Yesterday’s post began to tackle the reliability of the Bible, and despite numerous complaints from commenters, I’m sold. This book, Letters from a Skeptic, is showing me how to view Christianity and the Bible from a lens other than fundamentalism, and that’s something I’ve desperately been searching for. It’s really helping me to rebuild a foundation with solid footing.

 So today I want to look at the reliability of the Bible a little more and discuss how it should relate to faith.

You raised questions about the construction and consistency of the Gospels, and whether or not we can even know for sure what Jesus said. It is true that most scholars believe that the Gospels utilized sources, oral and written, when they composed their accounts. I completely accept this. The evidence for it is irrefutable. But I don’t see anything radical or “liberal” about this. Luke, after all, tells us himself that he is utilizing the sources available to him (Luke 1:1-4). Neither do I see how this diminishes the authors’ credibility in the least. In fact, in my view it enhances their credibility in the least. In fact, in my view it enhances their credibility in that it ties them in with pre-existant material which brings us even closer to the original events they are talking about. Whenever they actually composed their Gospels (probably between A.D. 50 to 70), the evidence clearly demonstrates that they to some extent utilized material which was circulating for some time before this date. And the closer the material of a document is to the events of which it speaks, the more solid is its claim to report those events accurately.

So the fact that the writers of the Gospel used other sources shouldn’t detract from it’s reliability. The history books that are used in schools right now aren’t written from a first person perspective (though the Gospels were) – and they use many sources to relay evidence.

It is also true that the order of events in all the Gospels varies a great deal, but I again don’t see this as diminishing their credibility. Dad, the Gospels are not trying, on every point, to just give us biographical information on the life of Jesus. They were not written to satisfy historical curiosity. They were written to save people by bringing them into a relationsihp with the Savior. They are each painting a portrait of the historical Christ – an “impressionistic painting” if you will – and they rearrange material to fit the theme of their portrait. Like a well-constructed sermon, they tell their story with an eye both on the history of what happened and on how their telling of the story will impact their audience.

None of this, I argue, diminishes the Gospels’ general reliability. All the historical works of this time period were written in just the same fashion. It only means we can’t know for sure the exact order in which the events of Jesus’ life took place (though a general order is certainly discernable). But what difference could this information make?

Greg also addresses the notion that the Gospels are full of contradictions:

Almost all of the alleged “contradictions” in the Gospels are the result of people misusing the Gospels, viz., treating them like 20th-century works which work under a “snapshot-tape recording” criteria of truth. But if they are read in accordance with their first-century context and the purpose for which they are written, the “contradictions” disappear. Not because they are explained away, but because they instandly become totally irrelevant.

So what does that mean for faith? Particularly mine? Well, I even found an answer for that in this book.

Most evangelicals treat the Bible as though it fell from heaven, but I think this is a mistaken conception and has nothing to do with inspiration. Though I believe the Bible is inspired, and even infallible, it also clearly is a collection of books written by humans in the same fashion other books are written. When I say that the Bible is “inspired,” I’m expressing my conviction that God worked through – not above – the historical process which brought the Bible into being. I thus don’t see any incompatibility in believing the Bible is God’s Word and also analyzing it in the same historical fashion I’d analyze any other work of history.

Beliving the Bible to be inspired is, in my mind, not as central to what Christianity is about as is believing that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and can be the Lord and Savior of your life. Salvation is a matter of being related to Christ, not the Bible. In fact, believing the Bible to be inspired is, for me, simply a consequence (not the basis) of confessing Christ to be the Lord of my life.

Before, my faith was all wrapped up in the Bible itself. I love the way he looks to the person of Jesus and then sees the Bible as inspired. It seems, backwards, that’s for sure, but since what I was doing before wasn’t working for me, maybe I need to try a little backwards.

In Letters from a Skeptic, Greg’s dad constantly challenges the perspectives of the Bible that he’s heard about (which typically are fundamentalist views). Greg comes back with some fascinating answers. This is going to get long, because I’m going to repost his answers here. I’m very curious to see what some of you have to say.

