Another example from this same church was when the pastor was teaching about the Wedding at Cana where Jesus turned the water into wine, near the start of Jesus' ministry (John 2:1-11). This pastor asked his students, "Jesus transformed the water in six clay jars into wine [actually, the account says the jars were stone]. What was the significance of the number six?"
Of course, no one knew the answer because there is no significance. At least none revealed in the text. But he went on:
"Well, there's a few clues. Some scholars believe that, at this point in Jesus' ministry, He had only called six of the twelve disciples. So that corresponds. Now the text says these jars were made of clay [actually, stone]. What's the significance of that? Well, what did God create man out of? Genesis tells us, the dust of the ground. Clay, as we know, is a material also made from the dust of the ground. Is it all starting to come together for you?? The six jars were symbolic of the disciples, and just as the water was transformed into wine, so the disciples were about to go through a spiritual transformation themselves!"
I couldn't believe what I was hearing. But of a class of about 70 adults, no one objected.
I don't deny that the infused meaning is benign enough, but this pastor was modeling for his students a terribly flawed way of interpreting Scripture! There is nothing in the passage that hints of any sort of allegory. And for the sake of argument, let's suppose he's right about the symbolism -- and say Jesus shared that very information with His disciples later on in the day -- nevertheless, God did not choose to reveal those details to us in the text. So what are we doing here, reading God's mind??
I looked on the Internet to see if I could find someone who shared this interpretation of the Cana account. I didn't find anyone. However, I did find three other symbolic interpretations, all three just as disconnected from the text as my pastor's interpretation. (Which just goes to show how completely without a rudder you are when you navigate into such waters.)
Later that week I met with the pastor in private to share my concern with him. He actually took offense and accused me of nit picking.
One thing that really bothers me here is that, the Bible is a really big book. And there's a lot in there to learn from. We don't need to be making things up in order to learn from it. (And we're not learning from the Bible anyway if we're making things up.) In the Cana account, it ends with, "This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him." This is the significance of the passage. Jesus was revealing something about Himself, that we can learn also.
The concept of inspiration is that God uses the words of Scripture to convey information and ideas. Not that these words are supposed to be the starting point for imaginative speculation inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit communicates through the meaning of the words. So the first goal of Bible study is to accurately understand what the words mean -- the information and ideas they convey. That is how the Holy Spirit speaks to us.
Last week I ordered a DVD from Netflix, the mail-based movie rental place. The DVD never arrived, so I reported it lost, and they sent me another copy. (This is true.) Today it arrived, but the disc has a big crack in it.
Now, given that information, and only that information, what can you conclude? That Netflix has bad service? (That hasn't been my experience.) That someone is sabotaging their operation? That God doesn't want me to watch this particular movie, and that this is a sign? That I'm under a curse this week for something I did? Any of these interpretations are worthless speculation, bordering on superstition. We don't have adequate information to draw these conclusions.
Yet I regularly see Christians taking the liberty to come up with interpretations for Biblical passages that aren't supported by the information and ideas contained in the meanings of the words God chose to inspire. (In doing so, aren't they implying God left important things out?) We don't consider this practice valid in normal life situations. Why do we do it with God's word?
Maybe "the Bible as silly putty" isn't the best analogy. Maybe a Ouija board would be better -- but instead of channeling spirits, people think they're channeling the Holy Spirit.
[Note: I think Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason may have been inspired by this post. His September/October 2005 edition of Solid Ground is titled: Silly Putty Bible]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have really gotten a lot out of these two posts. I have the hardest time reasoning with people who take this approach to the Bible, because it's hard to disprove such a made-up interpretation, and you have to admit that sometimes people can be pretty clever with all the connections they make. If you do happen to make good arguments, then they can always insinuate that they have a private hotline to God, and you don't. But I think you've articulated the problem with this approach pretty well. Thanks.
This is a typical charismatic approach to Scripture. I don't know if this gentleman is of that theological persuasion, but from my time in charismatic churches that is what I usually heard passed off as sound biblical exegesis. In essence it is gnosticism. This is just as bad as those who say that Scripture can only be interpreted in its original context only. This would lead, in the extreme, to the conclusion that only Jewish fisherman who lived in first century Palestine can pick up their cross and follow Him. Of course Scripture speaks to us today. It says exactly what it says, no more, no less.
This church was a Lutheran Missouri Synod church, a pretty conservative denomination, but the church had had a charismatic pastor prior to this particular one. Why this pastor took this approach, I don't know. But I don't think most Christians are explicitly taught to use Scripture this way. They learn it by example. And I think even pastors can learn it if they aren’t consciously careful. Initially it can appear more "spiritually sensitive," so it’s easy to assume it's a good practice. Which incidentally, makes it particularly insidious. Because if you make the point to these folks that what they’re doing isn’t legitimate, in their perception, you’re coming from an immature perspective on the Christian walk.
I, too, have considered the Gnostic angle, and I'll probably discuss that in a later entry. The similarity to Gnosticism I saw was that these guys think they're in pursuit of special, hidden knowledge.
Post a Comment