Stockpiling Theological Ammo

I’m not even going to pretend like I’m not pissed off about something. I’ve been working on covering the dangers of proof text theology for some time, but just the other day I found myself at the business end of someone else’s theological machine gun. Passage after passage was sent flying my way in an effort to debunk what I had just got done saying. 

Now, I know I’m harping on this because this is how I used to do theology. Truth be told, I have done exactly what was recently done to me. I talk about it in this post.

Here’s the scenario. We’re in a class on leadership. At the end of the night, I raise my hand and ask the question “do you think that it might be a little self important for us to believe that the health and stability of a congregation or group of people is contingent on whether or not one man prays or reads his bible?” A brief dialogue between my Professor and I ensued and then the conversation was about to move on.

Suddenly, a hand is raised and a voice from the back says: “Concerning the statement…” and then the gentlemen went on to restate my question. After restating my question, this man proceeded to give every verse about a leader praying in the bible that biblegateway.com or Logos could find for him. His conclusion after his biblical compilation was finished? “I believe that it’s important for our pastors and elders to pray and read their bibles because the bible tells us that it’s important.”

Fortunately for me, my professor saw me throw my eyes into the back of my head and proceed to say to myself… well, it’s not important what I said, nor was it very nice. But after this man emptied his magazine into what he perceived was a challenge of biblical wisdom, my professor jumped in before I could, saying “I don’t think that’s what Ryan is saying at all…” and then went on to articulate my point better than I was able to.

The problem with proof text theology is… well there’s a number of problems.

• Assumptions: Proof text theology makes a number of assumptions. For example, look at how Mark Driscoll answers this question on Homosexuality:

The way Driscoll answers this question feels a bit swanky to me. The passages that are used are now being heard in light of the question that was posed: that is, “is homosexuality a sin?” When Driscoll does this, it doesn’t matter what the passages say in relation to the questions the biblical authors may be trying to address, what matters now is that Driscoll is using them to prove a point… his. 

For example, when Driscoll emphasis’ that marriage is between a man and a woman by drawing on the creation account of Genesis, do you think that the author(s) of Genesis were addressing the issue of homosexuality or even had it in mind when the union of Adam and Eve was being narrated? This leads me to my next point.

• Proof texting makes us bad listeners:

What were the assumptions this man in my class made about what I had said? By the end of his discourse, you might have thought I said “piss on prayer,” “piss on reading your bible”. You would have thought I said I was against pastors praying for their congregation. Instead of asking for a clarifier, instead of asking me to elaborate on my point to make sure he fully understood, he proceeded to educate me on what he thought I said. 

There was no love in his rebuke, so what was it about? Having done theology in a similar way, I can only speculate that it was a demonstration of dominance, a moment of spiritual penis measuring if you will. 

Also, perhaps in his mind it was a defense of biblical truth. Here’s the irony: if he cared about biblical truth he would be more interested in preserving his fellow brother than defending his dogma.

• It makes us poor communicators and interpreters of the biblical narrative:

Continuing with the theme of homosexuality, I’d like to throw out a provocative quote. You may agree with what is said or you may not, but I’d like you to consider the method which is used by this author to arrive at his conclusion. This is a series of questions recently asked of Brian McLaren, one of which was whether or not homosexuality is a sin: You can read the full article Here, but below you will find his response:

Q: "Very plainly, do you think the Bible says homosexuality is a sin? A simple yes or no will do, not a paragraph about a more human sexuality. (That is a pretty ambiguous term that doesn't say anything.)"

R: Very plainly, I do not not think that what we mean by "homosexuality" (an inborn or innate same sex attraction) would have even been a category in the minds of ancient people, any more than they would have a category called "democratic republic" or "capitalism" or "aspergers syndrome" or "biodegradable products" or "upward mobility."

My sense is that you would like me to say whether I follow the traditional approach that applies Leviticus 18:22 and five or six other verses to conclude that homosexuality is wrong. I do not. I think the whole point of the New Testament is that the kingdom of God initiated by Jesus breaks down old dividing walls - of religion (Jew/Gentile), economics and class (slave/free), and gender (male/female). And I hope you read the chapter in my book which includes a lengthy reading of Acts (especially Acts 8) ... where I show the incredible courage of the early church in crossing those boundaries to include what had been excluded previously. That's why I am for full inclusion of LGBTQ people, without stigma or second-class-citizen status. I believe this is in harmony with the deepest moral teaching of the Bible, which is expressed most powerfully not in the ten commandments but in the great commandment, and not in words on a page but in Christ himself, Word made flesh. Again, I imagine you'll disagree with some if not most of what I've said here ... but I share it in hopes that you'll maybe go back and read the book a little more carefully, and that you'll better understand what I'm saying and why. That way you can disagree both intelligently and charitably.

I think McLaren’s point is a good one. If you want to build a theology by stringing together a series of passages to answer your question, you’ve strayed from good interpretation and thoughtful engagement.

To continue on with the example, consider the portrayal of homosexuals in the bible. Let’s think on narrative of Lot in Genesis. His town is known as a place in which all the men in the town come to his home to rape and defile angelic beings. If I compare this with any number of those whom I know with same sex attraction, I find the two images irreconcilable. 

As McLaren asks, did the ancient mind know what we know now? There’s example after example of ways in which Christians have had to reinterpret entire portions of scripture after scientific discoveries were made (sounds like a good post for another time). If it can be determined that people are born with same sex attraction, it will only be a matter of time before we will have to embrace a different hermeneutic.

If this is the case concerning homosexuals, there’s an entire set of questions that Driscoll’s reductionistic approach does not satisfy, and in essence he has painted himself into a corner. If God created us with desires that can be satisfied within the covenant of marriage than we have no excuse for being “fornicators” or “adulterers”. But if a person is born with an innate same sex attraction then we cannot condemn them for making a choice as a sinner, nor is it consistent to expect them to go through life with said attraction and have no way to satisfy those desires as can a man and woman within the covenant relationship of marriage.

Proof texting does not leave room for such questions. To the compiler, the answer seems obvious, black and white, crystal clear. To do this is dismissive, simplistic, and does not take serious the complex realities around us. We come off looking like fools when we do this.

It simply doesn’t do the bible justice to quote a series of passages to arrive at any given conclusion. It may do you justice, but it does a great disservice to the bible we value.

And concerning our proof text stockpiles: Let us value conversation over correction; it’s the only real way that correction can ever be truly valued.