Misusing the Bible: The Tragedy of Nat Turner’s Rebellion

Earlier this month I watched the 2016 movie The Birth of a Nation for the third time. It graphically depicts the rebellion of enslaved men in Virginia that began 190 years ago on August 21, 1831. 

Historical marker erected in 1991

The Making of a Black Preacher

Much of what is portrayed in The Birth of a Nation is fictional—or a composite of the historical people of the time rather than specifically about the one boy/man Nat Turner, who was, in fact, born in October 1800 in Virginia’s Southampton County.

It also is historically true that Nat was a precocious boy who learned to read at a young age—although not necessarily in the way it was portrayed in the movie. And he learned to read by using the Bible as his “reader.”

Further, it is factually true that Nat continued to read the Bible regularly and had a deep, even mystical, spiritual life. Both because of his knowledge of the Bible and his mystical experiences, he apparently became a preacher at an early age.

However, Nat was not used by his “owner,” Tom Turner, as portrayed in the movie, for in fact, Tom Turner died in 1822.

But even if Nat was not “used” to pacify the enslaved people to whom he preached in Southampton Co., it is historically accurate that “slaveowners” expected Black preachers to use Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Peter 2:18 often in their sermons.

Also, similar to what is portrayed in the movie, those preachers did so when “slave owners” were present, as they often were. Selective use of the Bible became a tool for the control of enslaved people in the American South.

That is just one of numerous examples of the historical—and current!—misuse of the Bible.

The Re-making of a Black Preacher

Nat Turner, however, seems to have begun to read the Old Testament more and more, especially passages about the “warrior” God depicted in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and some of the Minor Prophets.

Spurred by visions that he considered of divine origin, Nat began to preach more and more, when he could, about the use of force against evil—and he began to plot a violent rebellion against the Whites in Southampton. And, as indicated, the actual uprising began on the night of August 21, 1831.

The actions of Nat Turner and his fellow rebels were brutal. White children were killed along with their slave-owning parents. That was consistent with what the Old Testament includes as God’s instructions to the Israelites in their battles against the Canaanites and others.

The insurrection was quelled in just a couple of days, but it took the lives of some 60 Whites and about four times that number of Blacks. After successfully hiding out for more than two months, Nat was captured and then hanged on November 11.

Critiquing Black Preacher Turner

The main problem I have with Nat Turner’s use of the Bible—as well as with the pro-slavery people of the South—is his/their paucity of references to Jesus Christ and his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere.

Still, it is not hard to have considerable sympathy for Nat Turner. As Judith Edwards writes near the end of Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion in American History (2000), her helpful book written for high school students,

Nat Turner, whose rebellion was so very bloody, seems not to have been a violent man by choice. The excesses of slavery caused the excesses of his rebellion (p. 99).

So, perhaps the (mis)use of the Bible by Nat Turner wasn’t any worse than, and maybe not as bad as, the (mis)use of the Bible by the Whites of the South in the 19^th century—and now.

But when, oh when, will Christians ever learn how to believe/preach the word of truth correctly (see 2 Tim. 2:15)?

_____

** My blog post for Oct. 10, 2016, was titled “The Birth of the Nation” and is about the 2016 movie with that name and Nat Turner’s rebellion. While the content overlaps this present post, there is much that is different, and I commend it for your consideration (again). (Surprisingly, there have been over 850 “pageviews” of that post.)

The Limits of Liberal Views of the Bible

Over the last four months, I have posted four foundational articles related to my book The Limits of Liberalism (2010), which I am updating and slightly revising this year. This post is based on Chapter Five, the first specific issue discussed with an entire chapter—and the only one dealing with the same issue as my book on fundamentalism.  

Positive Aspects in Liberal Views

Before elucidating some problem areas in liberal views of the Bible, several positions must first be noted as being commendable.

First, the rejection of biblical inerrancy is an important emphasis of liberalism.

