Considering How We Got the Bible

Another free book I got at the RTS Alumni and Friends lunch was How We Got the Bible: Old and New Testament Canon and Text by Greg Lanier. It is part of the Christian’s Pocket Guide series by Christian Focus books.

As the title indicates this is a brief introductory study into understanding why the books in the Bible are in the Bible and whether we have an accurate text. Modern scholarship and the media have been busy to undermine our confidence in the Scriptures, and Islam has also been at work to distort people’s view of the Scriptures.

Lanier briefly summarizes the need for this information. He addresses these questions in 6 chapters, though the last is just a few pages as he offers concluding thoughts. He wanted to provide a brief, non-academic book so lay people can have answers they need when challenges to the canon or the texts arise, and they do.

Canon has to do with which books belong, and don’t belong in the Bible. Textual criticism has to do with understanding which texts are the best, or most accurately reflect the original manuscripts.

He begins with understanding the Bible as a Divine Deposit. There have been books that have been discovered that some argue should be in the Bible. Novelists like Dan Brown have had popular stories that argue that the Church has conspired to keep these books out of the Bible. How can we know that these “lost books of the Bible” aren’t really part of the Bible?

Muslims often argue that the Church has changed the Bible since the rise of Islam since they think Muhammad is one of God’s prophets. They want their understanding of the Bible to supplant historic Christianity’s understanding of the Bible.

He defines Scripture as:

“the inspired deposit of writings received as divinely authoritative for the covenant community.”

This is an important definition. We believe they are writings that have been inspired or breathed by God. They were received by the covenant community. This is a distinctively Protestant view. We do not think the Church formed the canon, but rather received it. Scripture is also a covenant document intended for God’s people to know who He is, who we are with respect to Him, what He does for us and also what He requires of us. The first chapter unpacks these ideas in a succinct and clear fashion. It provides the foundation for the next 4 chapters in which he addresses the canon and then text of the Old and then New Testaments or covenants.

The question of the Old Testament canon identifies differences not only regarding “lost books” but differences between Protestants, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox with regard to the Apocrypha. Protestants recognize the Jewish canon, those books recognized by Jews as divinely inspired covenant documents. He explains the three-fold shape of the Old Testament: Law, Prophets and Writings. Law, or Torah, came first and relates the giving of the Old Covenant. The Prophets apply the covenant to the people in later times, and hold out the promise of the new covenant. These cite the Law as divinely inspired. Many of the prophets will also affirm the message of earlier prophets as divinely inspired, as well as often claiming such inspiration for themselves in prophetic formula. The writings contain sections also found in the Law and Prophets.

In terms of the Apocrypha there is little evidence that those books, or additional chapters were understood by Jewish communities as divinely inspired. In the early church there was little agreement about them. This means a few people may have included some of them but most did not. Augustine, for instance, affirmed all found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox Church followed his lead. Jerome used them as helpful but did not admit them as authoritative. This view held in the Roman Church until the Council of Trent which declared they were part of Scripture.

The Protestant churches have followed Jerome in finding them (possibly) helpful but not authoritative for faith and life. Some, like Calvin, thought they could be helpful. Most Protestant Bibles don’t contain them, and they are not generally read by most Protestants.

Moving to the text themselves, Lanier discusses the kinds of manuscripts we have and how they compare with one another. Another factor is the translations of the Old Testament we have, which themselves are over 2,000 years old. Those would be Greek, Samaritan, Aramaic, Latin and others. As a result we have many manuscripts and fragments to compare and find the best to form the texts that serve as the basis for our modern translations. The God who inspired the Old Testament texts also preserved them sufficiently for us.

Lanier then moves on to the canon of the New Testament. Contrary to Dan Brown’s fictional assertions, there was no council to form the canon. The canon is those books that were used and recognized by the early church. In this he discusses the centrality of the gospel, or new covenant, eyewitnesses, oral and written records. Unlike the books we find in our Bibles, these “lost books” were not received and recognized by the early church. Those who affirmed them we recognized as heretics. There are some books that the early church did use, like the Didache, which they found helpful but never recognized as inspired and authoritative. We see this from how the church fathers write about them.

from NT Bad Arguments

We then move into the question of whether we have the right words. He brings up former Christian and current skeptic Bart Ehrman. He can’t thoroughly refute Ehrman’s arguments, but generally refutes them. He mentions the Muslim doctrine of tahrif al-nass which states that “Jews and Christians have intentionally corrupted the text. As a result the NT doesn’t mention Muhammad (let’s ignore that it was written 500+ years before Muhammad). The text that Muhammad affirmed in 600 is older than many of the manuscripts we have today. Their doctrine is an illogical red herring.

He begins with discussing where our English Bible comes from. This refers to the formation of the Greek texts used in the vast majority of translations. We return to the large number of manuscripts available to us that have been found in archeological digs and copies by scribes. The relative number of differences is small, and largely insignificant. He discusses scribal errors and corrections, as well as how the better copyists provided marginal notes which help us as well. We also have ancient Latin, Syriac and Coptic translations.

