Ok, so I’m going to be heretical. Is having the ability to read a requirement to being a Christian? Is having a Bible a requirement to being a Christian?
What I’m struggling with is this: that until the invention of the printing press, Bibles were not readily available and the vast majority of people simply couldn’t get one. Both Calvin and Luther came from wealthy, educated families and would have had access to Scripture. But what about the vast majority who couldn’t? Did the printing press play as much a part in the Reformation as did doctrinal error? Was it impossible to be a good Christian if you were a poor farmer and couldn’t read or afford to own a Bible?
Just some questions I’ve been kicking around in my head.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 at 9:40 am and is filed under Original Articles.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
36 Comments(+Add)
I speculated awhile ago that churches might want to start using liturgies just because people don’t read like they used to, and a return to some of the practices prior to the printing press and mass literacy might be beneficial.
There are perhaps millions of Africans who are Christians who cannot read, have no Bible, and have no church to go to. The Scriptures can be communicated by mouth with a focus on explanation and not a particular translation per se.
There is a simplicity to Christ and any techings that are so complex that same farmer cannot understand them are probably incorrect. And if someone were to suggest that the truths that are revealed in the Scriptures are greater than the written Scriptures themselves, although still important, would he be considered an “heretic”?
The stake is waiting…
Why would litergy solve any problem? All those same people can hear can’t they. Faith comes by hearing.
I would guess that Tim is suggesting a return to some of the classical liturgical methods that involve more of a public reading of a portion of scripture.
Matt,
I have a friend (a CCU grad from the 70’s) who has made the exact same observation – that it was the printing press which fueled the Reformation, along with Wyclif’s translation into English (1383). These two events allowed ‘common men’ to read and understand the Bible, apart from the ‘official’ interpretation of the RCC church (which still does not encourage scholarship in the ‘layman’ today). With this ability to circumvent the church to read God’s word, discrepancies could not be answered between -doxy and -praxy, culminating in a great schism.
If we go back to the first century and the people to whom the gospel was first communicated (Jews, primarily of the hasidic tradition in Galilee), you had an audience which had the entire Torah (Genesis – Numbers), and in many cases all of the Hebrew Scriptures (which we call the OT) memorized. Even with our Bibles in hand, we are funtional illiterates, comparatively.
I find it a tragedy when I hear of churches (many of the Seeker-Sensitive persuasion) in which Bible reading, and bringing one to community gatherings, is an anomaly – or even discouraged. One thing I appreciate in my own church is that we have encouragements and programming which encourage our members to read through the Bible at least once each year (even though I’m weeks behind right now, much to my embarrassment).
That makes sense, but please, no incense!
Shua,
Yes, as well as recitations of some of the more basic confessions/creeds that sum up the heart of the gospel.
*waits to be called a neo-Roman emergent hollow man*
Of course one can be a Christian and be unable to read. Millions of Christians through the years have not been able to read. It does bring up some interesting things, though.
I think some Christians have a somewhat blurry view of Scriptural authority because of thinking of the Bible in it’s current printed form. I’ve asked people to explain why the Bible is authoritative, and most Christians say in all honesty, “because it says it is” – pure circular logic. I would say a better answer (overly-simplified here) would be that because it is the expression of who God is and what He has done, and what He is doing.
In John, when it says the Word became flesh, that doesn’t mean that the written words of the Scriptures were magically transformed. It means Jesus embodied perfectly all the thoughts, ideas, and qualities that God was revealing through Scripture. He was the perfect expression and image of God.
Anyways, back to the original question – I think we need to remember how important oral storytelling was to ancient people of the Bible. The stories in the Bible were most likely passed on from one person to the other orally before they were ever written down. That method of communication was used for a long, long time. I think that’s why the ancient church developed creeds. They were a compact and efficient way of communicating the message of the Scriptures that didn’t require people to read to understand them.
It seems that this is where we may have lost sight of the Holy Spirit and His role.
