Mel White Believes in Scriptural Inerrancy?

[Experiment with Truth]

In Mel White's resource, "What the Bible says and doesn't say about Homosexuality", he writes, "I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were
saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own." And he says, "Most people who misuse the Bible DON’T search the Scriptures. They simply find a text that seems to support their prejudice and then spend the rest of theirlives quoting (or misquoting) that text."

Question: In what way does Mel differ from Fundamentalists who say all we need to do is to "search the Scriptures"?

Comment: Coming to different conclusions, both the Fundamentalists and Mel are saying they have the correct understanding of Scripture and if we only look really deep into the Scriptures we will come to the correct conclusions. Mel seems to point to the fact that his erudition has led him to some startling conclusions. And even though he doesn't say it, his actions seem to point to a belief in the Bible's inerrancy or else he wouldn't need to search the Scriptures like a Fundamentalist. This approach of needing to use the Scriptures to verify a point causes more harm than good. I would rather approach the Scriptures through the eyeglass of Tradition. To do otherwise seems to only end in further argument that leads no where and causes further discension. We know that for two thousand years Christians have taught marriage to one man and one woman for life as the ideal or lived lives of celibacy as an ideal. [Although many fall short of the ideal.] I think we are most honest when we either take the teaching for what it is or leave it rather than to attempt to remake the Christian Tradition into the image we want it to be.

I look forward to your comments.

[Steven E. Webster]

Dear Experiment With Truth,

Of course, one could say that Scripture and Tradition for 2000 years supported the subordination of women. Where do you stand on that one?

I'm from a Christian tradition that approaches theology from the perspectives of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. Placing Tradition above these other criteria is simply to privilege the status quo, but we supposedly worship a God who wants to "make all things new."

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Experiment with Truth

In Mel White's resource, "What the Bible says and doesn't say about Homosexuality", he writes, "I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were
saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own." And he says, "Most people who misuse the Bible DON’T search the Scriptures. They simply find a text that seems to support their prejudice and then spend the rest of theirlives quoting (or misquoting) that text."

Question: In what way does Mel differ from Fundamentalists who say all we need to do is to "search the Scriptures"?

Fundamentalism is based on the supposed existence of essential tenets of Christian belief, proven with "proof-texts", or snippets of scripture taken out of context generally. Searching implies an ongoing effort - one that does not have pre-defined outcomes or preconceived bias - an effort to approach the truth revealed in scripture.

Comment: Coming to different conclusions, both the Fundamentalists and Mel are saying they have the correct understanding of Scripture and if we only look really deep into the Scriptures we will come to the correct conclusions.

To my knowledge, unless you have read something by Mel that I haven't, Mel doesn't claim to have "the" correct understanding, but "a" correct understanding. Fundamentalism claims "the" correct one - the one and only correct interpretation of God's word. The latter is idolatry, the first is humility.

I would rather approach the Scriptures through the eyeglass of Tradition. To do otherwise seems to only end in further argument that leads no where and causes further discension.

Okay, but to what tradition are you referring. The view that there has been ONE Christian tradition is as misguided as it is possibe to be.

We know that for two thousand years Christians have taught marriage to one man and one woman for life as the ideal or lived lives of celibacy as an ideal.

We know no such thing. There are a great many scholarly and pastoral works spanning that two thousand years that show a wide range of understandings about marriage and celibacy. Celibacy is also dealt with scripturally as a gift of the Spirit for which everyone is NOT suited, and as such is not held up as the ideal - unless, of course, you are talking about the variety of traditions that one way or another promoted the all-male priesthood.

I think we are most honest when we either take the teaching for what it is or leave it rather than to attempt to remake the Christian Tradition into the image we want it to be.

I look forward to your comments.

Again, there is no such thing as "the" Christian Tradition - there have been innumerable Christian traditions spanning the entire period of Christianity. Which one are you professing is the "THE Christian Tradition"? Identify that and perhaps we have grounds for discussion. From day one the effort of theologians has been an exercise in seeking to understand more of God's revealed truth - but who can claim to know God's mind absolutely? Only the idolator.