In his 2003 book The Heart of Christianity, Marcus Borg strikingly states that in the last half-century “more Christians have left the church because of the Bible than for any other single reason” (p. 43)—and that is largely because of the conservative evangelical emphasis on inerrancy. Thus, the liberals’ rejection of that is praiseworthy.

Also, as I write in Chapter Five, “As opposed to fundamentalism’s approach to the Bible, in the liberal paradigm there is freedom to revise interpretations and to reject previous views which are obviously no longer valid.” That, too, is commendable.

So, there are clearly some positive aspects in liberal views of the Bible. However, . . .

Negative Aspects in Liberal Views

The starting point of liberalism is one of the main problems, for it begins with reason, not God’s revelation as recorded in the Bible.

Traditional “orthodox” (Protestant) theologians thought we should start with the Bible and form our Christian beliefs and base our actions on it. But liberals tend to think that we should start with reason and accept only what we can rationally understand and accept of the Bible.

That problem was highlighted by Martin Luther in his disputation with the scholar Erasmus. Luther reportedly said, “The difference between you and me, Erasmus, is that you sit above Scripture and judge it, while I sit under Scripture and let it judge me!”

Further, one does not have to be a conservative evangelical to see that there are potential problems with the liberals’ “softness” in speaking clearly about the unique inspiration of the Bible or the authority of the Bible, which were strong traditional Christian emphases long before the rise of fundamentalism.

Questions about Liberal Views

In Chapter Five, I discuss five questions. The first two are, “human or divine?” and “factual or metaphorical?” In contrast to most conservatives’ emphasis on the Bible as divine and mostly factual, most liberals tend to see the Bible primarily as a human book and mostly metaphorical.

Both questions are probably answered best with a both/and position rather than an either/or one. The latter is easier to explain, but the truth is much more likely to be found in the both/and explanation.

The final question of the chapter is this: should Christians speak of the “Holy Bible” or of multiple “sacred scriptures”?

There is a proclivity in liberal theology toward the latter, which means relativizing the Bible. Thus, rather than holding to the Christian Bible as unique, as implied by the words “Holy Bible,” the sacred writings of other faith traditions are seen as more or less of equal value or validity.

In contrast to the contentious past in which Christians tended to vilify other religions and to denigrate their scriptures, liberals are prone to accept the scriptures of all major religions as being more or less of equal value.

Certainly, that irenic attitude of the liberals in this regard is preferable to the belligerent attitudes and actions of many Christians of the past. But it is not necessary to go from one extreme to the other.

Asserting one’s belief in and acceptance of the “Holy Bible” does not keep us from affirming the right of the adherents of other religions to believe in and accept the sacredness of their scriptures.

But affirmation of religious freedom does not mean relativism. It is simply a matter of respect for others with different traditions. Or, we might say, it is a matter of loving others as we are commanded to do by the Holy Bible.

*****

“The Bible Is Like a Rorschach Test” was the title of my 9/20/17 blog post, and it has received more than 350 pageviews; if you would like to read it (again), click here.

The Bible and the Newspaper

Karl Barth is widely regarded as the greatest (Protestant) Christian theologian of the twentieth century. Among a myriad of other things, Barth (1886~1968) is often credited with saying that people should hold the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. 

Barth’s Important Words

It is questionable that Barth ever spoke the words he is often quoted as saying. But in “Barth in Retirement,” a May 1963 Time magazine article, Barth stated that 40 years ago he advised young theologians to “take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both.”

That article also quotes Barth as saying, “I always pray for the sick, the poor, journalists, authorities of the state and church—in that order. Journalists form public opinion. They hold terribly important positions.”

Now, unlike in 1963 or 40 years before that, the news and the work of the journalists is disseminated by digital means as well as by print. So “newspaper” needs to be interpreted as all the ways the news is reported.

And the journalists for whom Barth regularly prayed includes all of those who seek to communicate and interpret the news by all the various forms of public media, even when—or especially when—they are castigated as being the “enemy of the people” by you-know-who.