From Greg’s dad:

But I have a more important problem with your last letter, especially the last part of it. This really gets to the heart of a lot of my problems with Christianity. Christians, especially the “born-again” types, are always quoting the Bible to back up their beliefs. They justify their beliefs as absolute truths because “the Bible tells me so.” All I can say is, by whose authority is the Bible granted this lofty position?

So you say that “history” proves that God loves us, and then you quote the Bible! And I don’t blame you because that’s the only place you could ever find out anything about Jesus. But it just doesn’t cut any mustard with me because I don’t accept the Bible in the first place. I don’t see any good reason to take the blind leap of faith to accept, lock, stock, and barrel the truthfulness of the Gospels your entire faith is based on.

Excerpts (very long ones) from Greg’s reply:

Now on to your more fundamental objection that I am assuming the authority of the Bible to prove that what the Bible says about Jesus is true. Dad, when I say that “history” shows what reason demands, I mean just that – history. Perhaps from your previous encounters with “born-again types” you assumed that I was just referring to the Bible as “God’s Word” when I referred to Jesus being Lord, but I wasn’t. It’s true that almost all our knowledge about Jesus comes from the Gospels, but this doesn’t mean that by referring to the Gospels I’m referring to them as God’s Word. I’m not. I’m referring to them merely as historical documents.

…

I’m not asking you to accept on “blind faith” that they are God’s Word. Forget about that altogether for right now. I’m simply saying, look at them as you would any ancient document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research history. And my contention is that, when the Gospels are treated in this critical-historical way, they fare very well and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ, enough, in fact, to know that was present in Him and working through Him in a most significant way.

Then he lists what the criteria are which historians apply to ancient documents – both internal external.

Internal Criteria:

1. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the text claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?

2. Does the document in question contain specific, and espeically irrelevant, material?

3. Does the document contain self-damaging material?

4. Is the document reasonably self-consistant?

5. Is there evidence of legendary accretion in the document?

External Criteria:

1. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?

2. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or which substantiate the genuineness of the document?

3. Does archeology support or go against material in the document?

4. Could contemporaries of the document falsify the document’s account, and would they have a motive for doing so?

Now here are the basics of his answers to those questions about the Bible:

Internal #1

Luke, who is not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records (Luke 1:1-4). John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, are broth written from the perspective of an eyewitness.

Internal #2

The Gospels are full of the sort of irrelevant detail which typically accompanies eyewitness accounts.

He uses John 20:1-8 as his example here. There are details like it was the first day of the week and still dark. Even though John got to the tomb first, Peter went in first. He is arguing that those sorts of things are irrelevant details because they don’t further the story line.

Internal #3

The Gospels are also full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the Resurrection account [of John 20], a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the testimony of the early Christians, as women in first-century Jewish culture were regarded as “talebearers.” They couldn’t even testify in court (which is why Paul doesn’t include any women in his list of people who saw the risen Christ in 1 Cor. 15).

…

And even aspects of Jesus’ life are included which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of His messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Now this is hardly what one would expect from the Messiah, especially if the Messiah is supposed to be divine. It’s a tough statement, but that just proves the point. The only motive anyone could have for including it in his account is because Jesus actually said it!

Internal #4

The Gospels present a consisten portrait of who Jesus is and what He did, as well as of the events which surrounded His life. If the four accounts were individually fabricated, where did this consistency come from? But there are also significant differences in each account, showing the relative differences of their perspectives. If they were all fabricated together, the consistency would be greater than we find.

Internal #5

The Gospels do include supernatural acts, but the accounts which we find in the Gospels don’t have any of the features of ancient mythology. They are very sober.

External #1

What possible motive would the early disciples have had for fabricating stories about Jesus? They claimed to believe in Jesus because of His miracles and resurrections, combined with the kind of life He lived and teachings He gave. And far from gaining anything from this, they suffered great persecution for it. Why would they lie? And is there anything about their characters which would lead us to think that they were the kind of people who deceived others? No scholar I know of doubts the disciples’ sincerity.