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by Experiment with Truth

I would rather approach the Scriptures through the eyeglass of Tradition.

So I can't figure out how to post the video, but the link works just as well.

Tradition

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Experiment with Truth

Mel seems to point to the fact that his erudition has led him to some startling conclusions. And even though he doesn't say it, his actions seem to point to a belief in the Bible's inerrancy or else he wouldn't need to search the Scriptures like a Fundamentalist.

er·u·di·tion
n.
Deep, extensive learning

Though I can't speak for Dr. White, it doesn't 'seem' that his erudition has led him to 'startling conclusions'. It has.

Galileo came to the 'startling conclusion' that the earth revolved around the sun at a time when the 'tradition' and the church said otherwise.

Question: what is tradition?

tradition
tradition, any body of works, styles, conventions, or beliefs which are represented as having been ‘handed down’ from the past to the present. In practice, this means a specific selection of works arranged according to a certain interpretation of the past, usually made in order to lend authority to present critical arguments. Thus T. S. Eliot re‐invented the tradition of English poetry by aligning it with the work of John Donne rather than John Milton; while F. R. Leavis in The Great Tradition (1948) excluded several major novelists from ‘the’ tradition of English fiction.

Just because a thought or concept has been handed down doesn't mean it's true. It just means its been handed down.

Tell me this: is God still speaking?

[tdogg]

If we are to adhere to "the Christian tradition" then which sect of Christianity are we talking about? They all cling to different "traditional" beliefs. There is no wider gap than that between the differing Christian sects. Pentecostal religion has about 4 or 5 different sects within, all believing in different "traditions". Holding to the Christian tradition as a template for all is problematic - I would wage a large amount that no one could all the different groups together to agree on what that would be.

So, where does that leave us? Hmmmmm...back to where I always go. If I am to use the Biblical scriptures as a guide for my life, then it's reasonable to say I must use them with much prayer and meditation, on how they should be used in my life. It might not hold the same meaning for me as it does for you.

If you believe it does, then you belief in the inerrancy of literal translations. You would first need to return to the original greek and hebrew to determine what the original writings meant, then apply them literally 100% across the board. Impossible.

Please EWT, provide your definition of "the Christian tradition" if you would like some comments on that.

[pnggrad79]

Tradition, to me, is a totally human constraint that is used by humans who have trouble with the concept of free will and grace. Tradition is comfortable and time honored, and therefore, considered by some to be actual gospel, when in fact, it can't be farther from it.

For instance, in my household growing up, it was a "tradition" to say thanks to God before every meal. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you must say thanks before every meal, but if we didn't, I felt like we sinned or something and felt guilty for not doing it. Another "tradition" I learned was that we had to be in church everytime the doors were opened. Sunday a.m. and p.m., Tuesday night for visitation, Wednesday night for prayer meeting and choir practice, and anytime there was a revival. I didn't get to see "The Wizard of Oz" until I was 16 years old, because it always showed on a Sunday night, and because we HAD to be in church, we never saw it all the way through. I happened to be sick one Sunday when it showed and therefore got to see it. But that was the only reason why. "Tradition" says a lot of things that aren't necessarily biblical, but because they are associated with church or biblical things, they are assumed to be so.

If Mel White believes in biblical inerrancy, then that is his prerogative. I believe that the Bible is a living document and that God has something to say to us through it in our situation as it is right now. I believe that when Jesus was crucified, a new era in biblical interpretation began and God made grace come full circle and insisted that we look at our salvation through grace and not by the law, as was formerly prescribed. Therefore, the tradition that we should live by the 10 Commandments really is not true. Those were Old Testament laws made obsolete by Christ's death on the Cross. I think the 10 Commandments are good practice, but the way people go on and on about it, you would think it is part of the Constitution.

Tradition is not gospel and should not be confused to be as such.

[tpdncr4christ]

See. Musicals speak for me.

[Paulus]

At one time, Hebrew was the language of commerce, then it became Greek, and afterwards Latin. What is the language of commerce today? It's English.

Does this mean that the languages of antiquities are no longer good,... NO.

How many people can learn them, how long will it take to learn them, & are the libraries that have the old manuscripts going to allow a large horde of people to scan over these documents?