The Eternal Word

Barth’s theology is often depicted as the theology of the Word of God. The Word of God comes to human beings in three “forms”: the humanity of Christ, the words of the prophets and the apostles (i.e. the canonical Scriptures), and the words of preachers. 

Barth, thus, emphasized the Word of God in this threefold sense:

** The Incarnate Word of God

          Despite the way much conservative evangelicalism has emphasized the Bible as the Word of God, Barth first emphasizes that primarily Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Certainly, that emphasis is in harmony with John 1:1~18 in the New Testament. (Click here to review that seminal passage.)

** The Written Word of God

The Bible is the record of God’s revelation through the Jewish people and then especially through Jesus Christ, the Word of God par excellence.

** The Proclaimed Word of God

The preachers, or theologians, that Barth referred to are those who speak not just to share their personal ideas or insights but to interpret the written Word of God in order to know the message of and about Jesus, the incarnate Word of God. No “job” is more demanding/challenging than that of being called to proclaim that Word.

The Everchanging Word

Barth was born in Switzerland and always had Swiss citizenship. Most of his higher education, however, was in Germany, and after serving for ten years as a pastor in Switzerland, in 1921 he began teaching in Germany.

Even though he was a pastor and in 1918 the author of a commentary on the biblical book of Romans, he evidently regularly read the everchanging word in the newspapers. Although he was not a German, in the 1930s he became a leader of the Christian opposition to Hitler and the Nazis.

Barth was a leader of the Confessing Church in Germany and the chief author of the Barmen Declaration of 1934. (I wrote about this briefly in a 7/20/19 blog post.) Barth’s reading of and preaching the eternal Word of God was balanced by his reading, and acting upon, what he found in the everchanging words of the newspapers.

As so it should be for us Christians today. During Holy Week this month, Pastor Laura Mayo penned an important op/ed piece titled "For all who seek to follow Rabbi Jesus, now is exactly the time to be political." She doesn’t say so, but it is evident that just as Barth advocated, Pastor Laura had been reading both the Bible and the "newspaper."

For many years after I started my preaching ministry (at the age of 16!), I focused mainly on the Word of God. But gradually I came to understand the importance of Barth’s emphasis on reading both the Bible and the newspaper.

Now I wonder if I spend too much time reading the "newspaper“ (online news articles and opinion pieces) and not enough time reflecting on how all the "news“ should be interpreted by the Word of God.

What about you?

Still Fed Up with Fundamentalism's View of the Bible

This article is based on the fifth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007), which I am currently updating (and slightly revising) for re-publication at the end of the year. Beliefs about the Bible were central to the rise of fundamentalism 100 years ago and its “resurgence” that began 40 years ago.  

The Basic Problem: Inerrancy

Fundamentalists, now generally known as conservative evangelicals, have strongly emphasized the necessity of an inerrant Bible. Perhaps more than anything else, belief in Biblical inerrancy is the defining doctrine for fundamentalists.

Writing in The Fundamentalist Phenomenon (1981), Jerry Falwell declared: “A Fundamentalist is one who believes the Bible to be verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore inerrant and absolutely infallible” (pp. 119-120).

In the ninth chapter of Inerrancy (1980), Paul D. Feinberg presents this definition:

Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences (p. 294).

There are several problems with this definition, though. Is it possible to know all the facts? And how do we know when the Bible as a whole, or when any individual passage, is “properly interpreted”? And do we really expect the Bible to be infallible about specific matters in the social, physical, and life sciences?

Three Related Problems

1) The Problem of Interpretation

Here, especially, is the problem of conservative evangelicals’ insistence on interpreting the Bible literally.

W.A. Criswell was one of the most prominent Southern Baptist pastors in the 20^th century. He has been called “the patriarch of the ‘conservative resurgence’ among Southern Baptists.” Perhaps his best-known book is Why I Preach That the Bible is Literally True (1969).

