A Stench in the Nostril of God

Lies are a stench in God’s nostril. In the first ten Psalms, four condemn lies and deceit. In the third chapter of the Bible, Eden is lost because of a snake. Satan is called a "liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44.)

To a believer, God hath said should be the last word. It may be, or not.  And not everybody believes. So, God aside, here is a think-piece on truth and lies.

This is not "It’s nice to be good." This is a big deal. In Nixon’s "I’m not a crook";  in  Reagan’s   "[W]e did not - repeat - did not trade weapons, or anything else, for hostages"; in Clinton’s "I did not have sex with that woman"; and in Bush/43’s – well, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o – in all of these, our leaders pissed on public virtue. And America is fumbling with its zipper.

I don’t want to be preachy. But before we amble down into Gehenna with Richard, Ronald, Bill, and George, let’s look at the landscape of where we are headed. Let’s look back at what we are leaving.

1. Power.

Truth gives power to the weak.

In a court contest against a powerful adversary, a poorer, less-lawyered party can tell himself, "I have truth on my side". This declaration gives moral strength. It literally encourages.

And truth matters. By and large, judgment in court is based on truth. This is important, because a rich man can buy lawyers, but he can’t buy truth. If society values it, truth makes a legal contest more fair.

We expect that the party that should prevail in court can prevail. We expect that being right matters. Yes, our courts aren’t perfect. Sometimes courts convict the innocent. Sometimes courts give judgment against the righteous. But jurors try to rule right. They take seriously their duty to discover the truth. And that matters.

If judgment weren’t based on truth, it would have to be based on something else. Without judgment based on truth, judgment would be more often against the weak and for the powerful.

Like elsewhere. A former colleague of mine became a prosecutor in a court of another culture – I forget where. He told me that judgment there was based on the parties’ comparative status, not on the truth. And in Russia, jury tampering by the government is common. Russian jurors report government interference, but Russian judges do nothing; they even help the government. This happens because Russian courts exist not to determine the truth. They exist to vindicate the government.

These are examples of courts where truth plays a subordinate role. This is unheard of in America’s recent legal history. We assume that a court case is a search for the truth or falsity behind the charges. We may not perfectly find out the truth, but we try to, blunt as the effort sometimes may be.

But if truth is thought of as a shabby has-been, we lose the power of truth in our courts. We become like courts in other countries where truth is valued only if it meshes with any other goal of the court system – upholding the rich against the poor, upholding the insiders against the outsiders, upholding the government against the people. And that would be tragic for us.

2. Usefulness.

Truth is helpful.

Truth acts as a common ground. We might argue about values, but we fundamentally expect that we will agree on basic facts. If disagreement about facts separate us, we try to return to the common ground of agreed facts. If we did not intend for basic facts to be our common ground, the bedrock of our decision-making would be sinking sand.

Society makes life-and-death decisions based on facts. Do we go to war, or no? That depends upon whether our adversary is seeking weapons of mass destruction or not. Do we extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed, or no? That depends upon whether the unemployed need the benefits to stay afloat while they seek work, or if a government stipend squelches their effort to find replacement work. Do we reform health care so that sick people don’t die because they are poor, or no? That depends upon whether the reform includes provisions to kill old people (aka "Death Panels"). These are decisions where truth was needed to make right, crucial choices. These are decisions where people will choose wrong if they believe lies. These are cases in which lives will be wasted by a wrong decision.

People who inject truth into society’s debates help society make right choices. People who inject lies corrode society’s decision-making.

People also make important personal decisions based on truth. Sometimes my clients wobble about whether to take a plea bargain or go to trial. I often tell them, "I wasn’t there. You were. You know what happened. If the charges are true, then this is a fair deal. But if the charges are false, then no deal is worthwhile and you should fight the case in front of a jury." Most of my clients make the right decision.

3. Morality.

Morality presumes truth.

Lies are the servants of immorality. A man who gets between sheets with a woman not his wife tells his wife that he was driving home a co-worker. A person who destroys the innocence of a child denies molestation. A police officer who wrongfully beats a man claims that the man assaulted him. A politician who betrays his constituency says he acted on their behalf. A thief denies stealing.

