The Purpose of Scripture

Someone once told me (perhaps one of my Bible professors at Huntington, Dr. Fairchild perhaps) that the Bible is not a book to be cuddled up with on a sofa with a cup of coffee and a blanket. I’m guilty of trying to read the Bible this way in the past, and usually it ended with me passing out or losing interest. The reason: the Bible is not feel good reading. And that’s okay.

Scripture is full of lots of interesting narrative, of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s narrative that is meant to be entertaining. I’ve found that the best way to read the Bible is sitting at a table, upright, with notes to the left and the book open in front of me. Sometimes I will have music playing, but usually not. And I have to work to stay involved and reading. This process can be tiring, and usually it can only last for a short while before I have to stop and do something else, only to come back and start again later. I would describe the process as work, as beneficial, but not necessarily as fun the same way I would describe reading Chuck Palahniuk as fun.

I don’t believe it is offensive to God that I don’t curl up with the Bible the same way I would with a fictional book whose purpose is to entertain. What is important is that the Bible is used for the purpose it was intended—that is, communication of the events, practices, and theology of the writer’s day.

Children’s Books

Children’s books tend to serve a few different purposes. In an effort to categorize children’s books, I would break them into a few categories:

Fun and Entertaining

I would call any book that is meant to entertain without a specific ulterior motive a fun and entertaining children’s book.

Educational

We all know these books. They are hardly ever fun and usually rank up there with educational video games when it comes to a kid’s interest in them.

Moral

While I would say Biblical stories fit into this section, it is broad enough to fit in things like Aesop’s fables and other fables intended to deliver a message to the reader. Usually the intended message is explained in the end.

I’ll grant that there these descriptions bleed over into one another, but generally each story fits into only one of the above.

Most Bible storybooks try to be a mix of all three categories. There are different angles with each type of book, of course. One series, from the LCMS is called The Fall Into Sin:

[This book series doesn’t] mince words. This one tells parents to confess their sins and teach children to thank God for sending a savior.

Or, another book from the series Nana’s Bible Stories typically has stories like this:

A butterfly visits Jesus on the cross, gets snagged on a splinter and saved by a drop of Jesus’ blood.

It isn’t that books like these are communicating false things (although the one about the butterfly seems a bit irresponsible) I’m left with the question: Is this the way we should be communicating scripture to children?

How Should We Talk to Kids About the Bible?

The Bible is full of stories which are either too complicated for a child to understand or so disturbing (when understood) that a child would probably be harmed by learning of it. And by trying to tell these stories in children’s books with cartoon characters and, at times, completely fictitious additions, are we doing them a disservice? It seems that they will grow up either desensitized to the stories they are told or unaware of the true meaning behind the stories.

Because these stories are often not appropriate to be told at bedtime (the story of the flood, for example), maybe we should hold off until they can be understood by the children. Maybe (gasp) Bible stories should never be bedtime stories. Maybe that is abusing the scriptures. I’m not suggesting we neglect our responsibility of teaching our children about the Bible, I’m only suggesting we do it in an appropriate way.

Can we talk to kids about God, their faith, and redemption without storybooks? I think so.

Can we treat the scriptures with respect and make it something that kids want to learn about? Maybe not, honestly. But is that a bad thing? In general Christians (myself included) tend to take the low road, attempting to make Christianity something that is desirable to many instead of something that is true. There are times when more people should be offended by a teaching from scripture than should like it. And I think there are times when someone can only appreciate portions of scripture when they have reached a level of maturity to deal with it.

Let’s let kids be kids and not try to make the stories in the Bible fit in with contemporary storytelling and entertainment. If that means they don’t know all the stories the other kids do as they grow up, so be it. Experiencing scripture at a later, more mature age may be what certain people need for it to have real meaning in their lives.

Rob discussed ancient religions and how the altar mentality gained prevalence, and how easily the act of giving to the gods became viciously circular. Inevitably, once you decide that what happens in this world is because of the anger of an outside being, the act of giving is used to greater extremes in order to make the god happy again. This, in the ancient world, deteriorated into self mutilation and child sacrifice.

Probably the most riveting piece of the talk for me was his retelling of the story of Abraham and his son Isaac. When Abraham is ordered by God to go sacrifice his son to Him, Rob asks, why doesn’t Abraham ask Why? Why doesn’t Abraham ask How? It seems that Abraham already knows the drill. Bell posits that this is because the gods of the day would all, at one point or another, demand infant sacrifices from their followers. Perhaps Abraham saw this as the next inevitable step in his relationship with this new god. Abraham didn’t get it.