He does all of this efficiently. He doesn’t ignore issues or sweep them under the rug. He instead shows how we’ve worked to find the oldest and best manuscripts to get closest to the autographs using a variety of sources. Integrity is revealed in our footnotes where the most significant issues in our translations are there for all to see. Lanier handles the task well and understandably. You won’t be an expert after reading this, but you’ll have a good idea of how to address many of the most significant objections raised.

I will close with his closing thoughts.

1. We should be clear on what Scripture is in the first place.
2. We should have confidence that we do have the ‘right’ OT/NT books.
3. We should have confidence that we have the ‘right’ words of the OT/NT.

“How did we get the Bible? The answer to this question driving this book is clear. ‘Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,’ and the written deposit has been transmitted in the covenant community with high integrity, by the providence of God, ever since. Through these Scriptures, we are all, now, witnesses of these things: Christ suffered and died and on the third day rose again, so that repentance and the forgiveness of sins may be proclaimed to all the nations.”

Read Full Post »

Considering Form, Function and Fear in Evangelism

Over the course of 2 chapters in Evangelism for the Rest of Us, Mike Bechtle covers 3 “F”‘s. In one chapter he covers the “conflict” between form and function in evangelism. In the second he covers fear which often keeps us from evangelism.

Form vs. Function

He begins with a pastor taking “greet one another with a holy kiss” literally. Strangers were asked to kiss one another on the cheek. In some cultures this is perfectly normal. In Western culture, not so much. The function Paul has in mind is a warm greeting. He wants to further brotherly & sisterly love in the church through warm greetings. The form that took in his culture was a “holy kiss” the form it takes now is a hug, side hug, hand on the shoulder, hand shake etc. But not kissing.

This terminology would be helpful in the “head covering” debate. The function is to affirm authority in covenantal relationship (read: marriage) in worship. The form changes by culture. In Western culture, a woman wearing her wedding ring indicates she is married. She honor that in worship as she prays and (in Paul’s day at least, prophesied).

“Much of our misunderstanding of Scripture today stems from emphasizing form over function.”

In discussing evangelism we often get caught up in questions of form, as if one form of evangelism is right and the others are wrong. The real question is what is the best form of evangelism for a particular person in a particular set of circumstances talking to a particular person to fulfill the function God has established. As with the head coverings question, there is a particular function that God has called us to. The form that takes may differ. It is the function that matters. But we often focus on form and judge those who use a different form than us (we could also talk about style of music in this way).

I agree with Bechtle that many of our most heated intramural debates are about form and function, or between principle and preference as a friend puts it. But not all, or even most. Sometimes we really are wrangling about the meaning of Scripture. But often enough we are only wrangling about our preferred form of applying that biblical principle or function.

Because of who we are (personality, gifts, experiences, white middle class) and where we are (North America, Tucson, a suburb etc.) and the person to whom we are speaking (older Jewish man, upper middle class, from the Midwest) and where (kids’ birthday party) the form evangelism takes may differ. In this case, it was a simple statement since I didn’t really know the man but he talked of keeping Torah. So I sowed a seed with “If we can keep Torah, why did Jesus have to die?” I didn’t want to throw down with a stranger on another stranger’s back patio. So a simple comment may produce a nagging question in a man’s mind.

I was faithful in bearing witness in those circumstances. Could I have been more faithful? Possibly. Could I have used a different method? Sure. Was the method I used “wrong”? No.

One of the things Bechtle has not mentioned (yet) is cultural IQ (or emotional IQ either). Both have some role in all this. For instance, in a highly authoritarian culture, it would be unthinkable for a younger man to question an older man’s point of view. Even though we were both in America, his sub-cultural presuppositions could include this. We want to further the gospel, not set up additional obstacles. We want the offense to be the cross, not us.

Bechtle lays out a few different methods in summary. The traditional approach (approaching strangers with a particular method like the 4 Spiritual Laws to quickly share the whole salvation message). This also includes methods like Evangelism Explosion, street witnessing etc. He mentions an approach that became popular in the late 80’s or so, “lifestyle evangelism”. This was a more relational approach, and long-term approach. We could fight over which is better. Or we could realize both have strengths and weaknesses, and appropriate places and uses.

“The important thing is to look at the function of evangelism- to being people to the Savior. All methods people use are just forms to accomplish that function.”

This means that I might use different methods. I can’t use lifestyle evangelism if someone wants to talk with me on the plane. I probably shouldn’t use the traditional method with my boss. What matters is making Christ known to that person in an appropriate fashion in those circumstances. While you may be the “only Christian they ever meet” it is unlikely unless you are on a plane in Iraq. So, don’t feel the need to close the sale, so to speak. Love them.

The reality is that you don’t know how God will bring a person to Himself- the particular evangelistic method during which the coin finally drops and they get it. I know of one man who found a tract in the gutter while on a walk. He picked it up, read it and became a Christian.

