If I Didn't Already Know Better...

Comments

[tim]

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Check out this painting that has Mary with a Bible and the baby Jesus. Apparently its a red letter edition.

[sonja]

Oh ... that is a bizarre painting. Is it my imagination? Or is Jesus' hair cut in a tonsure?

[Seth Ward]

I don't see what's so dang funny about this pic. I mean, hello? "In the beginning was the "WOOOORD"????" Clearly John the (Southern) Baptist meant God's Holy Word (NIV/KJV) when he wrote John 1:1.

Then there's this here verse:

"I pledge allegiance to the bible, God's holy WOOOOORD...” How can you interpret this scripture any other way? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Gandhi.

I'm worried about you Brant. Have you had a QT today?

p.s. Also, are you aware that the diamond shaped symbol on you accordion is a little new-agy?

[Monica Battaile]

Very "John 1:1"...

[Doug Hannah]

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because you and I are pals and we've talked about this some, but really: Are you encountering people who worship scripture?

Really?

Where? Who?

What exactly are you talking about? I've not seen these people. Or maybe it is far more insidious than I realize?

Hope this isn't too aggressive of a question, but seems like the last time this came up I asked and we got distracted and I never heard your response.

[Brant]

Doug -- Do I encounter people who worship scripture?

Heck, yeah. All the time.

They won't say, "Hey, I worship the Bible," obviously. But they'll make it an idol. They'll claim that it is a repository of all truth. They'll say -- and mean -- that it has "all the answers". They'll say the Bible is "the perfect" that Jesus said would come.

They'll equate the Christian life with the study of it. They'll call it, without qualification, The Word of God. They'll pull out a verse like a magic wand, and wave it over you to end an argument.

They'll advise you to "know your Bible" before they advise you to love God with all your heart and soul. They'll have you pledge allegiance to it (I did, as a kid, a thousand times) -- Seth's pledge above is not an exaggeration.

They'll dwarf their spending for the poor to house lecture halls to study it, colleges to further study it, and say that the "real problem" in our culture is that we need to get back to...drumroll...the Bible. Not the heart of God, the book. Verbiage is not everything, but it's highly indicative.

They'll hold it aloft and say, "This is the only way to God." Jesus said it was Jesus.

They'll ascribe characteristics to it that are God's alone. They won't say they worship it, though.

That's the long, but perhaps not long enough, answer. Short answer: Yes, all the time.

[Monica Battaile]

Hmmm..that is so not what I saw in that picture. Again, I saw John 1:1. As you can see, I don't do well in art museums...

[Monica Battaile]

Oh yeah, and I also saw the people loving the Word because it was God, not idolizing the Bible.

[Seaton]

It's understandable that we make an idol out of the Bible. We can hold it, understand it, study it, interpret it, read words of comfort or judgement as it suits our need, use it in just about any way we choose, even put it on the shelf and keep it at a distance. It's an object after all.

For most of us, I suspect that it is the only tangible, and dearest connection to God that we have.

But it's not God. He is mystery from beginning to end. Seemingly hidden, silent and unsearchable. Most of all he is unmanagable, and that (I think) is what scares us most. It seems much safer to substitute a book for the Living God.

Scripture is to be treasured, but it's easy to cross the line and do what we humans do almost without fail. That is, crank up our "idol making factories", as Calvin called the human heart, and make idols out of that treasure.

[Doug Hannah]

I hear you. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, honest. I just think all the things to which you're referring don't constitute "worship" of the Bible. I don't think it's just nomenclature -- it's not "worship".

Of course, I natually do not have a better definition to use right now. Maybe it's misappropriating or misusing the Bible?

I also think it's interesting that when you refute "them" by saying things like "Jesus said it was Jesus", you have to use the bible. It would almost seem like it's a matter of how well someone knows or does not know what the bible really says, which would then seem, to my limited understanding anyway, to undercut the point you are trying to make.

But to the extent that people miss the mark by substituting knowledge accrual for being loving and missing the greater things for the lesser things, yes, I would go along with you there.

Of course, I base that on my own understanding of what Jesus said in.........the Bible.

[Bill Kinnon]

Simply. Brilliant.

[Molly]

I just blogged about this. It was then picked up by the CBMW blog who spent a few posts on the error of my ways (and the rightness of their ways, of course) and took what I was saying totally out of context, but thereagain, in doing so completely made the point.

*grump*

Having a relationship with a book, especially a Holy Book, is infinitely easier than having a relationship with a Person.

I mean, Living Beings are messy and complex, and relationships with them require things like *attention* and other distasteful things. I much prefer a Book. I can sit down with it and make it say whatever I want, you know? None of this give-and-take garbage.

