IMPOLITE TOPICS

Welcome back!

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence?

Any consideration of the relationship between religion and politics in the United States must take into account that most churches, religious organizations, and ministers are tax exempt.

Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business. (“Churches and Religious Organizations:  Benefits And Responsibilities Under The Federal Tax Law” )

Now we come to another fine line. What is the difference between legal and illegal actions by religious organizations with tax-exempt status? This an important question, especially in an election year.

 
Political Campaign Activity

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Individual Activity by Religious Leaders

The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of church functions and publications, religious leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.  IRS “Tax Guide For Churches And Religious Organizations”

My intention at this point is to post this IRS material on the blog for future reference as we go farther into the political campaign.

For now, I will include two references to cases when Roman Catholic priests denied communion to church members.

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec’s support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Kmiec was denied communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, yet it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year’s presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights? (“Denied the Rite“)

In Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has ordered Ms. Sebelius [Governor of Kansas] also an Obama supporter, not to receive Communion after she vetoed abortion legislation riddled with constitutional red flags. The bill in question made it easier for prosecutors to search private medical records, allowed family members to seek court orders to stop abortions and failed to include exceptions to save the life of the mother. Along with many public officials, Ms. Sebelius recognizes the profound moral gravity of abortion. She has supported prudent public policies that have reduced abortions in Kansas by investing in adoption services, prenatal health care and social safety nets for families. But in his diocesan newspaper, the archbishop blasted the governor over her “spiritually lethal” message and her obligation to recognize the “legitimate authority within the Church.” (“Don’t Play Politics With Communion”)

In recent posts, I have been raising questions about the relationships between religion, politics, and the Bible by offering a series of specific, current examples of the collisions between political and religious beliefs.

Behind the specifics of any particular incident, lawsuit, political campaign, or religious organization, the basic challenge is this: the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that we must respect the rights of others whose religious beliefs and practices are different from our own.

It is also important to recognize that any belief about religion comes under the category of religious belief. Atheism is as much a religious belief as belief in God. (For a perceptive commentary on this point, see the comment by John Thomas.)

As our society continues to become more and more religiously, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse, this means that clashes between religion and politics will grow more and more frequent. The question then becomes a matter of authority. Which authority is the ultimate authority on such matters? Does religious belief trump federal law?  Or does Federal law trump religious belief?

I remember the 1960 presidential election when John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith was a major political issue, based on the question of authority:  Would John Kennedy abide by federal law or be obedient to the authority of the Pope?  

The basic question of authority has not changed, and applies to Roman Catholics who must decide if they are going to follow church teachings or federal, state, and local laws at the risk of being denied sacred rites.

The same question applies to evangelical Christians who treat the Bible as their highest authority. When there is a conflict, do they obey the Bible or the law? 

What happens when churches provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants against federal law, based on a claim that they are following a higher authority? 

Under Martin Luther King, Jr, the civil rights movement was fundamentally a proclamation that a biblical vision of justice carried higher authority than Jim Crow laws requiring segregation by race.

And since the question of Barack Obama’s faith continue to be the stuff of internet urban legends, with endless claims that he is really a Muslim and would take the oath of office on the Koran, what happens when a non-Christian is elected to political office? 

And if we are going to teach the Bible in public schools, are we willing to provide money to teach the Koran in public schools? Will we spend tax dollars to educate Muslims in private Muslim schools?

We might even add to the list, is it really possible for someone in the United States to run for President who claims to be an agnostic or atheist?

I don’t pretend to know the answers to such questions. I know only that religious and political beliefs can never be treated as if they inhabit separate realms. Like it or not, every religious question is also political and every political question is also religious. And in each case, the real question comes down to authority.

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence? This is the most impolite and the most difficult of the Impolite Topics.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: authority, Authority And The Bible, communion, Impolite Topics, IRS, John F. Kennedy, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, muslim, obedience, obedience to authority, political authority, politics, Roman Catholic, tax code, teach Bible in public schools

A recent decision by the United States Court Of Appeals Tenth Circuit raises significant questions about the relationship between religion and politics.

The question at issue was whether students at Colorado Christian College could receive scholarships from the State of Colorado.

In other words, should public money be used to fund private religious education?

