Bibliolatry backfire

Long after breaking free from a particular high demand form of fundamentalism, many people still carry around the associated baggage of assumptions. One of the most toxic sets is about the Bible.

Some people are led straight back into another brand of straight-jacketed faith. Dr Pepper is simply substituted for Pepsi. That's the obvious danger.

But what about passionately rejecting the Bible, as if the fundamentalist position was the only way the Bible could be read meaningfully? When that particular ship goes down, so does any residual regard for the book it abused.

No, the Bible isn't an instruction manual, infallible, inerrant, or even uniformly ethical. It certainly isn't possible to read it literally as history, whether in Exodus or Acts. Yes, it's dangerous in the hands of idiots and televangelists. But, quite apart from those very real considerations, at minimum it's an indispensable link to our past, our culture and language. So little survives from the ancient world's literature, the links preserved in the Bible are precious.

But only precious if the fallibility and limitations of the texts are recognised.  And how dopey is it to ignore the various conventions of genre that make up the Bible? We don't have much trouble acknowledging this with Homer or Herodotus, yet - and can't you just feel the vapours rising - Jonah, Genesis and Revelation can't possibly be treated with the same detachment, can they?

The problem is that nobody anchors their ethics on Homer, or seeks counsel from the Gilgamesh Epic before making a significant life-changing decision. The Bible is however a fund of stories which bears that burden, and read critically and honestly, can effectively confront us with a critique on life and values and perhaps even an encounter with the Ultimate. For Christians it's important that these are shared stories, part of a common fund that all can draw on, unlike something on the New York Times bestseller list or the latest episode of Downton Abbey. Sometimes the text rings true from the outset; think of many of the parables. At other times any sane reader couldn't help but recoil in horror as they enter into the text - texts, for example, that glorify Bronze Age tribalism and xenophobia, wrapped in the obscene language of divine authorisation. If you're going to read the Bible profitably, you've got to know the difference. Our response cannot and must not default to a prayerful, passive acceptance, but sometimes a screamed 'No!'

Where to begin?  For those who are 'over' the Bible, perhaps their ship has already well and truly left port. If the path of personal liberation requires that, fair enough and godspeed. But for those still attached, maybe a first step is to retire their familiar fundamentalist Bible, the "faith enhancing" translation with the slavish marginalia. Substituting a HarperCollins Study Bible or New Oxford Annotated Bible wouldn't be bad places to begin. Anyone with a Life Application Study Bible is swimming in swill, and something like the ESV Study Bible is no better (and arguably worse). The King James Version can be appreciated for its literary aesthetics, but not much else. Obsequious notes and dishonest translation choices (e.g. virgin for young woman in Isaiah 7:14) are a sure indication that the reader is still soaking their head in those fundamentalist assumptions.

The Quintessential Concise

If you write for a blog, even a scrappy little pretender like Otagosh, you need a decent dictionary.  Spell checkers alone just don't cut it, as many of us have discovered to our cost when typing to instead of too.  Nothing advertises the fact that you're an amateur (Jim West would say dilettante) as much as a glaring typo in the midst of a piece of serious writing.

I mention this because, as well as being the 400th anniversary of ye olde King James Version this year, its also the 100th anniversary of the quintessential decent dictionary, the Concise Oxford.

To mark the occasion, Oxford have released the twelfth edition of the Concise, along with a reprint of the 1911 first edition.  While this may elicit a chorus of yawns from the back pews, I for one am thoroughly intrigued.  Intrigued enough to spend good money acquiring copies of both.  The former tome that sat next to the desk-top computer, the 2000 New Penguin English Dictionary, can now be retired to classroom use, and the battered, coffee-stained copy of the 1980s COD that I've been persevering with there can finally be put out of its misery.

The 1911 Concise is a fascinating study in how words change.  It's not so much in the words that have been added to the language since 1911, but those that have dropped out completely.  No longer may a blobber-lipped Boanerges create bobbery by counseling a beaverteen-coated benedick after services at the Beulah.  The discretely worded definitions of certain less elevated terms, designed to cause minimum offence, are a period-piece in themselves also.

Equally intriguing is the fact that, chucked in free and gratis with a Kindle, is the full Oxford Dictionary of English (along with the New Oxford American Dictionary) from which the twelfth Concise is derived.  Dictionaries are going to be with us forever, but a scant century after the Fowler brothers produced the first Concise, the momentum is gathering to move from dead trees to e-readers.  The days of the door-stop dictionary are seemingly numbered.

Which is kind of sad.

While on the topic, look out for Stephen Fry's brilliant Planet Word, a BBC series telling "the story of language from the earliest grunts to Twitter and beyond."  It'll take a while before it's screened in this part of Her Majesty's Dominions, but the book of the series is already out (in New Zealand, but not apparently in the US where you'll have to settle for the e-book version in the meantime.) 

Link to 1911 Oxford Concise Dictionary on Amazon.
Link to Amazon's Kindle version of Planet Word.

Spare the Rod

Samuel Martin draws attention to an IVP title, Corporal Punishment in the Bible by William J. Webb.  This is the sort of book that needs to circulate wherever people attempt to apply biblical texts to everyday life.  Let's face it, Christians still form a sizable rump of corporal punishment advocates and, seeking to justify it, appeal to the Bible.

Martin, son of former Ambassador College professor Ernest L. Martin, has long championed an alternative perspective.  Those who still find corporal punishment acceptable include not just biblical literalists but, incredibly, Australian Presbyterians.  Webb's book has the endorsement of a variety of leading figures within the evangelical fold including I. Howard Marshall (who wrote the foreward) and Darrell Bock.  Jim West has posted a brief review online.