Lies make a mockery of morality. Some people labor to do right, even when doing wrong would be easier or more profitable. But the liar cheaply gains the benefit of virtue by falsely claiming it.

4. Culture.

In our culture, we value and expect truth.

In romance, we don’t expect a suitor to woo a bride with lies. Someone who does is called a cad.

In medicine, we don’t expect a doctor to give us advice he knows is wrong. A doctor who does is called a quack.

In law, lawyers have a duty to speak truthfully to the judge Dishonest lawyers are called shysters.

In science, we don’t expect scientists to fudge data. One who does is despised in the scientific community.

In business, businesses are expected to be upright. We are shocked to be cheated.

We expect our friends to be honest with us. When we discover that a friend has lied, we loose trust in him.

The assault on truth turns back all of these expectations and values.

5. Conclusion.

Lies do to truth what forgeries do to currency. They debase it. They shake people’s trust in it.

When nominated as a Republican Senate candidate, Lincoln said:

A house divided against itself cannot stand'.(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.

In truth and lies, the same must be true. Between virtue and evil, the middle cannot hold.

One last note. I started out saying that lies are a stench in God’s nostril.  I started out saying that to believers, God hath said may be the last word. But to be clear: in my observation, believers are not noticeably more truthful than non-believers. This makes me sad to behold believers.

Sources

For more on Russian government interference with juries: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=russian%20juries&st=cse

Sean Hannity Died for Your Sins

Actually, he didn’t.

That’s the point.

Because I see Hannity’s point of view more prominent than that of Jesus.

I never understood the expression, "You are what you eat." But I truly believe that you are what you behold. If you spend your time watching God, godliness arises in you. Paul always looked to the author of his salvation. And he could say that Christ lived in him. (Galatians 2:20.) He could say that the spirit of God lives in us; if the spirit of Christ does not live in us, we do not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

But America today is not Paul. We Americans collectively spend more time beholding Hannity than beholding Jesus. Our thoughts are not Christ’s. Our thoughts are Hannity’s. Our priorities are not Christ’s. Our priorities are Hannity’s.

So the question is: on the last day, will we know Jesus? Or will we know Hannity?

I see America becoming false. In my professional life, I deal with liars like never before. And in public life, I see lies, lies, lies. I wonder what started this flight from godliness.

I see a willfulness. I see politicians willing to ruin the country and bring suffering to its people, for political gain. This is a new thing. There are no rules. There are only winners and losers. Patriotism exists in name only, especially among those who appeal most loudly to patriotism.

And the reason is that Christianity is being eclipsed by politics.

People regard Hannity because they are convinced that his message is important for today. Because the immediate enemy is not the devil; it is the Democrats. Like a clanging cymbal, Hannity proclaims the evil of Democratic influence. The prospect of Obama having two terms looms as a greater crisis than the prospect of eternal damnation.

People regard liberal media stars, too.  But I talk about conservative stars, because they are more likely to be the darlings of the religious.  If any liberal reads this and thinks my message is only for conservatives, they misread me.

As for Jesus? Beating back socialism will take work, but salvation is easy. It’s taken care of. It’s a done deal. No worries.

As if confirmation were needed – we go to church. We approve when Glenn Beck speaks admiringly of Christian martyr Dietrich Bohnoeffer. We hate Muslims – that’s the same as loving God, right? We disapprove of secular humanism – isn’t that Christ within us? We believe in the Bible word for word – isn’t that faith?

No. And if your burning heart doesn’t tell you that, this short essay won’t either. If the decline in American morals doesn’t frighten you, these words won’t. But I remember what we were 30 years ago, and I see what we are now. And I'm afraid. Because I see in the soiling of America proof of God’s withdrawal from us.

There is a popular saying that goes, "Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good." In other words, don’t be so determined to bring about the best solution that you forsake a good solution and instead get nothing.

