Blogger Bob Cornwall Reviews My Book

I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG: Why we disagree about the Bible and what to do about it (Topical Line Drives Book 16).  By Steve Kindle. Gonzalez, FL: Energion Publications, 2015. 44 pages. 

                Why are there so many different Christian denominations and sects?  The easy answer is that while Christians generally affirm the authority of the Bible they disagree among themselves as to the meaning and the application of that text. While Billy Graham would often declare that "the Bible says" in reference to something he was trying to say or prove. The fact is, whatever it was he was trying to say it reflected not what the Bible “says” but his interpretation of the words of the Bible. Issue after issue has come up through the centuries and Christians have appealed to the Bible against each other.  Paedobaptists (those who baptize infants) have their texts, while believer Baptists (those who baptize persons upon confession of faith) have their texts.  Since I’m part of a denomination that practices the later, I’m a bit biased toward the biblical defense of believer baptism.

So, why do we disagree?  We can’t we just all read the Bible and agree to its meaning and move on?  Life isn’t that easy—just look at the different ways in which Americans read the U.S. Constitution. If you think that the Supreme Court simply reads the Constitution and applies it as it was originally intended without any bias present, then you may find it difficult to understand why we have all these 5-4 decisions that tend to be decided along ideological/partisan lines.  What is true there is true of the Bible. 

Steve Kindle takes up the challenge of trying to make sense of all of this in a very brief book that comes in at forty-four pages. While Kindle can’t cover every issue, he does provide the starting point for an important conversation about how we have come to read the Bible the way we do and how we might have more fruitful conversations as Christians.  He does this in two ways.  First he briefly takes us on a historical journey through attempts to read and interpret the Bible, introducing us to Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, and more—all the way to the present.  He brings to the reader’s attention the various ways scripture has been read, from literal (face value) to allegorical methods. He also notes the development and influence of historical critical methodology. 

Having shared this history with us, he moves on to the question of why we so often disagree in our interpretations. With this he lifts up the question of world views.  Again he must do this briefly, but one’s world view will have important implications. Thus, if we accept an evolutionary understanding of the universe’s beginnings and development, including our own evolutionary development, then that will influence how we read and understand creation stories and texts, among other things. In this section he also notes theological starting points—from evangelical to progressive. Of course, these categories often breakdown when applied, but they give us a sense of theological foundations and the way they influence our readings.  Fundamentalists may read the Bible with a greater degree of flatness than progressives, who differ from liberals in that they may not be quite as committed to the dominant world view of the day.  Of course, there are Denominational differences to take into account.  Conservative Presbyterians and conservative Baptists will differ on certain issues, despite their conservative, even fundamentalist understandings.  The same would be true of liberals in both streams.

The final chapter addresses the important question of how we might address these differences in a way that will facilitate more conversation and better understanding.  The starting point here is humility and a willingness to listen to the other.  Steve writes:

Truly listening to each other is a difficult task because it makes us vulnerable. Listening at its heart is opening up oneself to the possibility of change. If we are not vulnerable, we are not really listening. Humility is the willingness to learn, the acknowledgement that not all is known, and the mark of a true disciple. [Kindle Locations 562-565].

If we start with humility, then the next step is to commit one’s self to reading the biblical story in its complete context. With this in mind, Kindle offers these suggestions as a guide to our conversations:

•  Adopt a prayerful attitude of listening to scripture: you are the disciple, it is the teacher. 
•  Be open to discovery: Don’t tell the Bible what’s there; discover it for yourself. 
• Leave assumptions aside.   
• Reserve your judgment: Hold your conclusions tentatively and mull them over for a period of time before camping on them.  (Kindle Locations 616-627). 

If we can keep in mind these guidelines, then the final thing is to agree to live together despite our disagreements.  It is easier, of course, to be part of a denomination or congregation where everyone agrees on everything, but that may mean missing out on important insights. Serving as I do a congregation that has a pretty wide array of views makes for an interesting life, but perhaps that is a healthy place to be. 

It is important, as Kindle makes clear, that we acknowledge our biases when we come to the text. If we can do that then we might be able to move forward in fruitful dialogue. That might not end the differences, but at least it might lead to understanding. It may also allow us to be more attentive to the text of Scripture and its implications for today.

Steve Kindle has done us a great favor by putting together this book.  It’s brief, as are the other books in this series (I’ve contributed three of my own to the series), which are designed to be under fifty pages in length. Because it is brief it doesn’t exhaust the topic. There is plenty of opportunity to explore these issues further.  That said, it is a good place to start.

