Coram Deo: Living Before the Face of God

When The Bible Becomes An Idol

More and more Christian schools are having their students start their day by reciting a Bible pledge along with the Pledge of Allegiance and the Pledge to the Christian flag (this merits a whole other blog post!). Kids are being asked to put their hands on their hearts and to declare their faithfulness to the Good Book. In essence, they are promising "Thou shalt have no other book before the Bible."

Swearing our loyalty to the Bible, really?

Does anyone think it is possible for the Bible to become an idol? Can one believe in the Bible (the physical object) at the expense of or over against whom the Bible reveals? I believe that history has proven time and time again that this can and does happen.

Too many Christians, believe, think and act like having a Bible, memorizing it and opening it up now and again to quote a chapter or verse here or there is what it means to obey and follow God. They believe "in" the Bible but don't follow or wrestle with whom the Bible points to--the One who fulfills the Bible--the Word of God!

Once again, I declare that I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I believe the Bible is the definitive and authoritative revelation of who God is, who we are and of what God has done, is doing and will do in this world. I believe the Bible but I don't believe "in" the Bible. 

I believe in Jesus Christ. I worship Jesus and not the Bible. Now, you might be wondering, "Okay, what informs your belief in Jesus Christ, if you don't believe in the Bible?" (Thank you by the way to my good friend Blake for asking this very question!)

What informs my belief in Jesus is the Bible but Jesus also informs how I read and understand the Bible. After all, Jesus is the Word of God. I believe in the Word of God rather than "in" the word of God. Put another way, I think you can believe in the Bible without having any belief in Jesus Christ. When you believe in Jesus Christ though, I think you look and read the Bible differently. You no longer believe "in" the Bible, you believe in the One to whom the Bible points to. 

Ask yourself what it meant for the Jews and early Christians to believe in the Bible. They didn't have a Bible in the sense that we do. For the first few centuries of the Church, neither did those believers either. What did they believe in?

Not a book they could hold or cherry pick verses from. They believed in the word of God transmitted orally--from person to person--from public readings--by word of mouth. They believed in the story--what the word of God revealed and pointed to--the whole word and not just the parts that they liked or fit their agenda.

More importantly, what informed their telling and hearing of the story was a shared, communal agreement as to the what the story was about. What defined the essential themes and message of the story came to be defined as "the rule of faith". The "rule of faith" was the boundary for telling the story rightly--for not leaving anything important out or adding things along the way.

This rubric was also the lens by which to interpret and understand the story. After all, how you tell the story informs how others hear and receive it. As the story was passed on, as it was written down and as certain details were challenged to the point of changing the story, creeds were established.

Creeds restate the essentials of the story--the non-negotiables. Creeds confess the heart of the story. Each person can interpret and live the story in different ways but these features of the story apply to all believers. If you don't believe these things, you're telling a different story. You are worshipping a different God.

Ironically, the early confessions of the Church don't mention mode of baptism, women in ministry, pre or post tribulation, what happens during communion, or a host if other things that we continue to fight about in the Church. This is not to say that these differences and disagreements are unimportant. What it does suggest is that these differences and disagreements are not essential to the story.

It is interesting that our early creeds don't profess to believe "in" the Bible either. For me, this implies that there is some room to agree to disagree in how we read and interpret our Bibles. This is encouraging at a time when so many want to use their Bibles as a weapon--their interpretation of the Bible as a litmus test of whether someone is saved.

Now you might argue, "Well, Jesus read the Scriptures! He believed in the Bible!" Yes, Jesud did read the Scriptures. He even quoted from the Bible. But then again, so did the religious leaders of his day who eventually condemned Him to death, so did the devil who tempted Him in the wilderness, so did Saul (Paul) who persecuted Christ's Body--the Church, after Pentecost. In response, Jesus didn't say, "Believe in your Bible." He did say, "Believe in me!"

Since Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures, I believe in Him. I can't help but think back to Charles Sheldon's book, "In His Steps". You know the heart of the book if you haven't even read it because that book birthed a slogan that has become the number #1 wristband that Christians everywhere love to wear: "WWJD?" Notice the letters don't stand for "What Does The Bible Say?" They stand for "What Would Jesus Do?" Believing in the Bible is not enough. We need to echo the ancient creeds in believing the contents of the Bible--the story--and the centerpiece of that story--is Jesus Christ.

Another way of putting this, is to say that in the history of the Church it has always been the Word and the Spirit together--not separate from each other or over and against each other--but complementary to and inseperable from each other. I believe in the Word and the Spirit together. That's what makes the Bible more than just a book. That's what makes the Bible the living word of God. 

Why I Don't Believe in the Bible...