In many interpretations and tellings of this story nowadays, we see Abraham depicted in this story having a model faith, willing to go as far as to&elip;Right? Instead, this paints the picture that Abraham is a very spiritual person who has been going down the wrong road. Even now, while following this new god, he is seeing things in the wrong way. Now, when God stops him just before he kills his son it takes on a new light. God provides, the scripture reads. God provides. And now there is no need to sacrifice that way. That’s the old way.

Do you sometimes feel you aren’t giving enough stuff? If you are you’re thinking like a caveman. The new way, the way proposed by Jesus, is a way of self sacrifice. This new sacrifice is about giving of yourself to others.

There was a lot to what Bell said. I couldn’t say much about it without taking away from what was said. A lot is written about Bell online, so search if you would like to find more. I’m already looking forward to the next time I get the priveledge of hearing Bell speak.

The Gideons were giving students at a Christian university free Bibles.

Why?

It kept ringing in my head as I walked away. Why would they give free Bibles to students at a Christian university?

I have two comments.

First – handing out free Bibles, as I see it, is extremely ineffective. I say that with the assumption that they are after what every cookie cutter evangelist is (souls). If the goal is to increase awareness of scripture’s existence, or more likely the existence of Gideon’s handing out free Bibles, then they did a great job. But when it comes to people, real people, especially the college demographic, this just won’t cut it. Ineffective.

Secondly, these New Testaments were given to people who coud have at their disposal up to 10 versions of the entire Bible if they had only 5 minutes in which to find them. These books should be given to someone who can’t get it on their own. Isn’t that the point of free stuff? Isn’t that who we should be giving things to?

This is along the same lines as advertising your church on a Christian radio station. Ugh.

Let’s take a moment so everyone can taste the sarcasm of that last question.

Good? Okay.

Like I said, this isn’t really big church news. Granger was the first, as far as I know, to provide series material for resale specifically on this subject. Epic Church is using their material. That kind of saps the intensity of the situation, doesn’t it? If you head to Granger’s web site and click on their media player toward the top, then on “Series” and again on “Pure Sex” you can see some of the material they produced during that series. It is equally as provocative (if not more) than Epic’s. That makes me believe that it’s only the Lutheran affiliation that even makes this story newsworthy.

I’ve seen some other churches promote themselves in similar ways as Epic and (ultimately) Granger. Kaleo Church in Texas, for example, has recently begun pushing a similar campaign entitled “What’s Between the Sheets?”. You can find their promotional material at whatsbetweenthesheets.com. A similar provocative stance is taken, presumably to bring people in based on pure curiosity. In a refreshing change they created their own marketing material – possibly even original sermons (gasp!).

Question – should churches use this sort of shock marketing in order to bring in those who would otherwise not be interested? In other words, would there be nearly as much interest (and thus turnout) if the series was entitled “Building Successful Marital Relationships?” Here’s a better question. Is it false advertising to bring someone in only due to extreme marketing or is it fair game, only done to overcome a real bias most have toward church? Part of that answer may depend on the content being provided in the church, but I can see an argument for both sides.

How far should a church go? At what point do you feel uncomfortable with these procedures? At what point is a motto like “Whatever it takes” over the top?

Seems odd, right? I’ve never been the biggest fan of stations like Star 88.3 or WBCL, but I’ve never been hostile toward them either. There’s just a part of me that says worship music shouldn’t be lowered to the level of music we listen to on a regular basis.

Here’s the quandry. It seems that there is something spiritual which is inherent to all music. Think about it. Where did music come from? Who invented it? The answer is it wasn’t invented. It was discovered. There is something natural and phenomenal and powerful about music, no matter the kind. Then again I would be eager to say there is a difference between the music we listen to on a regular basis and the music we use specifically to worship God.

But what if there isn’t a difference between the two kinds of music? What if there is no separation between the music we listen to everyday and the music we worship to? Is this a good or a bad thing?

Case in point: Granger Community Church. They regularly open their worship services with music from bands such as Green Day and the All American Rejects. Maybe I’m more conservative than I think (which could be very true) but there seems to be something wrong with that.

  Tonight I enjoyed a Chris Tomlin / Matt Redman concert at the Grand Wayne Center in Fort Wayne. It was an excellent performance. It wasn’t until a few minutes into the concert that I remembered some of what I had been thinking throughout the day. So then I thought: What do I think of this? Do I like this?