I agree that the public reading of scripture need be of importance in countries that illiteracy is rampant. Yet, I have heard stories of people who are illiterate, be it that they cannot read, or are blind have memorized huge portions of scripture.
Also this is the importance of relationship of Jesus in our heart and with others in your community of faith.
Blessings,
iggy
The fact that I have multiple Bibles in my home and can read them makes me wonder if God will hold me more accountable then the one who hasn’t had an opportunity to learn to read or own a Bible of his own. That is a frightening thing to think about.
Phil,
Just to add to yoru comment on oral transmission vs. written transmission – there have been a number of studies which have shown that community oral transmission, over time, is much more precise and effective a means of transferring a message without alteration. This is because the community, itself, holds the message in its collective memory, and if someone tries to alter it, purposely or accidentally, the rest of the community is able to correct the person.
Let us refine the focus somewhat, can telling and explaining the truth carry the same weight and anointing as quoting the verses? That is sometimes what is argued about using a paraphrase and not a literal translation.
Can an accurate paraphrase be used by God as effectively as a translation?
Rick,
I would say God can change people using the simplest paraphrasing or explanation. It all goes back to whether or not a person is willing to let the Holy Spirit change them.
I have seen people who can quote Scripture verbatim, but remain unchanged. I also know people who have somewhat limited knowledge of Scripture, at least in the theological sense, but it is easy to see that they know God.
I would say, as long as a paraphrase or translation isn’t trying to actively change or distort the meaning of Scripture, it has value.
I would dare to go so far as to state that, in many cases, an accurate paraphrase can be used at least as effectively as a translation, and in many cases more effectively.
When in conversation with someone, an accurate paraphrase can be more understandable and relatable than a direct translation – especially if that direct translation is in language foreign to the hearer (i.e., the KJV to almost every American). I do not discount God’s power to make the oft-confusing language of the KJV understandable to everyone, but neither will I discount God’s power to, through the Holy Spirit, speak through a person in words that were never decided to be “the translation” of scripture.
Rick,
1) I think an accurate paraphrase can be used as effectively by God as a direct (translated) quote.
2) I believe that a direct translation is the best foundation for study, rather than paraphrase. I would not substitute the latter for the former, though the latter may help illuminate difficult passages or help translate -doxy to -praxy.
Ah – in the context of witnessing/evangelism, I believe that accurate paraphrase is often preferable, because it takes the context/culture of the listener into account, rather than expecting the listener to alter their context/culture.
God can only use the scriptures in the original language.
Also, God is sovereign and all powerful.
Tim,
what?!?
“1) I think an accurate paraphrase can be used as effectively by God as a direct (translated) quote.”
Chris, you have fallen into my trap, you are officially now an heretic. Blog satire to follow.
I agree with Chris L. I would not advocate the use of a written paraphrase for study because I believe that there is simply too much room for an agenda (whether conscious or not) to creep in. Of course, there is also this problem with translations, but the goal of translation v. paraphrase works as a better check on this potential problem.
Just pointing out that if God is omnipotent he can use anything to bring the gospel to bear.
Tim, because you used the word “if” and, thus, left open the possibility that God may not be omnipotent, I will now call you a “neo-Roman emergent hollow man,” as you suggested earlier.
Oops, humor day is over, darn. By the way, where is the special sarcasm font?
I agree Shua (is that your name?). But let’s think about it more fully. How many people have commentaries? Sytematic theologies? Sermons (which are paraphrases)? I contend that the Holy Spirit uses much more paraphrase in different forms that we usually do not identify as paraphrse, then He does the translation which is a form of paraphrase.
We live in paraphrse unless you read the original manuscripts exclusively and reject other men’s opinions. MacArthur rejects baptismal regeneration and Sproul teaches it (or a form thereof). Both those opinions are paraphrases and let us remember that written doctrines are a collective paraphrase.
Rick: point, set, match.
