It is a common accusation. "All you Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible you'll agree with." Or something similar. Sometimes it's more pointed. "You conservative Christians cherry pick what you'll follow." Other times it's more general. "Everyone does it." But it's out there and it's a given. Or is it? As I always like to ask--on either side of a claim--is it true?
I find these days that it gets harder and harder to respond to accusations, whether someone agrees with me or disagrees with me, because it is harder and harder to tell what they mean. What is meant by "pick and choose"? What does that indicate? The dictionary says it means "to choose very carefully from a number of possibilities; to be selective." But that doesn't really help in the case of the accusation. What possibilities and what selection? The first notion I think of is, "You pick out passages in the Bible to agree with and you pick out passages of the Bible to ignore." That is, "There are many possible rules and beliefs, but you only select the ones you like." That's the one we think of, but that may not be it. It may be, "You don't approach the Bible as 'linear', so to speak. You take some of it at face value and some as poetry and some as proverb and some as parable and so on." That would surely be a possible definition for "pick and choose". "You carefully examine a text to determine what kind of text, context, historical surroundings, audience, and all are in view and then read it in that sense." I'm pretty sure, though, that this is not in view in the accusation.
I can't speak for everyone ("Everyone does it."), but I can speak for the vast majority of people I've known. I know of no serious Christian who consciously picks rules or beliefs they like and discards rules or beliefs they dislike to determine their Christianity. I'm sure it happens, but I wouldn't classify those who do it as serious Christians. What I do and what those who I know do is to read the Bible with the notion that it is the Word of God. It is God-breathed, correct at every point, coherent, and true. As such, I expect and look for a continuity of thought and principle, of law and doctrine, of, well, of Christianity. If something appears to contradict something else, I don't marginalize it or set it aside. I try to see where I've missed it and where it makes sense. I correct my thinking, not God's.
If I find an optional theory about a particular text that suggests God was wrong, I discard it. If that's "pick and choose", I'm guilty. If I find two passages that appear to contradict, I come to a conclusion that would align them. If that's "pick and choose", I do it. I try to maintain a coherent worldview and, thus, a coherent biblical understanding, setting aside irrational positions. If that's "pick and choose", I admit it. I read an historical narrative as historical narrative and prophecy as prophecy and poetry as poetry and parable and proverb as parable and proverb and hyperbole as hyperbole. If that's "pick and choose", I pick and choose. But if the accusation is "You pick out passages in the Bible to agree with and you pick out passages of the Bible to ignore," I'm going to have to call you on it. I know of no place where I discard anything. Do I still make sacrifices in the Temple? No, Jesus fulfilled that. Is that "discarding Scripture"? No. His sacrifice is ever before the Father, better than any human version with lamb or bull could ever be. I embrace it. If I don't follow commands given to Abraham (like "sacrifice your son") because they aren't commands given to everyone, is that "pick and choose"? I don't think so. The command was not to me. If I don't follow instructions given to national Israel such as the death penalty for adulterers or for wayward children, is that "pick and choose"? I don't think so. The command was not to me. If I make a coherent message from the Bible which would include history and science and doctrine and commands and even time, is that "pick and choose"? I don't think so. It is simply reading God's Word for God's purposes to come to God's conclusions. If I agree with God's moral code but don't follow ceremonial cleansing rules, is that "pick and choose"? I don't think so. Commands given to a people warned to "be ye separate" from the world around them that were not given to non-Jews for that purpose don't apply to ... non-Jews (Acts 10:1-16; Acts 15:1-21). That's not "pick and choose". It is coherence.
But, as I said, given the difficulty of understanding the intent of words and phrases these days, I can't say. Maybe all those things I described are "pick and choose" by the definition chosen by the accuser. Maybe the only way to avoid such an accusation is to take a flat view, observe everything in it, and arrive at an incoherent, inconsistent, irrational view. Maybe that is the only acceptable approach. But that would reflect badly on God, wouldn't it? And that would just make me one of them, wouldn't it?
2 comments:
It's funny how this accusation pops up when one is confronted with one's chosen behavior. It is argued that the person who calls another on that other person's chosen behavior is focusing on that behavior to the exclusion of any other. Silly. Why bother with other bad behaviors when addressing a specific bad behavior? To remind another of the sinfulness of a behavior, particularly one that is put forth as moral or morally benign, has absolutely nothing to do with other behaviors not in question. If Bob is cautioning Phil about falsifying an insurance claims report so as to have costs covered by the insurance company, what does that have to do with Bob's position on mixing fabrics? Is Phil's behavior prohibited by Biblical teaching or isn't it? Isn't that the only question relevant to Phil's intention? Or perhaps because Bob fails to perfectly reflect Scripture in his own life, does that also have any relevance to what Phil is doing, particularly since the issue on the table is Phil's fraud?
The "picking and choosing" accusation is an attempt to direct attention away from the bad behavior in question. It is similar to the "judge not" ploy in that it is meant to mitigate one bad behavior by redirecting attention toward another. Yet, if one is indeed "picking and choosing", how does that possibly mitigate the sinfulness of the behavior in question? What difference does it make to the sinfulness of the behavior?
I think the underlying accusation of "pick and choose" is that since some of it isn't "chosen" to be valid, none of it is valid, so none of it should be taken as more than a long story.
Post a Comment