"Misreading Scriptures"

I have come to immensely appreciate when an author not only gives you a list of what someone might be doing wrong, but also teaches you how to recognize it yourself. James W. Sire takes this approach in an older book of his, "Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways Cults Misread Scripture." As I've been reading it, I've realized that the "techniques" of misreading used by cults is also evident among people who profess to be Christians. The internet seems to make the tendency to twist the meaning of Scripture even more prevalent, and obviously, much more accessible. Here is an excerpt introducing one of the ways people misread Scripture, one which I've seen a lot, the tendency to read literally a passage that is mean to be figurative:

"The figurative fallacy is far more difficult to avoid than word play. Every reader must determine the way language is being used. Does the fact that in John 4 the word water is used both literally and figuratively mean it is always used this way in Scripture? And is the figurative meaning always the same? If a word has a literal reference as a part of an historical narrative, does that mean it does not have a figurative meaning? Or vice versa, if a word is used figuratively, must it also signify something literal?

Most Bible scholars would, I think, answer no to all of the above. Nonetheless, that does not help us as readers to determine when a particular word or sentence is being used solely in a literal way, solely in a figurative way or in a combination of ways. As readers we must learn to develop good judgment. Examining some errors that have been made by the cults will help us get a perspective on our task. We will first look at those misreadings that involve mistaking literal language for figurative language. 

Case 1. Mary Baker Eddy turns the figurative fallacy into principles when she writes, 'In Christian Science we learn that the substitution of the spiritual for the material definition of a Scriptural word often elucidates the meaning of the inspired writer. On this account this chapter ['Glossary'] is added. It contains the metaphysical interpretation of Bible terms, giving their spiritual sense, which is also their original meaning.'

In the glossary that follows, 125 words are given their figurative, that is for Eddy, their actual meaning. Dove, for example, is 'a symbol of divine Science; purity and peace; hope and faith.' Evening is 'mistiness of moral thought; weariness of mortal mind; obscured views; peace and rest.' Morning is 'light; symbol of Truth; revelation and progress.' 

Most of the words in the glossary are defined without reference to any specific text of Scripture. Under the word day, however, we find this: 'The irradiance of Life; light the spiritual idea of Truth and Love. 'And the evening and the morning were the first day.' (Genesis i.5) The objects of time and sense disappear in the illumination of spiritual understanding, and Mind measures time according to the good that is unfolded. This unfolding is God's day, and though not documented, is from Revelation 21:25 and refers in context to the city of God. Regardless of how we examine the full contexts of these words--morning, evening, day --there is no way we can arrive at Eddy's 'spiritual' meaning. Unless we accept her as a special prophet and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures as a new revelation, there is no reason to use her glossary as a guide. 

As traditional Christians we must simply conclude that Eddy has committed the figurative fallacy; she has mistaken the literal for the figurative. It is interesting to note that this particular fallacy is a natural outgrowth of Christian Science theology. In Eddy's world view, only spirit exists; matter does not exist except as an error in our human perception. So any word signifying something material on a literal level is either a label for error or a metaphor for truth. Adam, for example, is 'error, a falsity; the belief in "original sin," sickness and death....' 

As we will see in chapter eight, Eddy is not the only modern prophet to propose an ornate spiritual (figurative) meaning to biblical terms. Emanuel Swedenborg, from whom the Church of the New Jerusalem derives, likewise developed such an approach to Bible reading. (See discussion of both Eddy and Swedenborg below, pp. 109-15). It is, in fact, the constant temptation of readers who somehow believe there must be more to the Bible than meets the eye of steady reason. Hidden in the literal is the figurative, the real, the spiritual meaning, and we must find the key. The cults are filled with 'keys,' but when each key is used to unlock the text, the meaning that emerges is unique and fails to square with other meanings unlocked by other keys. 

