Several years ago, I along with four other Pentecostal scholars attended a snake handling church for a Friday evening service in Alabama. Arriving the pastor greeted us and enthusiastically defended the practice by simply declaring, “The Bible says it, we believe it and we do it.” And for two and half hours they did it, dancing to music while handling poisonous snakes as part of their regular worship. Previously I had read about this tradition, but it was something that I had to see first-hand.[1]
I raise this experience because the pastor was right, it is in the Bible. “And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons: they will speak in new tongues: they will (not “if”)pick up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them.” (Mark 16:17) As for drinking any deadly thing, located inside the pulpit was a locked container with a bottle of strychnine poison. And yet despite such “biblical” encouragement I have no intention of ever practicing this tradition. Am I being biblical?
Now we might breathe a sigh of relief and note that most scholars argue that this text is not part of the original manuscript of Mark. At some point it was likely added to the text. Most translations of the Bible conclude the book of Mark with two different endings. There is the shorter ending which ends at verse 8 and the longer ending which continues to verse 20. The passage in question is in the longer disputed ending. And here is the snaky problem, the Bible on my shelf, as is the Bible on every other shelf is the product of a translation of a copied, copied manuscript and contains many such anomalies. Despite the thousands of historic copies of the Bible that have been discovered, no two documents are the same. As I write this there are scholars pouring over ancient manuscripts trying to come up with the most reasonable facsimile of an original autograph, but it is a problem that will never be fully resolved.
So, what does it mean when we speak about God’s “word” - the Bible, if we can’t fully trust what that word is? Yet despite this well-heeled truth, denominations and churches continue to promote the doctrine of inerrancy, the belief that the Bible in the original manuscripts "is without error or fault in all its teaching as a shibboleth of true Christianity. To question inerrancy say some (even it is only symbolic since it applies only to inaccessible original manuscripts) is to test the authority of scripture itself.[2] The implicit argument being should one question the inerrancy of the Bible how can one trust its authority? But what does that do to the Bible on my shelf which is not an original manuscript and has gone through the less than scientific process of translation and textual criticism. Inerrancy is never extended to the Bibles we read. [3]
In 2009 my father as a favor asked me if I would review the manuscript of a friend who was then a retired geologist in his 70s. It was titled, The Bible through the Eyes of a Geologist. The author Robert Howie was attempting to engineer a middle ground on the complex issue of creation and the Bible. I confess I was reluctant to accept the assignment given the fact so many things have been written on this subject that either ignores the Bible or ignores the science. In the end I read it and I liked it. My only real recommendation was the author change the Bible references from a King James translation to a modern one if he wanted a larger readership. I was then asked to contribute a Forward for the short volume. My Forward less than a page in length briefly stated
… “as western culture tumbles from modernity to postmodernity, there is a renewed clarion call from many sectors for something we might identity as unchanging truth…Among some Christian groups, this means a seven-day creation account. The Bible is true, some conclude, because the world was created just as the Bible says. And the world was created as the Bible says because the Bible is true…In the midst of all this traffic, it is sometimes difficult to find a moderate voice…
A few years later I stumbled across an online review by the Berean Research Institute of The Bible through the Eyes of a Geologist. It was not only very critical of Howie’s manuscript, it devoted almost 1100 words of critique to my short Forward. Aiming his barb at me the reviewer charged among other things,
a. "Unchanging truth" is not something that can be 'called', 'identified', or found in "new expressions". The word of God, itself, is unchanging truth and ought to be promoted as such by Dr. Holm and Mr. Howie. (John 17:17; Luke 21:33; Ps 119:89)
b. To believe the literal reading of God's word, specifically as it pertains to the seven-day creation account in the book of Genesis, is categorically NOT "new". It is the same belief that all faithful saints and disciples have had in the unchanging truth of God's word.
c. As a professing Christian leader, Dr. Holm would better serve the church - and others - by explaining that the process of inductive reasoning provides the evidence needed to dispel blind faith and to refute false allegations of circular reasoning such as this.
d. True Christian leaders do not sow such seeds of doubt in people's minds about God's Word ("Yea, hath God said..."- Gen 3:1). Rather, they encourage belief in God's Word through study of it (II Tim 2:15), and thereby they edify the church.
Now at the risk of not being a true Christian, I could devote my own 1100 words of critique to the critique but at this point it is sufficient to point out that the reviewer’s appeal to inductive reasoning as the “evidence needed” ipso facto subjects the Bible’s authority to that same inductive reasoning. Here reasoning, not faith or even the Bible itself has the highest claim on our lives. And I might add proof texting does not make something biblical. Oh, the games we play.
Currently the most divisive subject in the church today is probably what to do with self-described Christian LGBTQ members (another blog for another day). Many argue “Christian LGBTQ people” is a contradiction in terms, there is no such thing. They will insist on several passages in Leviticus, Romans and elsewhere that speak against same-sex relationships. Again “the Bible says it, I believe it”, they argue. Others in defence of the LGBTQ community invariably claim the biblical texts in question have nothing to do with long-term committed gay and lesbian relationships and that the Bible is committed to the inclusivity of all peoples. And so goes the debate. In the end both groups look to the Bible for guidance but both groups see something different. At this point someone is likely to say, “well I just have to do what the Bible says,” to which I respond, “what do you understand the Bible to be saying and we can talk.”
I love my Bible. It is the story of God working with God’s people as told generally in the voice of the people. God lets God’s people tell their own story. Many liken it to a drama, but it is a drama that has not been fully written, and in that measure, we are still writing it. The eminent Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann likens the Bible to a compost pile. It contains discarded but potent organic nutrients essential for God’s people to move forward in their faith. And as we plant ourselves into this compost soil, our lives mesh with the biblical world, with the saints of the past and with each other constantly allowing new growth to emerge.
It was not too long ago that the Bible was used to justify slavery, suppressing indigenous language and culture, subjecting women in the church and we could go on. Most of these debates are now part of the compost pile and the church has moved on in appropriate ways (although I hear denying women leadership in the church is still a thing in many parts). Does the Bible change? Of course, it does. [4] It is a living text not a proof text to be used as a blunt instrument. It works better as a ladder than an archeological dig of old bones. It is intended to be more of a conversation starter than an ender. And maybe someday this blog might be a banana peel in that great compost of faith.
My next few blogs will follow up on reading the Bible
[1] For a peek inside a “Signs Following” Church see Lauren Pond’s provocative photo essay, Test of Faith: Signs, Serpents, Salvation. Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press, 2017. With her camera in hand, Pond opens the door inside the Full Gospel Apostolic House of the Lord Jesus, a snake handling, signs following church in the hills of West Virginia. [2] In 1976 Harold Lindsell then the publisher of Christianity Today regarded the subject of biblical inerrancy, “to be the most important theological topic of this age.” To that end in defence of inerrancy he published, The Battle for the Bible, Zondervan, 1976. [3] The exception of course is with the King James 1611 Bible which some claim still is as authentic or inspired by God as the original text. [4] Many will find such a claim disturbing. Technically the Bible is a fixed text notwithstanding textual variants. But even if there was a pure original copy of the Bible available, we are left with the vagaries of translation, interpretations, and understandings. People change.
Comments