External #2

We can ascertain some things about Jesus and the early disciples, things which fit in well with the Gospels, from other secular ancient sources such as Tacitus (Ca. 55-120), Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (ca. 37-97), Thallus (mid first century), Pliny (early second century), as well as ancient Jewish writings written against the Christians (the Talmud).

External #3

While there have always been archeologists who claim that their findings are in tension with some aspect of the biblical account of things, time and time again these findings have been reversed in favor of the biblical account.

The examples he lists include Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus.

External #4

Finally, Christianity was born in a very hostile environment. There were contemporaries who would have refuted the Gospel portrait of Jesus – if they could have. The leaders of Judaism in the first century tended to view Christianity as a pernicious cult and would have loved to see it stamped out. And this would have been easy to do – if the “cult” had been based on fabrications. Why, just bringing forth the body of the slain Jesus would have been sufficient to extinguish Christianity once and for all.

In spite of this, however, Christianity exploded. The disciples preached their Gospel to people who had been eyewitnesses of the things they claimed Jesus said and did. How could they have fabricated it? And even those who remained opposed to Christianity did not deny that Jesus did miracles, and did not deny that His tomb was empty. The facts behind the Gospel are not questioned. What is questioned is how the facts were established. The opponents claimed that Jesus did what He did either through trickery, or the power of Satan, and that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

So far, I’m sold. He makes really good points. I know this has gotten way long, but bear with me. Keep reading.

His dad responds to him with some good questions. His dad is stuck in a similar place to where I am. He’s got this portrait in his head of how Christians are supposed to be that his son is blowing it out of the water – and he’s having a hard time adjusting to it. He says, “Most of the Christians I’ve ever run into are so certain that they’re right – on every point – that there’s little sense in discussing anything with them.” He asks Gregory how his faith can survive so strongly on historical documents that can sometimes lack certainty.

This is the part that really spoke to me and where I am today.

My faith doesn’t hang on the demonstrable credibility of these documents in every detail, but does hang on their overall credibility. The Jesus I am personally related to can’t be wholly different from the Jesus of history as shown by these documents, otherwise “my Jesus” isn’t the Jesus I think He is. The certainty I have on the truth of my faith thus attaches both to my experience of Christ in worship and to my investigation of the Gospel accounts which, to my mind at least, has shown them to be at least generally reliable. Faith is a loving, trusting relationship with Christ, an attachment which goes way beyond a theoretical assessment of ancient documents. But it isn’t divorced from this historical assessment. It’s much like our relationships with others. Your relationship with [your wife], for example, goes way beyond the factual information you know about her, but you’d have a hard time being related to her in the first place without this information.

There’s definitely going to be a part 2 to this, because they talk about the Bible more, but this is already too long.

I’m loving this book, because it seems to me that Greg is answering all the questions I’ve had in non-fundie answers.

What I’ve been taught (and believed) can be summed up by the following two questions and answers (taken from my NANC theology exam and already edited and considered correct):

1. The Bible is spoken of as “inspired.” What does this mean?

The Bible clearly states that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16). This means that God gave the authors of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts the words that He wanted written. In 2 Peter 1:21, the Bible tells us “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” This is a testament to the fact that the Bible is not the word of man, but the Word of God. The literal translation of “inspiration” in 2 Timothy 3:16 is “God-breathed” or “divinely breathed.” The picture that is painted here is that the very inner being of God has come forth in the words of the Bible.

Authors of both the Old and New Testament testified that their words were not their own, but God’s. Isaiah 1:2 declares that “the Lord hath spoken.” Jeremiah 10:1-2 states, “Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord…” The first chapters of Ezekiel, Hosea, Jonah, Micah, and Zechariah all proclaim that the word of the Lord was given. In the New Testament, Paul expressly states that the things he had written were “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37). In Ephesians 3:3-5, Paul declares that what he has written was revealed to him by the Lord.

Time and time again the Bible proves that it is truly inspired by God. It makes claim after claim that the words written are the words of God. By saying that the Bible is “inspired” by God means that the words are those of God, not man.