Who you are is an important part of this. Bechtle tells of a bartender who became a Christian. As you might imagine some in the local church urged him to change jobs. They grew frustrated when he didn’t. More so when his plans to go to seminary didn’t include ending his career as a bartender. His reasoning? “Who do people share more openly with than their bartender?”. This was a good pool for him to fish for men and women. And the church nearly split since this involved the controversial aspect of alcohol. He is bringing the gospel to them where they are, not where he wants them to be. This man’s ministry isn’t for everyone. Sharing the gospel in bars is not wise for an alcoholic.

He then addresses a topic that I call being “inoculated against the gospel”. Some people are resistant to the gospel because of false understandings of Christianity furthered by some methods of evangelism. Many think they are Christians because they walked the aisle or raised their hand, not because they believe in Christ crucified, resurrected and ascended. You have to “unevangelize” them as a friend says. I did this once when a couple came into my office wanting to be married in our facility. They said they were Christians and I simply asked “What does it mean to be a Christian?”. After hearing their answers (moralism- at which they’d failed because she was pregnant), I was able to unpack the gospel for them and they believed. But many in the community were inoculated.

“Finding common ground means we have to go where the fish love and live among them in an honest way. … Most people would rather come to your house for a barbeque than spend Sunday morning in a church service.”

There is no one size fits all method. But a wise evangelist will use a variety of faithful methods that fit the particular situation and person. That may mean opening up your home for Christianity Explored, regularly having coffee with a co-worker or neighbor to talk about life or many other forms that fit you and them.

The Fear Factor

Most people avoid public speaking. They’d rather die.

Most Christians have plenty of fear regarding evangelism. Fear is to be expected. Some of us allow fear to become a prison.

Bechtle notes two types of fear. There is the fear that keeps you from doing things you shouldn’t do. Fear causes us to analyze whether or not we should do something. I felt that fear while I was roped up and ready to slip over the side of a cliff. I went over, and the ropes kept me safe as I slid down to the base of the cliff. But standing in the path of a moving train, the fear means I should get out of the way.

There is also the fear that comes from a challenge. Most athletes and actors feel fear before a game or performance. It isn’t debilitating. It is a creative tension. Many of us experience this at work when we take on new responsibilities, make a presentation etc. It gets to whether or not I am the best or appropriate person to do something. It is not about danger but about gifting. Some people work thru the fear and accomplish great things (or ordinary ones). This is the fear that I want my kids to face so their lives don’t become really small.

Evangelism is about the latter fear (unless you live in an oppressive system that prohibits evangelism). When we try to share our faith in ways that don’t “fit” us, we feel more fear. Don’t wait until you are “fear free” because there should always be that creative tension. “Eustress is the creative tension that helps us to perform.” It is stress, but not the kind that destroys us.

“Fear is like putting too much tension on a string or expecting it to sound like another instrument. Our job is to discover what kind of instrument God made us to be and allow him to play through us.”

It is discovering the best (not only) way for you to do evangelism. This is about intentionality; how you will plan to go about evangelism. Circumstances may arise when you share in a different way due to the circumstances.

Introverts tend to gravitate to relational evangelism. These are to be genuine relationships, meaning you are their friend even if they never come to faith. In the course of life together there are moments to bring the gospel in, hopefully moving them closer to faith. There may even be moments for great boldness or confrontational discussions. But it is within the context of friendship.

One day you may find yourself on a plane talking (likely against your will) to a stranger. You don’t say “not my gifting” but “Jesus, help me be faithful”. You may share the gospel in a way you are not comfortable. And that is okay. Finding the way that best fits you is not an excuse for never using a method that doesn’t.

Our desire is to feel strong and confident. But often that is not God’s goal.

“God doesn’t work around our weakness; he works through our weakness. Confidence comes through competence. Praying for boldness doesn’t mean doing things we’re not wire to do. It means asking God to work through us, helping us to do the things he has called us to do.”

God has called all His adopted children to evangelism. The form will differ. Don’t be dissing someone else’s form. Some speak. Others write. Some speak to strangers. Others to family and friends. Some in their neighborhoods. Others to Sunday School classes full of kids or in worship services. Someone wrote the SS curriculum through which thousands of people will hear the gospel. That’s a form of evangelism we don’t notice, particularly if our view of evangelism methods is very narrow.

He then deals with some of the more person specific fears we experience and that keep some from evangelism: rejection, failure, not having answers etc. He provides some responses to those fears. These get back to the reality of justification, adoption and sanctification (theology matters!). I’m accepted by God through Jesus Christ even if my message (and even me) is rejected by others. I’m accepted by God through Jesus Christ even if I don’t lead many/any to Christ (that I know of). I’m loved and accepted by God through Jesus Christ even if others see I’m a sinner or that I don’t have all the answers. The fact is God is working in me just as much (or more) than He is working in them. God is not in a rush regarding your sanctification. Nor is He in a rush for their conversion. Relax, resting in the love and patience of God.

Many Christians don’t evangelize because of the 3 “F”‘s. Questions of form vs. function, and fears plague them. The Enemy is satisfied. The Father wants to help us discover the best form for us, and to press through creative tension to be faithful witnesses.

Read Full Post »