How to Restore a Culture in One Easy Step
Nov 17, 2011
Joe Carter
In June I explained how to destroy a culture in five easy steps. On reflection I realize that I was making the issue more complicated than was necessary since the task can be completed in one simple step. As science fiction writer Ray Bradbury once said, “You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” While this is certainly true, the genre of books that people stop reading matters considerably. In fact, one genre matters most of all, as Tony Reinke explains In his recent book, Lit!:
Since Moses descended from the mountain with two loose-leaf stones under his arms, all literature can be divided into two genres: Genre A: The Bible. . . Genre B: All other books.
If it’s true, as I believe, that culture can be destroyed by getting people to stop reading books, then I think one of the most important activities we can undertake to restore culture is to get them to read Genre A—to instill in them a passion for reading the Bible.
One of the most significant cultural disasters in the West is the loss of biblical literacy. From the Middle Ages to the twentieth century, the Bible was the bedrock for our culture's shared heritage. The term culture comes from the Latin cultura, meaning "to plow" or "to till," and for centuries, the Bible was the rich loam our civilization would plow. The Old and New Testaments provided the fertile soil in which the Western literary imagination took root, and from the scriptural terra firma grew the metaphors, allusions, narratives, and archetypes that fed the soul of our civilization.
But like the story of the Tower of Babel (remember that one?) we have lost our shared language. As Adam Nicolson argued in an article in the Wall Street Journal:
Up until, say, 100 years ago, biblical literacy would have been practically mandatory. If you didn't know what "the powers that be" originally referred to, or where "the writing on the wall" was first seen, or what was meant by "the patience of Job," "Jacob's ladder" or "the salt of the earth"—if you didn't know what an exodus was or a genesis, a fatted or a golden calf—you would have been excluded from the culture. It might be said that a civilization consists, at its core, of these easily transmitted packages of implication. [. . .] You don't have to return to first principles every time you wish to communicate. You can play your present tune on a received instrument, knowing that your listener hears not only your own music but the subtle melodies of those who played it before you. There is a common wisdom in common knowledge. But does this Bible-informed world still exist? I would guess that on the whole, and outside committed Christian groups, biblical literacy is a thing of the past.
The most lamentable aspect of this loss is that the "committed Christian groups" Nicolson refers to are often as illiterate as the un-churched. I have been a Christian for over thirty years, and yet my knowledge of the Bible is shamefully lacking. This point was illuminated for me several years ago when I was invited to join an Internet discussion group on Biblical inerrancy. The moderator of the list was Farrell Till, an elderly retired English teacher and editor of Skeptical Review. Till was indisputably one of the most surly, churlish, and impolite men I've ever had the misfortune to meet. But he also possessed more knowledge about the contents of the Bible than a pew full of Baptists.
While I was able to siphon from memory some of the basic stories I had learned in Sunday School, Till was able to draw from a deep well of familiarity with Scripture. His disdain for the Bible was palpable—but he thoroughly knew the text he despised. Till's scholarship was as shallow as his reasoning, so he was never able to prove Scripture to be "errant." But he was a masterful spelunker who showed me the cavernous depths of my own Biblical illiteracy.
I wish I could say that I was an unrepresentative example of an evangelical. But I suspect that most of my fellow classically orthodox Christians—from the KJV-only crowd to the emerging church conversationists, and not forgetting those who dwell across the Tiber—are equally illiterate. We may possess enough basic knowledge to best a common or garden agnostic at Bible Trivia; we may even be able to hold our own in a proof-texting duel with the village atheist. But we are rarely as saturated in the Bible as we are in pop culture. We can recite more lyrics from Beatles than we can from the Psalms, and quote more lines from Monty Python movies than from the letters of the Apostle Paul.
Imagine what might happen, though, if we took a different approach. Imagine if we treated the Bible as if it were an actual book that we read from beginning to end. Imagine that instead of reading a chapter a day (as proscribed in our devotionals) that we hunkered down and read large chunks, the way we would read Melville, Dostoevsky, or Stephen King. Imagine if we stopped treating it solely as a reference work, to be pulled off the shelf when we need some advice, but as a coherent narrative, a work of literary art co-produced by the very Creator Himself. Imagine if the names Onesimus, Naaman, and Mordecai were as familiar—and as meaningful—to us as the names Ross, Rachel, and Chandler. Imagine how we might be able to speak with those from the distant past and pass on this cultural vernacular to future generations.
Ironically, Camille Paglia, an art critic and self-avowed atheist, seems to have a sounder grasp of the importance of the Bible for culture than most believers:
[T]he Bible is a masterpiece. The Bible is one of the greatest works produced in the world. The people who [only] have the Bible actually are set up for life. Not only do they have a spiritual vision given to them, but artistic fulfillment. They don't even recognize just the pleasure of dealing with this epic poetry and drama. Everything is in the Bible.
Can you imagine the thinkers, artists, and saints that we could produce if we had that attitude about Scripture? If you can, then ask yourself this: Why you don't you spend more time with the Bible?
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here. A version of this article originally appeared in Comment magazine, the opinion journal of CARDUS.
RESOURCES
Joe Carter, How to Destroy a Culture in 5 Easy Steps
Tony Reinke, Lit!: A Christian Guide to Reading Books
Adam Nicholson, The Bible Tells Me So
Morning News Interview with Camille Paglia
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.17.2011 | 2:38am
Gian says:
Dante is as full of classical allusions as of Biblical.