This case raises the question: When does religious education stop being merely religious and start being “pervasively sectarian?”

The criterion in place has been the “pervasively sectarian” test. Students who attend private religious schools have qualified for public scholarships. However, the students at Colorado Christian College were denied public scholarship money because their college was deemed “pervasively sectarian.” As evidence, students are required to attend chapel and the faculty must sign a statement asserting the infallibility of the Bible.

On July 23, 2008, The Appeals Court ruled in favor of Colorado Christian College.

The State of Colorado provides scholarships to eligible students who attend any accredited college in the state–public or private, secular or religious–other than those the state deems “pervasively sectarian.” To determine whether a school is “pervasively sectarian,” state officials are directed, among other things, to examine whether the policies enacted by school trustees adhere too closely to religious doctrine, whether all students and faculty share a single “religious persuasion,” and whether the contents of college theology courses tend to” indoctrinate.” Applying these criteria, state officials have extended scholarships to students attending a Methodist university and a Roman Catholic university run by the Jesuit order. They have refused scholarships to otherwise eligible students attending a non-denominational evangelical Protestant university and a Buddhist university. Colorado Christian University, one of the two schools held pervasively sectarian by the State, contends that excluding its students on the basis of this inquiry violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court disagreed, and granted summary judgment in favor of the state defendants. We find the exclusion unconstitutional for two reasons: the program expressly discriminates among religions without constitutional justification, and its criteria for doing so involve unconstitutionally intrusive scrutiny of religious belief and practice. We reverse, and order that summary judgment be granted in favor of the university.

No. 07-1247, United State Court Of Appeals Tenth Circuit

Consider this decision in relationship to the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to offer elective classes in Bible in public high schools. “Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?”

In each case, public authorities have attempted to make a distinction between instruction and indoctrination.  According to the State of Colorado, state officials were supposed to:

• Examine whether the policies enacted by school trustees adhere too closely to religious doctrine.
• Whether all students and faculty share a single “religious persuasion.”
• Whether the contents of college theology courses tend to” indoctrinate.”

Notice the language. “Adhere too closely.” “Share a single religious persuasion.” “Tend to indoctrinate.”

How do public officials make such decisions? The court ruled that officials of the state of Colorado cannot use such questions to deny scholarship money.

The decisions in Texas and Colorado make clear that these are not simply interesting questions to debate. They are questions of public policy.

The ruling in favor of Colorado Christian College is just one more ruling in favor of religious schools to receive public money.

Last year, California’s Supreme Court upheld the rights of “pervasively sectarian” institutions to benefit from government programs that issue bonds on their behalf. Another federal appeals court, the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., sided with Columbia Union College in Maryland, a school affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church that had been denied access to a state bond finance program. The 6th Circuit in Cincinnati upheld bonds issued on behalf of Lipscomb University, a school in Tennessee affiliated with the Churches of Christ where students attend daily Bible classes. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state of Washington against a student who claimed discrimination because he couldn’t use a publicly funded scholarship to pursue a degree in theology. Religious Schools Win Again

Why does any of this matter? These are two current decisions, which are themselves part of a growing trend to blur the line between religion and politics. Any line between secular and sectarian is being slowly erased. 

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Colorado Christian College, Federal Appeals Court, indoctrinate, indoctrination, pervasively sectarian, public money, religious, religious colleges, Texas State Board Of Education

[This is the continuation of a series of posts beginning with "Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?" about the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to authorize the teaching of an elective course on Bible in public high schools. This decision brings to the surface just about every question imaginable about the relationship between religion, politics, and the Bible.]

“A professor of comparative literature at The University of Texas at San Antonio and an individual expressed concern that the guidelines for teaching of the Bible in public schools are too vague and allow for the possibility of indoctrination rather than instruction.”  Comments

This comment exposes the core dilemma behind the attempt by the Texas State Board of Education to teach the religious book called the Bible without teaching it as a religious book.

The unnamed professor of comparative literature assumes that it is possible to instruct without indoctrinating. This is the false dichotomy that complicates the effort to teach the Bible in public schools.

The line between instruction and indoctrination might seem clear enough at first, but when you begin to ponder what these words actually mean, the line blurs. The truth is that teaching is never neutral and the best teachers are the ones who are most aware that they themselves are not neutral about any aspect of their subject matter.