In the third chapter of that book, Criswell (1909~2002) emphasizes that the Bible “is the Word of God, not merely contains it.” Then on the basis of 2 Timothy 3:16, Criswell asserts: “On the original parchment every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen stroke, jot, and tittle were put there by inspiration of God.”

What does it mean, though, to say that the Bible is literally true? And how can one determine what is literally true and what is not? For example, what about the snake talking to Eve in the Garden of Eden? Did that literally happen? If so, how was it that a snake could talk? And what language was used?

2) The Problem of Selective Reading

To give just one example here, these days we hear a lot, especially from conservative evangelicals, about maintaining traditional marriage. But the biggest names of the Old Testament were polygamists—Abraham, Jacob, and David. Moreover, adultery was punishable by death.

The point, of course, is that “following the Bible” in maintaining “traditional marriage,” means following only selected parts of the Bible. There is no question but that even the staunchest fundamentalists are selective in the Bible passages they interpret as literally binding on Christians today.

3) The Problem of Changing Beliefs

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and Christians are supposed to believe in a literal interpretation of that Word, how can there be changes in what Christians say the Bible teaches?

In issue after issue, though, there have been changes, some of them quite dramatic. In the final part of Chapter Five, I write about changes in beliefs about the physical sciences, slavery, and even the proper dress for women.

So, while maintaining a high opinion of the Bible’s significance, I am fed up with fundamentalism’s view of the Bible for the reasons given above, among others.

Biblical, but not Christian

This article is somewhat related to the one I posted on 9/20/17, which has garnered more than 1,050 pageviews, and to the fifth chapter of my Fed Up with Fundamentalism, about which I plan to post an article on 6/25/19. But because of the importance of the subject, please think with me about this matter now.

“The Bible says . . . “

As a young pastor, every sermon I preached was based on a Bible passage, and most sermons cited several other verses from various parts of the Bible. After all, back then Billy Graham, the most famous preacher in the world, repeatedly proclaimed, “the Bible says . . .“ in all of his powerful sermons.

Later, perhaps much too much later, I realized that the Bible says a lot of things—and that everything the Bible says is not Christian.

The word “Christian” as I am using it here means that which is in harmony with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. The word “Christian” can, of course, refer to that—or those—associated with the religion known as Christianity. The better use, though, is with direct reference to the Christ from whom the religion sprang.

What Verses are Normative?

Many years ago, Kaneko Keiichi-sensei was a younger colleague of mine at Seinan Gakuin University in Japan. More than once I remember him asserting that it is not how many Bible verses one cites but which verses one cites that is of crucial importance.

At first, I didn’t grasp the import of Kaneko-sensei’s words, but I later came to appreciate the significance of his assertion. It is possible to quote a lot of Bible verses that are contrary to how Jesus lived and what he taught.

So, again, things can be biblical but not Christian.

As is often noted in this connection, “biblical” support for slavery in the 19^th century and the “biblical” support for rejecting women in ministry in the 20^th century are good examples for how the Bible has been (mis)used to maintain cultural norms.

Currently, the “hottest” issue is about acceptance/affirmation of LGBTQ people as equals within the church. The United Methodist Church last month approved the “biblical” position on that matter.

Unquestionably, Bible verses can be marshaled in support of slavery, against women in ministry as well as against acceptance of gay, lesbian, and transsexual persons. Those arguments can be touted as biblical. But are they Christian?

It depends on which verses one considers normative.

Reading the Bible Christianly

Last month Sojourners magazine printed “Not Everything ‘Biblical’ is Christlike,” a fine article by Stephen Mattson, one of my youngish Facebook friends. I highly recommend that relatively short piece.

In light of the recent controversy in the United Methodist Church, earlier last month a retired UM pastor in Georgia wrote an article titled “Be Careful Using the Bible.”  

And then, the first chapter of Chuck Queen’s 2013 book Being a Progressive Christian is quite good. He begins Chapter 1 with the assertion, “What the Bible says is not necessarily what God says.”