11.17.2011 | 3:48am
edmond says:
"One of the most significant cultural disasters in the West is the loss of biblical literacy."
NOt quite the whole picture, Mr. Carter. The cultural demise was triggered by the failure of those in authority inclusive of parents and schools to show the relevance of reading scripture. The move from theocracy to other forms of government has helped bring scriptural irrelevance to reality, big time. Not to mention the old over mentioned and self-inflicted spiritual dysfunction known as secularism. These causes are really the disasters.
And since you ended the article with the question: "Why you don't you spend more time with the Bible?" Expect every reason including the kitchen sink.
NOt quite the whole picture, Mr. Carter. The cultural demise was triggered by the failure of those in authority inclusive of parents and schools to show the relevance of reading scripture. The move from theocracy to other forms of government has helped bring scriptural irrelevance to reality, big time. Not to mention the old over mentioned and self-inflicted spiritual dysfunction known as secularism. These causes are really the disasters.
And since you ended the article with the question: "Why you don't you spend more time with the Bible?" Expect every reason including the kitchen sink.
11.17.2011 | 3:55am
Michael PS says:
If one uses the readings for Morning and Evening Prayer in the Common Prayer Book, one goes through the OT once a year, the NT three times a year and the Psalter once a month
It furnishes an excellent reading programme and, for private reading, takes up about 20 minutes in the morning and the same in the evening.
It furnishes an excellent reading programme and, for private reading, takes up about 20 minutes in the morning and the same in the evening.
11.17.2011 | 7:35am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Of course, for some to be fully literate concerning the Bible, he or she ought to be able to read it in its original language, to fuly understand it, namely ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek for the old and new testaments, respectively. But since I doubt that many, unless they're Biblical scholars, are able to read the Bible in its original form, the next best option is to read it in a respected translation. Since I don't know ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek, and i'm sure I'm in good company here, I must rely on the translations.
Of course, one has to actually READ the translations, in order to derive the information so contained within them. At least the last time I checked, much to the disappointment of intellectually lazy people everywhere, simple osmosis of its content does not flow into the cytoplasm of one's neurons merely by resting one's head on its cover.
Stephen Prothero, a professor of Religious Studies at boston university, has written an excellent, yet sobering book, in 2007, highlighting the ignorance of many americans, vis a vis religious matters, entitled: RELIGIOUS LITERACY: WHAT EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO KNOW-AND DOESN'T.
Of course, one has to actually READ the translations, in order to derive the information so contained within them. At least the last time I checked, much to the disappointment of intellectually lazy people everywhere, simple osmosis of its content does not flow into the cytoplasm of one's neurons merely by resting one's head on its cover.
Stephen Prothero, a professor of Religious Studies at boston university, has written an excellent, yet sobering book, in 2007, highlighting the ignorance of many americans, vis a vis religious matters, entitled: RELIGIOUS LITERACY: WHAT EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO KNOW-AND DOESN'T.
11.17.2011 | 7:59am
An old saying about the Bible, at least among Baptists I have known, is this: "Either this book will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from this book."
I think this dynamic is at work in our country, along with the slide into iniquity described in Romans chapter 1. After we have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, God is giving us over to our own desires, and rewarding our rejection of him with a judicially hardened heart that is dead to scripture.
But there is hope. America is the spiritual prodigal people that, having sold off its hard-won inheritance, traveled to a far country of easy sin and no accountability to God. Shortly it will end up spiritually starving among the pigs. It is not yet ready for the reminders of God present in the pages of scripture, but, please God, it will be.
I think this dynamic is at work in our country, along with the slide into iniquity described in Romans chapter 1. After we have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, God is giving us over to our own desires, and rewarding our rejection of him with a judicially hardened heart that is dead to scripture.
But there is hope. America is the spiritual prodigal people that, having sold off its hard-won inheritance, traveled to a far country of easy sin and no accountability to God. Shortly it will end up spiritually starving among the pigs. It is not yet ready for the reminders of God present in the pages of scripture, but, please God, it will be.
11.17.2011 | 9:08am
Peter says:
"The letter kills but the Spirit brings life." Even such a one as Calvin recognized that Scripture was, in a fundamental sense, words on a page, with no totemic properties (as some would grant it), much less exhausting, or even to be confused with, the Word of God. I believe it would be wise for us to recognize this also to be the case, that scripture as Scripture involves a much more complex and mysterious dynamic, and that Scripture is but a building block of the Word of God, the Word of God understood as the Word Incarnate or something else altogether which we continue to mull over, fight over, dispute or delight in.
In any case, years ago I took to reading the Bible from beginning to end, and then starting over again, so perhaps reading it in its entirety twice every year or every 14 months or so. Treating the Bible simply, but not exclusively, as a "good read" has much to recommend it. For instance, today reading again about Rebecca and Jacob stacking the deck against the rather dim Esau: What sort of weird family dynamic is this? I can imagine ancient readers engaging this story and saying with laughter that this family lives next door. It is at this sort of level, I believe, where and when the real cultural impact of any story begins to take hold and influence how we see the world around us.
