On Tuesday, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America waged a war on illiteracy. But it didn’t tackle the challenge of how to read words. The group addressed the challenge of how to understand and interpret The Word, otherwise known as the Bible.
The five-year Book of Faith initiative is intended to boost study of the Bible throughout the 4.8 million-member church. It is also a response to church research that shows 32 percent of Evangelical Lutherans believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, which is not the position of the Evangelical Lutheran church.
“In our culture, particularly around issues of immorality, the prevailing understanding tends to be a literal understanding of Scripture, which is not a Lutheran understanding,” said Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson.
The fallacy here is that, because some Scripture is not to be understood literally, we should extend such treatment to all of it. That is an equal and opposite mistake – though “mistake” is probably the wrong word, because I suspect this is being done deliberately.
Just one more side step from the Truth. The ELCA is on the way out, too.
Mark Twain said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
ELCA and TEC both suffer from the pathological need to search for the truth they desire rather than submit to the truth that is.
This is an outstanding initiative, provided that the process of Biblical interpretation follows the pattern used by Martin Luther himself. I fear that this will not be the case…
There is a difference between belief that the Bible is inerrant and that it is to be understood to be. I learned that in LCMS confirmation classes over 40 years ago.
sorry, that should be literal.
I am constantly amazed at people who will throw out Scripture entirely because some of its writings are obviously not history. It is truly a shame, when we consider the real treasure all the different forms of literature present in the Bible are to us today. Shining examples of the written and spoken word from an era from which we have so little. I thought Fr. Matt Kennedy’s expose on reading the Bible and the connection between the OT teaching and which parts Jesus clearly endorsed and defended and which parts were allowed to fall by the wayside. These are CRITICAL to understanding our modern Christian faith and obligations. Just in case you missed it, I’ve reprinted it on my blog under the heading “How Christians Need to View the Old Testament”. (you will have to scroll down a bit).
It our present Battle, it should be required reading!
KTF!….mrb
Inerrancy is a terrible word, since taken literally (ha-ha) the word suggests there are no errors in manuscripts, or translations, or in the pages of the English-language book we find in our hands. It also suggests a rigid literalism that those who embrace the notion of inerrancy do not subscribe to. It enables folks like ELCA’s equivalent of our PB Schori to create a false straw man to tear down–and in doing so hope to present the “reasonable” alternative. That, of course, is a diluted, error-filled, culturally bound, sexist, patriarchal, and irrelevant book, albeit at the margins a “good” book. This is nothing more than under the guise of Biblical illiteracy beginning a campaign to denigrate Holy Scripture. How sad that a church would wage such a campaign.
This artictle is frustrating because the terms it throws around are not defined. The Bible consists of many different genres as does a newspaper. For example Scripture contains letter, poetry and history. A newspaper contains news articles, comics and editorals. I may take the truth in a Peanuts cartoon literally, but that does not mean that dogs talk or look like Snoopy.
Our PB, who was just reelected to another 6 year term, is a revisionist. He’s a bit more subtle than yours and doesn’t say wacky things in interviews that can make you cringe, but there it is. The use of the word “morality” in the ELCA, unless we mean left-wing politics, is really an oxymoron. But you already know all about that dynamic in TEC. At least you have a communion debating your heresy. Sigh …
MD BRian
I married a very liberal retired ELCA pastor 7 1/2 years ago. For the past 6 years we have read through the Bible together once a year, He reads from the New Revised Standard and I from the Revised Standard. As of the beginning of 2007 he announced that he now prefers the Revised Standard and finds himself far more conservative than he was. I truly believe that that the daily reading: O.T. History/Prophets, O.T. Wisdom, Epistle, Gospel (in that order) is all it takes to give the Holy Spirit opportunity in one’s life!
But look what it’s gotten us, MD Brian: a swan dive off the cliff into oblivion. No, debate is not what has happened. Like the Hulk, culture has ripped off it’s shirt in the middle of the Communion and TEC thinks it’s cool. The culture has won the day. The dive is beginning.
For Anglicans biblical inspiration is defined in a more utilitarian way. It’s not what the scripture is so much as what the scripture does.
Culture has a part in exegesis, but it must be balanced with the other parts, including history, philosophy, language, religion, etc.
Dear Frances, Thanks be to God for sending His Holy Spirit to work in your husband! I have used the RSV in the past, as well as the NRSV and the NIV. Of the group, the RSV is my favorite followed by the NIV and the NRSV. I am now using the ESV, successor to the RSV, and commend it to you.