Or, it could be asserted that the Bible may be the “Word of God” but not all of the words in the Bible are the words of God. This is important to realize, for as Queen says, “The direct identification of God’s voice with what the Bible says has been used to justify all sorts of destructive biases and oppressive practices.”

I have written this article not to discourage reading the Bible. Rather, I am encouraging Christians to read the Bible “Christianly”—and to realize that many things can, indeed, be biblical but not Christian.

Combatting “Leatherbound Terrorism”

As the author of a book titled Fed Up with Fundamentalism and of a soon-to-be-published book whose last chapter is about grace, I am happy to introduce readers of this blog to Chris Kratzer and his recently-published book Leatherbound Terrorism.

Who is Chris Kratzer?

On his website (see here), Chris Kratzer identifies himself as “a husband, father, pastor, author, and speaker.” He has been a pastor for 23 years, mostly serving “conservative Evangelical churches.”

Kratzer is now the pastor of The Grace Place (in Shelby, N.C.), which is billed as “a contemporary, progressive, affirming church.”

I have not met Chris personally, but I have carefully read his book, which was self-published in September. Its subtitle is Crucified by Conservative Evangelicalism, Resurrected By Jesus.

The book is quite personal. In the first chapter Chris talks about meeting Jesus for the first time when he was seven years old. By reading the book, one comes to know much about the author, from that time until the present.

I have become a Facebook friend with Chris—as have more than 3,200 others. In addition, I am a subscriber to his blog (see here).

What is Leatherbound Terrorism?

Kratzer graduated from seminary and became a Lutheran pastor, but after a few years he was lured into becoming a conservative Evangelical. That shift is described in Chapter Three, “Drinking The Poison.”  

Even though he had a long and deep association with Evangelicalism, Chris came to realize that that form of Christianity is poisonous and that the conservative use of what is claimed as an infallible Bible is nothing other than leatherbound (as used for expensive Bibles) terrorism.

The seventh chapter of Leatherbound Terrorism bears the same title as the book. There he asserts that “declaring the infallibility of the Bible and the exclusive, divine authority of one’s interpretation of it” often leads to “power, control, and privilege” (p. 87).

Reflecting on his acceptance of that stance, Kratzer confesses that he committed “countless acts of leatherbound terrorism, deserving of nothing less than the status of a vicious war criminal” (p. 90). Strong words!

Later he writes, “We [Evangelical] Christians have been drastically wrong . . . about racism, wrong about equality, wrong about violence and war, the list keeps growing” (p. 137). He also admits that he has been wrong in his evaluation of and treatment of LGBT people.

But it is not just the beliefs of Evangelicalism that Chris now thinks are wrong. It is also their common method of operation.

“My heart is saddened and filled with deep compassion,” Chris writes, “for those Christians and pastors who have been sucked into the black hole of a success-driven, corporate, narcissistic, elitist church culture overflowing within much of American Christianity” (p. 161).

The Antidote

The remedy or antidote for all of that toxic, terroristic Christianity he had encountered and embraced, Kratzer found, was the central message of grace.

He writes in the fourth chapter how he was liberated when he “encountered Grace—unconditional, irrevocable, unremovable, pure, undiluted Grace” (p. 55). And that is the main message of the rest of his book—and of his ministry ever since.

If I was “fed up with fundamentalism” when I wrote my book with that title, Kratzer's book clearly reveals that he had become sick to death of fundamentalism, which he calls conservative Evangelicalism.

And if as I have written in Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now  (see the last paragraph of this link), “for Christians—and for all the people of the world—God’s first and last word is grace,” Kratzer’s praise of grace is even stronger.

Grace is truly the last word and the best word for everyone.
_____
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

Why Study the Bible?

For the first time in a long time, on Sept. 24 I attended a Sunday School class in a Southern Baptist church. That experience was the springboard for the question posed above.

Questioning Bible Study

June and I spent the last weekend in September in southwest Missouri. On Sunday morning we attended a very lively Baptist church in a rural area several miles south of Springfield. 