In any case, years ago I took to reading the Bible from beginning to end, and then starting over again, so perhaps reading it in its entirety twice every year or every 14 months or so. Treating the Bible simply, but not exclusively, as a "good read" has much to recommend it. For instance, today reading again about Rebecca and Jacob stacking the deck against the rather dim Esau: What sort of weird family dynamic is this? I can imagine ancient readers engaging this story and saying with laughter that this family lives next door. It is at this sort of level, I believe, where and when the real cultural impact of any story begins to take hold and influence how we see the world around us.
11.17.2011 | 9:09am
Tom says:
For a freshman at Columbia in the 60's (about as secular a place, even then, as one could imagine), three books of the Bible were required reading in the "great books" class everybody had to take: Genesis, Isaiah, Matthew. And that was certainly the first time I had ever read anything from it, aside from the usual church readings on Sundays. Of course they were treated as "literature," but I sometimes wonder if it had any effect on students, or rather any more than Don Quixote or Crime and Punisment did -- or whether freshmen today have the same requirement to at least dip a toe into those waters.
11.17.2011 | 9:57am
Carson Chittom says:
Contra, when I was received into Orthodoxy (after being raised Baptist) my priest told me that the recently-departed Abp. Dmitri of Dallas, a former Baptist himself, was always glad to have converted evangelicals—"They know the Bible!" he said.
11.17.2011 | 10:14am
Nathaniel says:
I am a big fan of Ray Bradbury and his books were some of my favorites that I read as a youth. But he is wrong. For most of mankind's history most people were not literate. I do not think that meant they had no culture.
I am not familiar with Mr. Till but I've encountered the type. Many anti-Christians are indeed far more familiar with the Bible than Christians. In fact just reading the Bible can lead to skepticism. And if it does not lead to skepticism it surely leads to splintering. The many denominations or independent churches are a result of just reading the Bible.
I do agree with the main point that Biblical knowledge has disappeared from our supposedly Christian culture. We have also lost logic and I'm almost convinced we have even lost the base ethics of the pagans. Our culture and our souls would benefit from replacing things of this world with things of God. How we get this knowledge does not seem to me to be all that important. But I believe we have seen the fruits of the idea that we should all just sit at home and read our Bibles in the expectation that we will properly understand it and from this understanding develop a deeper faith.
My belief is that a Christian culture first requires a culture in which it can grow. The atomized individuals of modern America are simply not a culture. Besides loving God we are to love our neighbor. Modern America seems to be a place where you do your best to avoid your neighbor as much as possible. Until that is fixed I do not believe any culture is possible let alone a Christian one.
I am not familiar with Mr. Till but I've encountered the type. Many anti-Christians are indeed far more familiar with the Bible than Christians. In fact just reading the Bible can lead to skepticism. And if it does not lead to skepticism it surely leads to splintering. The many denominations or independent churches are a result of just reading the Bible.
I do agree with the main point that Biblical knowledge has disappeared from our supposedly Christian culture. We have also lost logic and I'm almost convinced we have even lost the base ethics of the pagans. Our culture and our souls would benefit from replacing things of this world with things of God. How we get this knowledge does not seem to me to be all that important. But I believe we have seen the fruits of the idea that we should all just sit at home and read our Bibles in the expectation that we will properly understand it and from this understanding develop a deeper faith.
My belief is that a Christian culture first requires a culture in which it can grow. The atomized individuals of modern America are simply not a culture. Besides loving God we are to love our neighbor. Modern America seems to be a place where you do your best to avoid your neighbor as much as possible. Until that is fixed I do not believe any culture is possible let alone a Christian one.
11.17.2011 | 10:43am
patricksarsfield says:
There is a lot more to Western Culture than the 73 books we have come collectively to call the Bible. Protestants forget that the last biblical book was written in the late First or Second Century BC. Since then, 1900 years of Christian Civilization unfolded in the West; those 1900 years were critical in the development of Western Culture. Protestants do not think/talk much about that intervening 1900 years, particularly the period from 100 AD through 1517.
The best place to find out about that intervening millennium and a half is in a study of the Catholic Church. During that period of time, the Church spread Christian Civilization throughout the West in fulfillment of the Great Commission with which Christ tasked the Church (Matt. 28:20, if you need C&V). It was a Teaching Commission, not merely a book deal. From the ashes of the Barbarian Invasions, a new Christian Europe arose. That is why we call it "Holy Mother the Church."
The best place to find out about that intervening millennium and a half is in a study of the Catholic Church. During that period of time, the Church spread Christian Civilization throughout the West in fulfillment of the Great Commission with which Christ tasked the Church (Matt. 28:20, if you need C&V). It was a Teaching Commission, not merely a book deal. From the ashes of the Barbarian Invasions, a new Christian Europe arose. That is why we call it "Holy Mother the Church."
11.17.2011 | 10:48am
Michael PS says:
I recall that, at a time when the Oxford entrance exam included the translation of two short passages from the NT, one enthusiastic applicant, recognising one of the passages, included a whole sentence not actually contained in the Greek excerpt
11.17.2011 | 11:46am
AL says:
So, out of curiosity, in that 'inerrancy' debate, did Joe Carter come down on the side of inerrancy?
11.17.2011 | 12:21pm
Joe Carter says:
@AL ***So, out of curiosity, in that 'inerrancy' debate, did Joe Carter come down on the side of inerrancy?***
Of course, I'm a good Augustinian. ; )
Of course, I'm a good Augustinian. ; )
11.17.2011 | 12:59pm
AL says:
Cute, but we know that what a modern American Evangelical tends to mean by 'inerrancy' is not the same thing as the spiritual and doctrinal infallibility Augustine expected to find in scripture. So, let me be more specific: Did you come down on the side of the literal inerrancy and perfect literal and doctrinal uniformity of scripture?