I believe that I agreed with you that paraphrase is as effective, if not more effective, in most situations that a quotation from what we refer to as a “translation.” I do not discount the importance of paraphrase, and I like your description of written doctrines as “collective paraphrase.” As far as for studying, however, I think it is beneficial to begin with a “translation,” and then move to the others, which we are calling, as a whole, paraphrase – or, to coin a phrase and make things more interesting, “paraphrasical writings.”
The reason I think it is important to begin study, or have as the basis of in depth study, a “translation” is that, as you have agreed before, too often the “paraphrasical writings” are raised to the importance and infallability of scripture.
Like Rob Bell says (to paraphrase), “we have the Bible, and everything else is commentary.” It never hurts to keep in mind what is Scripture and what is interpretation.
And, to answer your initial question, my name is Joshua, but my friends call me Shua.
OK, Shua, now we know who you are. I love this post, it has gotten me to think more deeply about everything concerning the Bible. Can we accurately say that the blogs who adamantly adhere to written doctrines and claim that doctrine is the core of Christianity, that they are built on collective paraphrases?
Wow, that puts a whole new light on it doesn’t it? I wonder what Chris L. thinks about it.
“The Paradise of Paraphrase”
by Rick Frueh
A treatise on the refusal to admit that some are dwelling in the safety of man made paraphrases without engaging in the difficult work of continual refinement. Rick unveils the fear that immobilizes many upon accepted doctrines which is actually Scriptural laziness. Many are relying most exclusively upon the paraphrases of others, many dead without the ability to cross examine, and refusing to dig deep personally and engage in lively debate. It’s a must read for all serious Bible students.
Can I write one of those recommendations for the dust jacket —
“The most insightful investigation of the church’s overreliance on paraphrasical materials in recent memory. An instant classic. Guaranteed to invigorate the reader’s search into his or her core doctrines.” — Shua
“The Paradise of Paraphraseâ€
by Rick Frueh
Reviews:
**** Four stars! “The most insightful investigation of the church’s overreliance on paraphrasical materials in recent memory. An instant classic. Guaranteed to invigorate the reader’s search into his or her core doctrines.†— Shua
**** Four stars, I think this breaks new theological territory!
Chris Lyons
*** Three stars, It made me re-examine everything I believed.
Tim Reed
**** Four stars, I wish everyone would buy it!
Christine Frueh
No stars, it is nothing but a compost heap of anti-reformational dribble!
Ken Silva
No stars, another example of free will trash from the Inwardly Lion.
Jim Bulbitz
So a mixed bag on the book. Remember, all the reviews were paraphrases of men (and women)!
Rick…me thinks you have been couped up in that room for faaaarrrrrr too long!
LEAVE RICK ALONE!!
I would also like to concur on the starting with a translation to study, then going to the paraphrase. When studying I find myself comparing several different ‘translations’. (no doubt to make the bible say what I want it to say)…*said tougue in cheek*
Yes, Jimmy, I agree. But even then men paraphrase. John 3:16 says “world” and that is an accurate translation from the Greek. But men with doctrinal bias’s torture the world to fit their paraphrased perspecyive to mean something else than what is obvious.
The whole doctrinal melee is one paraphrase calling another paraphrase heresy. Is the Bible important, of course. But is it so unclear that the overall gospel revelation is debatable by impartial believers? No. But is there much paraphrasing on other issues that make into the orthodox vault? Absolutely.
And is the pride of man ever involved? Never…
**** If you have to read one paraphrase, it should be the one as Rick is my friend… but don’t hold that against him. ~ iggy
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Thank God for the Holy Sprit!
All blog and no play makes Rick a dull boy.
All blog and no play makes Rick a dull boy.
All blog and no play makes Rick a dull boy.
And Shua quotes from the plate of Lehigh!
ROFL! Have you been educating yourself from that South Park episode Chris linked to?
Was that reference even in there? either way…you are a stitch…are your meds really strong?
Thanks Henry Rick! I can go to bed with a chuckle in my soul!