Inspiration is vital to the Biblical counselor. The counselee needs to understand that the Bible is the written Word of God, and thus completely sufficient for addressing the problems of man. When the counselee grasps this concept, he is one step closer to believing that the Bible is Truth, and one step closer to salvation.

2. What is the relationship between infallibility and authority?

The Scriptures are infallible—that is, they are incapable of containing an error. The Scriptures also have divine authority—they are the basis for everything in life. We know that the Bible is infallible because we know Who authored it. The Scriptures are directly from God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). We know from Titus 1:2 that God cannot tell a lie. As a result, He could not allow anything untrue to be in His Word. In truth, the Bible reflects the character of God.

The Bible itself claims divine authority in 1 Thess. 2:13, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” Because the Bible cannot contain an error, these words speak of the divine authority of the Scriptures.

The Biblical counselor must understand that he can go to the Scriptures to counsel on any issue. There are root sins behind the majority (if not all) issues that would arise in a counseling session. To realize the authority of the Scriptures (in all matters) would immediately point the counselor in the direction he needs to go.

A friend of mine recently posted an article that responded to what was called “Bill Maher’s Absurd Take on Religion.” In it, the statement was made, “If Christianity really taught that God took out a pen, wrote a book for us, called it the Bible and dropped it from the clouds, I too would doubt. But Mr. Maher, Christianity doesn’t teach that.”

But…it does. At least in some places. I find it completely reasonable that Mr. Maher has an issue with Christianity because of that belief – because in more conservative fundamentalist churches that is exactly what is taught.

I’ve heard pastors say some of the most ignorant things from the pulpit and believed it because it came from a pastor.

Now’s the point where we all say yeah, but the pastor is just a man like everyone else and can be wrong (and probably is a lot of the time). But it doesn’t work like that in fundamentalist circles. The pastor is the man. Seriously. You know those bumper stickers that say, “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it”? Well, in some cases that turns into “The pastor says it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Seems silly, doesn’t it? But it’s a very real part of fundamentalist Christianity.

I thought I had gotten rid of all of this baggage years ago – apparently I merely suppressed it.

It’s especially interesting for me to read since I’m in this weird transition phase of my faith. On one hand, I’m reading it and I find myself nodding along with everything, because it’s a really well written Christian piece.

On the other hand, it brings up some of the many questions that I’m dealing with right now.

Have you ever wondered why Christianity makes such a big deal about belief? Why do Christians care so much about believing in Jesus? Does it ever seem almost too magical, like a trick you can play in your head? “Just believe in Jesus Christ, and you’ll receive forgiveness, peace with God, eternal life!” That’s what the good news of Christ actually says. But shouldn’t there be more to it, some requirement to clean up your act, to do right things to earn all this? Do Christians make it too simple to be saved?

To answer that, first we have to recall what it means to be saved, for that word has become religious jargon; it has lost its meaning outside of Christian circles. It just means to be rescued. You need not view it in a religious way to see that. To be saved from drowning is to be rescued from drowning. Christians mean just that sort of thing when they use the word. It’s being rescued from ourselves, and from the trouble we’ve gotten ourselves into.

Okay, so far so good.  

God has standards for us, and none of us lives up to them. Nobody even lives consistently according to their own idea of what’s right and wrong. Surprisingly, the Bible actually seems to say (in Romans 2) that if you don’t know the Biblical law, God won’t necessarily judge you based on that law. Instead, your own moral standards will be your test. And nobody passes.

Says who? Seriously. The standards that we use come from the Bible, right? So how do we really know those are God’s standards, and not the standards of men trying to control other men (and women)? And seriously…I’ve never heard that God will judge you based on your own moral standards. I just reread the chapter in question, and I guess I can see where they get that from, but I’m not buying it.

There is a penalty for this falling short: eternal separation from God, the source of all love and goodness. It is eternal death. Salvation means rescue from this fate. It also has to do with being freed (rescued, in a way) from our own internal contradictions, the passions within that war against our own selves. Ultimately it means living forever with God.