11.17.2011 | 1:02pm
MacBeth Derham says:
Reminds me of a prescient passage from Heinlein's Farmer in the Sky. The eponymous farmer looks out upon his land and calls it Golgotha, but has to explain the reference to his son.
11.17.2011 | 1:12pm
Joe Carter says:
@Al ***Cute, but we know that what a modern American Evangelical tends to mean by 'inerrancy' is not the same thing as the spiritual and doctrinal infallibility Augustine expected to find in scripture.***
Oh, I'm not sure that's the case at all. I think what we can say for sure is that the caricature of what American Evangelicals believe about inerrancy is not the same. But I think evangelicals tend to hold views closer to what Augustine believed than many other traditions do.
**Did you come down on the side of the literal inerrancy and perfect literal and doctrinal uniformity of scripture?***
To be honest, I'm not sure what that means. My views on inerrancy align closely with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
Oh, I'm not sure that's the case at all. I think what we can say for sure is that the caricature of what American Evangelicals believe about inerrancy is not the same. But I think evangelicals tend to hold views closer to what Augustine believed than many other traditions do.
**Did you come down on the side of the literal inerrancy and perfect literal and doctrinal uniformity of scripture?***
To be honest, I'm not sure what that means. My views on inerrancy align closely with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
11.17.2011 | 2:05pm
Megan says:
Jesus said the truth will set men free. He didn't say the Bible will. Ironically, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy may actually discourage Christians from reading the Bible, thus encouraging biblical illiteracy in much the same way as the Catholic Church's insistence, prior to the Protestant Reformation, that the Bible could only be written in Latin.
Faced with the prospect of checking their brains at the door versus the shame of questioning what their religious leaders have told them is "inerrant," many may decide reading the Bible is a burdensome chore.
Faced with the prospect of checking their brains at the door versus the shame of questioning what their religious leaders have told them is "inerrant," many may decide reading the Bible is a burdensome chore.
11.17.2011 | 2:11pm
Joe Carter says:
@Megan ***Faced with the prospect of checking their brains at the door versus the shame of questioning what their religious leaders have told them is "inerrant," many may decide reading the Bible is a burdensome chore.***
Anyone who thinks that "inerrancy" entails "checking their brains at the door" either don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy or thinks that man should be the measure of all things.
Anyone who thinks that "inerrancy" entails "checking their brains at the door" either don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy or thinks that man should be the measure of all things.
11.17.2011 | 3:08pm
Theophile says:
Foxes book of Martyrs:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm
Another "forgotten" work, is second only to the Bible itself, in it's testimonials to those who read the Bible as truth, rather than follow superstition.
If You haven't read Foxes, than Your historical understanding of terms like: Christianity, Church, Religion, etc. is shallow at best.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm
Another "forgotten" work, is second only to the Bible itself, in it's testimonials to those who read the Bible as truth, rather than follow superstition.
If You haven't read Foxes, than Your historical understanding of terms like: Christianity, Church, Religion, etc. is shallow at best.
11.17.2011 | 3:43pm
Judy Blunt says:
I have been a student of the Bible since I was a small child. Thanks to my parents. I graduated from a Christian High School and attended a Christian University. I have memorized over twenty chapters of the Bible, but I must admit I am woefully ignorant of the vast knowledge in the Bible. I, also, must admit I do not read the Bible as much as I should. As shameful as my lack is the churches in America lack is appalling. I cannot tell you how many times I have bumfuzzled leaders in the church with simple knowledge from the Bible. It boggles my mind how Biblically illiterate the leaders of our church are and I live in the Bible belt. Please, teach us how to get people back into the Word with sincerity.
11.17.2011 | 8:33pm
Brian says:
If I am assuming too much in my comments, please feel free to rebuke me. I am very passionate about this topic, but I reserve the right to be wrong. I am not a regular follower of this site, so I am only addressing the content of this article, not the views or the heart of the author - because I know nothing about either. :)
I agree with the idea that those who are in Christ should heed the advice of this article for themselves and their families and cling to the truths of God's word. I also believe wholeheartedly that reading the Bible would give more access to the hearts and minds of men in order that they might hear the gospel and be transformed by the drawing of the Father and the work of His Spirit. However, I think we need to understand that the reading of the Bible alone will only restore a culture that is one generation away from forgetting God, maybe less. Like I said above, I do not claim to know Mr. Carter's thoughts regarding this, nor is my intent to judge his heart through my comments here, but it saddens me that the article fails to make the crucial distinction between morals/values and what the Bible declares will transform nations.
The timing of this article may be part of the reason it has struck such a chord with me, as I received an email this morning which attests that the lack of such distinction among modern ministries is not merely an isolated incident. The idea of restoring a culture with Biblical morals and values is also being purported (perhaps also unwittingly, one can hope) by Chuck Colson's "Do the Right Thing" morality and values movement. In the email, Mr. Colson presents their ministry efforts in this morals/values realm as fueling the "movement" that he believes will accomplish such restoration. I was taken back by it's lack of mention of the gospel or the Spirit of God as it told of the many endeavors they're undertaking in order to rescue our culture (and establish it in other parts of the world).