What is known today of the King James Version of the Bible, is not the 1611 version but the Revolutionary Version, ie, 1769, named that way because of our Revolutionary War period.

Study a Parallel Bible(sometimes has two or four versions) and see if the message changes.

Example:
The dog ran after the cat.
The cat ran from the dog.
The dog moved at a high speed after the cat.
The dog pursued the cat quickly.

Get the drift.

Go to the older bookstores and see what they would charge for 20 to 30 yr old Bibles; KJV, RSV, TLB = The Living Bible -- Paraphrase of the KJV, The Way -- An illustrated version of The Living Bible.

[I used to have a copy of The Way but I gave it to a friend who had problems understanding the KJV. The Living Bible/The Way were written in the language of the early 1970's. My friend was able to understand God's Word, that's the important thing.]

As for the Law, it doesn't disappear because God's Grace is present; it's still here. By the Law is the knowledge of sin(missing the mark). Grace is the Good News. You can't have one without the other - Law & Grace/Gospel go together. Law is for the impenitent sinner while the Gospel is for the penitent sinner.

Some might say that I'm a Bible scholar -- I don't think so, but I do have: a Concordia NIV Self-Study Bible, a RSV Bible, KJV Bible (have a KJV Self-Study Bible -- forgot if I passed it to somebody or mislaid it), An American Translation by Dr. Beck, a Wycliffe Commentary ed. 1968, 2-volume set of a Bible Encyclopedia ed. 1975, plus other books. All of these get used.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Experiment with Truth

Comment: I would rather approach the Scriptures through the eyeglass of Tradition. To do otherwise seems to only end in further argument that leads no where and causes further discension. We know that for two thousand years Christians have taught marriage to one man and one woman for life as the ideal or lived lives of celibacy as an ideal. [Although many fall short of the ideal.]

Actually, until sometime in the 17th century, marriage was a way to make sure that AT NO TIME IN HER LIFE would a woman belong solely to herself. Marriage was a method of ensuring the orderly transfer of property from one man to another (the father of the bride to the Groom and a father to his true sons) Women were merely part of the property and were seldom consulted as to who they would marry. Only in recent centuries has this changed. The one man/one woman arrangement of the last two thousand years is a reflection of the Roman culture (not the semitic culture of Jesus) The reason that it has endured is that it suited the economic structures of the times.

For thousands of years, "tradition" held that chattel slavery was perfectly reasonable and workable and that there was no problem with one human being owning another human being and his/her labor. Most of the laws (the handmaidens of tradition) in most of the world, upheld the right of "masters" to kill their "slaves" if that seemed to them the best use of their "investment"

Tradition in the Southern states from the Civil War on held that non-whites should sit in the back of the bus, eat in seperate restaurants, go to seperate churches and schools. until people decided that this state of affairs was unjust, these "traditions" were also embedded in law.

I think we are most honest when we either take the teaching for what it is or leave it rather than to attempt to remake the Christian Tradition into the image we want it to be.

I look forward to your comments.

Let me reduce your equation to its simplest forms so we can see it for what it is:

a White man stands on a black man's back and says: "Works for me, If it ain't broke don't fix it"

a Man stands on a woman's back and says: "works for me, If it ain't broke don't fix it"

a rich person stands on a poor persons back and says: "works for me, If it ain't broke don't fix it"

a Christian stands on a Jew's back and says: "works for me, If it ain't broke don't fix it"

a heterosexual stands on a homosexual's back and says: "Works for me! If it ain't broke don't fix it"


When I go to scripture I go asking these questions: "Who is Jesus?" and "What does he show me about the nature of God?"

the answer I come away with is that Jesus is the Word of God who becomes flesh and dwells among us. Who enters the world at the margins (in a stable surrounded by shepherds) and leaves the world FROM the margins (on a criminal's cross between two criminals) In between, he spends ALL of his time touching, teaching, feeding, healing, encouraging the people at the margins and confronting / contradicting the self-righteous defenders of law and tradition. He is the one who said that humankind was not created for the sabbath but sabbath was created for humankind.

