The other thing they brought up was how their religious group always quoted scripture out of context.
This pretty much reminded me of the Church of God. We pick and choose what we want to believe and follow out of the bible and then use proof texts to validate that belief, most of the time ignoring the story before and after the single scripture quote.
One of the comments a person made was, "I am always suspicious of people who throw around scripture by memory. It is usually done to impress us on how knowledgeable they are, but, yet actually proves they aren't when they take those quotes out of context.
Another said, "But a lot of times when you see that there's a quote, there's no context. And so, because the Bible is so complex in terms of differences in the same story and by other contradictions, I just wonder sometimes why there's not more skepticism."
Anyone who has been in the COG for long knows how church leaders and ministers love to throw around bible scriptures dripping like honey off their smooth tongues. COG leadership has always been good about never practicing what they believe. Tossing around bible verses is meant to impress the sheeple in the congregation and give them the air of authority. The vast majority of COG ministers have never had a real theological education where they dissected scriptures without a COG booklet by their side or even been given space to have doubts and questions about verses or teachings. Questioning and doubting are anathemas in the COG.
That's why you see poorly trained leaders like Bob Thiel thrusting his big fat bible in your face in his videos. That big fat bible is meant to impress you that he is a follower of the words inside the book. He has proven he is not. Then there is Dave Pack who admits he no longer needs to open his big thick bible up because it all in his head now. We have witnesses who wrong that belief is now for many years.
If COG ministers actually told you the truth, the vast majority of them do not believe the bible is infallible but they would never publicly admit it.
Some Seventh-day Adventists say this:
Of course the Bible contains errors, big and small, because its writers were human. Sometimes, the errors were "innocent," other times they were contrived, purposeful, and made to fulfill an agenda. Anything that involves humans comes with a taint: and that includes products resulting from God’s use of human agents to reveal himself. Humans often hijack and distort God’s message. That’s how God in the Bible is made to promote genocide, regulate slavery, and ban women from church leadership. But as Jesus’ ethic reveals, genocide, slavery, and a host of other ungodly behaviors are inconsistent with God’s character. A good God does not endorse evil in one era and disavow it in another. And if this God promotes immorality, that is a bridge too far.
The process of biblical composition, compilation, and canonization involved humans, who are incorrigibly prone to error, deceit, and manipulation. Those involved in the writing and vetting of what became our Bible had a full complement of human frailties. And the 66 books they canonized, even granting the Holy Spirit’s involvement, showcase these imperfections. Is God inerrant and infallible? Yes. Inerrancy and Infallibility are baked-in suppositions about God. But we cannot extend these same attributes to anything fallible human intermediaries helped to produce. The only possible way in which the Bible could be error free is if God verbally inspired the writers. But this is a position we have consistently rejected.
Something similar happens in how adherents of scriptural religions relate to their sacred texts. We call it interpretation, or its other fancy name, hermeneutics. In all three Abrahamic religions, we approach our different texts, whether it’s the Hebrew Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Koran, as individuals – and interpret the same materials individually, differently. The writings are the same, the expressions are the same. What is different are the humans who interact with the texts. Their differences are informed by a variety of factors, including culture, education, and gender. If we are exposed to the same source material but end up with dramatically different, sometimes opposite understandings, how then could we argue that the source is infallible? In these “books” slavery is good and bad at different times. And through its pages this blight is countenanced and denounced by different writers. Limited polygamy is endorsed and practiced by virtually all the patriarchs but is circumscribed in the New Testament. Some would be killed by God for improper Sabbath observance and others allowed to violate the same with impunity. All these opposite moral portrayals couldn’t emanate from the same God.