In conclusion to this review, let me say that I’ve known Steve Kindle for more than a decade. We don’t agree on every issue, but we’ve had many fruitful conversations. We’ve wrestled with texts together, suggesting different ways of reading the text. Sometimes I’ve offered a convincing perspective, sometimes he has. Often we end up agreeing to disagree. Steve and I both started out in very conservative contexts – he among the conservative wing of the Churches of Christ, while I was a conservative evangelical/Pentecostal. We both moved left, though in some ways he’s moved further left than have I.  Both of us agree that we need to listen to a wide spectrum of views, even as we hold to our own deeply held convictions.  So, what Steve and I have done in our conversations down through the years, he is suggesting that others can do as well.  In the end, we do need each other. Take and read; you will be blessed as a result. 

No, I Do Not Accept Your Apology, Dr. Bob Jones

Thenewcivilrightsmovment.com reports on a significant apology from one of the most outspoken anti-gay leaders in America.

Thirty-five years ago, Dr. Bob Jones III, grandson of the founder and current chancellor of Bob Jones University, made this statement during a White House protest:

"But it would not be a bad idea to bring the swift justice today that was brought in Israel’s day against murder and rape and homosexuality. I guarantee it would solve the problem post-haste if homosexuals were stoned, if murderers were immediately killed as the Bible commands."

Dr. Jones finally attempted an apology with these words:  

"I take personal ownership for this inflammatory rhetoric. This reckless statement was made in the heat of a political controversy 35 years ago. It is antithetical to my theology and my 50 years of preaching a redeeming Christ who came into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Upon now reading these long-forgotten words, they seem to me as words belonging to a total stranger — were my name not attached. I cannot erase them, but wish I could, because they do not represent the belief of my heart or the content of my preaching. Neither before, nor since, that event in 1980 have I ever advocated the stoning of sinners." 

BJ Unity, a movement in support of LGBTQI people who are harmed by Bob Jones University and other Fundamentalist Christian organizations, accepted his apology with this statement:

"We are grateful that Bob Jones III has taken responsibility for these words; words that have caused deep harm for many more people than any of us knows. This means a lot to us because it represents the beginning of a change in the rhetoric and conversation."

Thenewcivilrightsmovement.com asks if its readers accept this apology. I do not and here's why. The entire statement of Dr. Jones is all about Dr. Jones. He regrets these words because they don't represent him, they are in opposition to his theology, he never preached such a sentiment, he wishes they could be erased. Nowhere in his full statement is any forgiveness even asked for. It is a statement of personal regret. 

But here's the main reason for not accepting this "apology." There is not one word in the full statement that addresses the LGBT community or even begins to acknowledge the tremendous harm  begun thirty-five years ago that continues to this day. Not one word. When he finally gets around to the supposed apology, here's what he wrote:

"I apologize for the reflection those remarks bring upon Jesus Christ, Whom I love; Bob Jones University, which I have loved and served; and my own personal testimony."

There you have it. His victims are invisible to him and remain outside his purview. The real people who initially bore the brunt of his remarks and their successors today remain invisible to him. His apology needs to be addressed to the very people he threatened with stoning. Until that happens, I'm sorry, Dr. Jones, I can't accept your feeble effort to redeem your conscience. It's too little, too late; not just for me, but mostly for your victims.

Check Out My Latest Book--Please!

As of last week, my new book, I'm Right and You're Wrong: Why we disagree about the Bible and what to do about it, was published by Energion Publications. Although it isn't specifically about LGBTQI issues, it goes a long way in explaining how people can, and do, differ on major biblical issues. Here's a little of the Introduction:

How many times have you had a conversation with someone that involved a disagreement over the Bible? And how many times have these conversations led to interruptions of friendships or even extended family disputes? Some of these disputes have split congregations. Even the more mild disagreements can leave us perplexed.  Why is it that something so plain to one is so obviously unconvincing to others? This often leads us to search for ways to convince others through honing our interpretive skills, doing elaborate word studies, consulting scholarly commentaries and the like.  In the end, however, people don’t easily change their minds, and we are left to wonder why. 

This book differs from most in that rather than looking at how to interpret the Bible properly, we’ll examine the sources of disagreement among interpreters.  We all have our own ways of trying to understand the Bible and they are close to our hearts.  Many of us think our way is superior to most, if not all.  But we will not venture into who is right and who is wrong in our interpretations.   What concerns us here is why we interpret the way we do and what our attitude should be toward those with whom we disagree.