But religion is the opposite of that. To love your brothers and sisters, spouse and children, and father and mother is a very good thing. But Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 (NIV).) That is, to Christ, the good is the enemy of the best.

Think of whether the "good" or your news outlet, the "good" of your political party, crowds out the "best" of salvation.

Think of whether any other "good" thing crowds out God.

I’m thinking that it does.

I’m thinking that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a long trip through harsh conditions. And to make it safely to the end, you have to leave everything behind that will hinder you. I remember reading about pioneers. Often, at the beginning of their journey, they would take everything that was dear to them, only to leave their once-precious cargo along the way, when sheer survival compelled them to know the difference between luxuries and necessities. Cut loose the unnecessary early; it holds you back.

I speak what I do not do – I have my heroes, although they are liberal, not conservative. But I think I speak the truth. And I think I’m wiser for doubting my salvation than those who are sure of their place in Heaven.

Daughters, Prisoners, and Builders

To believe is to believe that you have been torn
from the abyss, yet stand waveringly on its rim.
– Christian Wiman, every riven thing, "Canyon de Chelly, Arizona" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2010).

1.  The rich daughter.

That poem segment captures the uncertainty of salvation. Here is a true story about life with unwarranted certainty about salvation.

A woman in her nineties was financially independent. But she had an unexpected property-tax bill. She needed a bridge loan to pay it, until money came in that she was expecting. She turned to her daughter, a multi-millionaire with property and airplanes and vacation homes. The foundation for the daughter’s millions was seed money from her mother.

The daughter has long seethed with resentment against her brother. She doesn’t want her mother to give anything to the brother in her lifetime or in her will.

So the daughter coerced her mother to put all of her wealth into an irrevocable trust that named the daughter as trustee. That gave the daughter complete control over her mother’s property. She also coerced her mother to forsake her right to write her own will.

When the mother demanded to get back control of her own property, the daughter stopped giving money for her to live on.

From relatives, the mother scraped together a small sum to sue to wrest back control of her property. The daughter hired an expensive, silk-suit law firm to fight the mother. The daughter paid the legal bills from the mother’s trust.

The daughter fought in court until the trust was bankrupt. Then she settled the lawsuit. A piece of property in the trust remains to be sold, but when it is sold, the money will go to the daughter’s lawyers.

The daughter is a proud Christian.

If she knew the gospel of Luke, the daughter might see herself as the rich man of Luke 12 who stored his harvest of grain and counted himself safe and happy. But death took him. Jesus said: "So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:21(KJV).) I don’t see a woman who ruins he mother as being "rich toward God."

But I doubt that she sees herself in that parable. Instead, I suppose she has brick-solid certainty in her salvation. I suppose she expects to be welcomed into the joy of God when on her deathbed she whispers for her soul to go. I suppose she is sure that cruelty to her parent will not cause God to kick her into the flames like a viper coiled on his foot. Because if she thought that evil-mindedness and cruel actions would bar her from eternal happiness, it’s hard to imagine that she would ruin her mother.

I don’t write about this daughter who ruined her mother so that we can rejoice that we are better than she is. I write about her so that we can contemplate how we are like her. It is her – no doubt – assurance of her own virtue that soothes her conscience and enables her to do evil. Her story serves us poorly if it soothes our own sense of virtue, rather than provoking us to search and strengthen our souls.

2. Life prisoners.

 I represent prisoners who have life sentences. I try to get them parole. The prisoners who call forth my best efforts are those who make the most of their chance to win release. They stay out of trouble; they take self-improvement courses; they help other prisoners; they win the admiration of correctional officers; they take college classes; and they learn vocations. The ones who call forth my least effort are those who do the opposite – the ones who think they can get out of prison no matter what they do while inside of prison. They are hopeless causes.

God’s intervention opens the way to heaven for us. God opens the way to heaven, but salvation, while it is a gift, is also a partnership. To God’s divine effort, he expects us to add diligence, virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (2 Peter 1:5-8.) We do this to confirm God’s call and choice of us, so that we may be welcomed into his eternal kingdom. (1 Peter 2:10-11.)