What I am about to say flies in exactly the opposite direction of most folks' theories, but I am convinced that settling for inherited values and morality without the power of the Spirit is actually what brought us into the visible cesspool of a mess that we are in now. We marvel at the stories we read about how the next generation "fell away" and forgot about the things done by the Lord. We awe unbelievably at their quick turn to infidelity, but those stories are there for a reason, and it's not simply to remind us to read the Word or even outwardly obey the commands contained in it. Because of our inability to see the parallels in our own lives, the "glory days" of the middle of the last century were simply a modern day replay of many of those stories. Although they were biblical, the morals that had been instilled in the parents of the late 40's and early 50's were in a large part just socially agreeable values that even the ungodly held to. "It's just what we do." As a nation, we rested on our laurels of a Christian foundation and we assumed a great deal about our future because most of the culture behaved in accordance with the Bible's morality and publicly disapproved of those who did not.
The morals and values of the fathers will sometimes be partially retained by children who have not been transformed by God, but rarely will they carry over to grandchildren with similar hearts of stone. I think most folks would readily agree that having Bible knowledge is not the same as knowing God personally, and yet we cheer the contents of articles like this that strongly imply (if not outright state) that Bible knowledge will somehow turn things around. The Bible is very clear in Matt 7 that knowing, teaching, and even doing miraculous things based on intimate knowledge of the Bible and it's commands will not spare men from being cast away from Christ on judgment day. Verses 22-23 of that passage are huge, and scary. Knowing the contents of the Bible while striving in the flesh to follow it's commands with a spiritual veil over our eyes is a textbook recipe for white washed tombs. In many ways it encourages a society where people behave wonderfully on earth, contributing to a comfortable society, but who will bewilderingly receive a one way ticket to the second death when they stand to be judged.
To lament that an unbelieving culture no longer plays church or lives rightly is indicative of our desire to paint a "good old days" picture that never really existed. God's word was just as true in the early 1900's and even further back, because despite the outward view of a morality higher than our own, there were still few who had found the narrow path. I really think we're fooling ourselves if we think the human eye can determine otherwise based on the morals and values that were the cultural norm. Those seemingly chaste and upright folks were just part of a pseudo-Utopian society that had an abundant supply of plaster and paint. The stories of the vicious responses society gave to men of old who preached on street corners gives strong testimony that even then, external values and morals were lauded and approved much more than a true understanding of the depth of our internal depravity and an understanding of our desperate need for the transforming presence of Christ in our hearts.
I agree with the idea that those who are in Christ should heed the advice of this article for themselves and their families and cling to the truths of God's word. I also believe wholeheartedly that reading the Bible would give more access to the hearts and minds of men in order that they might hear the gospel and be transformed by the drawing of the Father and the work of His Spirit. However, I think we need to understand that the reading of the Bible alone will only restore a culture that is one generation away from forgetting God, maybe less. Like I said above, I do not claim to know Mr. Carter's thoughts regarding this, nor is my intent to judge his heart through my comments here, but it saddens me that the article fails to make the crucial distinction between morals/values and what the Bible declares will transform nations.
The timing of this article may be part of the reason it has struck such a chord with me, as I received an email this morning which attests that the lack of such distinction among modern ministries is not merely an isolated incident. The idea of restoring a culture with Biblical morals and values is also being purported (perhaps also unwittingly, one can hope) by Chuck Colson's "Do the Right Thing" morality and values movement. In the email, Mr. Colson presents their ministry efforts in this morals/values realm as fueling the "movement" that he believes will accomplish such restoration. I was taken back by it's lack of mention of the gospel or the Spirit of God as it told of the many endeavors they're undertaking in order to rescue our culture (and establish it in other parts of the world).
What I am about to say flies in exactly the opposite direction of most folks' theories, but I am convinced that settling for inherited values and morality without the power of the Spirit is actually what brought us into the visible cesspool of a mess that we are in now. We marvel at the stories we read about how the next generation "fell away" and forgot about the things done by the Lord. We awe unbelievably at their quick turn to infidelity, but those stories are there for a reason, and it's not simply to remind us to read the Word or even outwardly obey the commands contained in it. Because of our inability to see the parallels in our own lives, the "glory days" of the middle of the last century were simply a modern day replay of many of those stories. Although they were biblical, the morals that had been instilled in the parents of the late 40's and early 50's were in a large part just socially agreeable values that even the ungodly held to. "It's just what we do." As a nation, we rested on our laurels of a Christian foundation and we assumed a great deal about our future because most of the culture behaved in accordance with the Bible's morality and publicly disapproved of those who did not.
The morals and values of the fathers will sometimes be partially retained by children who have not been transformed by God, but rarely will they carry over to grandchildren with similar hearts of stone. I think most folks would readily agree that having Bible knowledge is not the same as knowing God personally, and yet we cheer the contents of articles like this that strongly imply (if not outright state) that Bible knowledge will somehow turn things around. The Bible is very clear in Matt 7 that knowing, teaching, and even doing miraculous things based on intimate knowledge of the Bible and it's commands will not spare men from being cast away from Christ on judgment day. Verses 22-23 of that passage are huge, and scary. Knowing the contents of the Bible while striving in the flesh to follow it's commands with a spiritual veil over our eyes is a textbook recipe for white washed tombs. In many ways it encourages a society where people behave wonderfully on earth, contributing to a comfortable society, but who will bewilderingly receive a one way ticket to the second death when they stand to be judged.