[lowpocket]

and they have criteria for worhip worthiness. for instance - inerrancy - and when an error is pointed out, its overturned because everyone knows God intended the error to be there - so therefor - its not an error - and worship continues on . . .

[Christopher]

Brant, you write that people will advise you to "know your Bible" before they advise you to love God with all your heart and soul. You mention how people speak of the Bible as "a repository of all truth." One good question to ask here is, how is it that we even know to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? From the Bible. That's how that we know, because that's how God revealed it to us. Actually, that is one of the reasons that He gave us the Holy Spirit-- to help us understand the Bible. This is a huge part of being "led into all truth." Therefore, the Bible should not be set apart from, or contrasted to, or set in opposition to, Jesus Christ and the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit. I mean, in terms of saying things like "Well, some people worship the Bible and treat it as their God, but I follow Jesus and am guided by the Holy Spirit." This way of thinking is terribly misteken. (I say that in love, not sinful contentiousness.) How do we even know about Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Through the Bible! (Again, I'm not mad here, brother, just speaking out of a love for you and a passion for God's truth, as revealed in the Bible.) The Bible is the way that God has chosen to reveal to us who He is, what He is like, what He has done for us through Christ, what He does in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, what He wants to us to be like, and to a certain degree, at least, how He wants us to "do church" and "be church." It's a mistake to say, "I have the Bible, BUT I am going to let myself be guided by the Holy Spirit." Believers are definitely guided by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is never in opposition to God's revealed truth in the Bible. If we are open to the Spirit, we will take seriously the Bible and all that it tells us, including about how to do and be church.

[Brant]

Doug -- Cool thing is, it's not either/or. It's not "Idolize the Bible" or "Disregard it."

I think another view is to regard it very highly, see it as God-breathed, but apply our understanding and ability to see context.

As you know, the Bible says there is no afterlife. It's quite plain, in the book of Ecclesiastes. Fortunately, we can contextualize and make use of literary tools.

And yes, people can and do idolize just about everything, mostly themselves. (I'm guilty of this.) Really, idolizing scripture is pretty popular. Jesus dealt with people all the time who did it. It's easier to relate to a book -- or, more honestly, one's understanding of a book -- than a living God.

By the way, man can know God without the Bible. (This I know; the Bible tells me so, in Romans 1.)

I kinda think the Bible is NOT "the path to God". (That people will be offended by this statement is indicative of the prescience of my silly carton.) It lights my path, certainly, but it is not the path. Jesus is the path, folks.

Further, if Christianity means primarily relating to a book, you can have it. Seriously. I know you, Doug, don't believe it is, but just thought I'd say it. I have no interest in that kind of religion. Between you and me, nothing bores me more than playing scripture run-n-gun, missing the point, entirely.

Jesus flat-out BLASTED people for using their interpretations of scripture to thrust their vaunted tradition at him. How in heck we manage to miss that is beyond me. He blasted them.

Oh, Jesus regarded scriptures highly -- but not high enough for them. They had their book, their interpretation, and he kept veering from it.

I do not believe that this attitude -- did I mention He blasted it? -- is monopolized by the Jews. I see it nearly on a daily basis. And He blasted it because it was idolatry. Hence the cartoon.

Sorry to veer a bit from your point. Just writin' on my blog...

Oh, and Monica: Your John 1:1 comment was appropriate. But please know, "The Word" is Jesus, without question, in that chapter.

The Word is not the Bible, and the Bible is not Jesus. The Bible is not prophesied about in the O.T. as part of God's redemption plan for the world.

Genesis through Revelation -- all about Jesus.

Jesus didn't promise us the Bible to lead us into all truth, but the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not be command-and-controlled, and He will not be flow-charted, and He will not be voted upon, and will not be reduced to formulae, and, if we think He can't lead people into all truth without a Bible, stand by to have our little ideas again blown to bits.

[Zach Nielsen]

"I kinda think the Bible is NOT "the path to God". (That people will be offended by this statement is indicative of the prescience of my silly carton.) It lights my path, certainly, but it is not the path. Jesus is the path, folks."

How do you know anything about this Jesus who is your path? The Bible. Right?

Seems like you have some false dichotomies in this post. Maybe you are just trying to be provocative or use the"shock us" teaching style...

I do agree with what you said... not "either/or".

[Note from Brant: Not shocking. From Psalms, directly.

The "false dichotomy" is the idea that one can't view the Bible as authoritative without viewing it as the path to God.]

[Zach Nielsen]

"By the way, man can know God without the Bible." (Romans 1)

What do you mean by "know"?