A true God wouldn’t behave so ungodly. But humans could. And it is these human behaviors, often attributed to God by the same humans who serve as God’s prophets, priests, and disciples, that are at issue. Any faults we find in God, when reading the Bible, tell us more about ourselves, about human agency, than about God. Humans are perfectly capable of indulging evil independent of God. But we drag God into the mix and have the effrontery to “defend” him for the indefensible things we “made” him do. GOD IS INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE; THE BIBLE IS NEITHER
COG ministers have a great track record of using scripture to prove their point and enforce their rules. God's name is tossed around and occasionally Jesus may be quoted, but ultimately it is about their authority of you and how they can use scripture to control you, almost always out of context.
The other problem with CO Gministrers and those who claim infallibility is that their own human interpretations come into play.
Fallible people have to decide what the Bible is affirming. Mistaken-prone human beings must do the hard work of interpretation. Imperfect people have to determine the meaning and purpose of Scripture.
Our track record in the COG with this has left us with between 400 - 700 different splinter groups with the vast majority of them claiming infallibly in their teachings. They all can't be right and there isn't one group out there who demonstrated they are the one true church. The Churches of God have turned into the very thing they have been accusing other Christians of for decades.
The obvious danger of taking the Bible out of context is that we end up with the wrong message. And our culture is saturated with the wrong ideas about the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity. But I don’t think that’s the extent of the dangers of taking Scripture out of context.
Often times when we take scripture out of context we remove the “we” and insert “me”. We’ve made verses all about ourselves. We read the Bible as if it’s a personal letter addressed to us. The problem is the Bible isn’t written to you. It’s written for you, but not to you.
When we ignore the context we miss the original meaning. We read the Bible for what we can get out of out, and not what God wants for us. The Bible has something for you, but it’s not written to you.
Our culture has made reading the Bible a very “I” centric thing. But much of the Bible is written with a “we” centric theme. We are going to look at a few verses in the next section that show just that.
The point is we need to read the Bible in context. We need to pay attention to the surrounding verses AND who those verses were written to.
If you only remember one thing from this article remember this. Context is king.
In other words, the verses around the verse you are reading will tell you a lot about the verse you are reading. If you ignore the context you will likely end up with a skewed view of the Bible. Context is king.
The context of a verse is one of the most crucial elements of Biblical exegesis. And it’s also one of the easiest things to do. It only takes a few minutes to look at the context in which something is said. If we spend just a few extra minutes on the above verses we would easily arrive at the intended meaning of the passage.
This isn’t just a principle for Biblical interpretation. Imagine if you actually read that article or listen to what that politician said. Rather than jumping to conclusions based on a one-sentence soundbite. Context is king. It tells us the whole story.
If you take a sentence out of context you can make anyone say anything you want. That’s the danger of taking scripture out of context. You can make the Bible say anything you want if you ignore the context. You HAVE to pay attention to the context of the Bible. Context is king.
Stop Taking The Bible Out Of Context (and how to avoid it)
Today in the COG its leadership thrives on proof-texting and taking scripture out of context. When one holds them accountable they are proven to be liars and false prophets. No one in the COG should take the words of their leaders as gospel truth. Throw away the booklets they wrote and the other useless material and check it out for yourself and you will quickly see how spiritually depraved they all are.
19 comments:
Christ prayed in John that God the Father not take His disciples out of the world. This means among other things, that there are many fine books in the secular world. Books for example on thinking and assertive skills. All taboo in ACOG-land.
It's a principle that people grow in proportion to knowledge, which is why the ACOGs discourage members reading such "worldly books." They want their members dumbed down and dependent on a power hungry ministry.
The Bible was captured in proto-Hebrew, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Languages totally foreign to the modern American with nuances that cannot be translated. It was then curated over millennia by human beings. Late in the game, it was translated by King James translators and others. All these people along the way had agendas and this informed not only the translations of their texts but the reading and application of the texts. Like Peter Enns says "God let his children tell the story."
One might ask if this history does not mean that the Bible is corrupt beyond all recognition. I do believe that in spite of all this working, kneading and ornamentation of the scripture, the Bible retains the message that we need to lead us to Christ - the proximate cause of its existence. And it is Christ that is the final Word of God - in word and in action, alpha and omega. So we are not left without a valid, intelligible message.