I write about life prisoners so that we might be like the diligent prisoners who respond with great effort to the chance for freedom.

3. Foolish builders.
 
The alternative to adding these things to our souls – virtue, knowledge, self-control, etc. – is to be foolish builders. Jesus spoke of building a tower. Before you start, you should count the cost of finishing it, or you will lay the foundation and stop. Then you will be a laughingstock. (Luke 14:28-30.) Unfinished Christians will be the laughingstocks of Hell.

We must not be cruel daughters, un-reformed prisoners, or foolish builders. We must always add to our towers, brick by brick.

The Bible on Itself

The Bible says a lot about itself.

1. (Imperfect) knowledge.

 In scripture we know God, but our knowledge will be imperfect.

So says the apostle Peter in his second letter. He speaks of the "lamp" of scriptural prophecy that shines in the "dark place" of our times. He contrasts that lamp shining in a dark place with the coming light of dawning day. 2 Peter 1:19 (ASV):

And we have the word of [scriptural] prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.

Peter’s point that scripture illuminates and his point that it does so (relatively) dimly are expressed elsewhere in scripture. For example, Jesus appears unrecognized to certain disciples, after his resurrection. He explains to them how his sufferings were foretold in scripture. He reveals himself, he leaves, and his disciples said, "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32 (ASV).) This shows the illuminating power of scripture.

The imperfect quality of our present knowledge is also told elsewhere in scripture. The apostle Paul says:

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).)

And the apostle John says that we are children compared to the adults that we will become in the presence of God. 1 John 3:2 (KJV):

Beloved, now are we the sons (NIV:children) of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

2. Important to the believer.

The Bible makes clear that scripture is important to the believer. 2 Peter, quoted above, makes this point well when it speaks of the scriptural prophecy as a lamp in a dark place. Other biblical passages also discuss the believer’s need of scripture.

Scripture is useful for our learning, and it gives us comfort and hope. Romans 15:4 (KJV):

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Scripture gives wisdom. Paul speaks to his disciple Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV):

[F]rom a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Jesus was led to the desert to fast. After he had fasted for 40 days, the devil came and tempted him. Every time, Jesus answered the devil with scripture. Matthew 4:3-10(KJV):

And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Even before he began his ministry, we see Jesus immersed in scripture. Jesus’s parents left him behind in Jerusalem, realized their mistake, went back, and found him in the Temple, with the teachers. Luke 2:46-47 (ASV):

And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking them questions: and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

So scripture is a lamp; it gives us hope, comfort, and wisdom unto salvation; it gives answers.

3. Potentially dangerous.

But the believer must approach scripture humbly and carefully. Jesus in the desert answered the devil according to scripture, but also the devil used scripture to tempt him.

2 Peter 3:16 cautions the believer against being misled by scripture. Peter speaks of Paul’s letters and of scripture:

[I]n [Paul’s letters] are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. [ASV]

So scripture can lift up, but it can also cast down.

4. Moved by God and God-breathed.

The Bible speaks of divine influence in the origins of the Bible. 2 Peter speaks of prophets – "holy men" – speaking as God "moved" them to speak. 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Elsewhere, the Bible speaks of itself as being "God breathed". 2 Timothy 3:16 (ASV):

Every scripture inspired of God (NIV: "God-breathed") is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

This is poetic language. It’s meaning is not obvious. In the Bible, the breath of God has different meanings.

Sometimes it means the destructive power of God. So, for example, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (ASV) says:

And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth . . ..

Also, for example, Isaiah 40:7 (ASV):

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the breath of Jehovah bloweth upon it; surely the people is grass.

And Ezekiel 21:31(ASV):

And I will pour out mine indignation upon thee; I will blow upon thee with the fire of my wrath; and I will deliver thee into the hand of brutish men, skilful to destroy.

Other times, the Bible speaks of the life-giving breath of God. For example, Genesis 2:7(ASV):

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Also, Job 33:4 (ASV):

The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty giveth me life.