So why should believing qualify us for these great gifts? God knows we cannot live up to our own standards, much less his own; we can’t rescue ourselves, and we can’t gain true, eternal life on our own. Christ’s life, death, and resurrection were God’s gift to pay the penalty for our sins and open the way for this. It could never be something we earn, for it’s far beyond our reach. God offers it in the only way we could receive it: as a gift, to be accepted by simple believing.

But let’s not overstate how simple that believing really is. It is a deep thing. To a great extent, our beliefs are who we are. They determine every choice we make. I’m not just speaking of religious beliefs now. If you choose to go to school, it’s because you believe something good will come of it. If you choose to love your spouse, it’s because of your beliefs about that relationship. If you lie or steal, it’s because you believe some greater good (also defined according to your beliefs) will come to you for it. If you indulge in any temptation, it’s because you believe the pain of denying it would be greater, or more consequential to you, than the damage you cause yourself by giving in.

Something he says here pinpoints exactly why I’m struggling: To a great extent, our beliefs are who we are. They determine every choice we make. Who I am is all wrapped up in the Christian belief system. Without it, I feel incomplete.

If you believe in God, you choose to order your life according to an entirely different reality than if you do not. There is a very short distance, Biblically, between believing in God and obeying him. In Hebrews 3:16-19, and in Hebrews 4:2 and 4:6, “unbelief” and “disobedience” are used interchangeably. In Hebrews 11, the Bible’s famous “faith hall of fame,” the Old Testament heroes’ faith was shown in every case by what they did — by their actions. One book later in the Bible, in James 2:14-23, it’s explicitly stated that faith and deeds cannot be separated.

Again, says who? I’m really having issues with the Bible, and using Scripture to back up claims isn’t going to get anywhere with me. 

Believing in Jesus Christ comes first. It always remains the basis for our relationship with God, the beginning and foundation of a changed life. God asks no more of us than that when we enter into relationship with him. But it is no mere mental check-off, no simple assent to a creed; it’s something that in the end alters our whole approach to life. It is inevitably expressed through the way we live. What we believe determines what kind of persons we are.

It’s no small thing to believe in Jesus Christ — it’s the first step of a complete turnaround. It means that we experience all of reality in a new way. It kicks off a positive change in our character. It starts us on a new life, a life of peace with God, and the freedom of forgiveness; it opens up the power (through Christ living in us) to truly love, to give, to have joy, to have self-control, patience, kindness, and more. It provides the potency by which we can have a powerful positive effect on the world. None of us experiences these changes completely on earth, but ultimately belief in God opens the door to live eternally with God.

So it you wonder whether there ought to be more to it than mere belief, you’re partly right.

All God requires of us, to be rescued from ourselves and to receive his life, is that we believe in him. But when it comes to Jesus Christ, genuine belief is the start and foundation for a good and great transformation of your heart and your life.

This is hard.

When I think of all Christianity has “to offer” and the community and the love and the freedom that is supposed to come from this faith…I want it. Badly. But just because I want something to be true doesn’t make it so.

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

This, of course, brought up other verses, like these in Matthew 7:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 

 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

A few people decided that judgment can’t mean what we mean it as in our society today, (e.g. calling someone “judgmental”) because when a judge judges you (and when God will judge us) a sentence will be passed down. They said that confronting someone on a sin isn’t judgment because you’re basically just telling them that what they did was wrong, and not sentencing them to anything.

I disagree.

While we have to be careful not to interpret the Bible with our own definitions, the definition is sort of a good one. Anytime you form an opinion of someone based on what you see or know (or think you know) about someone, you are judging them. Because based on that decision, you are often deciding to either give or take away something. It could be that you won’t offer your friendship. It could be that you soil their reputation. It could be that you decide they’re great and you want to be a part of their life. But something is either given or taken away based on the opinion you formed. We all do it, it’s human nature. And that’s why God tells us to be merciful when we judge. And if we aren’t, He won’t be merciful with us when we are judged.