The study material used for the class we attended was the “Explore the Bible” quarterly produced by LifeWay, the publishing company known from 1891 to 1998 as the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board.

Exodus and Leviticus are being explored during this fall quarter; the Sept. 24 lesson was on Exodus 14:13-28. In the class we attended, the King James Version was the translation used, although LifeWay also offers two other translations.

By the end of the class, attended by 12-15 older adults, I began to wonder about the purpose of it all. There was almost no attempt, either by the teacher or the quarterly, to make the class any more than a study of the events found in the Bible passage.

After returning home, I was able to buy a digital copy of that Sunday School quarterly online. Here are a couple of statements in it indicating what readers might learn from study of Ex. 14:13-28. (i) “God delivers His people, providing a way of escape.” (ii) “Believers demonstrate faith in God by obediently following His directions.”

Bible Study Questions

In listening to the Sunday School teacher, who was quite articulate in his lecture about the Bible passage, there were several questions that I would like to have raised. I did not have any chance to do that—and it probably would not have been appropriate to have done so as a visitor.

Here are some of my questions: If the Church is God’s people today, will God provide us a way of escape from our “enemies” similar to that provided to the Israelites whom Moses led to and through the Red Sea?

Since God did not tell the Israelites to build up armed forces and fight against the Egyptians militarily, why do so many U.S. Christians seem to think they should be supporters of massive armed forces now?

Then, what are God’s directions to believers today? Is God directing Christians in the U.S. to support the current President? My guess is that probably 80% or so of the people in the church I attended on Sept 24 voted for and continue to support DJT, even though (or because?) he threatens to unleash “fire and fury” upon North Korea and to “totally destroy” that country. Is that God’s will?

So, why study the Bible to learn about the past without considering or discussing what lessons there might be for the present?

Of course it is much easier, and far less controversial, for a teacher or a quarterly to deal with information about the past than to struggle with present-day implications of the Bible passage being studied.

Purpose of Bible Study

There is, certainly, some value in studying the Bible for understanding its content in historical context. Shouldn’t the primary purpose of a Sunday School class, though, be seeking to understand the meaning and challenge of the Bible for us in our context today?

But who is willing to engage in the hard work of that kind of Bible study? And to what extent would our interpretation be shaped by our political views rather than the latter being shaped by the Bible?

Still, we surely need to study/explore the Bible with the intent of finding it a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths.

The Bible is Like a Rorschach Test

Long before I read Brian Zahnd’s new book Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God I had made a note to use the above title for a future blog article. Thus, I was surprised when I read this in BZ’s book: “Sometimes the Bible is like a Rorschach test: our interpretation of the text reveals more about ourselves than about God” (p. 14). Quite true!

Literal and Metaphorical Rorschach Tests

Rorschach inkblot #10

The story of the background and development of the Rorschach test is thoroughly told in a book by Damion Searls published earlier this year under the title The Inkblots: Hermann Rorschach, His iconic Test, and the Power of Seeing. (I have only scanned the book, but here is the link to Thinking Friend Clif Hostetler’s review of it.)  

Rorschach created the inkblots test for the purpose of psychological analysis and evaluation. But the popularity of those tests has resulted in their metaphorical use also.

In his book, Searls reports that in 1993 Hillary Clinton said to an Esquire reporter, “I’m a Rorschach test” (p. 263). And then in 2008 Barack Obama said to a New York Times reporter, with a somewhat different meaning, “I am like a Rorschach test” (p. 309).

Truly, as the Rorschach test amply illustrates, people look at the same thing, or same person, and come to widely different conclusions about the nature and significance of those things or persons.

That is true for the Bible also.

The Bible as a Rorschach Test

How people read and interpret the Bible varies greatly. For example, the Bible as seen by fundamentalist Christians is different in multifarious ways from how it is seen by those of us who are not fundamentalists.

The passages of the Bible a person chooses for evaluating current issues tells us a lot about that person. Their use of the Bible is, truly, like a Rorschach test.