Sometimes the breath of God is the act of creation. Psalm 33:6 (KJV):

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

So the breath of God can stand for a number of things.

5. God-breathed like humanity.

 Here are my imperfect thoughts on the meaning of God-breathed.

Whatever else God-breathed means, it means that scripture reveals God. Paul says that the Bible is God-breathed; the Bible says that Man was created by the breath of God. Breath and breath. God-breathed Man is God’s likeness. (Genesis 5:1; James 3:9.) Just so, the God-breathed Bible reveals God.

I don’t think that God-breathed means that God himself created scripture in the sense of Psalm 33:6, where the "breath of God’s mouth"created the stars. I don’t think it means that God created scripture in the same way that he created the Ten Commandments. Exodus 24:16 says that God wrote the Ten Commandments and gave them to Moses:

And Jehovah said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them. [ASV]

Exodus shows that the Bible can say that God wrote something – like it says that God wrote the Ten Commandments. But it makes no such claim in general about scripture.

Scripture doesn’t start with the words: "God said:" It doesn’t end with the words, "So said God." Where it quotes God, or it quotes Jesus, it makes clear that it is quoting. When that is not made clear, we are left with poetic words moved and God-breathed to describe God’s role in shaping the words of the Bible. For all we know, that poetic language means different things in different parts of the Bible.

6. Not from the Lord.

God is a moving force behind scripture. But perhaps not all of scripture.

Paul, if fact, makes a point of saying that some of what he says in his letters is not "from the Lord": 1Corinthians 7:10-13 (ASV):

[U]nto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife. But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.

This is another reason to be careful with scripture.

7. Sufficient.

 Maybe the Bible says as much about the origin of scripture as we need to know. Maybe the Bible itself must be a mystery, like the mystery of the meaning of many of its parts. Maybe in the brilliant compactness of the Bible, a hint of the Bible’s origin is sufficient.

There are other places to go to learn about the mechanics and origins and inspiration of the Bible. History books can tell us about why certain books were put into the Bible and others were left out. People study the history of the Bible for decades, and among them there is widespread common ground that sometimes even a single book of scripture is spliced together from the writings of more than one author. People have studied non-Jewish texts from before the Hebrew Bible was written. These people have seen a likeness between those texts and parts of the Bible such as some Psalms and Proverbs.

But the Bible does not lay out these mechanics and origins and inspiration. Perhaps this is because these things are external to the purpose of the Bible: they do not make us "wise unto salvation".

8. Conclusion.

 I started out talking about Peter’s second letter, which suggests that our knowledge will be imperfect in this world. Paul supports this. And John.

So if scripture is like a lamp compared to dawning day, if we see as through a glass darkly, if we are as children until we come into God’s presence, so be it. We can plumb scripture from youth to old age, and never reach its depth, or the depth of God, in this world.

Paul had a bodily ailment that he prayed for God to cure. But God told him, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Corinthinas 12:9 (ASV).)

I hope I don’t stretch scripture too far to say that God’s word to Paul could apply the same way to our imperfect knowledge from the lamp of scripture. We might want answers more exact than the Bible gives us. But God’s power is made perfect in weakness.

Faith that Trips

The pastor's sermon was very good.  It was about the apostles. Among the apostles, he talked about Judas, the betrayer. His teaching about Judas was sensitive and thoughtful. But it was, in part, false.

Maybe he thought his hearers would lose faith if he spoke the truth. Maybe he feared they would lose their loyalty to him if he spoke factually.

Or maybe he could not choose between truths. Maybe he could not choose between saying the Bible is true and saying what the Bible says. So he tried to finesse the point, but failed.

1. Different reports of Judas’s death.

Because the pastor said, "We all know how Judas died." Er, no. Based on the Bible, we don’t know how Judas died. Because the Bible gives two different reports of Judas’s death. In Matthew chapter 27, Judas regrets delivering up Jesus. He takes his blood money back to the temple, he throws it into the temple, and the he leaves and hangs himself. The priests collect the blood money and buy a field. The field becomes known as the Field of Blood.