To lament that an unbelieving culture no longer plays church or lives rightly is indicative of our desire to paint a "good old days" picture that never really existed. God's word was just as true in the early 1900's and even further back, because despite the outward view of a morality higher than our own, there were still few who had found the narrow path. I really think we're fooling ourselves if we think the human eye can determine otherwise based on the morals and values that were the cultural norm. Those seemingly chaste and upright folks were just part of a pseudo-Utopian society that had an abundant supply of plaster and paint. The stories of the vicious responses society gave to men of old who preached on street corners gives strong testimony that even then, external values and morals were lauded and approved much more than a true understanding of the depth of our internal depravity and an understanding of our desperate need for the transforming presence of Christ in our hearts.
11.18.2011 | 1:39am
andrew says:
biblical literacy -- as in knowing about naboth's vineyard, etc -- as the one step needed to restore culture? i must admit i never saw that one coming. the more i think about it, the more preposterous the suggestion becomes.
at the end of the day, brian is right. mere biblical literacy guarantees absolutely nothing. in contrast, only little christs redeem culture. only saints redeem culture.
one could be the world's best and most correct theologian, and still be miles away from holiness. one could be the whiz kid who's got the torah memorized, and still be miles away from holiness. there is absolutely no necessary connection whatsoever between mere biblical knowledge and holiness. conversely, there is no necessary connection between a lack of biblical knowledge -- even a lack of an ability to read -- and lack of holiness. and why even mention holiness? because only holiness redeems, because holiness is the truest, best, and most beautiful thing on earth. or anywhere else, for that matter.
ultimately, jesus is Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. he is ontologically prior to the scriptures. he is drinkable light. want to redeem culture? contemplate Truth, will the Good, and imagine Beauty, not merely by reading scripture, but by living out in all spheres of life your glorious and high calling as the imago dei.
ideas create idols. only wonder knows.
at the end of the day, brian is right. mere biblical literacy guarantees absolutely nothing. in contrast, only little christs redeem culture. only saints redeem culture.
one could be the world's best and most correct theologian, and still be miles away from holiness. one could be the whiz kid who's got the torah memorized, and still be miles away from holiness. there is absolutely no necessary connection whatsoever between mere biblical knowledge and holiness. conversely, there is no necessary connection between a lack of biblical knowledge -- even a lack of an ability to read -- and lack of holiness. and why even mention holiness? because only holiness redeems, because holiness is the truest, best, and most beautiful thing on earth. or anywhere else, for that matter.
ultimately, jesus is Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. he is ontologically prior to the scriptures. he is drinkable light. want to redeem culture? contemplate Truth, will the Good, and imagine Beauty, not merely by reading scripture, but by living out in all spheres of life your glorious and high calling as the imago dei.
ideas create idols. only wonder knows.
11.18.2011 | 11:54am
Deacon Jim Stagg says:
Brian and Andrew:
Thank you for your insight. You have touched a nerve that activates all who seek the Truth, and long to meet the Holy One in Heaven. Our NEED to live holy lives is facilitated by what we read and hear from the Bible, but it is simply an aid to our journey to Heaven.
Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Bless you!
Thank you for your insight. You have touched a nerve that activates all who seek the Truth, and long to meet the Holy One in Heaven. Our NEED to live holy lives is facilitated by what we read and hear from the Bible, but it is simply an aid to our journey to Heaven.
Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Bless you!
11.18.2011 | 1:34pm
patricksarsfield says:
Brian writes:
"What I am about to say flies in exactly the opposite direction of most folks' theories, but I am convinced that settling for inherited values and morality without the power of the Spirit is actually what brought us into the visible cesspool of a mess that we are in now."
NO, the primary reason for our being in the cesspool we are in is that the Protestant churches in the 1960s abandoned traditional Christian morals on the issues of premarital sex and divorce; that has led to the present parlous state of the traditional family. Putting aside the relatively minor (considering the broad Protestant acceptance of no-fault divorce) issue of what constitutes porneia in the Matthaean exception, Jesus could not have been clearer in his opposition to Divorce-Remarriage. Yet protestant churches remained and continue to remain silent on that issue and all of our connections to the culture we inherited fray and fall into desuetude.
An abandonment of all elements of traditional culture is the almost inevitable corollary to the Protestant rejection of the Church's Tradition as authority. If Protestants can insist on the supremacy of their own interpretation of Scripture to that proferred by the Church despite Christ's clear conferral of Teaching Authority on the Church (Matt. 28:20; see also 2 Tim. 1:6, 11-14; 2:1-2), what other traditional elements of culture cannot also be rejected by anyone for any reason? Why should anyone have any respect for traditional roles or for the idea that a man ought to support the fruit of his loins without a court order?
In sum, our traditional culture is falling apart but it is primarily because of the culture's contempt for Tradition.
"What I am about to say flies in exactly the opposite direction of most folks' theories, but I am convinced that settling for inherited values and morality without the power of the Spirit is actually what brought us into the visible cesspool of a mess that we are in now."
NO, the primary reason for our being in the cesspool we are in is that the Protestant churches in the 1960s abandoned traditional Christian morals on the issues of premarital sex and divorce; that has led to the present parlous state of the traditional family. Putting aside the relatively minor (considering the broad Protestant acceptance of no-fault divorce) issue of what constitutes porneia in the Matthaean exception, Jesus could not have been clearer in his opposition to Divorce-Remarriage. Yet protestant churches remained and continue to remain silent on that issue and all of our connections to the culture we inherited fray and fall into desuetude.
