Bible thumping Ephod worshipers

Update: I've been getting a lot of traffic from google for people looking up what an ephod is. If that's you, this post won't be very helpful (though perhaps somewhat). This post doesn't have a historical description or explanation; it's more like a critique on how we misuse the Bible (in the way that the Isrealites misused the ephod). Hope that helps.

Via TC, I came across this powerful article by Darin Hufford over at Ooze. Essentially, the article is about how we have exchanged God for the Bible, and we glorify the Bible in such a way that God is almost out of the picture completely. Darin is a Biblical scholar who can't seem to understand why the modern church (and modern Christians) have fetishized the Bible. He uses this example from the OT:

At the end of Gideon's "deliverance career" the Israelites wanted to make him their king. Gideon refused, and said that instead of becoming their king he would like them to each bring him a gold ear ring from the plunder. Everyone brought a portion of gold and Gideon melted it down and made a "golden Ephod". The Ephod was the vest that the priests put on when they entered the Holy of Holies. In the pocket of the Ephod were the lots, which were used when they "caste lots" in order to determine God's will in a certain situation. When the priest entered the temple wearing the golden Ephod, he could actually hear the voice of God audibly. You might remember one time when King David told the priests to "bring him the golden Ephod". David put it on and went into the temple to ask God whether or not he should attack the Amalakites. David heard the audible voice of God tell him to attack.

The story of Gideon goes on to say that after the golden Ephod was made, "all of Israel prostituted themselves by worshiping the Ephod". Think of that for a moment. They actually worshiped the way in which to determine God's will over worshiping God Himself. The story later goes on to say that it became a snare to Gideon and his family.

So what does this have to do with the Bible? One of the things we are taught about the Bible is that it is the way in which to determine the will of God. I believe that just as the Israelites prostituted themselves after the golden Ephod, modern day Christians do the exact same with the Bible. We have prostituted ourselves after the Bible and there is no doubt in my mind that it has become a thorn and a snare to almost every Christian in America. In fact I think many Christians have actually traded God for the Bible. Many others have even come to the point where they think God IS the Bible! I truly believe that the Bible has become the "golden Ephod" of our time. (emphasis mine)

I think he has a point here. There is a difference between using the Bible as tool or a guide versus making it an object of worship. He goes on to say that our attitude towards the Bible is not only unbiblical (if you'll excuse the irony) but is a horrible snare to having a genuine relationship with God. He says, "Most of the things we are taught about the Bible are found nowhere in the Bible; they come from a religious spirit that seeks to whittle people down to a spiritual nub in an effort to gain control over their minds. Without a doubt, this wonderful book has been used to cuff the spirits of millions of sincere hearted people who honestly want to connect with God's Heart."

Now before I continue let me add that both the author and I are on the same page about the importance of the Bible. While it's important to remember (and act) like the Bible is a tool from God, not god itself, it's also important to delve into all that the Bible has to offer about God's interaction with people over time. It's there for a reason: to help us understand more about God and our purpose and grow as believers. But it is not the end all be all of one's spiritual life. Reading the Bible everyday does not replace genuine communion with God. The Bible is NOT God. Consequently, we do not have to be so jumpy to defend the Bible. If the Bible is God, and if the Bible has errors or inconsistencies, then yeah, there's a problem. But the Bible is not, nor will it ever be, God. The Bible is supposed to be a helpful guide, a reference book, but not the obstacle that keeps people from growing in their faith. This point in the article is rather poignant:

I understand that most of us have never stopped to think about these things, but if you step back and take an honest look at the landscape of our religion, I think you'll be surprised at how right I am. The American Christian system has wholeheartedly exchanged God for the Bible! This is precisely why so many sincere hearted people go into a full fledged panic attack the moment anyone suggests that there might be errors or discrepancies in the Bible. Most Christians will outright tell you that to even entertain such a thought is blasphemy. Because we have made the "God exchange" we have to insist that the Bible now takes on the attributes of God Himself. This is why it is imperative that everyone believe the Bible is infallible. It is equally grieving to my heart when I hear people say things like, "If there is even one thing wrong in the Bible, our entire faith is worthless". Their entire existence as a Christian stands on the belief that there are no errors in Scripture. If they were to be shown a true discrepancy in Scripture that could not be explained away, it would literally cause their entire religion to come caving in on them. I've heard people openly admit, "If you can't believe it all, you can't believe any of it". Their entire faith stands on Scripture instead of Christ. Make no mistake about it, there has been an exchange of monumental proportions! (emphasis mine)