But Acts chapter 1 gives a different report. With the silver he earned by delivering up Jesus, Judas buys the field himself. Then he pitches forward in that field, and he bursts open, and his intestines spill out. Acts agrees with Matthew that the field became known as the Field of Blood.

Here’s the point. We don’t know how Judas died. If we believe Acts, we can’t believe Matthew. If we believe Matthew, we can’t believe Acts. The pastor did not choose between Acts and Matthew, nor did he state both reports. He made as if there were no differences about the death of Judas in different books of the Bible.

2. Different versions of creation.

 The Bible seems unworried about telling different stories. The Bible’s first differing stories come early, in its first two chapters.

You can ask yourself: which came first, animals or persons? If you say persons, you disagree with Genesis chapter 1. There, both are created on the sixth day, but animals first. But if you say animals came first, you disagree with Genesis chapter 2. Because there, God creates man first, then livestock, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the air. These turn out to be not-good-enough helpers for man, so God creates woman.

3. Different versions of how David met King Saul.

If you still think that the Bible is seamless, read 1 Samuel 16:14-23. Then read 1 Samuel 17. These are different reports about how David met King Saul. 1Samual 16 says that David was a grown man, a good fighter, and he came to Saul to play his harp to sooth Saul’s demon-provoked spirit. 1 Samuel 17 has David too young to accompany his older brothers to war. But when he brings food to his brothers, he kills Goliath. This brings him to Saul’s attention.

4. The Bible’s makers intended to record these different stories.

What do these different stories mean? Were the makers of the Bible unaware of these differences? Certainly not. I am unshakably sure that scripture’s makers knew exactly what was in it.

They could have made the Bible seamless. They could have kept out Genesis chapter 1 or 2; 1 Samuel chapter 16 or 17; and parts of Matthew chapter 27 or parts of Acts chapter 1. But they chose to keep everything in.

I even think that they were content to have in the first two chapters of Genesis two stories that did not mesh. It sent a signal. It made clear at the beginning that the reader should not take every Biblical word literally. It made less likely that readers would impose upon scripture a literalism that its makers did not share.

As to the David stories, it is interesting that the makers of the Bible put the version with David as a man and a fighter before the version with David as a youth. It’s as if the makers wanted to make clear that they included two distinct traditions about the first meeting between David and Saul. The Bible's makers could have first told the story of David the youth, and then the story of David the man; then, it would be easier to read one as a continuation of the other. But the Bible’s makers did not do that.

5. A blessing that the makers could not have foreseen.

There is no reason to treat these different versions like a spouse’s petty-theft conviction that we don’t want anybody to know about. The differences among parts of the Bible are an aid to faith. The conflicts in Genesis and in other books have become important in ways that the Bible’s makers could not have known about in the times that the books of the Bible were made.

Theirs was an age without science as we know it. The Hebrew Bible was written thousands of years before scientists could peer billions of years back in time and trillions of miles into space. It was written thousands of years before geologists studied Earth’s strata to learn how ancient is our world. It was written long before palaeontologists studied fossils.

The Hebrew Bible was written long before our forebears knew that the earth was round and suspended in a void, against the Genesis description of earth separating the waters above and the waters below. It was written long before Galileo discovered that Earth circled the Sun, against the witness of Psalms, Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes.

But Genesis makes the Bible’s lack of accord with science alright. We don’t have to choose between science and the Bible. Because in its first two chapters, the Bible itself makes it clear that it is not a literal description of creation. It does this with unworried contradiction. Before there was science, the authors of Genesis, 1 Samuel, and Matthew/Acts wrote as if to sooth the mind troubled by knowing science and reading scripture.

5. True but not literal.

None of this make scripture less true.

As to Genesis, putting science at the beginning of the Bible would serve neither God nor us. Because an account of the Big Bang theory and natural selection would tell us nothing of the truth that the first chapters of Genesis really are about. This is the truth they tell: that God was immediate to, intimate with, and in control of the creation of the universe and everything in it.

