Earlier this month I
received an email from a Thinking Friend about cherry picking. He said that he
prefers “the Greatest Common Denominator” in spiritual traditions.
Then he wrote,
“Does this make a ‘cherry picker’ of me? But even when I was exclusively
Christian, I exercised discernment regarding the Bible, as you do. Of course I
cherry pick! I want the ripe, not the unripe and rotten.”
Good point.
But is it legitimate
to cherry pick when deciding which verses in the Bible, or which parts of a
religion’s doctrinal statements, to accept or reject?
Cherry picking can
certainly be used illegitimately. It is listed as one type of fallacious
argument—and it is sometimes. But not all cherry picking is wrong or
fallacious.
Consider this
example.
As most of you have
heard, Adrian Peterson, the star running back for the Minnesota Vikings, was
indicted earlier this month on charges of reckless or negligent injury to his
four-year-old son. He is accused of beating his son repeatedly.
But Peterson’s
child abuse indictment has led to some people to hold up for spanking or
switching children.
Corporal punishment
of children has long been considered as divinely sanctioned by many conservative,
“Bible-believing” Christians. After all, the Bible says, “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, / but the one who loves
their children is careful to discipline them” (Proverbs 13:24, NIV).
The oft-quoted
words “spare the rod and spoil the child,”
though, don’t come directly from the Bible. They are from a 17th
century poem by Samuel Butler.
Still, the
admonition in Proverbs is taken quite seriously by many. But what about
Deuteronomy 21:18-21?
That passage says,
“If someone has a stubborn and rebellious
son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when
they discipline him,” they are to take him to the elders and then “all the men of his town are to stone him to
death.”
Thank goodness for
cherry picking!
Many other examples
could be given of Bible verses that even the staunchest fundamentalists do not
take seriously.
There are, however,
many examples of Bible verses that fundamentalists do take literally but which
“moderates” (or “liberals”) do not consider normative for contemporary
Christians.
One example, of
many that might be given, is 1 Corinthians 14:34, which says, “Women should remain silent in the churches.
They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says”
(NIV)
Is there any justification
for cherry picking and downplaying that verse? And if so, what?
A person’s
theological understanding is the basis for determining which Bible verses to follow
and which to all but ignore.
Accordingly, as a
seminary teacher I long stressed, but perhaps not strongly enough, that
systematic theology is more important than biblical studies.
Sound exegesis on
the basis of a thorough grasp of Hebrew and/or Greek is important—but not the
most important.
Biblical study in
and of itself cannot determine which verses/passages are normative. That is the
job of systematic theology, formed perhaps by use of the “Wesleyan
Quadrilateral.”
That unwieldy term
refers to John Wesley’s methodology that said the four sources for theological
development are scripture, tradition, experience and reason.
Of those four,
scripture is the most, and tradition the least, important. But together they
form a good basis for constructing a view of God, humankind and the world that,
in turn, helps one interpret and apply the Bible correctly.
.jpg)