Clearly there is something foundationally wrong with asking those questions during a worship experience. But in relation to my earlier thoughts I think they have some relevance now. It appears to me that the very fact that people know Redman’s and Tomlin’s music is due to their being played on the radio regularly. If it wasn’t for worship music being a regular occasion a gathering like this would be near impossible – or at least more difficult. So the concert itself – which I was a part of, mind you – seems to support the the worship-radio world that I’m questioning.

But there’s still a part of me that says worship music should be reverent. It should be holy. I think of the treatment of worship in the Old Testament – was it treated with more reverence, more holiness? Was David treated the way Tomlin is treated now? Did the Hebrew people walk around humming Psalms all day?

Once again, I don’t have an answer, only thoughts.

First of all, Rob made the blanket statement that you have no moral authority to speak on this issue unless you have gay friends and understand their struggle. While I am all for having pastoral empathy with people and their struggles, on that showing, Paul should never have spoken on this issue at all. This comment by Rob is simply an unhelpful way of silencing important voices in a divisive conversation, and its not helpful. Indeed it goes against the whole M.O. of Rob himself, which is to honor other people’s views and beliefs and questions.

Secondly, Rob then makes an argument from silence which is in fact misleading. The argument is this— “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality”. This is not quite true. Jesus took all sorts of sexual sin very seriously, even adultery of the heart, as Rob admits…

Ben Witherington

This is only the beginning of a conversation. Read the rest at Witherington’s blog. I’d love to get some feedback on this, since I’ve never been satisfied with any answer to the problem. I fully agree that it should be treated as any other sexual sin, but it seems like Rob is saying more than that during this Q+A (according to Witherington).

Thanks to Poop is Emergent Too for the link.

There is a church without handles on their doors.

the church has no handles on the doors leading into any part of the church. the only way into the church is to have a key, or be let in by someone who is in the building. no one is able to just “walk in,” and you can never just “visit” without being allowed in.

Ginkworld.net

This seems to violate something that is (or should be) true about church. It should be a welcoming atmosphere open to anyone. What has it become otherwise? What is the point of the chruch at that point?

one women said, “well we do have a great deal of homeless people in the area and they are always coming by for help. so we had the doors replaced so they could not just walk in.” well, God forbid a homeless person should ever approach a church for help…

Ginkworld.net

Sad yet? Read the rest of the post here.

The first is a part of a church that is entirely outward-focused. Their mantra is that the church isn’t the building. They don’t treat it that way. The church is the body and what the church does outside of their walls. In that sense the goal of this example person tends to be missional. This missional emphasis leads toward equipping members to deal with the world. Teaching involves a strong academic emphasis and devoted historical study of the scriptures.

On the other hand, the second person I have in mind is very focused on community. This person’s idea of a church is one where people are loved, nurtured, and taken care of. The church’s most important aspect is their small group program and their system for plugging volunteer’s into various aspects of the church. This community emphasis leads toward a very inward focus that prioritizes its own members well being over that of the rest of the world. The goal of the church is to bring them in – to evangelize, ironically enough (see two paragraphs up).

Neither of these options seems right to me. In fact they seem like opposite ends of a spectrum. And I’ve never been a fan of the left or the right. I like balance. Is there a way to balance these two alternatives? Is there some sort of equilibrium that a church should strive for? Or is it something else all together?

Rob Bell’s Recommended Reading Materials

Take a look and see if there are any you own or have already read. I find it exciting both to find things I’ve already read and ones I have never heard of. I’m curious now how much I can gain through that contact form by simply asking…the response was very speedy too, which is a plus.

Oh, and thanks to Mike from Soul Renovatus. He linked me up earlier today. I appreciate it. If you want to find out more about Bell’s sermons and the goings-on at Mars Hill from someone on the inside, check his blog out. There are many good thoughts to be found there.

First off, we showed up at 6:15pm at the University of Michigan. We are very good at arriving on time; of course being on time means being early. After finding out that we truly couldn’t get inside we took a walk over to “Great Wraps” and had – you guessed it – great wraps. Around 6:45pm we started walking back to the building everything was going down in, and there was a stream of people flocking toward the doors. Go figure.

We weren’t too worried. Doors opened at 7pm, Bell wasn’t going to speak until 8pm. We did know, however, that we were going to pick up his book before he spoke, since the signing would be right afterward. Who wants to wait in line for a book when you can be waiting in line to have it signed?

 The Q+A was very interesting. My pictures aren’t online – I’ll update this post when they are(Update: pictures added). However my notes from the Q+A are up – I hope they help in some small way to capture what it was like in that auditorium. The only part that is lacking is the part of my notes that was going to be for the Nooma video. I decided not to take notes on it.