I've encountered a growing number of Christians who resort to a single sentence answer as a way of reacting to the theological debates of our 21st century. Honestly, the more I hear this glib response, the more I understand why growing numbers of non-believers want nothing to do with the Church. While there are those within the Body of Christ who are dialoguing, listening and wrestling over immigration, politics, homosexuality, genetics and other assorted doctrinal issues with their Bible in their hands, many simply wave their hand and smugly declare, "The Bible says it, I believe it and that's good enough for me!"

If this is your repeated answer, your default mode in the midst of all that is happening within our world and within the Church, I encourage you to stop and really think about what you are saying. More than this, the next time you say, "I believe in the Bible"...ask yourself what that means specifically. Take a moment and consider the fact that Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witness--not to mention Protestants of all flavors profess the same thing. They all "believe in the Bible" and yet they all believe different things about what the Bible says.

What do you make of this? How does this inform or challenge such bumper sticker theology? Are we called to believe in the Bible? I don't think so.

A few years back, Bart Ehrman wrote a book called "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" In this book, Ehrman shares how he lost faith in the Bible as the inspired word of God. This crisis of faith began for Ehrman with the realization that we do not have access to the original manuscripts of the biblical writings. For Ehrman, not having these source documents calls the legitimacy of the Bible into question. Furthermore, Ehrman points out that the writers who made copies of the original biblical manuscripts and the first set of copies and so forth sometimes altered the text, either unintentionally due to error or intentionally due to some theological agenda. Since these are the same copies that serve as the basis for the Bibles that we read and study from today, the whole book is suspect.

At the end of the day, Ehrman reasons that if the Bible is to be believed to be the inspired word of God then the content in the Bible must be proven to be the words from the very mouth of God. If one suggests that the words of the Bible were given by God to human authors, then the process of transmission from God's lips to our hears must be proven to have been passed along perfectly. We can't do this so therefore one ought not to believe in the Bible.

Interestingly, Erhman's criteria is closer to an Islamic rather than a classic Christian understanding of divine inspiration. The two key elements to Ehrman's debunking of the Bible are not secrets in the Church but key topics of study in textual criticism when you go to seminary. If you do a little reading, you'll discover that much of what Ehrman levies as arguments against the Bible on the basis of textual criticism are in fact some of the most compelling reasons to embrace ancient and modern translations of the Bible as reliable.

Now, let me be clear. When I wrote for the tagline of this blog "I don't believe in the Bible"--that did not mean that I don't believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Unlike Ehrman, I don't hold to such a narrow view when I profess to believe in the legitimacy of the Bible. My argument is that there is a difference between believing in the Bible and in believing in what the Bible reveals.

Another way of expressing this is to point out that Ehrman's argument is well taken when people want to say that the Bible is inerrant (without error). The Bible does have errors. This is not debatable. When confronted with this, many often argue, "Well, if we had the original manuscripts and if you went back to them, the originals are without error." Others will quickly add, "God is without error so therefore His word is without error!" The logic here is that which God intended to reveal through His word has been revealed without error. This is all well and good except for the fact that as we read and study we are interpreting what God's original intentions are. We don't have a divine commentary to go along with the Bible!

But I disgress. For me, the nagging question is, if God inspired the Bible, perhaps even ensuring that the original manuscripts were without error, why did God allow the process of textual transmission to be something less than inerrant?

I would humbly argue that the God we know in Jesus Christ seems to work like this all the time. From the very beginning of entrusting a creation that was good to highly suspect and clearly fallible human beings to the incredible and startling fact that God choses to work through a guy like me in leading the people of Grace Lutheran as their Senior Pastor (does anyone doubt that I make mistakes all the time in the name of Jesus?), God seems to be committed to working through less than perfect people. 

The cornerstone of our relationship with this God is faith. Luther didn't stand on FACT ALONE, he stood his ground on FAITH ALONE. We worship a God who, for reasons that we don't completely understand or frankly agree with, has chosen to reveal just enough of Himself to us so instill faith but not enough so that we know Him absolutely or perfectly. Even in Christ, even via the Holy Spirit, this God is a mystery and will continue to be until we no longer see through a mirror dimly.

In the meantime, I believe that we have been given the Bible not so that we might have a transcript of God's words bur rather so that we might be drawn into an honest, truthful and real conversation (relationship) with Him. Yes, the words matter but less for the purposes of putting God or others in a box of our own making and more for the purposes of kindling, feeding and deepening a relationship of faith with Him. For me, the key is to rely and lean on the living God to whom the words point rather than to get all hot and bothered about each and every jot and tittle. 

Words are subject to interpretation. Talk is cheap. Actions matter more. Relationships are messy. This God revealed to us in Jesus Christ doesn't seem to have as much of a problem with the mess as we do. In fact, this God seems to trust us and desire us so much that He is willing to put up with the messes that we invariably make--including the mess that we make in copying, interpreting, teaching and passing on His divine revelation. It gives new meaning to the word "inspired"--doesn't it?

So you go ahead and keep believing in the Bible. As for me and my house, we'll read, study and discuss the Bible but we believe in Jesus Christ...