Gay people are ... gay... and people. We have the same need for human companionship and sexual intimacy as any other human beings. heterosexual marriage DOES NOT WORK for us... it NEEDS TO BE FIXED. There need to be socially sanctioned and celebrated structures within which we can meet the need for companionship and sexual intimacy.

The lack of those structures is UNJUST. If tradition stands in the way of the creation of those structures then it needs to be SWEPT AWAY! Human beings were not made for Tradition, Tradition was made for humankind.

[Zerbie]

Absolutely true and utterly beautiful, Udog.

[pnggrad79]

Well said U-dog.

I maintain, however, that the law of the Old Testament was given so that humans could see their need of a Savior. The law doesn't save and never has. Only grace saves. The law is imperfect and was only there to show that we could never obey a perfect God without Jesus. Jesus was the grace we needed to fix our law problem. Grace is for the impenitent sinner and grace is the answer for us everyday.

If it is broke, fix it. So many things are broke, many of which were handed down by tradition. Tradition makes it comfortable for whomever it serves. Pure Christianity is anything but comfortable. Ask Peter on the roof when the sheet fell down from heaven with every unclean thing he had come to know. God was asking Peter to let go of his "traditions" in order to experience Him for what He is-not traditional.

[revtj]

Modernism (which is now past, thus tradition) brought to the bible a hermeneutics of suspicion. This tradition was in harmony with a Jewish way of studying scripture in which rabbinical students and others (men only at the time) learned the Talmudic and modern interpretations of passages of scripture according to the different schools of thought. Genesis 1 for example would be taught by learning multiple viewpoints of the rabbis on the depth of its meaning.

In the hermeneutics of suspicion the reader/interpreter steps outside the printed page to find social, economic and other cultural norms that are behind the writing like a cultural backdrop. We cannot assume a text had only one meaning, but like a great movie or novel, it has multiple meanings to different people for different reasons. What are those meanings and what are the reasons to prefer certain meanings over others?

Example: I was raised on Gone With the Wind. It's a great movie. But it romanticizes slavery and excludes the horrible shadow side of the evil practice of slavery. A hermenetics of suspicion applied to Margaret Mitchell's work would require us to go outside the text and see what else we can learn about slavery and, in the end, leaves us with a puzzling question as to why Southern gentility saw it as a noble institution. There are answers to that question found in GWTW and in hundreds of other resources of that period. At least one of those is this, "Slavery is biblical. It is never deconstructed as immoral in the bible."

Some people idealize the bible and biblical culture as if there is no context other than their own elevation of the tradition out of which their denomination has interpreted it. This is sentimental, & might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it is rarely true.

[Dash]

Ahh....another collection of masterful responses.

Originally Posted by Experiment with Truth

Question: In what way does Mel differ from Fundamentalists who say all we need to do is to "search the Scriptures"?

We seek to communicate in a way that our adversaries understand; therefore, I believe it is entirely appropriate to respond to fundmentalist rhetoric with similar vocabulary and methods of study.

This is the way Jesus spoke to the Pharisees and Sadduccees of his day. "You yourselves say..." "Did not David, himself do..." "You have heard it said..."

And in doing so, he turned their traditional understanding of the Law and the Prophets on its head.

I don't think they liked it much.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

Some people idealize the bible and biblical culture as if there is no context other than their own elevation of the tradition out of which their denomination has interpreted it. This is sentimental, & might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it is rarely true.

And I loved the Gone With the Wind analogy!

[BruceChris]

I always thought that it was Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza that gave us the hermeneutics of suspicion, as the foundation for her feminist theology.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

I always thought that it was Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza that gave us the hermeneutics of suspicion, as the foundation for her feminist theology.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

It was Schussler Fiorenza who coined the term "hermaneutics of suspicion", when she wrote that "a feminist critical hermeneutics of suspicion places a warning label on all biblical texts: Caution! Could be dangerous to your health and survival". (Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, Letty M Russell, ed, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1985).

Paul Riceour, however, is credited with the concept because he wrote "Hermeneutics seems to me to be animated by this double motivation: willingness to suspect, willingness to listen; vow of rigor, vow of obedience."
(Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970).

