ObstacleChick asked, “What did you learn about the Bible as a college student?” Specifically, ObstacleChick wants to know what I was taught about the origin of the Bible, the existence of “other” texts, and why the Apocrypha was excluded from the Protestant Bible. ObstacleChick also asked what I taught congregants about these things.
Most Evangelicals believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. The college I attended, Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan, believed the Bible was a divinely written, supernatural, one-of-a-kind book; a text by which all things were to be measured. My professors took one of two approaches to how the Bible came to be:
- God dictated the exact words of the Bible to its authors.
- God used fallible humans, with their cultures and experiences, to write the Bible, and supernaturally, through the Holy Spirit, made sure that what they wrote was exactly what he intended for them to write. (2 Peter 1:21)
Of course, appeals were made to the Bible itself to “prove” that the Bible was indeed what my professors claimed it was. In other words, the Bible was a supernatural book because it said it was; the Bible was inerrant because it said it was. There were no errors, mistakes, or contradictions in the Bible because its author, God, is incapable of making mistakes. This, of course, is classic circular reasoning.
These presuppositions were laws students were expected to obey without question. Questioning the nature of the Bible brought swift, certain expulsion. Midwestern was also King James-only, and only used certain Greek texts in its Greek classes. The premise upon which every class was taught was the belief that the Bible was inspired, inerrant, and infallible.
I can’t remember a time when one of my professors talked about non-canonical texts or variants. Many of my classes were little more than glorified Sunday school classes, a common problem found in Evangelical colleges to this day. The goal was to teach ministers-in-training how to properly preach and teach the Bible. The Bible, then, was viewed as a book of divine knowledge, an instruction manual for life.
The IFB church movement is inherently and proudly anti-Catholic. To many IFB preachers, the Catholic church is the great whore of Babylon described in Revelation 17; a false religion that will one day be used by the Antichrist to control the masses. Thus, the Apocrypha was rejected because of its inclusion in the Catholic Bible. It was not until much later that I learned the 1611 version of the King James Bible included the Apocrypha, and that many of the men who put together what is now the Bible were Catholics. Facts that didn’t fit the approved narrative were ignored or banned.
Most of the students at Midwestern came from Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) churches which had similar beliefs as those of the college. Thus, college classes reinforced beliefs students brought with them from home. The New International Version (NIV) came out in 1978, and students were not allowed to have a copy of it in their possession. Midwestern was a King James school — no corrupt, Satanic Bibles allowed. I remember having a discussion with the Greek professor’s son who was home on break from Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Missouri. He had a brand spanking new copy of the NIV. I remember thinking of how “liberal” he was, and that if word got out about his use of the NIV it could cost his father his job. By the next academic year, the Greek professor was gone. Rumor had it he was dismissed because he refused to toe the party line on the King James Bible. (Keep in mind the Greek professor was Fundamentalist in every other way — and still is today — but his refusal to use only the King James Version of the Bible branded him as a heretic.)
I carried the aforementioned beliefs from Midwestern into the ministry, and I wouldn’t question them for many years. I expected congregants to embrace without question the belief that the Bible was a God-inspired, inerrant, infallible text. At the churches I pastored, we were people of the BOOK! Questions and doubts were viewed as tools used by Satan to lead Christians astray and to render churches powerless. Alleged contradictions were “explained” and those that couldn’t be were relegated to the land of Trust God. He never makes mistakes.
It wasn’t until the late 1990s that I came to see that what I had been taught about the history and nature of the Bible was a lie; that all translations had errors, mistakes, and contradictions; that there were no such things as inerrant manuscripts. My exposure to higher textual criticism forced me to conclude that the Bible was very much a man-made book; a fallible book used by God to convey truth. I believed then that God could use human means to convey his truth, even if the Bible itself was fallible.
As far as the churches I pastored were concerned, I never said anything from the pulpit that would cause people to doubt that the Bible was the Word of God. Toward the end of my time in the ministry, I would mention variants in the Greek texts and why some Biblical texts might not say what we Christians have traditionally thought they said. No one seemed to have a problem with these admissions. As is often the case in Evangelical churches, congregants trusted me. They believed that whatever I told them from the pulpit was the Truth. Of course, the truth I was preaching was shaped and molded by my presuppositions about the Bible. Telling congregants the REAL truth would have resulted in conflict and loss of faith. Can’t have that! Remember, most people attend church so they can feel affirmed and have their felt needs met. No one wants a pastor who casts doubt on the Bible and its teachings. Congregants want cheerleaders, not truth-tellers.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
i wonder how fluent the professors were in the languages they were there to teach? it seems a little oxymoronic to learn a language (particularly an ancient language) from someone who doesn’t speak it too well… 😉 but maybe that’s the idea… or maybe they think it doesn’t matter…
I did NOT grow up in a family which forced Christianity. We were allowed to look at other religions. I am now watching a TV episode about the Northern Ireland troubles. After reading your entry, I can see how something like the “troubles” started. By the religious leaders, each side was trained to hate the “other” side. I do not want to completely get rid of religion, but is there not some way these religious groups can be made to pay for the hate they put in society? This has caused great harm to everyone
IMO all religious conflicts come down to the old saying, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”. In Northern Ireland, Catholics would probably say that the Protestant English invaded their country and tried to eradicate their religion and culture. The Protestants would say, “That was hundreds of years ago. Today we are just as ‘Irish’ as you are, and we deserve a seat at the table”. Who is right?
It’s very similar to the reasons fundamentalist Muslims give for what we call “terrorism”, but they themselves call, “Jihad”. It goes back to the humiliation many Muslim counties suffered during the colonial period by European Christian nations. Of course there seems to be a willing forgetfulness that at one point in history it was the Muslims who by and large were the conquering/colonizing force, which was actually more an active requirement of their religion. Of course if you express this point of view in the wrong setting you are accused of being, “Islamophobic”, similar to being called “Anti-Semitic” if you express disagreement with how the State of Israel conducts it’s affairs. You may also be accused of “what-aboutism” because you are bringing up everyone’s closet of horrors and not just one particular group’s closet. But in a way, this also (just my opinion) brings some equity to the conversations we need to have about all of these current religiously based conflicts,
Also, it is my own opinion that religious differences are sometimes just used to mask the good old fashioned human desire for revenge and conquest.
Maybe that’s a better place to start- addressing the human desire to demean, conquer and subdue the person who lives, thinks and believes differently from you. That has been carried out by many countries/civilizations, and not always for purely religious reasons.
It is fascinating to find out how little pastors teach their congregations about the behind-the-scenes issues in Christianity. A few of our pastors gave us bits of historical information but very little.
PRZXQGL–As someone who studied Latin for a time, I wonder how one would determine whether someone else is “fluent” in an ancient language. One can be proficient in reading, or even writing it–at least whatever versions have been passed down to us. But nobody outside the Vatican speaks Latin, and few have any occasion to write in it. And today’s Greek is, I imagine, different from that of the New Testament. Orthodox Jewish communities have faced similar issues with Hebrew: It was a dormant language for centuries until those communities started using it–and it became the official language of Israel.
As someone who grew up Catholic (but later became an Evangelical) I find it fascinating that people who believe the Bible is inerrant because it came directly from God also believe that KJV is the only “true” translation.
when you state that “nobody outside the vatican speaks latin, and few have any occasion to write in it”, you are mistaken. 😉