Notes – Q+A from Sex God Tour with Rob Bell in Ann Harbor, Michigan

I think I may have been one of the only ones typing away in there. Kind of funny – everyone asking questions and me clicking away…but those kind of opportunities are once-in-a-lifetime, really. Those kinds of questions may never be asked again, in quite that way or with quite the responses. I know these experiences will have a great impact on me – another reason I take notes.

The questions asked weren’t bad. Every now and then you get a bad nut asking crazy questions that may be frustrating, but we really didn’t have that tonight. It makes me wonder whether Bell draws a more intelligent crowd…or maybe we were just lucky. They were different questions than were asked at the Isn’t She Beautiful? Q+A, but it was still very good.

One of the best questions (due only to the response, really) regarded Bell’s stance on pacifism. Bell responded that he didn’t favor war or pacifism – in fact he said the only reason people choose pacifism is not because they don’t want to do anything, but it is seemingly their only option besides war/fighting. Instead he proposed a third way.

 Bell used a couple of volunteers to demonstrate what exactly is going on when Jesus talks about “turning the other cheek.” But he didn’t go the way that is usually gone with this passage. In those days there were two ways you could hit someone – the first way is to slap, the other way is to hit. Slapping was done with the back of the hand and was done to show that you were above the other person. A master would slap a slave, for example. Hitting, however, was done open handed and signified you were of equal stature with one another.

So, with that context imagine the person being slapped across their right cheek. This would mean the “slapper” was using their right hand. The right hand was the hand used for greeting people, eating, and normal everyday things. The left was used for…well, guess. In this case, by turning the other cheek (literally turning your head to them, offering your other cheek) the “slapper” is no longer able to slap you. Their only option is to hit you.

Get it yet? The idea behind this seems to not be “hit back” or “do nothing” but instead position yourself in such a way that you are an equal with the person attacking you. Don’t just take it – make a move. But make a move in such a way that you give the other person a chance for redemption, as well as one that demands respect.

Sweet, right?

Bell also talked about the overused “if you are asked to carry a pack one mile, go two.” Oftentimes this is used to express the idea of “going the extra mile.” Instead Bell talked about it this way. Roman soldiers could only, by law, require someone to carry their pack for one mile. While they could demand this of anyone anywhere, it was only a mile. So when Jesus tells them to carry it two, imagine the scene that this would cause. Instead of relinquishing your pack after a mile, you continue walking with it. Now you are no longer obeying the soldier’s command; in fact you are offering yourself over and above. But it is just that - you are offering yourself.

I can imagine the soldier at first not taking it seriously, and then becoming worried. If his superiors found out he would be in trouble – it was against the law to demand this much from someone. Can you imagine, then, a Roman soldier pleading with someone to give him back his pack? It’s a beautiful scene. And once again, who is in control? Who has the respect? These things are a far cry from simply “taking it” or otherwise being passive. What Christ suggests is very active indeed.

It makes me feel good to see how much of a smartass Jesus was.

 The Nooma was very well done. It takes a slightly different approach than past Noomas, but I think it’s something his viewers are ready for. Watch for “You” coming in the next few weeks.

One more thing – and this is my little schoolgirl moment. Leaving the auditorium we found we were in exactly the right location to step right into line for our books to be signed by Bell. How perfect! We really were schocked. We must have been the 20th people in line or something.

In any case, walking up we were all getting somewhat excited. Ashley made fun of us. We were talking about what to ask him. After a few seconds, I knew what I wanted to say. Here’s what happened.

“Hi, I’m Ryan.”

“Hello, how are you.” (shaking hands, handing him the book)

(looks at my shirt) “What’s that say?”

(opening my coat) “I got Marx on my shirt.”

(Bell throws his head back and laughs)

At this point the book is signed and someone Bell knows walks up behind him. He stops to hug him. Then he turns his attention back to the line and takes my friend Justin’s book.

(looking back at me, pointing to the shirt) “That’s brilliant.”

(smiling) “We’re from Fort Wayne, and we were just talking about what it might take for you to come down there for your next tour…”

“Actually we are talking about an Indianapolis stop, but don’t hold me to it.”

That would be exciting.

So Bell laughed at my shirt. Makes me proud. It also makes me look kind of silly, but it’s an exciting thing – similar humors, it’s a conversation starter – is it now? I was joking with my friends about how I would have to wear that shirt every time there was a chance I might see Bell. Hey, it couldn’t hurt, right?

I’m off to read a good book. Today was a good day.