It's sad really. I'll be the first to admit that the Bible has done a tremendous amount of good in my life, but I will also admit that I often make this switch for God and Bible. It's just so much easier to have something concrete, something I can actually see and touch and read. It's my Ephod. What was a tool for helping discern God's will becomes God to me. Let me flip to this chapter and see if I can't answer my own question. No luck? God, why didn't you put that in there? Or, even better, I (knowing enough of the Bible) flip to the section that I know in advance will confirm my own desire. If you go back to my recent post on wealth, you'll see that on both sides of the wealth argument there is scripture. Because you see, the Bible is not God, it is from Him (I really believe), but it is not Him. But if you think it is Him, then you can go to whatever verse fits your desires and hold it up as a banner testifying to God's approval of your choice. Not so my friends. You know who else used to do this? The Pharisees:

We are no different in this generation from the Pharisees in Jesus' day. They had a very similar view of their Old Testament scriptures. Jesus confronted them and said, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40). The Pharisees were making the same trade that millions of Christians have made today. Another point about this passage is that Jesus clearly makes a distinction between "studying the Scriptures" and "coming to Him".

So I guess the point of this post is a warning. The Bible is not a replacement for God in the same way that just going to church on Sundays does not replace an actual relationship with Him. The Bible and fellowship together are great things, but they are not the thing. Remember that. And next time you get all riled up about thumping that Bible over somebody's head, remember that God never intended the Bible to become a beating stick. It is for edification, but NOT division, driving seekers away, or cherry-picking verses. Remember that.

Okay I was going to end there, but I've just read through some of the comments over at TC and I can't help but add some more thoughts. Some of the commentators are worried that the attitude promoted in Darin's article will lead people to disregard the Bible entirely. Now, obviously, Darin will be the first to admit (and he does early in his article) that he truly believes the Bible is God-inspired and God-given for us to use and learn from. That much we all agree on. The question isn't whether or not the Bible has truths for our lives, it's what status or value we give the Bible itself. We call the Bible the "Word of God" but the Bible doesn't call itself the "Word of God" because it wasn't even complied until much later. The Bible calls Jesus, not the Scriptures, the Word of God. We are the ones calling the Bible by Jesus' name, but it does not call itself that. We DO know, however, that even Jesus used and believed in the Scripture (after all, the Scripture is what he came to fulfill), but remember, the devil too cited scripture while trying to ensnare Jesus. The Bible can be used for good (as Jesus did in the desert) or for bad. God can not be used for good or bad, he just is good. So obviously they are not interchangeable. That means we must use the Bible with caution, remembering that inevitably we come to it with our own baggage and narrow interpretations. It is a good thing. But again, it is not the thing. We all know how to get what we want out of the Bible, but we mustn't do that and we must use it with care and humility. It is not a beating stick. It is not God. Yes, Jesus used scripture, and yes it is really important. But, that's all the more reason to come at it with care and to use it for constructive purposes. After all, this is what it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

God-breathed, not God. Equipping us for good work. So let's do some.

Thoughts on Romans

The other day I came across a passage in Romans that made me pause. Paul was describing a theological arguement that (it seems) was starting to gain force. With the early growth of the church, Christ's message of grace was turning people's worlds upside down. The ancient Jews lived by the Mosaic law, and the whole idea of salvation by faith was quite disturbing to many of them. In fact, it was so uncomfortable for them that even some of the new believers couldn't shake their need to prove themselves through strict adherence to the law. But the concept of grace is not easily grasped, especially when you have spent much of your life trying to earn God's favor. If grace covers everyone, even the worst law-breakers, then what good is it to try and live an upright life? Isn't grace a slap in the face to all the do-gooder-over-achieving types? Well yes, and it's supposed to be. Our depravity shows God's goodness more clearly. It's in the darkness that the light penetrates the deepest. But with this grace comes a dangerous line of thought, one that Paul addresses here:

"But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—'Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved." Romans 3:5-6

This passage stuck out because it seems like it's the reverse problem of evil argument. I didn't think that I'd seen anyone approach God's grace this way, but then I thought harder. This is an integral part of the faith vs. work debate. If our faith alone saves us, then what's the point of even trying to live a righteous life? But at the same time, if our works must save us, then how good is good enough for God? James tells us that faith and good works are not separate at all, the one without the other makes it dead. But anyways, the point is that I never thought the grace part was a problem. Today the big focus is whether or not a good and gracious God would even allow evil, but back then another question was whether a gracious God would be angry with evil at all (if it makes Him look better). Well, I'm at a loss. I just thought I'd pass that quandary along, because I've never seen it from that angle before. I mean, no one would have said that Hitler should get off easy because his depravity makes Mother Theresa look better (different times, I'm aware, but you get the idea). Who knew? The philosophical/theological problem du jour may seem kind of null tomorrow...