Webb challenges parents to "dare to read the Bible differently."  All power to him.

Details on 'Corporal Punishment in the Bible' at Amazon

Before the Apocalypse

Captain Ritchie McCaw contemplating a dish of Wallaby Stew

Today is the 16th, and I'll admit to being nervous.  Tonight New Zealand's finest go forth to face the ancient foe on the sacred grounds of Eden Park.  The fate of the world hangs in the balance.

Last night the gallant Welsh were put to the sword by the French.  The French!  Unbelievable.  I've sworn off French Toast for the rest of the month!

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I'm talking about Rugby; real football.  Not (shudder) Aussie Rules or that effete deviation common in the United States (the one with helmets and shoulder pads).  And tonight New Zealand meets Australia in the second World Cup semi-final.

In the wake of Wales' tragic defeat, and the clock relentlessly ticking down to tonight's struggle between the forces of evil and the black-clad Sons of Light, it was a choice, this morning, between prayer and fasting, or retail therapy. I opted for the latter.

But I'm not sure it's worked.  

And imagine - if such a ghastly thing can be imagined - if the Australians did, by some miracle (a demonic miracle) did beat the All Blacks and went on to play France in the finals...

I mean, who could you even consider cheering for?

Ben Mitchell story online

A nod to Felix, who discovered the link to the Ben Mitchell story reported on here some time ago.  Ben tells his story of life growing up in the dysfunctional Worldwide Church of God as a kid. The clip is from Australia's A Current Affair.  It may not be online forever, so see it while you can.

I'm about 16 chapters into Ben's semi-autobiographical novel, The Last Great Day, at the moment, and will post some comments in a few days time.

Historical bottom lines

Thomas Verenna passes on the question: What events recorded in scripture must be historical for you to affirm the truthfulness of Christianity?

The source of this puzzler is Brian LePort's blog. It's a great question. Can there even be a coherent theology without some kind of historical base, or does it just all turn to custard? Can the assertion that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese be factually inaccurate while still being deeply meaningful and revelatory?

Cutting edge philosopher/theologians like Don Cupitt long ago cut loose from the Grand Narrative. Perhaps that's why their perspective no longer looks distinctly Christian any more.

At the other end of the spectrum are the fundamentalists (Tom cites the United Church of God as his example!) who want you to believe absolutely everything. Somewhere in the middle, unctuously impaled on the fence, are the poster boys of ponderous prevarication (N. T. Wright anyone?)

Maybe we could break Brian's question down into some representative 'True or False' bite-size chunks.

• Adam and Eve were literally the progenitors of humanity.
• Satan is a fallen archangel in rebellion against God.
• There was a worldwide flood that wiped all life off the face of the earth in the time of Noah.
• God made the sun stand still so Joshua could wipe out his enemies thoroughly.
• God commanded bloody genocide against the Canaanites in the Old Testament.
• Daniel knew what was going to happen hundreds of years into the future.
• Key events in Jesus' life were accurately predicted in Isaiah, Psalms etc.
• Mary was a virgin when she fell pregnant.
• Jesus turned water into wine.
• Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form three days after the crucifixion.

Score ten for each which you feel are true (i.e. definitely historical), five for those you think might be historical but equally might not, and zero for those you think are patently false (i.e. pious inventions).

If you score 85-100, do you consider yourself a fundamentalist? If not, why not?

If you score 0, do you necessarily consider yourself a non-Christian? If not, why not?

Cult of Denial

Some demented "pastor" joker recently called Mormonism a cult, and given that the next president of the US could well be a Latter-day Saint, the outrage has been swift. Even some evangelicals - evangelicals - have been crying foul.

Now I wouldn't describe the LDS church as a cult. Nor the SDAs, JWs, or a hundred other sects that defy in some way the brain-dead conventions of orthodoxy. The sad truth is that I kinda admire some, in a jaundiced, skeptical, raising-of-an-eyebrow fashion. And, yep, the use of the word 'cult', especially when used as a theological club, is extremely poor form.

But I still use it to describe high demand religious movements that micromanage the lives of adherents, especially intellectually, and impose punitive measures on those who don't conform to the letter of their legislation. It becomes even more problematic when those in charge have no line of accountability, ruling by fear and authority, without the slightest mandate.

Okay, we could use the term "high demand religious movement" instead, but let's face it, it doesn't even begin to convey the malice against the human spirit - evil even - that these groups can perpetrate. No, the LDS church isn't like that now, and hasn't been that way for a very long time, but can you say that about the FLDS sect?

It just doesn't cut it to merely call groups like these 'New Religious Movements', as if they're just promoting a new Tupperware product.

I am a former member of a high demand NRM. Was it a cult? Or more to the point, did it deserve the opprobrium of being labelled as a 'cult'? It depended on when you asked; NRMs tend to be unstable entities, evolving rapidly. There were times it scored low on the cult continuum (the late 1970s for example), despite the impassioned shrieks of the cult busters like Salem Kirban and his ilk. There were others when the groups' dynamic turned from mildly toxic to downright lethal. People actually died because of church doctrine and discipline. Groups like these aren't about what people believe in their heads - doctrinal purity is an illusion. They're about control, and they're about the people who are manipulated by those who are supposed to 'serve' as leaders.

'Cult' therefore remains in my vocabulary, though I think voters should be more concerned about Mitt Romney's policies rather than his faith commitment..