An abandonment of all elements of traditional culture is the almost inevitable corollary to the Protestant rejection of the Church's Tradition as authority. If Protestants can insist on the supremacy of their own interpretation of Scripture to that proferred by the Church despite Christ's clear conferral of Teaching Authority on the Church (Matt. 28:20; see also 2 Tim. 1:6, 11-14; 2:1-2), what other traditional elements of culture cannot also be rejected by anyone for any reason? Why should anyone have any respect for traditional roles or for the idea that a man ought to support the fruit of his loins without a court order?
In sum, our traditional culture is falling apart but it is primarily because of the culture's contempt for Tradition.
11.18.2011 | 3:04pm
AKO says:
"Everything is in the Bible."
It's true, there's tons of very interesting stories in the bible, all teaching different parts of life. From floods and disasters, to creations, to blessings, the good book is filled with lots of different subjects and stories. It's up to the readers and priests to help convey that information to people to help them enrich their life.
It's true, there's tons of very interesting stories in the bible, all teaching different parts of life. From floods and disasters, to creations, to blessings, the good book is filled with lots of different subjects and stories. It's up to the readers and priests to help convey that information to people to help them enrich their life.
11.18.2011 | 5:34pm
AL says:
Thanks, Joe,
I went to the link and read the statement on inerrancy. I thought it deeply heretical, intellectually laughable, and almost painfully silly. I myself would rather that no one ever read the Bible at all than that they should read it according to that nonsensical statement. It even affirms 'verbal' inspiration, as well as perfect trustworthiness not only in regard to doctrine, but in regard to history. Good Lord. I guess that even applies to the bits that are historically at odds with one another, like Paul's and Luke's divergent accounts of Paul's early ministry.
The Bible is full of contradictions and errors; if it is inerrant, it is so only in the spiritual sense that it points to God's self-revelation in Christ; it is inspired, not dictated. In itself, it is not God's self-revelation. Of course, many American Evangelicals are really just heretic Muslims, who have confused the Bible for the Qur'an.
I went to the link and read the statement on inerrancy. I thought it deeply heretical, intellectually laughable, and almost painfully silly. I myself would rather that no one ever read the Bible at all than that they should read it according to that nonsensical statement. It even affirms 'verbal' inspiration, as well as perfect trustworthiness not only in regard to doctrine, but in regard to history. Good Lord. I guess that even applies to the bits that are historically at odds with one another, like Paul's and Luke's divergent accounts of Paul's early ministry.
The Bible is full of contradictions and errors; if it is inerrant, it is so only in the spiritual sense that it points to God's self-revelation in Christ; it is inspired, not dictated. In itself, it is not God's self-revelation. Of course, many American Evangelicals are really just heretic Muslims, who have confused the Bible for the Qur'an.
11.18.2011 | 5:45pm
Joe Carter says:
@AL ***I went to the link and read the statement on inerrancy. I thought it deeply heretical, intellectually laughable, and almost painfully silly.***
From reading your previous comments (which are often as insulting as this one) I'm not surprised by the remark. You strike me as the sort of guy who has taken a couple of theology classes and is now smarter the most biblical scholars. The fact that you don't even seem to recognize how this view of inerrancy aligns with Augustine's is revealing (though not really surprising). But of course you know more than Augustine so . . .
***The Bible is full of contradictions and errors;***
No, actually it's not. Perhaps if you spent more time on serious study of the Bible rather than in comboxes you'd realize how ridiculously misguided and ahistorical such a claim is.
***Of course, many American Evangelicals are really just heretic Muslims, who have confused the Bible for the Qur'an.***
Good grief. Grow up, Andrew. That is about the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in a comment thread on this site.
From reading your previous comments (which are often as insulting as this one) I'm not surprised by the remark. You strike me as the sort of guy who has taken a couple of theology classes and is now smarter the most biblical scholars. The fact that you don't even seem to recognize how this view of inerrancy aligns with Augustine's is revealing (though not really surprising). But of course you know more than Augustine so . . .
***The Bible is full of contradictions and errors;***
No, actually it's not. Perhaps if you spent more time on serious study of the Bible rather than in comboxes you'd realize how ridiculously misguided and ahistorical such a claim is.
***Of course, many American Evangelicals are really just heretic Muslims, who have confused the Bible for the Qur'an.***
Good grief. Grow up, Andrew. That is about the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in a comment thread on this site.
11.18.2011 | 7:20pm
Brian says:
If scripture by itself will not save a man or a culture, why on earth would we think the traditions of man could? Tradition, however, make both look pretty for a while (read: whitewashed).
Hey wait a minute, hang on... Oh my, you'll have to forgive me, this is my first time here. I was referred over by a link on another site. I just paused mid-comment to look a little deeper and realized that this is a Catholic website (after a closer re-reading of patricksarsfield's defense of tradition as something that truly can save). I'll admit that the contents of the article make a lot more sense to me with that knowledge, but my assessment remains.
I wish to honor to the moderators request of sticking to the topic. Any further comments on my part will likely fall on deaf ears if the Romanism is the order of the day. I'm not trying to be mean, just being real - because one cannot reasonably expect an assault on the belief that traditions of man are salvific to be received by folks who attribute authority to tradition that equals, if not exceeds scripture. I did not enter this discussion to take it in that direction. Be blessed all...