That’s why I am a little skeptical of most sociological research.  Every week there is a new study that tracks some social phenomenon, whether it be stay at home moms or same sex marriages or divorces or yo-yo usage among geeks.  But if I can’t always tell for sure about about the effects of a drug using a tightly controlled double-blinded study, how reliable is the information in often poorly constructed short term observational studies?  I don’t want to know the effects of divorce five years from now or ten years from now, but a hundred years from now.

In other words, to reach reliable conclusions regarding the effect of anything in human culture, you would need experiments that would be impossible to construct and take decades to complete.  You just can’t base private convictions or public policy on such weak data as sociological research can provide.

His conclusion is, of course, the best part. But I won’t spoil it for you. Go read it!

“It occurred to me one day that though I often worry about whether or not I sense the presence of God I give little thought to whether God senses the presence of me.” 
Philip Yancy in Prayer – Does it Make Any Difference?

In reflecting on that statement, Jeanie wrote:

What sweet invitation.  I was somehow thinking that the pursuit of His Presence was elusive at times.  Why, I wondered, am I so aware of Your Presence sometimes and at other times I am wondering where You are?  Maybe because while I was desiring to be in that place of peace and joy, I wasn’t really “there.”  Maybe it has been me missing from those uncomfortable void times?

What an uncomfortable thought. No one wants to think that a soured relationship has gone that way because of something I did. It’s always the other person’s fault.

But what if it isn’t?

King Saul got impatient and disobeyed God by offering a burnt sacrifice rather than waiting for Samuel to get there and do it. Samuel rebukes him by saying, “You acted foolishly. You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. But now your kingdom will not endure; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the Lord’s command.” (1 Samuel 13:13-14).

I think it’s kind of crazy that such a small statement, easily overlooked, has grown to have the significance that it does now.

What’s even crazier is that Saul didn’t learn his lesson. Again he directly disobeyed God’s orders. This time, when he was supposed to destroy everything that belonged to a conquered people, Saul kept the best of the livestock. He justified his actions by saying that he kept them because he wanted to honor the Lord with sacrifices.

How often do I do that? Justifying sin comes very easily to me. I can justify anger, fear, disobedience, lying, etc. You name it, and I can probably justify it. But Samuel correctly identifies what lies beneath justification–rebellion.

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.” (1 Samuel 15:22-23)

This chapter ends with God being grieved that he had made Saul king of Israel. How often do I cause God grief? I’ve failed him so many times (and if you’re a regular reader, you’re very aware of that). But there is an important distinction between Saul and myself (I think so, anyways). Saul’s attitude was never what it was supposed to be. Each time he disobeyed God, rather than owning up to it he always justified the action and blamed it on something else. Even after he finally “got it” and was able to just say “I have sinned,” he followed it up with a plea for Samuel to make him look good in front of everyone else.

Wrong attitude. It’s destructive!

Enter David. I think the introduction of David in the Scriptures is interesting. Samuel is sure that Jesse’s oldest son, Eliab, will be the anointed of the Lord because he is strong and tall. But God chides Sam and tells him, “The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (Note: this also goes back to why Saul was rejected–heart/attitude.) After this statement, we are still told what David looks like–”ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features.” Why take the effort to tell us what he looks like right after we’ve been told it doesn’t matter?

Back to Saul. Saul is still the king of Israel, but he’s deeply troubled now. The Spirit of the Lord has departed from him and he’s tormented by “an evil spirit from the Lord.” Basically, that means that God has left Saul to his own devices (otherwise known as God allowing Saul the sinful desires of his heart). And how does Saul “relieve” himself of this Spirit? He gets David to play the harp. Rather than turning to the Lord for help, he looks elsewhere for relief. Saul just makes mistake after mistake. I cringe while reading about Saul because I just want to reach through the pages and knock some sense into him. But then, it’s easy to see someone else’s flaws, isn’t it? If someone were reading an account of my life, I wonder how often they’d want to do the same to me.