It's a short book. The average reader will finish it in about two hours. It's part of the Topical Line Drive series. The publisher describes books in this series as "direct and to the point...designed to demonstrate a point of scholarship or survey a topic directly, clearly, and and quickly."

There is now and always has been serious disagreement among Christians. This will likely never change. Disagreement isn't a bad thing; it helps us think through our own positions, and reminds us that no one is capable of getting everything right. The problem with disagreement comes when we are so convinced of our own rightness that we diminish and even disdain all other interpretations. This book is an effort to understand how disagreements can be useful in bringing people together, not tearing them apart. It explains why we disagree, that it's almost impossible for any two people to see things exactly the same, and why humility is our best partner in interpretation.

To see more about the book and how to order, here are a few links:
Energion Publications
Amazon Books
Barns and Noble and Nook

It's available in softcover ($4.99) and in the Kindle Reader format. ($.99)
Let me know what you think.

Why Are Some Conservative Christians So Adamant That They Have the Truth?

Every now and then I take notice of what's happening in the Evangelical/Fundamentalist world. After all, I am a product of that world and look for signs that there may be movement away from traditional stands that might mean conversations can begin in earnest, especially about LGBT issues. And there are signs. There is movement away from the rigid notions of anti-evolution, awareness that the Bible is not fully without error, and some even hold out for an open-ended future unknown by God. Yet, unfortunately, these and other more open views are not held by the majority of conservative Christians.

I'm most interested in their view of the authority of the Bible, as their fall-back, bedrock position on all gay issues is that the Bible is unequivocally opposed to homosexuality. That this is demonstrably not true is a subject I have taken up throughout this blog, and wrote a book about it. (See the side bar on the left of this post.) My latest posts on Satan point to the problems associated with this belief, yet one more needs to be written: "What Is Lost in Rejecting Belief in a Literal Satan?" Stay tuned. As a warm up to that post, I'd like to examine another sacrosanct belief in conservative Christianity, the belief in the literal Adam. It sheds a lot of light on their notion of biblical authority.

Recently, my attention was drawn to a blogger who listed ten reasons why Christians must believe in an historical Adam, by Kevin DeYoung. (Blog here.) Others have taken each of his ten points and evaluated them quite well. (Here, for example.) You will be rewarded by looking these over. However, my interest is not in engaging each point, but in looking at the bottom line issue that is the heart of Evangelical theology and clearly delineated in the post.

If you read DeYoung's post, there is really only one argument he made, and he made it over and over. It is this: We must believe in a literal, historical Adam because the Bible believes it. He uses Moses, Paul, and Luke as his authorities. This is a perfect example of circular reasoning. "We must believe the Bible, because the Bible believes it." A faulty syllogism is often used in a similar way: Major premise: "Everything in the Bible is true." Minor premise: "A literal Adam is in the Bible." Conclusion: "Therefore, there was a literal Adam." Syllogisms stand or fall based on their major premises (if syllogisms are useful at all). This one's major premise is demonstrably not true.

What's really going on here is a desperate attempt to save the whole of Evangelical theology which depends upon the whole biblical story being literally and historically true. Take any one plank away and the edifice falls to the ground, at least in their minds. So, for Paul's notions of sin and salvation, there must be a literal Adam, or his argument fails. If his argument fails, so does the substitutionary atonement doctrine (Jesus died in your place). If that falls, then Jesus as Savior falls with it. That is to say, the Evangelical notions fall, not necessarily the essence of Christianity itself.

So, what does all this have to do with a blog that is essentially about gay issues as they impact the Christian faith and the public square? Perhaps it will be clearer now why conservative Christians cling so desperately to the literal sense of a biblical text. Once we begin to allow for non-literal meanings, it's a slippery slope that can only end in a devaluing of the conservative Christian understanding of Christianity. It's less an argument against LGBTs and more about shoring up conservative doctrine. Gays and lesbians are collateral damage.

In the less rigid Evangelical circles, where social issues are becoming more important, along with a less literal understanding of some biblical stories, there is less interest in trotting out the clobber passages to beat LGBTs over the head with, and more interest in understanding and loving them. Interesting, huh. It seems you can't have a literal approach to the authority of Scripture and an openness to new information at the same time.

Conservative Christianity is closing ranks against the onslaught of the postmodern era, and is losing the battle. In a famous sermon in 1922, Harry Emerson Fosdick asked, "Will the Fundamentalists Win?" We can now say it doesn't look like it. And with the diminishing of a literalistic approach to the Bible, we see an increase in acceptance of those we formerly thought were not suitable companions along the Way. Open Bibles, open minds, open Christianity; what a thought!