(Romans has proved a more interesting book than I thought, so maybe I'll have more later)

Biblical Inerrancy and Christian Morality

I've read some interesting posts about the integrity of the Bible and the place of Christian morality, one christian blog and another atheist blog (I suggest a look at these last two links if you have time). There are several questions on the table in these posts. The first is just how literally should the Bible be read (if at all). The second is how can a God who both created the Universal Moral Standard also be connected with largely immoral OT (and NT to a lesser extent). I've done a great deal of thought on both subjects, and while I have no definite answers, I have sorted out some of my views (though they are subject to change!).

In response to the integrity of the Bible, I've gradually moved from one end of the spectrum (literal truth) to the middle. This is NOT because I think that the Bible is any less relevant or any less important in my faith, but rather because I have grown in my understanding of literature, history, and philosophy/theology as a whole. I used to read the Bible as though the events took place or were written in this era, bringing in all of my modern baggage. This is dangerous, obviously, as the context of both the OT and NT are worlds away from our own. As Pastor Chris says, it's important to remember that the Bible was written FOR us (our benefit, to better understand God and his relation with the world) and not TO us (with our culture/context specifically at hand). Of course even after grasping this concept, it's frighteningly easy to read our own morality into the texts (ie, enlightened humanism, of sorts). So we must strike the balance between a) understanding the context within which God was working with humanity and b) being as carefully to learn what God expects from us and not what we expect from Him. I'm of the opinion that the Bible is the written witness to God's revelation of himself to humanity. From the beginning to the end we have learned more about God's character and his will for us in our lives, culminating in Jesus' commands and salvation. Is it possible, and likely, that some of the OT authors praised (or at least didn't condemn) some (extremely) morally questionable acts. For some (see the 2nd and 3rd link), this is a deal breaker for the Christian God (or at least Bible).

Take Lot, as an example. He was entertaining guests (angels, we're told) in Sodom. A mob comes demanding the men so they can have a giant orgy sex fest (didn't know the Bible was so racy huh?). Instead of defiling his guests, he offers up his virgin daughters instead. What a wonderful father. Now, the Bible is clearly full of sinners. We often forget that every character has a dark side. Every David has his Bathsheba. So why does Lot's story (along with the rest like it) anger the non-believers? Because God did not explicitly condemn Lot for his proposal. In fact, God saved Lot from the destruction of the city. If our God really is behind the Moral Code, then he can't be the same God that appears in the Bible. The Bible is full of morally questionable acts, many of which are not condemned and even venerated by (at least) the authors of the Bible. So that's the complaint. Here's my response...for what it's worth...

The story of Lot shows us only the events as perceived by Lot (who, I would assume, thought he was making the best decision) and not as perceived by God. It's a bit of a stretch to read God's lack of condemnation into the story (as God's thoughts on the matter weren't recorded), especially because the angels stopped the gang-rape from going down: "But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door" (19:10-11 NIV). Though, even if they had allowed it, that still doesn't make us privy to God's judgement of the decision. It's a bit arrogant to assume you know what God was thinking (though I'll admit, Christians do it all the time). They still object that even if God didn't say he approved of Lot, he certainly must have because he didn't let Lot die along with the rest of the city. But how is that an objection?? God saves sinners all the time! If he only saved the morally upright, well we'd all be done for. God didn't have to think Lot's actions were commendable in order to save him. Perhaps he had more in store for Lot, who knows. Some still object that the author didn't condemn Lot, and Lot never repented, and of all the stories in history why include one that is so morally shady... Well, that's what you expect from your construction of what a God like ours should do. Unfortunately for you, if God really does exist, he needn't be obliged to act as you decide he should.

Let me reiterate something. Even if the authors didn't see some actions as wrong, that doesn't entail that God doesn't see them as wrong. Yes, the OT contains many instances of God making his opinion on such matters known, but it is by no means exhaustive. Nor do the shaky morals of the authors condemn God, even if he largely inspired the OT. God is under no obligation to include an exhaustive list of moral judgements. Also, our so called *enlightened* morals of today only seem so to us, just as the OT authors thought that they too had it right. It's hypocritical to blame the OT writers for doing when you do the very same thing in the process. There is no guarantee that our morals are correct. So don't be so quick to judge. As a philo student, I've studied more than enough philosophers who've thought they they'd finally discovered the true moral code (and who were wrong, at least in part) to know that we shouldn't be so arrogant.

But then again, I operate under the assumption that while there's a great deal for us to learn, we can by no means possess a complete and flawless grasp of morality (makes you wonder if my study of philosophy is a bit futile). I do see what the non-believers want out of a Christian God, but wanting God to operate a certain way doesn't make it the case that he does or even should. Nor does God failing to act the way we want or expect him to disprove his existence or his morality. At least, not in my opinion.