The last section I read today was the story of David and Goliath (everyone knows that one) and how Saul got so jealous of David afterwards. What I didn’t remember (either because I just forgot or this part isn’t taught in VBS) was that after David killed Goliath, he cut off his head. If teachers had left that part in, more little boys would have really gotten into the story!

Far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by failing to pray for you.

I’m probably the world’s worst pray-er. Whenever we get the prayer newsletter from church, I almost always read the prayer requests, but I rarely actually pray over them. Is that really a sin against the Lord?

It is.

We are commanded to pray. So from here on out, I’m going to make an effort to change my way of thinking so that I actually do pray for those around me, rather than just “thinking” about the prayer requests.

*I am from the South, after all.

Two non-Christian students enrolled in one of these classes in Texas gave great reasons for taking the class (from the Time article):

“Some of my friends are Christian,” she said, shrugging, “and they would argue about, like, whether you can be a Christian and believe in evolution, and I’m like, Okaaaay … clueless.” Williams signed up for a similar reason. “If somebody is going to carry on a sophisticated conversation with me, I would rather know what they’re talking about than look like a moron or fight my way through it,” she says.

It’s important to note that we aren’t talking about church classes here. These classes don’t teach you that the hand of God came down and wrote the Bible with a special pen on special paper. But they do give you a working knowledge of what is contained within the pages of the Bible.

The Bible so pervades Western culture, it says, that it’s hard to call anyone educated who hasn’t at least given thought to its key passages.

This is true!

But wait! Isn’t this going blatantly against the separation of church and state? No!

Meanwhile, two privately produced curriculums crafted specifically to pass church-state muster are competing for use in individual schools nationwide. Combined, they are employed in 460 districts in at least 37 states. The numbers are modest, but their publishers expect them to soar.

There has been some criticism of this kind of curriculum from the extreme right, but I love what Chuck Colson said here:

“Would I prefer a more explicitly biblical Christian teaching?” he asks. “Of course. But you can’t do that in public education. What you can do is introduce the Bible so that people are aware of its impact on people and in history and then let God speak through it as he will.”

One of the textbooks being used is called The Bible and its Influence, and I want this book!

Meant to be read alongside a Bible, the book’s 373 oversize pages provide a clearly written–if selective–theme-and-style analysis of key passages in most of the biblical books. Its sidebars–”Cultural Connections,” “Historical Connections”–do much of the heavy lifting in transforming a Bible commentary into a textbook.

And the last line of the article is a great one:

But in the end, what is required in teaching about the Bible in our public schools is patriotism: a belief that we live in a nation that understands the wisdom of its Constitution clearly enough to allow the most important book in its history to remain vibrantly accessible for everyone.

The article from Fox also looks at why these classes are beginning to gain popularity:

But let’s focus on the Bible — why would it be so important for a nation that prides itself on diversity to teach the Holy Scriptures of the Judeo-Christian heritage in public schools? One answer is because the Old and New Testaments provide the foundation of the American system of government.

[...]

Essentially, the Bible is an integral part in America’s heritage, now in its laws, and in the dignity it strives to attain for every person. Yes, America was never, and is not, perfect. The institution of slavery and the inadequate distribution of wealth are two blots on America’s history. We are still striving to overcome vestiges of those ugly times, but the ideals of freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all people come from the Bible’s understanding that we all have dignity, and that no one is above the law, not a king or a president.

It also explores reasons not to teach these classes:

The Bible, as Christians believe, is God’s word — God revealing himself to his people. This book is meant to convert. The narrative tells of man’s fallen nature, and God working to redeem us. Without that knowledge, the Bible is simply some nice poetry and literature. In a public school setting, the Bible could never be used as devotion. Therefore, its very intention is suppressed for the sake of a diverse system. Many people have read the Bible and come away with no influence at all; others believing that it’s the revealed word of God will see a totally different meaning in all its passages.

This is a good point, but I will redirect you to Chuck Colson’s quote above.

Overall, I still think this is a great idea. There are probably some kinks to work out in the system, but every high school in the nation teaches a class on world religion to sophomores–without converting anyone to any of those religions. Adding classes on the most influential book in history seems like a good move.