#7. Mike, another very nice piece of work. You know, its gotten so that I look through to see if Mike has written on a thread. Larry
How out of it I am. I still read the King James. In the dense fabric and in the 17th century music of its language, there is a truth not to be found elsewhere. The Old Testament is a novel, if I may put it that way, a vast adventure story, and the NT is the Hero’s Tale. Both are epic poetry, both are filled with lyric poetry. Do novels and Hero Tales and poetry tell the truth? Indeed they do, but at a level beyond and below inerrancy and its ilk. They go with words where words cannot go. This is not mysticism, but a simple truth – because both books are great works of art, and they speak the compelling language that the best art speaks – and in fact, the gospels are art without parallel. You must read with the ear of an appreciator, not a scholar, if you are to apprehend the truth at this level. I do not denigrate the scholar nor the intellectual, but art speaks another language. Larry
V in T #13, I’m not following what you’re saying. It seems to me that “is” relates directly to the core of the community Christ established in the Church and therefore, in the verbal presentation of the People of God, inspired and with power and authority. Holy Scripture is both record and direction. I might then say that what Holy Scripture does is inform and direct me in my call to live before God in holiness and righteousness. The balance is the Word himself. All the rest is “stuff” we’ve placed around us and often in the way of understanding. “Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so.” The prevailing understanding that Bishop Hanson speaks of is the cultural influence that is devoid of understanding the Word of God. The culture is bored and the Church is catching that fever.
Dear Physician without health,
Would that be “English Standard Version”? I’ve not seen it yet but I’ll check out CBD and see it they have it. thanks.
Frances Scott
First, the strawman: nobody insists that the Bible be read 100% literally. I know a lot of fundies — some may say I am one — and I don’t know a single person who claims every part of the Bible is to be read literally. However, fundies tend to believe that the Bible should be read in its plain and ordinary meaning.
Now, let me build my own strawman: The ELCA is asking people to study and be literate in a work in which words have no ascertainable meaning. I’ll pass.
#16 Larry M: I have found as my spiritual journey has progressed that my Scripture reading, you might say, has regressed, i.e. I started with the more modern, easy to read translations, but funny how after a while the modern language appears, well, imprecise and rather weak. So I went from NIV to ESV, then to New King James, to King James, which is where I am now. I guess for my next change I’ll have to study Greek, Hebrew, and Latin :).
But of all things, this reading points to the same for me: Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Jesus clearly points to the moral law in the OT as still valid and unchanging. That means, for us it is the same.
In our prayers, our meditations in which we ask the Holy Spirit to guide us, we MUST accept the fact that not all the advice we receive is “good”. So, how are we to test what we hear? There is only one test:
Against Scripture. Since God cannot break His own rules (although he did change His mind and negotiate occasionally in the OT) anywhere a spirit leads us that Scripture disapproves of is leadership by the WRONG (read: Dark One) Spirit. We all know these things, we just insist on re-writing the faith journey to make it our own.
In the process, we gut the faith and leave a hollow, empty shell masquerading as “modern” or “progressive”. It is THE tragedy of the age.
Sorry, there I go again!
KTF!….mrb
#20. Learning to read Greek is a ight answer. My son had a minor in Greek and my wife was a Classics major, so when issues arise in the NY, I ask them for a literal translation. This is how I am sure that, e.g., the RC notion of the Ever Virgin Mary is manufactured from whole cloth. But the KJ writers, though often innacurate, I am told, have caught the inner substance in a chalice of poetry wherein the reader may taste the truth. I cannot articulate it here, because discursive prose in inadaquate for this purpose, and argumentation touches only the barest exterior. Now, I do love both, but I am not deceived about in which medium the truth is best sought. Larry
Francis,
What a great story! How long has your husband been ordained? My interpretation is that actually reading the bible instead of just carrying around what was taught in seminary DOES have an impact. When I listen to revisionists I can’t help wondering if they’re reading the same scriptures as I am. Well … maybe they aren’t.
Maryland Brian
Dear Frances, yes, this is the English Standard Version. It has become also the pew Bible in our parish. You can find it in bookstores like Borders, and also on the internet at places like Amazon (if you enter Amazon through the Trinity website, tesm.edu, Trinity gets some of the proceeds). There is one out now with a commentary underneath the text. I bought mine from Concordia Publishing House in I think St. Louis (I ordered from the computer); in the back it contains Luther’s Small Catechism and other writings. Again, I am so thankful to God for sending the Holy Spirit through the text of His Word to your husband!
Frances, one other thing; the ESV I have from Concordia does not have the commentary underneath, but in the margins has textual cross references, which in themselves serve as very powerful commentary; let the Scripture interpret the Scripture!
One thing I’ve noticed about conservative Christian biblical translations (NIV, ESV. NKJV) is their attempt to harmonize the OT and NT. For instance, they will emend the MT (usually via LXX, Vulgate) when it doesn’t reflect the NT ‘fulfilment’ of OT prophecy. Is this reasonable emendation? Liberal (NRSV, NJB, ERV) and moderate (NAB, RSV) Christian versions harmonize less, but are freer with conjectural emendations and Dead Sea Scroll usage (NRSV).
When reading a Hebrew Bible translation, I like the NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society version). It’s very conservative to the MT readings (except for the vocalization at times) proposing emendations in the footnotes, not generally in the text. It isn’t excessively literal, but idiomatically represents the traditional text. With the Apocrypha I use the RSV, NAB and NRSV.
LCMS President Kieschnick addressed the ELCA convention yesterday. Quoting from the ELCA News release (http://www.elca.org/news/Releases.asp?a=3693):
[blockquote] He (Kieschnick) reminded the assembly that the LCMS, at its July 14-19 convention in Houston, “reaffirmed [its] commitment to Holy Scripture as the inspired, inerrant, infallible, revealed, written Word of God.” …
“It is clear from the discussions in your assembly regarding the possibility of amending your church’s ‘Vision and Expectations’ document that the LCMS and the ELCA continue to hold different positions on the interpretation and authority of Holy Scripture,” Kieschnick said, “and that such differences exist also within the ELCA. [/blockquote]
This is precisely why there is no Altar and Pulpit fellowship between the LCMS and ELCA – we have a different understanding of Scripture.
Virgil, Alan Ross was part of the team that worked on the ESV. He is an OT scholar at Beeson and a member of our parish. His scholarship is impeccable, and guided by the Holy Spirit. I have complete confidence in the ESV translation of the OT.
Harry, thanks be to God that the LCMS is standing firm in the Gospel!
#27…The problem with trotting out authorities is that I can trot out authorities who may disagree, such as E. A. Speiser and Harry Orlinsky who were among the translators of the NJPS whose translations and textual theory might differ from that of the ESV. From what I can gage the ESV is an excellent translation, but suffers from what all translations suffer from: translators’ bias.
Virgil, all translation is treason. All translators have a bias. What is your point?
And, as Christians we interpret the OT through the lens of the NT. If you want to forego any translation and insist on Hebrew and Greek then say so. A lot of people died to translate Scripture into the vernacular, but then what did they know.
I am strongly for accuracy in translation, but I want to repeat what I said earlier to Mike, that one must read the scriptures as a poem, that is, read it as an experience, not as a set of words wherein denotation determines value. The truth content is in the experience which is a entity greater than the sum of the words. It’s not that individual expressions do not count but that the greater value is in the whole. When FRost wrote “Stopping by Woods,” we do not do well to start by asking, “Is his language such that we can justify arguing that suicide is in the back of his mind?” Critics do that because they have no real work to do and busy hands are happy hands. The issue is our identification with Frost’s constructed world such that we can know it as he knew it; to do that is to create the poem’s truth.
Did Christ really say, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” He may have, but that misses the vital point.
On the cross, in one gospel, Christ experiences human doubt in spite of his admitted nature, and we must know our essential humanity as he, in a desperate moment, knows it, and what it means. To know what he knows in such a crisis is to alter our own experience, deepen it, color it, redefine our own knowledge of our human nature,to allow another to live for us what we cannot and will not live for ourselves. Larry
Virgil, re #28, as Brother Michael says in #30, we as Christians interpret the OT through the lens of the NT. As Luther taught, we interpret single verses in light of the whole. Keep in mind that Jewish scholars also interpret the OT through the lens of the NT, going out of their way to demonstrate why they think that the OT does not contain prophecy about Jesus Christ. So the Masoretic translation is definitely biased. To be sure there are reasons to study that translation, but for teaching and reproof I prefer to use the translations of scholars whose work is guided by the Holy Spirit.
In reading modern Jewish commentaries and translation expositions of NJPS, I don’t find most Jewish scholars are concerned with Christian exegeses of the Hebrew Bible, except as an historical artifact. Now historically, the choice of the MT and the depreciation of the LXX may have been influenced by the use of the LXX by the church, but the scholars of the NJPS weren’t adverse to the LXX. See NJPS footnotes. Also Christians have become at home with the MT as a starting point, rather than the LXX, so Jews and Christians have a common text they can debate.
Physician,
I have two copies of the ESV (English Standard Version), one in hard-cover, and one in the “rubber-like” personal size with a nice Celtic Cross on the cover, that I use with my prayer book of similar size and color (but with a heavy paper cover).
I’m waiting for them to come out with the ESV in the complete Bible version (i.e., with the apocrypha) which they have been promising for the last several years. That may well be the last Bible I will ever buy. (however, I am intrigued by the Orthodox Church project for “the Apostle’s Bible” which will include translations of the Bible as used in the Greek Orthodox Church, so the Septuigent for the OT and apocrypha, and the Byzantine Text for the New Testament, and study notes based on the Orthodox tradition.)
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
34…Library Jim…There is a complete edition of The Apostles Bible A Modern Translation of The Greek Septuagint edited by Paul W. Esposito. Its copyright is 2005. It is modern revision of the Brenton translation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t contain the Apocrypha. I think the version your talking about is still in translation, although I’ve seen its translation of the Psalms online. There is also an Interlinear Greek-English OT (without Apocrypha) and NT at http://www.apostolicbible.com/.
Dear jim, I too am looking forward to the ESV Apocrypha and am also hoping that Concordia will have an edition with commentary like they produced for the NIV.