Wikipedia Christians

In January, 2001 Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched a new kind of information source called “Wikipedia.” In the 13 years since it’s inception it has become the fifth most popular website with about 500 million unique visitors each month. Of course, most know that the special characteristic of the site is that volunteers – not professionals – update the information. As such, some question the accuracy and consistency of the articles. Still, many of us use the site as a quick source of information, much like we used to trust the nerdy student in high school rather than taking the time to research a question on our own.

I fear that the Church in America is becoming “wikipediated.” As a matter of convenience or laziness, we trust others to inform us about the God that created and redeemed us – before Whom we will one day give an account.

Both Testaments testify to the accuracy and authority of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. For more than 2 millennia the Church has judged the accuracy of its theology against the text of the Bible. The revival known as The Reformation was accelerated by Gutenberg’s printing press giving the common man the Scriptures in his own language, and even though distributors of the Scriptures were oppressed and persecuted, the Bible became the best-selling book of all time. As people read it, they were transformed.

But people no longer read the Bible. We get our theological information from our religious leaders, but we rarely check out the substance of that information. We trust the theological institutions that gave them degrees or the ecclesiastical organizations that ordained them. What we don’t realize is that many of these institutions and organizations have watered down their standards, being more concerned about “bottom line” issues than they are about Truth. We are “wikipediated.”

Or we get our theology from the media. Prime time television brought the subject of “angels” into our homes in several shows a few years back, but it is likely that very few people compared the portrayal of these characters with the Biblical teachings. I remember raising this idea to a friend of mine – a pastor’s wife – who defended their viewership with the comment, “But there is nothing else that is wholesome on TV!” Television has “wikipediated” us.

Movies are no better. I cannot count the number of times I have seen Charleton Heston portray Moses in “The Ten Commandments” and though Cecil B. DeMille used many lines directly from the Scripture, it is impossible to re-tell 40 years of Biblical history (and 4 books of the Bible) in a 3 hour movie. And that movie was produced in an era where the Bible was largely considered to be accurate. Bible-themed movies since are geared to audiences that have questioned or even rejected the inspiration and authority of the Scripture. In our day theological understanding is more conditioned by Mark Burnett, Roma Downey and Mel Gibson than it is by Peter, Paul and John. I have no beef with the producers of these movies. My beef is that we are “wikipediated.”

The answer to this trend is obvious: we must return to the Book. Like the English teacher that criticizes a term paper for relying on secondary sources rather than primary ones, God will ask us why we didn’t consult His Book. Our denomination proudly claims AW Tozer who wrote The Pursuit of God. Can we really say we are pursuing Him if we fail to consider – even, meditate on – what He said directly to us?

Of course, we are not the first. The Hebrews that followed Moses out of Egypt didn’t want to hear directly from God either (look up Exodus 20:19 – don’t just take my word for it), so they asked Moses to listen to Him and tell them what God said. They allowed themselves to be “wikipediated” – and we know what happened to them.

 

A Question of Eternal Significance

Although I normally begin my blog with the verse or two that prompts my thoughts, today the passage is actually a couple of chapters in the Old Testament book of Daniel. Please look them up.

Chapter 2 describes a dream that the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar had one evening. Like many of us he woke up knowing that he had dreamed something but couldn’t remember what it was. Unlike most of us he recognized it as something quite significant. When his counselors couldn’t tell him the dream and its interpretation, Daniel  was called and, after prayer, God revealed the dream to him so he could interpret it for the king. In chapters 7-8 of Daniel’s prophecy, we get another picture of the same dream/vision.

What is significant about this dream is that it is prophetic, and the details are astounding. The veracity of those details are now a part of our historical record. Daniel wrote this in the sixth century, BC sometime before the fall of the Medo-Persian Empire. But Daniel not only predicted that the Greek leader, Alexander the Great, would defeat the Persians, but also that his kingdom would be divided into four parts, that one part would persecute the Jews, and that the whole would be later conquered by the Romans, during which time Messiah would come.

Rationalist philosophies down through the years have disdained predictive prophecy, but they have always been baffled by Daniel’s (and Nebuchadnezzar’s) peek into the future. It really places them between the proverbial “rock and hard place”: either deny the obvious (that Daniel had some foreknowledge which can only be attributed to a Being outside human experience) or scrap the philosophical position that they are using to deny the Truth.

Because of the constant denial of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as authoritative, many people today have not wrestled with this conundrum. Sadly, their souls will be, in part, the responsibility of those so-called Christian scholars and leaders who have decided that they will pass judgment on the Scripture rather than submitting to the Scripture themselves.

But the larger part of the responsibility will be their own. Each of us (at least in this society) has the witness of creation and the Scripture available to us. It won’t be a valid excuse to simply say, “I was too busy standing in line for three days waiting for the latest iphone to be sold, so I didn’t have time to check to see if the Scriptures were really true.”

The conundrum of whether to believe and obey the Scriptures or find an excuse to justify their rejection is one each of us has to face – even if we didn’t spend days waiting for the latest technology. On the answer to that question rests your eternity.

Hermeneutics

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:1-4).

             A lot of people think the Bible is a “magical” book, a veritable fortune cookie that kicks out a wise platitude every time it’s opened. Nothing could be further from the Truth!

             One of the most important – but forgotten – courses in seminary is the one on hermeneutics, the science of interpretation. As Evangelicals we believe in the “Grammatical-Historical method,” that is, that the text of the various books of the Bible should be interpreted according to the standard rules of history and grammar.

             While there is a Divine component to the Scriptures, the various books were written by men who lived in space and time. Their writings reflect the history and culture of their day and it is impossible to interpret their writings correctly until we understand something of their circumstances. In those few places where the history and setting are obscured and unknowable, we assume that this will not inhibit a proper understanding of the passage, but for most of the Biblical writings, the context is apparent, or at least available to the reader.

             Likewise the biblical writers used the standard rules of grammar in their writings – subjects and predicates, nouns and verbs and adjectives – all of the parts of speech that we learned in Junior High/Middle School English. What is confusing to some is the fact that in certain places the writers of Scripture record obvious figures of speech, just as we speak and write in our world. The passage above is an example.

             How can we tell that Jesus intended His statement from the Sermon on the Mount that “if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away” (Matt 5:29), to be a figure of speech and not taken literally? No one actually did it, even though they followed Jesus wholeheartedly. And there are many other examples…

             The point of this blog is that anyone that can read can understand the Bible. Children who are just learning some of these principles of reading may have some trouble in places, but there are still passages that can make sense to them. For most of us, though, the struggle is either a matter of taking time to do it and/or a background in which we have been taught that the Bible cannot be understood without someone interpreting it for us.

             But down through the centuries men have recognized that God desired His Word to be understood by the common, ordinary people. When the common language of the people was Greek, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into that language – the Septuagint. When the common language became Latin, Jerome translated it into that language. It was called the “Vulgate” (from the Latin word for “common”). In England John Wycliffe and William Tyndale were persecuted because they dared to translate the Scriptures into the English language so the common people could read it, and in Germany Martin Luther translated it into German.

             The point? YOU CAN READ AND UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE – JUST DO IT!