For a case in point, consider Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. Last month (here) I quoted Jeffress saying that God has given Pres. Trump the authority to “take out” Kim Jong-un. That dangerous assertion is based on his selection and interpretation of “God’s Word” as found in Romans 13.

Then on Sept. 11, in commenting on the immigration issue and the “Dreamers,” Jeffress told Fox News (see here) that “God is not necessarily an open borders guy.”

According to the Dallas pastor, the Bible teaches that God has established borders and instituted the government to protect its citizens. Thus, he says, those Christians who emphasize compassion based on Gen. 1:27 are telling only one side of the story.

It seems quite clear than when Jeffress looks at the Bible, he sees a book that supports the current President of the U.S. and the bulk of the Republican Party. That doesn’t tell us much about the Bible, but it tells us a lot about Jeffress and the “evangelicals” who agree with him.

The Proper Criterion

In his book mentioned above, Zahnd emphasizes that all of the Bible should be read from the viewpoint of Jesus. That is, the Old Testament, the letters of Paul, and all other parts of the Bible must be interpreted in light of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Baptists used to have it right: the 1963 version of the Baptist Faith and Message clearly and importantly stated: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

Thus, when Jesus is the basis for interpreting the Bible, we find a perspective considerably different from that of Pastor Jeffress.

What does your interpretation of the Bible say about you?

"The Bible" (2013 version)

Every Sunday evening this month, like many of you June and I have watched “The Bible,” the 10-hour mini-series on the History channel. As one who has been reading the Bible regularly for more than 65 years, it has been interesting to see how the story of the Bible is depicted in this new production by Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, a husband and wife team. 

Some of you know Ms. Downey (b. 1960), who is said to be a devout Catholic, as Monica, the kind-hearted angel on the successful American TV series “Touched by an Angel.” In “The Bible” she plays the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, during the time of Jesus’ public ministry.

The first episode of the mini-series was telecast on March 3 and was seen by 13.1 million viewers, the largest cable television audience of 2013 to date. The second installment continued "to deliver blockbuster ratings" for the network, attracting 10.8 million viewers.

In spite of its large viewing audience, there has been criticism of “The Bible” both from religious conservatives and liberals. The greatest support for the mini-series has clearly come from the right.

Still, some “Bible-believing Baptists” I was with recently complained about factual errors being portrayed in the new movie. And they were right: there have been some things that were clearly biblically inaccurate, which is not good for a program on the History channel. (Several errors are given here.)

There are other parts, especially at the beginning of the first segment, that are true to the biblical narrative but also questionable as history from a broader (scientific) viewpoint. As one who is not a fundamentalist, one of my main criticisms of “The Bible” is its presentation of all the Bible stories as literally true.

Most moderate and progressive Christians understand some parts of the Bible to have symbolic or metaphorical meaning rather than being literally true. But that way of interpreting the Bible doesn’t lend itself to graphic action scenes, such as are prevalent in “The Bible.”

Part of my criticism of what I have seen so far, which is 4/5 of the whole series, is regarding the amount of violence portrayed. Certainly any close reading of the Bible reveals a lot of violence over the three and a half millennium covered by the Bible. But the amount of violence in “The Bible” is a vastly larger percentage than that which actually occurred during those 3,500 years.

To be honest, if I were not a Christian and if I had not read the Bible throughout out my lifetime, I think that perhaps I would be more repelled by the first three segments of “The Bible” than attracted to the Bible by it. I wonder what those who are not Christian believers think.

The fourth segment, which aired on Palm Sunday night, was quite well done, though, and presented what seemed to me to be a very appealing Jesus.

Of crucial importance is how the series ends tomorrow, on Easter night. That last segment will deal with the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. For me, and doubtlessly for a lot of Christians, the final evaluation of “The Bible” will depend greatly on how those pivotal events are portrayed.

In spite of some misgivings about the mini-series on the Bible, I encourage you, if possible, to watch the conclusion on Sunday evening. And whether you watch it or not, let me take this means to wish you a Happy Easter!