Boo-Ya!

We move from evangelical overreach by the political "right" to evangelical underreach by the "theologically right." One of our Shepherd School students who is also an international student studying at a university in Kansas City asked me a question recently.

“I cannot find a good explanation about 2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:12. First one says seven years of famine, and second one says three years.”

He goes on to say, “I’m reading Basic Theology by Charles C. Ryrie. He believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I don’t think he has the same opinion about manuscripts and translations of the Bible as we believe. His book says ‘The Septuagint translation says three years in both places, so likely the figure in 2 Samuel is a scribal error. (It has been changed to say three years in some versions, including the NIV.) Though copies were very carefully made, errors inevitably crept in. This seems to be one, but it is not an error in the original—that was inerrant when it was written, but inerrancy cannot be extended to the copies.’

Really? So the same Spirit that gave us the originals through inspiration cannot be relied upon to preserve an inspired text of what he gave? How wonderfully existential. Now Charles, since I know you eschew crystal balls and that sort of thing, how do you KNOW the original did not say it just like we see it today? Just because you think it is a contradiction and an error? Did it never occur to you that it might be correct but that you just haven't figured out how to reconcile the two statements?

This created a dilemma for our intrepid student, who then asks, “I would like to know how I should understand this. Charles Ryrie tries to explain this is not a contradiction of the Bible, however, I believe God can preserve His word accurately. I cannot agree with his interpretation about this. The KJV says seven years and three years in these verses.”

Well, I hate to contradict C.C. Ryrie, because his body is 90% brain, but it is better to contradict him than contradict the Holy Ghost, AND I think there is a much better answer than the one he gives. He relies on the solution proposed by the ancient Septuagint (the Greek translation of these Old Testament Hebrew verses, which dates to the fourth century or earlier) and accepted by the NIV. That solution is to simply change one place to match the other and say the scribes copied it wrong.

There are a couple of “just so-so, okay” answers that would keep you from getting into the dilemma that Ryrie and the NIV do. Ryrie says he believes in inerrancy but admits he does not have an inerrant Bible; ...and he refers directly to the NIV in this camp. Some of these “scholars” are just too smart by half.

First, God could have talked to David more than once before David finally decided.

Second, the seven years concerned “thy land” specifically, whereas the three years were simply a general famine.

But the best answer (simple, elegant, and the one that Ryrie and the NIV translators missed by giving-in to the perfect scholars, imperfect scribes, and the Bible critics) is that four years of famine had already preceded David’s dilemma (2 Sam 21:1 = three years of famine plus a month more in verses 9-10 plus nearly a year to number the people in 2 Sam 24:8).

Boo-ya! So the seven years was three MORE years to make a TOTAL of seven. Maybe Ryrie missed it because he’s not so good at math. I don’t know what excuse to give for the NIV. Not completely God’s word, maybe?

Overreach of the Evangelical Right

I usually don’t comment on politics, but this is July 4th and on some occasions politics and religion do collide to provide fireworks. Such was the case last week when James Dobson watched a two year-old speech by one of the Presidential candidates and decided to take umbrage at it.

Most people are familiar with the Democratic Party’s (and their nominee’s) position on the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion. That Focus on the Family founder Dobson disagrees with this is not news and does not create any sparks, and from what I could tell was not his only criticism against Obama.

My attention would probably not even be drawn to the exchange except that in channel-surfing on June 24th I let the remote land for a few moments on Anderson Cooper 360. CNN’s Cooper was interviewing a panel of three people about the controversy between Dobson and Obama, because everyone thinks the evangelical right will swing the election (and “evangelicals” seem none too enthusiastic about McCain, either). The panel included Roland Martin, Rev. Al Sharpton, and the President of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins.

Perkins defended Dobson by stating in the Anderson Cooper 360 blog before the show: “Dobson said, ‘What [Obama is] trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.’ Obama’s statement reflects the Democratic Party’s pre-2008 position, which is that you must check your faith at the gate of the public arena. Now that Democrats appear to have gotten religion, Sen. Obama is saying that while he is a Christian, he doesn’t think that faith or the Bible should have any role in shaping public policy. There’s either a disconnect between Sen. Obama’s faith and the policy positions he holds, or his theology is off.”

That was Perkins quoting and defending leader of the evangelical right, James Dobson. Anderson Cooper then played for Perkins an actual clip of Obama’s speech (which Dobson was criticizing) where Obama says, “What I am suggesting is that secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. So, to say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Anderson Cooper: “That doesn’t sound like they are saying there is no role for religion in the public square.”

Rev. Sharpton eventually chimed in: “I don’t understand why we are reading things [into Obama’s speech] that clearly [were not] said in his speech.”

Let me reserve my criticism for my own camp (evangelicals). It is amazing me how Perkins and Dobson picked this fight and did it by distortion, and then when confronted with that distortion by Cooper (who Perkins later in the show said he had concern for his eternal destiny), Perkins would not admit it. He didn’t even blink. (Watch him whenever he contributes to CNN’s commentary; he is perpetually shaking his head, No, like he is afraid they will make a bobble-head doll based on his likeness if he ever assents agreement to anyone else.)

People get crazy over politics. But it makes me ashamed that those who are known as evangelicals do so, because there is clearly a disconnect between what Obama said and Dobson’s issues with it.

Much of Dobson’s rant is ideology, not theology, inasmuch as in the statement above he (apparently deliberately) did not correctly represent the view he was opposing.

Then I got to thinking biblically about the exchange. Did Paul tell disciples and saints it was necessity to espouse certain “moral” positions on social, public, or political policy? After all, there is a difference between bringing the church into politics on the one hand, and on the other hand dragging political issues into the church just because all decisions are moral choices.

You say, “But Rome did not have a participatory democracy like we do, so he couldn’t tell Christians to do that.” Yes, and did you notice that every Roman politician that really got to know Paul actually like him? Hello somebody! So why overreach to the extent that Dobson does in his religious zeal?

Much fell into focus for me on July 1st when I received an email from Tom Minnery of “Focus on the Family Action” that stated, “in the aftermath of Barack Obama’s aggressive attack on Dr. Dobson last week, the liberal media are piling on with more blatant falsehoods about Dr. Dobson and pro-family Christians.” Wait! Did Obama attack Dobson last week? Why do I wonder if somebody has gone senile here?

“All that Dr. Dobson had done was respond to a widely circulated speech by Obama comparing Dr. Dobson to Al Sharpton.” Really? Dobson and Sharpton were mentioned in the same sentence but actually, Obama was drawing a contrast between their two theologies.

How strange. Why would you send out inflammatory email making false charges? Just to strike up sparks for the Fourth?

“Focus Action is going to continue raising questions...but to do so, we need your help.” Ah so. I wonder, by “help,” do you mean money? “In the past few weeks alone, Focus Action has spent tens of thousands of dollars…”. Let me guess. On your salary. “…and we are dependent on the support of friends like you.”

That puts it all in Focus!