I write this because the proponents of inerrancy (fundamentalists and atheists) usually adopt the unreasonable position that if one word of the Bible is wrong then the whole thing must be thrown out. For fundamentalists this leads to rationalization. And for atheists it leads to calumny.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Tim 3:16. In this age you are free to choose: this verse correct? Incorrect? False? True? I don't care? There are translation errors. There are difficulties translating from one language to another.
"But as Jesus’ ethic reveals, genocide, slavery, and a host of other ungodly behaviors are inconsistent with God’s character". Slavery in the OT was not the same as slavery in the U.S. Kidnapping someone was a capital offense in the OT. A slave of a fellow Hebrew was more indentured servant, working off a debt. Treatment of such servants was kindly, as one would treat a brother struggling financially. Their period of servitude was limited to 6 years. Once the debt was paid off, they could remain with the employer, if he wanted to. If he left, he had to be given resources to start a new life. As for genocide, much of that talk, "kill everything that breaths" is hyperbolic speech. I heard a lot of it in my 32 years of military service. The OT says, "Kill everything" but then says, "don't intermarry with them". How can you intermarry with anyone if they are all dead? Context is important. WCG ministers would take passages out of context, ignore any passage that doesn't support their view. I graduated from AC Pasadena in 73. I was not a educational institution but an indoctrination institution. Meredith would never allow a real open discussion of anything. He would overpower the student, shut them down, then probably say you had a "bad attitude." Could you imagine HWA or others engaged engaged in a discussion with someone like a John MacArthur, Walter Martin, etc. They would embarrass themselves with their ignorance and arrogance.
Great article. Fundamentalism is a late and pernicious development in Christian thinking and teaching. Frankly, it is absurd to believe that anything that human hands have touched could be inerrant/infallible/pure/perfect. The reality is that God did allow "his" children to tell the story, and their imperfections/weaknesses/prejudices/biases are on full display in its pages.
However, just as we can clearly discern those human fingerprints all over these documents, Christians should also be able to discern God's fingerprints on the documents. NEO is right about atheists and fundamentalists sharing the false dilemma of all or nothing.
NEO is also right about Jesus Christ being THE Word of God. The Bible that we have can give us some insight into the Divine and guide us toward salvation through Christ. It cannot, however, contain God or fully describe "him" and "his" will.
And NO2HWA is also correct to point out the essential character of context in understanding those Scriptures (and not just in the verses which immediately surround a particular verse, but also in the context of the entire Bible). We must remember that the authors of the New Testament were fully aware of the authors of the Old Testament and their writings and had access to the same Holy Spirit which inspired them. Any attempt to understand the New Testament must encompass this larger context in addition to the more narrow one referenced in connection with prooftexts.
"If COG ministers actually told you the truth, the vast majority of them do not believe the bible is infallible but they would never publicly admit it."
Objectively, how could you possibly know if this is true or not? Can you read minds, or are you entrusted with secret confessions by a large number of COG ministry?
"If COG ministers actually told you the truth, the vast majority of them do not believe the bible is infallible but they would never publicly admit it."
If you meet a COG minister who has an unmistakable pattern of lying about all sorts of matters, you know that he does not believe the Bible. Most of us here have met several of those.
"If you meet a COG minister who has an unmistakable pattern of lying about all sorts of matters, you know that he does not believe the Bible. Most of us here have met several of those."
No doubt. It doesn't follow, though, that "the vast majority of them do not believe the bible is infallible".
Many ministers are social justice warriors. Like today's left wingers, they believe that God's way is cruel and unjust. So they try to "fix" the problem by at the very least being partial to the wicked. Ideally they would like to see the wicked as the master race, with everyone else serving them hand and foot. My first minister on occasion radiated so much physical energy from the podium that he looked like he was about to start dancing. The Michael Jackson moon walk perhaps. Ah, the excitement of being able to rig all the rules to create of paradise for the non winners.