I a recent lecture that I listened to my prof was saying how we shouldn't over spiritualize this text from Romans 1. Paul's point in this text is only to show that God shows enough of himself through natural revelation to hold us to account, but you can't know Jesus or anything about his redemptive purposes from natural theology.

Seems like that text shows that natural revelation gives us enough about God to then want to suppress it and hate it - not to get us saved. Seems like that is the point from Romans 1.

Summary argument from Romans 1:

1. Man has the requirements of the law written on his heart
2. Men do by nature the things of the law – we will always act in reference to it
3. Man’s sense of moral order is really an expression of God’s moral norms
4. Gods law reveals his holiness and judgment
5. It is known by all people - it is universal
6. This universal revelation is suppressed and perverted

Can we know God without the Bible? That question probably needs to be qualified a bit. Do you have to own a Bible to know God? No. People didn't own Bibles for hundreds of years. OT believers did not have Bibles (they had the law which was all they knew at that time), but Hebrews commends so many of them for their great faith in God. OT believers were saved by faith in a messiah they looked forward to. Can you be saved without the Bible? Yeah, in theory, but my question is... Why would you want to? You can't be saved without the Bible's message that is uniquely found therein.

[Note from Brant: Wasn't my point. Point is, just acknowledging that there is revelation from God that's not the Bible will get some people atwitter. I did change it to say "God's qualities" to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Undeniably, the Bible claims that people can know God's divine qualities through nature. This isn't really arguable, as far as I can tell. But again, just acknowledging some things in the Bible that don't fit the certain mindset will...you know...atwitter.]

[Christopher]

Brant, the ideas that you have expressed here about the Bible, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not new or innovative-- they are classic historical errors of theological liberalism. You are now saying that the Bible is perhaps "not the path to God-- Jesus is." The obvious question is, how do we even KNOW that Jesus is the path to God? From the Bible! When Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to lead the apostles into "all truth," it's good to remember to that He was speaking to men who did not yet have the full canon of the Scriptures. That's not to say that now that we have the Bible, we don't need the Spirit. Far from it-- we need the Spirit to help us understand the Bible, as well as to guide us in situations where the application of Biblical principles is not always so clear (I don't think that applies very much to the current conversation though, as I obviously think that ecclesiology is much clearer in the Scriptures than you do). We do have much more of the revealed truth that we need, as believers, than even the apostles did though, and so for us, today, the majority of the Holy Spirit's "leading into all truth" is in helping us to understand and apply the Bible. It's dangerous to talk about following that Holy Spirit in a way that makes doing so more important than reading, understanding, and applying the Bible.

You say that the Bible is not the Word of God--Jesus is. This is another classic, historical theological error. Jesus is mentioned as "the Word" in John 1:1, but the Bible also described "the word of God" in many, many verses. Again, the Bible reveals and describes Jesus to us, and tells us of His actions and teachings for us. Jesus should not be set against the Bible. The Bible should be read in light of Jesus and His person and work for us, but we would not even know of Jesus, if not for the Bible.

Lastly, you write that people "can know God without the Bible." They can know certain things ABOUT God without the Bible, from general revelation, but they do need the special revelation of the Bible to truly KNOW God, in a saving way. Jesus Christ does not normatively reveal Himself to anyone outside of that person either reading the Bible or hearing the Bible expalined.

[Note from Brant: Christopher is false in a number of areas.

People DO and HAVE come to know Christ withiout the Bible. In many nations, in times ancient and modern. We have people that bear witness, as living letters, to the truth that endures.

I did not say that the Bible never refers to scripture as the "word of God". In fact, I approvingly referenced the Psalm that says God's word -- in this context, scripture -- is a "lamp unto my feet". Nowhere do I exclusively say the only references for "word" in the Bible are to Jesus.

Further, the idea that I'm committing the errors of classical theological liberalism is completely ridiculous. Sorry.

To say, as I have, that scripture is God-breathed, but not to be idolized, and points to Jesus, who IS our means to God -- that's not exactly Jesus Seminar stuff.

To argue that people can ONLY come to Christ through a book is the stuff of pharisees. It doesn't square with the experience of believers through history, and -- again, ironically -- it's unbiblical.

And yes, it's perfectly consistent to refer to the Bible to demonstrate that it does make some of the claims for itself that others make for it. I believe it to be given us by God, but it illumines our path, it is not essential for salvation. It doesn't claim it, either.

It's a classical pharisaical position to ascribe to scriptures an office that it does not occupy. Christopher also burdens believers with his idea of what constitutes a true church, including a formalized policy for excommunication, and you MUST have formal membership guidelines, or you are not a church.

Millions of fundamentalists, even, disagree with him. But they are wrong. People who gather in homes in China, for instance, without formalized membership plans, are not churches. They may care for each other, worship the risen Christ, care for the poor, break bread together in remembrance of Christ, have changed lives -- but they are not a church, without formal membership.

