Last night as my wife and I were
watching the latest episode of The Bible mini-series
on the History Channel, she said something to me that was quite profound. She
noted that even though she follows many Christians on Twitter, it was only the
Adventists that were being overly critical. Hardly any of them had anything
positive to say about the series. I noted the same thing on my timeline.
Personally, I enjoyed the second episode more than the first because there was
more action. I did have issue with the Samson scene with the jawbone only
because I thought it could have been more epic, but the scene of him in the
temple made up for that. But this raised a pressing question in both of our
minds: what is wrong with us (Adventists)? Why can’t we just enjoy things? Are
we the self-appointed “factual purity police”? I want to briefly address
Adventism as it relates to our biblical criticism and the influence we have as
Christians.
As I said earlier, I have enjoyed The Bible series so far. My only beef
with the first episode was that it was a little slow and slightly boring with
the exception of a few parts. Last night’s episode was much more entertaining
just as far as the action and drama were concerned. Are there some
inaccuracies? Yes. Are there some embellishments? Yes. Do they take dramatic
license? Yes. Are people watching it?! YES! Are Atheists and adherents of other
religions entering a social media dialogue with Christians? YES!! Is there a
possibility that people will be drawn to Christ as a result of this series!
YES!! Then what is our problem?!?!? Many critics out there feel it is their
responsibility to uphold the factual integrity of the Scripture, and that’s ok
I suppose…but when our voice is dominantly critical then I believe there’s a
problem.
I learned a lesson several years ago
while studying theology at Oakwood University. Young theology majors that are
just being exposed to proper study methods of the Bible easily get lost and
caught up in the game of pulpit criticism. Every preacher that dared to stand
behind that pulpit was under doctrinal, biblical, and factual scrutiny. I was
not exempt from this phenomenon. One week for chapel a guest speaker preached
and was well received by the student body. Many people gained a real and
genuine blessing from what he presented. When I went to lunch I sat with some
friends who were raving up and down about how blessed they were by the sermon.
I then proceeded to break down all of the errors in the sermon…all the places
where he was exegetically inaccurate and where I thought he was stretching the
text to make his point. I immediately sensed that I single-handedly brought a
cloud over the whole table. The blessing that everybody was raving about
receiving was gone. I robbed them of it. I learned after that incident that
everything doesn’t need to be critiqued. I learned that my voice did, in fact,
have influence and that I had the ability to literally rob people of a genuine
blessing they may have received from God.
If there is blatant doctrinal or
theological error then as a pastor I do have the responsibility to address it.
But some things just aren’t that big of a deal...for instance, in the first
episode, Sarah ran to meet Abraham and Isaac after she figured out what was
happening. Now the Bible says that the journey was 3 days to Mt Moriah, so
factually she wouldn’t have been able to do that. Ok, small error. Does it
matter to the spirit of the story or did it detract from the message of the
text? NO! So who cares!?!
My concern is that all of us
Adventists will be mindful of whatever influence we may have in the larger
community. This series provides us with a wonderful opportunity to engage
people in conversation about the Bible and about JESUS in particular! Let’s not
miss that opportunity because of a few factual missteps! Let us not rob
people’s blessings by our incessant criticisms! Christianity is not going to
crumble because you failed to point out that there weren’t angel ninjas in
Sodom…just enjoy that ride and PRAY that God will use this series to bring
people to Him. THAT is the point of the series.
Shalom
I would have to disagree with you a little bit. I have done some minor factual criticism, but I think factual criticism is important when it effects the picture of God that is being presented. I am all for the fact that this is bringing God to people who may never have considered Him, but I think we have to consider not just that God is being presented, but also what form of God is being presented. That is what my criticism has largely focused on. I believe that "The Bible" has the potential to do as much harm in terms of what it says about God as it does good in presenting God to people.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, as much as we consider those who have never engaged the Bible, we need to also consider that there are those who do not follow God but know the word and are looking to us to stand up for its accuracy. For example, two of my good friends here are atheists. They constantly ridicule "The Bible." Not because they are not Christian, but because they know Bible well enough to know that this series has not done a good job in presenting the Bible in it's best light. (As an aside, how shocked was I to find that my atheist friend Ethan owned more EGW books than I do!)
One last point that connects to my idea about the picture of God. I think it's important for us to remember that our biblical knowledge allows us to look over factual inaccuracies and fill in meaning that is not available to those who are not as well versed. The factual inaccuracies will not change our picture of God because we already have one formed in our heads. For those whose foundation for a picture of God will be shaped by this miniseries, it is important I think for Christians to help effect that process by pointing out the places where that picture has been falsely skewed by the creators of this series. I guess I would agree with you that fact-checking for fact-checking's sake is unnecessary. But fact-checking that seeks to show God as more balanced than the view being presented seems not just well within bounds, but needed.
Check out my posts on HineSight under "Biblical Criticism" to see more of what I'm talking about in terms of the actual ideas and what I think this series is doing under the surface.
God Bless,
Jason
I've been following your posts on the series. And I agree with what your saying...my main point was I don't want to be the voice that robs people of any blessing they could potentially receive by being overly critical. After that experience I wrote about in the post I have tried not to do that as much as possible.
DeleteSecondly, do you really think it was a harmfully negative picture of God that they painted? How can we get around the fact that God told Israel to annihilate the Canaanites? Or that God sent Babylon to punish Israel? It is what it is...And the entire series was meant to climax with the Christ event. Christ as the ultimate revelation of God was the "alleged" goal of the series. So I don't think it was harmful per se...the OT is hard to deal with in any respect
I think it's harmful because even in the OT we have a balance of the punishing God with the God of love. What I found interesting was that because of the stories covered, they had an opportunity at times to show that picture of God and for whatever reason decided not to do so. If they had not covered stories with those opportunities I don't think I would have much of a complaint. I realize that you can't cover everything. But when you do take on some of those stories and then only present what seems to be the vengeful side of God's character, then I think you're doing that on purpose. You don't have to make the angels look like they take pleasure in chopping down the residents of Sodom. You didn't have to tell Nebuchadnezzar's story at all, but when you do and cut out God's patient pleading with him and have Daniel seem to Lord it over him at the end, that stuff seems purposeful and destructive to me, despite the complexities you mention.
Delete