It would not lead to salvation to know that the universe began with a colossal explosion. Nor that genetic mutations over time produced more advanced creatures. Nor that the earth is round instead of flat with waters above and waters below it. Nor that the Earth circles the Sun. These do not help a person get to heaven (but they do not hinder, either). So there was no reason to put these in a book that is really all about God, persons, and salvation.

But to know that God is the beginning of all that there is is useful for salvation. This is especially true if that knowledge is joined with awe.

So Genesis is true, even if it is not literal. And the Bible’s makers had no problem with making clear that it was not literal. This does not take away from its truth.

The truth beneath the two David stories or the two Judas’s-death stories is unclear to me. But that’s the Bible for you. Its basic message is so simple that a young child can grasp it. But you can plumb the Bible from youth to old age, and you will never find the bottom of it.

6. The comfort of literalism is certainty.

Now, to get back to the pastor. He is a man I respect. His sermons make me think. He knows more than I do.

But he encourages his hearers to read the Bible literally, and they encourage him. His hearers applaud when he says things like, "We are not Calvinists; we are Biblicists." His hearers approve when he says, "I don’t want to know what John Calvin says. I want to know what the Bible says." (Note to pastor: John Calvin interpreted the Bible.)

And, of course, his literalism caused him to slip around the fact that Judas dies differently in Matthew than in Acts.

Literalism is attractive because literalism is certain. I have argued before that certainty is valued in America in our time. The security of our lives cocoons many of us, leading to a sense of certainty about the world, and, by extension, about other things. (See below, "Certainty and Uncertainty.") So, in a way, certainty is not a choice we make but a choice that our culture has made for us.

People won’t shake off certainty for no reason. Nobody wants to shake off certainty until it discomforts more than it comforts. I believe that people find so much comfort in certainty that, to hold onto it, they will tightly clasp what they must know is impossible. The church I go to really does believe in the Bible, and I have no doubt that many members read it carefully and often. Many of them have read the passages that I talked about here. But their looking is colored by certainty, so they do not see obvious contradictions.

7. The problem with literalism.

If literalism is a path to salvation, I should not argue against it.

But I do. For one thing, even though I take it less literally than many, I think the Bible is fundamental to guiding people to salvation. And the better people know it, the better it guides them. Literalism is wrong, so it may lead people off-path. If you read something in a way that it was not meant to be read, you might miss something that you might learn if you read it right.

If we read Genesis as a natural history of creation, we might miss its message of God’s immediacy to, intimacy with, and control over creation; not to mention unnumbered other truths that the first two chapters of Genesis hold.

If we think the Bible is always simple and always literal, we don’t understand how deep and rich the Bible is. Then we might to approach it solely by the power of our minds. We are less likely to approach it humbly, prayerfully, and dependently. We need to depend upon God, prayer, and humility, not only the power of our minds, to plumb the Bible.

Also, literalism can harm the weak-in-faith. Based on literal reading of scripture, early missionaries to China calculated for Chinese rulers the date of the creation of the Earth. They were not believable, because Chinese dynastic records predated the supposed date of creation. Likewise, when we tout Biblical literalism, we become a rock of stumbling for people who believe in science.

It can harm the weak-in-faith in other ways. We want believers to read scripture. But their faith might be harmed if they read Genesis, Samuel, Chronicles, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Matthew/Acts and nobody can explain the differences between the passages, or the differences between the Word and the known world.

Biblical literalism should have been officially buried in 1992, when the Catholic Church apologized to Galileo. I regret that it lives on, because it harms.

8. Shedding certainty.

The Bible was not beaten, scourged, and nailed to a cross to die for all and to rise. The Bible points to God, but it is not God.

We should not read into it a literalism that its makers did not share. Instead, we should see it for what it is: simple but rich, straight but complex, all true but not necessarily all literal. We should be ready to read it for a lifetime, but also ready to know that, at the end of our lives, it still will have mysteries. The mystery should provoke us to make more earnest study and to hope in immortal joy with the one who can make clear all that now we see through a glass darkly.