Jesus had many conversations with people who wanted to make up rules, according to their Correct positions on scripture, and apply them to others, missing the very heart of God.

It makes no logical sense to say that a person who believes scripture should not be worshiped cannot see scripture as a gift from God. None.

It *is* fallacious, though, to fault someone for lack of adherence to scripture for failing to believe claims about scripture that aren't in scripture itself. Among them: No one can know Jesus without the Bible.

By the way, anyone offended by the idea that scripture CAN be held in too-high regard -- that it can be idolized -- ignores Jesus's interaction with the Pharisees, or just needs to think about it some more, or just can't let go of a closely-held false idea.

I believe what the Bible says about itself. If you think this is theological liberalism, that says more about you than me.

I'm done discussing this with you, Christopher. If people think that's rude, they should read the Gospels. That ain't nothin'.]

[Thriveal]

You gotta admit...

"Stick it in your pipe and smoke it"

is a pretty cool come-back.

(I'm with Sonja)

[Molly]

John 1:1 is Jesus, not the Bible, as you said. Another one that blew me away was Hebrews 4;12. I'd memorized that as a little kid, and it was about the Bible, right? But the next verse says it's not. It's about the Word, the PERSON. A Him, not an It.

[Seth Ward]

To add a little gas to the flame...

How can a protestant recognize the authority of the bible without also recognizing the authority of the church that decided what books made it in the canon and what books didn't? Seems like you can't tell people to obey the laws of the land if you don't recognize the government that established them. I get a little weary of "this far with my authority talk and no further." (That goes for myself too.)

And what about the early Christians? They didn't have the New Testament. Did they really know Jesus? My argument would be that if the bible were wiped off the face of the earth, the Lord would show himself in another way. My guess would be through his Church. And if we believe that the Church is the body of Christ, then we also believe that we are also the living "Word" of Christ as well.

If we didn't have the bible, (and we may not someday...) we'd have people speaking revelations straight from the Holy Spirit just like the original Disciples and followers of the Way had, without the benefit of the New Testament and the fours spirchal laws.

When you use the argument that "how do you know about these things? The bible, right?" You saying the the Holy Spirit has no other means by which the Truth can be or has been communicated. This is simply not true. The disciples, and early Christians, Stephen for crying out loud, spoke wonderous revelations about the Lord without education or the Gospels or the writings of Paul.

[Note from Brant: Seth, I love you. You, too, are, apparently, one of those classic theological liberals. You and me, man: Bultmann and Schweitzer!

I will let you field all the questions from here on out...]

[Terry]

An alternative:

The message of Christmas makes us recognize the darkness of a closed world, and thereby no doubt illustrates a reality that we see daily. Yet it also tells us that God does not allow himself to be shut out. He finds a space, even if it means entering through the stable; there are people who see his light and pass it on. Through the word of the Gospel, the angel also speaks to us, and in the sacred liturgy the light of the Redeemer enters our lives. Whether we are shepherds or “wise men” – the light and its message call us to set out, to leave the narrow circle of our desires and interests, to go out to meet the Lord and worship him. We worship him by opening the world to truth, to good, to Christ, to the service of those who are marginalized and in whom he awaits us.

[Bekah]

So many of the comments here strike me as very elitist. Lucky are we who live in modern America, who probably own numerous translation of Holy Scripture. Too often, we become so used to the normalcy of our current culture, that we forget we are the vast minority of all peoples throughout time. Christ died for the poor, the illiterate, the mentally weak, just as much as the educated. Did God intend to found a people of a book? Or did he call a people to be adopted into His family?

Certainly the book can enrich our faith and knowledge, but it should not be the primary relationship to our God, the first way we know Him, or the highest motivation of loving Him. The people of God themselves should be serving that function, as taught by those who have known Him best. The bible helps illuminate those relationships from the earliest days, illustrating how the patriarchs walked (and sometimes didn't) with God. But this is not a volume in a vacuum. These relationships have continued throughout all time, and can be traced even from the close of the final pages of the Scripture through those who have been friends and disciples of Christ to this day.

The book itself is a wonderful guide to the believer, but the lives of heroes of the Faith are the hook for those who have not truly met Him. Real people living real lives, making true decisions in a way that we can visibly see that Christ is a person who changes our nature. That the Christian life is a viable way of living, not just a philosophical assent to a truth that has little relevance in modern life.

[Seth Ward]

Yeah, back at you buddy. Except together, those initials are B.S.

Maybe add a Barth in there to avoid people making fun of us on the playground. B.B.S... But then that sounds too much like VBS and it sort of defeats the purpose.