this subject up in my next post and
continue to talk about the attacks against Scripture. As far as I am concerned,
this is the area where apologetics and theology should focus. The Church
must teach the members of its group, it community, that God has spoken so that
we may live, and that we may live in a specific way. God instructs us to think,
speak, and carry-on in this life according to His word.
Are you attacking Scripture in your thinking, in your conduct, in your teaching or in your preaching? When you are overly sympathetic toward wicked behavior in individuals, such as homosexuality, sexual impurity, divorce, or other godless vices, you are attacking Scripture. When you should confront sin in your life and even in the life of your brother or sister and you refuse, you are attacking Scripting and challenging God's authority. Your actions downgrade the place that Scripture should occupy in the minds of believers. When we justify our sin, our rebellion against God, we downgrade Scripture and in so doing, we attack God's word and challenge His authority over our lives. It is impossible to attack God's word without attacking God personally. We often think we can assail God's speech without assailing God. That thinking is foolish. God and His word are inseparable. Jesus said he that receives God receives God's word. Conversely, he that does not receive God's word does not receive God. There is no middle ground. There can be no compromise of God's word, only full acceptance or complete annihilation.
No comments:
Post a Comment