Totally agree 9:58 AM
Thanks for the comment 9:54 PM. Very much the truth. A reader only has to look at neo's comments to see what lying COG minister's actually believe.
9.54 PM
As a matter of experience, most ACOG ministers believe in lording it over their members, knowing full well that it's condemned in the bible.
Otherwise this blog would not exist. Since they believe that their way is superior to bible morality, it follows that they believe that the bible is fallible.
To most ACOGs ministers, the bible is only a tool of control and exploitation. Church leaders such as Dave Pack only differ in that they have basically shed their sheeps clothing.
In fairness, there is the odd faithful minister, but they are the exception in COG-Land.
Btw, not two, but three negatives in your last three sentences. It's a strain to understand your point.
7:23 PM
It was always baffling to realise the local ministry had a tendency for telling lies.
'Social justice warriors',
'Partial to the wicked'
'Ideally they'd like to see the wicked as the master race"
These comment's are profound 10:22 PM. Your geinus insights give much to consider. Thank you.
eh, what would protestant preachers do if they couldn't take scripture our of context?....their theological foundation would crumble.
I appreciate your compliment.
Anonymous 4/20 @ 10:22 and 4/21 @ 3:52,
The God of the Old Testament made several provisions for the poor (in terms of harvesting practices, use of tithes collected and Jubilee relief). Christ, his apostles and the early Church advocated for the poor and took up collections for their benefit. Christ said that those who were materially, emotionally/spiritually and physically well-off were not the folks who most need our help and attention. He also said that it was the duty of every Christian to provide for their brothers and sisters who are in need (In fact, he warned anyone who ignored such need that he wouldn't recognize them in his kingdom).
Given all of that, I'm at a loss to understand what you mean by "social justice warrior." Are you claiming that God intended for there to be inequities and/or huge disparities in the consumption of wealth and resources? What do you think that Christ meant when he said that it would be hard for wealthy individuals to inherit his kingdom? What do you think that the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man means? Why do you think that Christ's ministry focused on the wicked and the poor? Why do you think that Christ was so critical of the religious and political elite of his day?
It wasn't that Christ was partial to the wicked or sought to make them the "master race." He said that it was the sick who need a doctor. In other words, the righteous have already attained what Christ wants everyone to have. Is that too egalitarian for you? Do you understand that some people work hard all of their lives and never achieve material "success" or are even able to achieve economic stability? Are you aware of the fact that many of the folks who have achieved material "success" have never broken a sweat in their entire lives? Once again, you may have missed it, but God is NOT a capitalist! (In fact, the active pursuit of self-interest is contrary to the spirit of Christ and his teachings).
Miller Jones
The ministers as a whole are partial to the wicked members in the church. For instance I was stalked and constantly slandered by a married woman over many years. My "crime" in her eyes was that I refused to have anything to do with her, which was unsurprising since she was a psychopath. It was an open secret, yet the ministers did nothing. To understand such behavior, one need look no further than the school yard where bullies give full expression to their attitudes. They feel and believe that they are above the law and that they own other peoples lives, ie, they are the master race. Most ministers have these same attitudes, though they typically pull their punches and put lipstick on the pig by misapplying scriptures to give biblical credability to these behaviors. My last minister who was a "super psycho," took off his mask and gave full expression to these beliefs. He told me and others to forget cause and effect, which would give evil church members the right to be above the law. Which is why I believe the poster here who complains about the abuses in the PCG.
God repeatedly told Israel that His laws are perfect, to by holy, and not to be partial to any group, be it the rich or poor. Everyone is equally under the law.
Anonymous 4/23 @ 2:22,
Like you, I suffered numerous abuses at the hands of "ministers" and their cronies over the years - I understand. Moreover, I agree with you that no one should be above the law of love. As Christians, we are all obligated to do our very best to follow the example of the founder of our faith (Jesus Christ). Thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment