Why believers must complain about and criticize biblical texts

It’s not just biblical texts that believers must complain about. It is God himself. Biblical literature is clear on this point: it is connatural to a believer to criticize God. That’s what Moses and the prophets do. That’s what David and his fellow psalmists do. That’s what Job does. That’s what Jesus does from the cross, in the words of Psalm 22: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

It is right and good and a joyful thing to complain and criticize whenever there is a gap between the truth we associate with God and the facts on the ground.

Truth of redemptive significance is bound to be counterfactual. God, therefore, is bound to be counterfactual. To be sure, the world is full of people who have no need of redemption. They are the wealthy. They will never have a need to criticize God or the way things are.

Many status-quo people call themselves liberals. Others self-identify as conservatives. It doesn’t matter. They have bought into a “live and let die” philosophy. A “live and let die” philosophy is forbidden to the believer in the God of Moses and the believer in the God of Jesus. That does not change the fact that such a philosophy is, beyond an arbitrary circle we draw around ourselves and the ones we care about, the default position of all human beings.

What matters is the context in which complaints and criticism occur. Do I make the criticism because I expect God or scripture to answer my questions and I will not rest until I find my rest in God and his Word? Or because I've decided that God and his Word are something I need to protect myself against, because I've found a higher standard of truth by which to judge them both?

If the latter, I have not ceased to be a believer. I have probably become a truer believer than before, in the strong sense of Eric Hoffer. I simply believe in something other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I simply believe in something other than the God who called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen 12), endangered and then rescued Isaac (Gen 21), and wrestled with Jacob (Gen 32).

It is also possible for a believer to reject a part of scripture definitively, and still remain a believer. As I remember it – I heard it from Käsemann himself – the great NT exegete Ernst Käsemann once stood up in an official context of his church and argued with great passion on behalf of removing Romans 13 from Scripture. Of course Romans 13 remains a part of Scripture, but no one criticized Käsemann for his speech.

Who would? Everyone knew he had lost his beloved daughter in Argentina in the dark days in which a military junta tortured and “disappeared” their political opponents. Including Käsemann’s daughter.

Put yourself in the professor’s shoes. Walk in his boots. Now read Romans 13. Because he was a believer, I submit, he railed against that text. 

Comments

[Looney]

Rather than complaining about your post, I thought it would be good to submit a Biblical text as a candidate for deletion:

Philippians 1:15-18 ...

It is too much to ask me to rejoice when someone is leading a church with a heavy hand and crazed with selfish ambition - as he proclaims Jesus as Lord!

[JohnFH]

Hi Looney,

That's a great example. It's a problem that crops up often enough. Something a Bible author said, in context and for the purpose it was said, may have been sensible enough.

But for another purpose, in this case, that of getting rid of someone who dishonors the name of God, another passage is more suitable as a point of departure, for example, Matthew 18:15-20.

[Jeremy]

Amen. I get tired of people thinking me an unbeliever or heretic because I criticize the Bible and the depiction of God sometimes found there. Critiquing scripture is part of a long standing tradition that starts within the Biblical text itself. I think we are being highly unbiblical if we don't do it.

[Looney]

John, the Matthew 18 text looks to be a good corrective on the surface. In practice churches frequently set up their bylaws so that nothing can be brought before the church unless it goes through the leadership. This is presumably necessary to avoid regular disruption from cranks. The bylaws I have seen also stipulate that if there is a disagreement between the church leadership and anyone else in the church - which necessarily includes the church as a whole - the opinion of the church leadership takes precedence. Is Matthew 18:15-20 valid in your church?

[JohnFH]

No matter how often I preach on Matthew 18:15-20, many people prefer, for example, to make anonymous criticisms of church leaders, not realizing that such criticisms are shredded and not even read on principle. Or they trumpet the alleged offense of a fellow church member to the four winds without ever seeking to speak to the alleged offender in person or engage in fraternal correction with the help of people of mutual trust.

For the rest, the United Methodist system is an Episcopal system with lots of rules and regs and executives invested with real power. It's not that different from the military. I can be moved at the Bishop and Cabinet's discretion. I can be thrown on the curb in 24 hours, family included, if there is just cause.

Not long ago a colleague of mine was caught downloading and viewing kiddy porn on the computer of his study in church. (How dumb can you get.) He was forced to relinquish his credentials immediately. He and his family were ordered to vacate the parsonage with the utmost haste.

Whether or not a congregation is part and parcel of a connectional system with teeth, it needs to have procedures in place for removing leaders who violate pre-stipulated conditions. A congregation which doesn't is operating on false assumptions with respect to the frailty of human nature.

[Webb]

This is such a laughable post.

I think you might like to start with the verse in 2 timothy about how all scripture is good for reproof. Then, take out the bit at the end of Revelations about cursing those who remove from that book(even if it doesn't cover all 66 books, it'll let you freely amend that book).

Of course, your logic is hardly new. Plato once asked if the laws were good because Zeus made them, or if Zeus [didn't follow, but] made them because they were good?

And I choose to believe in that God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job(he treated him pretty poorly too). But, just deciding that you are still a believer doesn't make it so.

[JohnFH]

LOL, Webb. What are you choosing? Your writing style is clear as mud.

[Webb]

As an addendum to the above hasty post, I feel like people of today's religious culture need to be criticized when they adopt the label of a follower of God, but refuse to act as such.

When someone calls himself or herself such a person, and then commits injustice, it is a great wrong both to God and to his followers.

Likewise, it is worthwhile to examine the hard questions of the Bible. In the middle ages, philosophers pondered over these questions for a long time. St. Augustine asked such questions, as did Clement. But it seems to me you would rather ignore the offending text than interact with it.

But I may just be acting hastily and without thought.

[JohnFH]

Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo: great examples of believers who knew that fides quarens intellectum.

Webb, I think we are on the same page. For some reason you don't see it.

[Webb]

It seems to me that you must adopt something as a cornerstone of your belief, and use that as the basis for examining the rest of the world.

If you choose something other than the Bible(Torah, whatever), fine, interpret it how you will, but don't lay claim to titles like "believer" that give the wrong impression. If you choose the Bible, then be consistent about it. Don't cherry-pick for convenience' sake.

My comments were not directed towards your criticism of "live and let die" or Job and David's honest interaction with God. They were directed at the idea that you can tap into a "Higher standard of truth" than God and the Bible while still calling yourself a believer.

Granted, the term believer has come to encompass too many people that probably have the same opinion, and you only mentioned that there was a high standard of truth, but if you couldn't tap into it, how would it be relevant?

However, if you mean that today's Pharisee counterparts should be corrected and contradicted the same way that Jesus did 2 thousand years ago (e.g.by referring to when David ate the holy bread). It seems that you only need bring to light certain passages of scripture that have been conveniently forgotten.

If I misunderstood your argument, my apologies. If not, again, my apologies for not having taken the time the first time. In the future, I will go over my comments better.

[Hebrew Scholar]

It all depends on what you believe the Hebrew Bible is. For innumerable reasons (such as prophecy) I believe it is the wholly inspired word of God. If you believe (like I do) that the Hebrew Bible is inspired, you will try to bend your thinking until it conforms to the Scriptures, rather than bending or interpreting the Scriptures to suit what you think.

[JohnFH]

Hebrew Scholar,

I concur.

Webb,

I think you misunderstand my argument. I was saying that, if someone has a higher truth by which they judge the Bible and the God of the Bible, that doesn't mean they are without faith. It is not as if they don't have a gospel. But they do have, from a point of view internal to the Bible itself, a false gospel.

I hope that helps.