Hey wait a minute, hang on... Oh my, you'll have to forgive me, this is my first time here. I was referred over by a link on another site. I just paused mid-comment to look a little deeper and realized that this is a Catholic website (after a closer re-reading of patricksarsfield's defense of tradition as something that truly can save). I'll admit that the contents of the article make a lot more sense to me with that knowledge, but my assessment remains.
I wish to honor to the moderators request of sticking to the topic. Any further comments on my part will likely fall on deaf ears if the Romanism is the order of the day. I'm not trying to be mean, just being real - because one cannot reasonably expect an assault on the belief that traditions of man are salvific to be received by folks who attribute authority to tradition that equals, if not exceeds scripture. I did not enter this discussion to take it in that direction. Be blessed all...
11.19.2011 | 8:13pm
patricksarsfield says:
Brian writes:
"patricksarsfield's defense of tradition as something that truly can save"
WRONG. Neither Tradition nor Scripture saves. Sola gratia.
To claim (as the Protestant author of this piece did) that Christian culture can be passed on in one easy step by getting people to read the Bible is wrong though. The Bible at best reflects the nascent state of Christian Culture in or about the Year 100 AD. We have had 1900 years of Christian Culture since. It is that culture that needs to be passed on, not an antique culture that has not been around for 1900 years. Is the Bible an important part of the current Christian culture? Of course, but it is only a part. The developments of the last 1900 years are equally part of that culture.
The problem with Protestantism is that it needs to ignore the intervening 1900 years because Protestant preachers need to get people to ignore
the (biblical) reality that Jesus did not found hundreds of different sects and leave it up to people to select the one they liked best (or if none suited their fancy to make up one of their own). To the contrary, Jesus founded only one Church. His Church. The Church that has been around since the first Century AD and continues to be around. (Hint: Clearly, Christ's Church is NOT a Protestant church because none of them were founded in the First Century AD; all protestant churches were founded later than 1517).
"patricksarsfield's defense of tradition as something that truly can save"
WRONG. Neither Tradition nor Scripture saves. Sola gratia.
To claim (as the Protestant author of this piece did) that Christian culture can be passed on in one easy step by getting people to read the Bible is wrong though. The Bible at best reflects the nascent state of Christian Culture in or about the Year 100 AD. We have had 1900 years of Christian Culture since. It is that culture that needs to be passed on, not an antique culture that has not been around for 1900 years. Is the Bible an important part of the current Christian culture? Of course, but it is only a part. The developments of the last 1900 years are equally part of that culture.
The problem with Protestantism is that it needs to ignore the intervening 1900 years because Protestant preachers need to get people to ignore
the (biblical) reality that Jesus did not found hundreds of different sects and leave it up to people to select the one they liked best (or if none suited their fancy to make up one of their own). To the contrary, Jesus founded only one Church. His Church. The Church that has been around since the first Century AD and continues to be around. (Hint: Clearly, Christ's Church is NOT a Protestant church because none of them were founded in the First Century AD; all protestant churches were founded later than 1517).
11.20.2011 | 10:16pm
Mark VA says:
Brian:
Writing from a Catholic perspective:
One encounters your view of Tradition on occasion, and at those times what echoes most clear in my ears is this: there seems to be a deeply felt need among some to view the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church as man made, and all ritual worship as necessarily dead.
However, consider the historical facts of how the Canon was determined - it was the inspired Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church that guided this process, from start to finish, just as Christ promised. For a small sample of this process, see the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
I agree with Patrick Sarsfield - reading the Bible is necessary and very laudable, but ignoring the inspired historical context in which the Canon was determined, will at best just duplicate the continuing process of Christian decomposition. I like what Mr. Carter wrote, but in my view his remedy is somewhat ahistorical and mismatched with the desired ends most of us would agree with.
By the way Brian, this site is one of the very few where men and women of different religious traditions can exchange views without either wallowing in syncretism, or throwing tantrums. If you decide to stick around, you just may get acclimated.
Writing from a Catholic perspective:
One encounters your view of Tradition on occasion, and at those times what echoes most clear in my ears is this: there seems to be a deeply felt need among some to view the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church as man made, and all ritual worship as necessarily dead.
However, consider the historical facts of how the Canon was determined - it was the inspired Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church that guided this process, from start to finish, just as Christ promised. For a small sample of this process, see the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
I agree with Patrick Sarsfield - reading the Bible is necessary and very laudable, but ignoring the inspired historical context in which the Canon was determined, will at best just duplicate the continuing process of Christian decomposition. I like what Mr. Carter wrote, but in my view his remedy is somewhat ahistorical and mismatched with the desired ends most of us would agree with.
By the way Brian, this site is one of the very few where men and women of different religious traditions can exchange views without either wallowing in syncretism, or throwing tantrums. If you decide to stick around, you just may get acclimated.
11.21.2011 | 9:33pm
Paul says:
It's impossible to get anyone to eat if they have no appetite. The human heart naturally has no hunnger for the things of God. The Bible is the last thing they want to read or hear. They prefer "dancing with the stars", and the rest of the unregenerate world's carnal trash.
11.21.2011 | 10:41pm
Steve Godfrey says:
One reason I like the Revised Common Lectionary is that it takes one through the whole Bible every three years. It's sustainable Bible reading. I welcome others to join me on the journey at www.churchintheworld.blogspot.com.
