On “Bible-haters”
I have been called many things. This week Steve Hays added yet another label: “Bible hater.”
The charge came in his article “Bowdlerizing the Bible” published at Triablogue.
This would be comical if it weren’t so sad.
I accept the plenary inspiration of scripture. I accept meticulous superintending divine providential activity as the primary means by which all these human writings were produced and recognized in a single canonical form called God’s authoritative Word which is uniquely authoritative for the community of faith.
So what’s the problem?
The problem, apparently, is that I interpret the texts differently than Mr. Hayes. And for that I get called a “Bible-hater”.
Let’s place this in context. Imagine two different critics who agree that Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage is the greatest of all American novels. However, one critic reads the text’s portrayal of Henry Fleming, the central protagonist, ironically while the other critic reads the narrative straight with no irony intended.
Now imagine if the critic who reads the text straight retorted that the critic who reads the text ironically hates the novel.
You’d think he was crazy. The critic said he believes it is the greatest of all American novels, so how could he hate it? True he reads Crane as intending irony, but since when does an ironic reading of a text constitute a hatred of that text?
That’s how comical Hays’ charge is. But we’re not talking merely about an American novel here. We’re talking about the Bible. And that’s why this silly charge moves from the comical to the sad.
Tags: Bible, bibliology, hermeneutics, inerrancy, inspiration, interpretation, irony, Stephen Crane, Steve Hays, The Red Badge of Courage, Triablogue
13 Comments
One Trackback
-
[...] of the Bible both in print and online. Andrew McGowan explained that the Bible is not a book. Randall Rauser ironically got accused of being a “Bible-hater.” Henry Neufeld discussed the importance of [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
pete says:
Saturday, August 27, 2011 at 5:43pm
I like how we often know the exact evil intent that the other guy is harbouring behind his agenda of disseminating his soul-poisoning heresy to the massess of unwitting victims, as prompted by Satan.
(insert underwhelmed chuckle/hiccup here)
Then we label them as such villans…. isn’t that how it goes?
I guess then I’m a “collaborator” if I don’t come down hard on these morally repugnant free-thinkers for not championing a certain brand of Christian Orthodoxy.
How dare I/we? (insert underwhelmed “hah” here)
Cory Tucholski says:
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 5:55am
I’ve dealt with Steve Hays in the past. He has earned the flip nickname Dave Armstrong gave him: Steve “Whopper” Hays.
I’m going to go read his article, but I’m already betting that you disagree with his interpretation is what makes you a Bible-hater.
Hays wrote a tract called “Too Hot To Handle” that was mostly about topics that Christians were afraid of speaking out about, and gave a biblical treatment to each. Of masturbation, he said that it’s fine and good practice for your wedding night.
I thought this was pretty absurd, and when I argued it, Hays used a lot of ad hominem and red herrings in reply to me.
If it means anything, *I* know you love the Bible, Randal. And I love reading your stuff!
randal says:
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 6:00pm
Thanks!
Based on the information you provided about Hays’s tract I can think of about fifteen great puns, but I’ll restrain myself.
Beetle says:
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 11:46am
Randal, you admit that the “meticulous superintending divine providential activity” is wholly indistinguishable from that which men of the time could have produced.
randal says:
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 6:01pm
Men did produce it.
And the world as I experience it is fully consistent with there being no minds but my own.
Your point being…?
Walter says:
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 6:31pm
I would say his point is that we don’t have any good reason to believe the texts are anything other than the product of ancient human minds. How can we know that a deity supervened the process of creating these obviously flawed texts?
And why would God inspire texts that tell lies(?) about himself (such as the Canaanite conquest narratives showing God as a genocidal tyrant)? What evidence is there that God providentially uses flawed human documents to reveal himself? Is this considered a properly basic Christian belief or is there evidence which supports it?
I don’t just ask this to pick a fight, but as a deist, I don’t see a good reason to accept any human authored set of documents as a communication from a God.
randal says:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 8:03pm
“And why would God inspire texts that tell lies(?) about himself….”
Hey, you lookin’ to pick a fight or somethin’?!
“I don’t just ask this to pick a fight”
Oh. Okay. Much depends on what we think inspiration means. Let’s say it refers to the process by which God sovereignly brought human words into an authoritative canon. Why think every one of those voices is correct? Why can’t God appropriate some errant voices into his text to serve as foils and create an internal narratival tension which results in a more powerful and provocative work? After all, mere human authors do that all the time.
Jeff says:
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 10:02pm
Randal, I’m a Christian but I resonate strongly with Walter’s thoughts here.
Why do you hold the view of scripture that you do? Yeah, sure, “properly basic beliefs” and all that, but do you have any positive case for your doctrine of scripture?
I’m not trying to deliver you into the hands of the Steve Hays type wolves out there, but in light of your views on the genocide accounts, scriptural affirmations of human sacrifice, etc., I must say that your doctrine of scripture strikes me as puzzling, to say the very least. Do you see any internal biblical evidence that the damnable texts of scripture are intended as ironic, or as negative revelation? Or might that simply be wishful thinking on your part?
The more fundamental question: Why do we need some infallible divine revelation? I tend to agree with Thom Stark that such a thing would generally impede moral growth rather than encourage it.
randal says:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 8:05pm
“do you have any positive case for your doctrine of scripture?”
Sure. I believe in plenary inspiration but I don’t accept the perspective of every narrative voice in scripture. So the biblical adoptionist model I arrived at was a natural fit.
Jeff says:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 9:15pm
What I mean is this: I assume you don’t accept the plenary inspiration of the Quran, though a Muslim could defend such a doctrine in much the same way that you defend plenary inspiration of the Bible. So it seems to me that you don’t claim a direct, positive case for your doctrine of scripture so much as an inferential one, based on outside considerations. What exactly are the theological commitments which cause you to go searching for a doctrine of plenary biblical inspiration where you otherwise would probably not go looking for such a doctrine? Fair question, or am I off track?
Drew says:
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 6:50pm
Randal, have you seen Christian Smith’s new book The Bible Made Impossible? It looks really helpful. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1587433036/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1314557393&sr=8-1
randal says:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 8:04pm
Thanks for that link. I hadn’t heard of that book but Christian Smith is a fine scholar and it looks like this fits into the grand Scandal of the evangelical Mind tradition. The more books of this type the better.
cl says:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 11:28pm
“The problem, apparently, is that I interpret the texts differently than Mr. Hayes. And for that I get called a “Bible-hater”.”
LOL! I know exactly how you feel… too much Sunday school, Nazi camps, Bible hater… it’s all the same right?