Traditional Bible scholars use a different principle: where the Bible itself suggests that words or narratives are being used symbolically, we should follow the suggestions of the Bible; where the Bible is silent on such symbolism, we should stick with the plain, straightforward sense of the text; in no case will a symbolic or figurative reading contradict any biblical teaching which derives from texts which are obviously intended to be taken in their plain ordinary sense. We must not, for example, interpret a parable of Jesus so as to conflict with Paul's letter to the Romans or use an event in the life of Abraham to typify an idea with Jesus calls into question. This will not solve all the problems of figurative language, but it will dramatically reduce the number of difficult texts..."

 - James W. Sire

from: http://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Twisting-Cults-Misread-Bible/dp/0877846111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380422807&sr=8-1&keywords=twisting+scripture

World-view Confusion and Interpreting the Bible

"Let me begin by defining two terms: first, world view, and then world-view confusion. A world view is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or unconsciously) about the basic make-up of our world. As Alvin Toffler says, 'Every person carries in his head a mental model of the world--a subjective representation of external reality.' This mental model acts as a giant filing cabinet; it contains a slot for every item of information coming to us. 

If, for example, we see a beast approaching us as we are walking down the sidewalk, it is important that we have the mental filing slots for the data that will help us decide whether the beast is a dog or a lion; and if a dog, a friendly or an unfriendly one. Our physical well-being depends on an adequate understanding of the possibilities. 

The world flings itself at us in a constant barrage of data--the data of our five sense, the messages of ordinary conversation, of traffic signals, of billboards and books, of radio and television [and the internet]. Our mental and spiritual health depends on having a frame of reference that can sort out the useful from the useless, the meaningful from the meaningless, the trivial from the profound.

The problem is this: when a new idea comes our way, what are we going to do with it? How will we identify and label it so that we can make it a congenial part of our mental furniture? This is an ongoing problem in everyone's life. But it is especially important when dealing with the Bible.

We need to be sure we are correctly understanding its message, for it is God himself who speaks to us through it. In short, we need to avoid world-view confusion. And that brings us to the second key term. 

World-view confusion occurs when a reader of Scripture fails to interpret the Bible within the intellectual and broadly cultural framework of the Bible itself and uses instead a foreign frame of reference. In other words, rather than seeing a statement of Scripture as a part of the whole biblical scheme of things, the reader or interpreter views it from a different standpoint and thus distorts the Bible, perhaps seriously, sometimes even reversing the meaning."

- James W. Sire

from: http://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Twisting-Cults-Misread-Bible/dp/0877846111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379614889&sr=8-1&keywords=twisting+scripture

Van Gogh & Autism

"Vincent van Gogh's artwork reveals great emotion and brilliance, but as a child and a young man he had some autistic traits. Like Einstein and Wittgenstein, van Gogh showed no outstanding abilities. Biographers describe him as an aloof, odd child. He threw many tantrums and liked to go in the field alone. He did not discover his artistic talents until he was twenty-seven years old. Prior to establishing a career in art, he had many of the characteristics of an adult with Asperger's syndrome. He was ill groomed and blunt. In his book Great Abnormals, Vernon W. Grant describes his voice and mannerisms, which also resemble those of an adult with autistic tendencies: 'He talked with tension and a nervous rasp in his voice. He talked with complete self-absorption and little thought for the comfort or interest in his listeners.' Van Gogh wanted to have a meaningful existence, and this was one of his motivations for studying art. His early paintings were of working people, to whom he related. According to Grant, Van Gogh was forever a child and had a very limited ability to respond to the needs and feelings of others. He could love mankind in the abstract, but when forced to deal with a real person, he was 'too self-enclosed to be tolerant.'

 Van Gogh's art became bright and brilliant after he was admitted to an asylum. The onset of epilepsy may explain the switch from dull to extremely bright colors. Seizures change his perception. The swirls in the sky in his painting Starry Night are similar to the sensory distortions that some people with autism have. Autistics with severe sensory processing problems see the edges of objects vibrate and get jumbled sensory input. These are not hallucinations but perceptual distortions..."

- Temple Grandin

from: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Pictures-Expanded-Life-Autism/dp/B00388T2EG/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379354598&sr=1-2&keywords=thinking+in+pictures

Westerners, Money, & Our Interpretation of the Bible

"Westerners have a complicated relationship with money. We don't like it when wealthy people receive special treatment or look down on the rest of us as riffraff. But many (can we say most?) of us aspire to 'the good life.' So while we're aware of the dangers of wealth--we're willing to risk them, because we don't consider being wealthy morally questionable in and of itself. On the contrary, we more often associate immorality with poverty. This is due, in part, to how Westerners understand wealth. 

 

 Westerners instinctively consider wealth an unlimited resource. There's more than enough to go around, we believe. Everyone could be wealthy if they only tried hard enough. So if you don't have all the money you want, it's because you lack the virtues required for success--industry, frugality and determination. A nineteenth-century biographer of George Washington put the matter this way: 'In a land like this, which Heaven has blessed above all lands...why is any man hungry, thirsty, or naked, or in prison? why but through his unpardonable sloth?' There appears to have been a trend from very early American thought to invert Paul's proverb 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat' (2 Thessalonians 3:10 NIV 1984) to read, 'If a man will not eat, it is because he doesn't work.' People know what they need to do to make money, we think, so if they're poor, they must deserve it. 

 This understanding of wealth is the very opposite of how many non-Western cultures view it. Outside the West, wealth is often viewed as a limited resource. There is only so much money to be had, so if one person has a lot of it, then everyone else has less to divide among themselves. If you make your slice of pie larger, then my slice is now smaller. In those cultures, folks are more likely to consider the accumulation of wealth to be immoral, since you can only become wealthy if other people become poor. Psalm 52:7 describes the wicked man who 'trusted in his great wealth and grew strong by his wickedness in two ways: he trusted in wealth and he destroyed others. Yet the psalmist considers these to be on action. This is a type of Hebrew poetry scholars call synonymous parallelism, in which the two clauses say the same idea with different wording. In other words, hoarding and trusting in wealth was destroying others. 

 More significantly, Westerners often assume that the wickedness in 'trusting in great wealth' has nothing to do with the wealth but solely with placing our faith in wealth instead of God's faithful provision. The psalmist implies something different. The wicked person, we're told, piles up more wealth than he or she needs. In the ancient world, there were always those in need (according to Jesus, there will always be; Matthew 26:11). The condemnation came not in accumulating wealth but in piling up 'great wealth.' Only a wicked person would continue to pile up 'great wealth' and so destroy others. 

 A school superintendent made national news for refusing to collect his salary for the last three years of his career. He had been well paid. The story quotes his most surprising comment: 'How much do we need to keep accumulating?' asks Powell, 63. 'There's no reason for me to keep stockpiling money.' This story struck many people as admirable but as nearly unbelievable. But my (Randy's) Indonesian friends would have thought the superintendent's actions were expected. California schools were in financial trouble and he was already wealthy. Our understanding of wealth certainly influences our interpretation of the Bible. It can make us uncomfortable about the harsh words that biblical writers and speakers, including our Lord himself, use about the wealthy (see, for example, Mark 10:25 and Luke 6:24)."

- E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien

from: http://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378921512&sr=1-1&keywords=misreading+scripture+with+western+eyes

God's "need"

"Paul continues in Romans 11:35: 'Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?' If everything is God's, you have nothing to give him that he doesn't already own. This means that you cannot put him into your debt. And this means, alternately, that God owes no man anything. Our very existence has been gifted to us by his grace.

 While we lament the apparent injustice of pain and suffering, how often do we forget that every good thing in a fallen world is wholly a gift of God's mercy and grace? We think to question God when bridges fall but not to wonder at his grace that every bridge does not. Every fit of laughter, every delectable morsel of food, and every single smile is a result of his mercy and grace; he owes none of it. 

 Now let me tell you why this is so terrifying. If this is true, we have nothing with which to negotiate with him, nothing to bargain with. But it has been my experience that most evangelicals believe Christians are in a bargaining position. We carry an insidious prosperity gospel around in our dark, little, entitled hearts. We come to the throne and say, 'I'll do this, and you'll do that. And if I do this for you, then you'll do that for me.'

 In the end God says, 'You keep trying to pay me off with stuff that's already mine.' Some of us even try to bargain with our lives. But God says, 'Please. I'll take that life if I want it. I'm God.'

 We presume upon our service. 'I'll serve you, God!' we say. But he replies, 'I'm not served by human hands as though I need anything (Acts 17:25). What are you going to do, give me something to eat? What are you going to do, paint my house? What are you going to give me, as if I'm lacking?'

  The profitable result in these exchanges is the revealing of idolatry and pride within us. We want to live as though the Christian life is a 50/50 project we undertake with God, like faith is some kind of cosmic vending machine. And we're reinforced into this idolatry by bad preachers, by ministers with no respect for the Scriptures, by talking heads who teach out of emotion instead of texts, who tickle ears with no evident fear of the God who curses bringers of alternative gospels (Galatians 1:8-9). He owes us nothing. 

 And we have nothing to give to him that he doesn't already own outright.

 The customary response to this, of course, is to ask about the place of following God and serving his cause. There is plenty of call for this in the Bible. But the reality is that all God has to do is reveal himself to you, and you'll gladly join the mission in service to his kingdom. He doesn't force the issue; he just has to reveal himself as he is: mighty, wondrous, gracious, loving and radically saving. No man goes back to saltine crackers when he's had filet mignon.

 And even this truth is further revelation of God's grace, because it shows that God doesn't need us; rather, he wants us. When we who call ourselves Christians realize how utterly self-sufficient God is all within himself -- the three in one -- the gift of Christ to us and for us becomes all the more astonishing. And we will want it that way. Because a God who is ultimately most focused on his own glory will be about the business of restoring us, who are all broken images of him. His glory demands it. So we should be thankful for a self-sufficient  God whose self-regard is glorious."

- Matt Chandler 

from: http://www.amazon.com/Explicit-Gospel-Re-Lit/dp/1433530031/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378416614&sr=1-1&keywords=the+explicit+gospel

"Restraining" Sin - Living A Double Life

"I do not believe that people who live double lives set out to do so. In most cases, they loathe what they do. Most of these people have struggled with a certain sin from their youth. And from their youth, they have desperately wanted to rid themselves of it. Then a problem occurs--let's say stress or overwork--and the willing spirit gets overwhelmed by a stressed-out will.

In most cases, the flesh's only method of dealing with and eliminating sinful behavior is to suppress it as tightly as possible. The most common suppression in the context of the church is to use external constraints--rules, injunctions, edicts, and prohibitions. Maybe if we preach loud enough, 'resist the devil' long enough, try hard enough, scare people enough, go up to the altar enough, we'll somehow be able to hold this inner problem in check. 

As an aside, we have encountered people who actually went into the ministry for the purpose of placing so many constraints on themselves they could not 'fall into sin.' They are good people; they love God and hate sin--especially their own. But the only coping mechanism they have ever employed to deal with their lust, or whatever sin, is to subdue it with their firm resolve. They neglect to deal with and heal from the wounds and motivations that lie beneath the surface of the external behaviors. 

For someone in the ministry, this translates: 'I'll be preaching every week about God's holiness and our need for self-control. The discipline of speaking it, and the subsequent need to model it, will help me "keep the lid on it." The ministry will provide for me the discipline that I need to keep the lid on. It will protect me. I'll preach about the wickedness of pornography on Sunday morning as a means of dealing with my addiction to it. Or I will preach about authority and submission--from the pulpit of an independent, separatist church.' 

But does this 'method' work to produce lust-free living or real inner holiness?

William Barclay, in doing a study on various sects of the Pharisees came up with one category identified by him as 'the bruised and bleeding Pharisees.' Among all the sins that these Pharisees wanted to avoid in their quest for human holiness, they wanted to avoid lust the most. The way they could avoid lust was to never look upon a woman. They would put hoods over their heads in public and look at the ground, thereby avoiding any potential sinful distraction. But with hoods on their head and with eyes to the ground, they created another problem. They kept running into walls and falling down stairs! Thus the name 'bruised and bleeding Pharisees.'

What about this approach to 'restraining' sin? It certainly speaks of good intentions. Yet Colossians 2 warns us graphically about defusing sin's power by purely external means:

    Why do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste,

   do not touch!' ... These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of

   wisdom in self- made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the

   body, but are of no value  against fleshly indulgence.' (vv. 20-23)

If our method for dealing with the sin in our lives is to suppress it as tightly as we can, the chances are very high that one day the lid will blow. 

External control for sin is no control at all. That's why Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:25, 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.'

As pertaining to leaders who 'appear' trustworthy, it is incredible how 'shiny' they can look on Sunday morning. Any leader--ourselves included--can say all the right things and call people to all the right behaviors. But it is no good if that shiny veneer is simply a cover for an internal problem that we know about, but will not handle by admitting we are powerless over it. Jesus said, 'I would that you would clean the inside of the cup and of the dish [deal with the real issues of your heart] so that the outside of it may become clean also.'

If your method of dealing with sin is to tighten down the lid, put on an 'in control' face, and polish the outside of the cup, it may work for awhile. But eventually what's on the inside will explode to the surface. When it does, there will be casualties everywhere--especially if you're in the ministry. 

 What Is Our Only Hope 

At the very beginning of Jesus' ministry, He laid out principles of kingdom life that, if understood, unlock the door to real freedom and the spiritual life. He said new and wonderful things, as in Matthew 5:3, 'Blessed are the broken.' The language of brokenness is very easy to spot. It simply says, 'I can't.' Not, 'I'm sad,' 'I'm sorry,' 'I feel bad'--but 'I can't do it.' 'I need help.' 'I can't save myself!' When people finally realize that, they begin to develop a hunger for their only hope, which is God's saving grace. 'For by grace you have been saved though faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no on should boast' (Ephesians 2:8-9). 

We cannot save ourselves. Nor can we sanctify ourselves. When we are redeemed, we are given a brand new heart, implanted by the Holy Spirit. (See Ezekiel 37; Hebrews 11.) With that new heart comes a new desire to love God, to serve Him, to live holy. But the question still remains: How? The answer given all too often is, 'Try hard, do more, really mean it this time.' Interject the language of brokenness into that approach. 'I can't: I can't subdue it, I can't control it, I am powerless.' When we come to that terrifying realization--which we will do everything to avoid--we begin to develop a hunger for our only hope: sanctifying grace. 

Here is a pattern worthy of note. The only way I could enter into salvation was to realize that I could not save myself. Liberty and life comes in hungering for and believing in a work of the Holy Spirit who would, by grace through faith, make me new. The pattern we need to see is that holy living comes the same way. Colossians 2:6 says, 'As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.' The way we received Christ was by recognizing we 'could not' establish our own righteousness. The way we walk is to recognize that we cannot on our own produce righteous behaviors--they come as God performs His spiritual work in us. This speaks of a lifelong reality of absolute dependence and faith. 

'Blessed are those who mourn ...' says Jesus in Matthew 5:4. The word 'mourn' in the Greek is penthos. There are many Greek words describing various dimensions of grief and mourning. What captures our attention about this word penthos is that it specifically speaks of a visible external expression of internal pain. In other words, 'to mourn' means 'to show on the outside what is going on inside.' 

Think about that. Isn't that different than 'putting on the lid'? In fact, it is the complete opposite. Blessed are those who can show on the outside what is happening on the inside. Quite pretending you have no sadness, pain, fear, or sin, and get it out in the open where it can be dealt with, where God can really heal it. This is humility--and also integrity.

When there is no freedom to show on the outside what's on the inside, and no real brokenness, then there is no room for the grace of God. Sin has been pushed underground, and the result is a double life."

- David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen 

from: http://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Power-Spiritual-Abuse-The/dp/0764201379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378069875&sr=8-1&keywords=the+subtle+power+of+spiritual+abuse