Either way, these two are notable for helping to herald in post-modern thought into theology.

[Experiment with Truth]

Tndr4christ: I loved your post of the Fiddler on the Roof video. That made me laugh and smile. Thank you.

Andrewlittle: You asked me, "Okay, but to what tradition are you referring. The view that there has been ONE Christian tradition is as misguided as it is possibe to be."

The Tradition I am talking about is that which has been believed everywhere, at all times, by all. Those within the Tradition who have disagreed with aspects of this Tradition have been called heretics. And yes, these disagreements have resulted in bloodshed at times. But we all know the OneTradition I am talking about. It is easy to identify because it is the one Soulforce is trying to change.

St. Paul said in Thessalonians to "hold fast to the Traditions you have been taught, whether by word or by Epistle." This points to aspects of our faith beyond the mere written word. And this faith has continued in continuity and fullness from the time of Christ. To not hold fast and to change merely results in a "New Christianity" unrecognizable to that delivered to the Saints. This also results in further divisions as is evidenced by all the denominations in America. Which leads me to wonder, when does the "new" Christian Faith so differ with the original faith that it ceases to be the Christian Faith?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Experiment with Truth

Tndr4christ: I loved your post of the Fiddler on the Roof video. That made me laugh and smile. Thank you.

Andrewlittle: You asked me, "Okay, but to what tradition are you referring. The view that there has been ONE Christian tradition is as misguided as it is possibe to be."

The Tradition I am talking about is that which has been believed everywhere, at all times, by all. Those within the Tradition who have disagreed with aspects of this Tradition have been called heretics. And yes, these disagreements have resulted in bloodshed at times. But we all know the OneTradition I am talking about. It is easy to identify because it is the one Soulforce is trying to change.

St. Paul said in Thessalonians to "hold fast to the Traditions you have been taught, whether by word or by Epistle." This points to aspects of our faith beyond the mere written word. And this faith has continued in continuity and fullness from the time of Christ. To not hold fast and to change merely results in a "New Christianity" unrecognizable to that delivered to the Saints. This also results in further divisions as is evidenced by all the denominations in America. Which leads me to wonder, when does the "new" Christian Faith so differ with the original faith that it ceases to be the Christian Faith?

OK... I'm gonna take a stab. Catholic? Super-conservative, the Mass in Latin, "Vatican II was a travesty" Catholic. Am I right? How many points do I get if I guessed right?

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Experiment with Truth

Tndr4christ: I loved your post of the Fiddler on the Roof video. That made me laugh and smile. Thank you.

Andrewlittle: You asked me, "Okay, but to what tradition are you referring. The view that there has been ONE Christian tradition is as misguided as it is possibe to be."

The Tradition I am talking about is that which has been believed everywhere, at all times, by all. Those within the Tradition who have disagreed with aspects of this Tradition have been called heretics. And yes, these disagreements have resulted in bloodshed at times. But we all know the OneTradition I am talking about. It is easy to identify because it is the one Soulforce is trying to change.

Doesn't something strike you as - hmmm, let's see - irrational about this. Everywhere! All times! By all! And yet, there are those who don't believe this unnamed tradition. Evidently they have not been in any place, at any time, or been anyone. So anyone who disagrees with the tradition which you have yet to name is a non-person. If they are non-persons, what privileges or powers or authority does that give you over them - the right to condemn them to hell, or even to help them on their way?

And, for your information, we don't know what tradition you are talking about with the capital "T", else u-dog wouldn't be taking a guess. If it's so damn good and right, why the hell can't you name it? Does it take some special divine knowledge? Wouldn't that make it gnostic? Isn't that a heresy?

Name your Tradition, and give it some flesh on those weary, old, worn out, sun bleached bones. Quit talking code and get into dialogue.

As to the rest of your post it is meaningless if the tradition you speak of doesn't line up with the tradition Paul was discussing with the Thessalonians.

Why are so afraid, Experiment? What is it about your tradition that is so embarrassing that you can't name it? Don't be afraid - we're not animals, you know. We won't carve you up and tear you apart because we don't agree with you.