This idea that any teacher can instruct without being doctrinal is the false dilemma behind this effort to teach a foundational religious document as something other than a religious book.The only way that this effort can succeed is by acknowledging at the outset that it is impossible to teach the Bible neutrally.

Bobby: “Psssst. Don’t tell anyone. It’s our secret! There’s an elephant in the living room, but we’re pretending it’s not really there and it’s not really an elephant.”
Billy: “But it smells and it’s enormous!”
Bobby: “Just ignore it. Maybe it will go away.”
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info2/a/aa061197.htm

In various 12-Step recovery programs, the “elephant in the living room” is a metaphor for denial. As I ponder long and hard about the task of teaching the Bible in public schools, I can think of no better metaphor for the effort to teach the Bible for its history and literature while attempting to ignore that it is a religious book.

The beginning of a solution for the conundrum the Texas State Board Of Education has created is to stop pretending that the elephant will go away.

In fact, the Bible is a religious book. It is sacred to Jews, to Christians, and Muslims. Every religious group has its own doctrines about the book, but that is exactly the point. The Bible is as doctrinal a book as books can be.

So then the question becomes: How can anyone teach a religious book in public schools in a way that does not attempt to indoctrinate students into any specific religious understanding of the book?

Now we are getting into the tricky stuff. And this is where the quality of teaching becomes so critical.

Before we can consider the problems of teaching the Bible, we need to consider the problems of teaching anything. Let’s go back to the words “indoctrinate” and “instruct.”

In common speech, “instruction” sounds neutral and “indoctrinate” sounds biased, but when you go deeper, you realize that it is impossible to teach anything without being “doctrinal.” 

Let’s start with the words themselves.

• “Instruction” comes from the word “structure.” Instruction teaches something about the structure of a topic.
• “Indoctrination” comes from the word “doctrine.” It has the same root as the word doctor. A doctor teaches doctrine. Usually, “doctrine” refers to a body of teachings representing a specific set of beliefs.

As a teacher and student of language, I am fascinated by the concept of “in” as the prefix for both of these words.

• When you are “in-structed,” you enter “into” a specific structure of knowledge about a topic at the same time the structure of knowledge of that topic becomes part of you.
• When you are “in-doctrinated,” you enter “into” into a specific set of teachings (doctrines) at the same time the doctrines become part of you.

When you master a topic, the merging has become complete. The knowledge has become part of your “structure” and the “structure” of knowledge has become part of you. The set of teachings has become part of you and you have become part of the teachings. 

To put it another way, the set of doctrines has become part of your structure. “Instruction” has become “indoctrination.”

Even though this might be a bit too “woo-woo” here, my point is that the line between instruction and indoctrination is not as distinct as the professor of comparative literature implies. 

The Germanic root of the word “learn” is “to follow in the tracks of.” When you learn, you follow the tracks of a teacher who lays down a set of tracks for you. This means that there is nothing neutral about the teaching process. Every teacher has biases, points of view, and intentions as the teacher leads students “in” the way of mastery.

The major difference between good teachers and bad teachers is that the best teachers don’t pretend they are neutral and they are honest with their students about their lack of neutrality. They identity their own biases and they teach their students to recognize biases in themselves and others.

This is the art and science of teaching, whether the subject matter is the Bible, algebra, or English literature. And this is why the effort by the Texas State Board of Education is off track. It is trying to ignore the religious elephant in the living room that will not go away.

It is possible for good teachers to teach the Bible as a religious book without indoctrinating anyone into a particular religious point of view.

This will be the topic of my next post on this subject.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: indoctrination, instruction, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, teaching bible in public schools, Texas State Board Of Education

As a biblical scholar, I can’t go any longer in this “Impolite Topics” blog about religion, politics, and the Bible without mentioning the two most important words behind every post I write.

These two words are “exegesis” and “hermeneutics.”  

The academic world carves up areas of study. Long ago, the “Academy” made a fateful decision. Biblical scholars would do “exegesis” and theologians would do “hermeneutics.” Despite the big words, the difference means that biblical scholars would study the Bible to determine “what it meant” (exegesis) in the biblical era and theologians would take the results and tell people what “it means” (hermeneutics) in the contemporary world.

I am at home doing exegesis. I truly love words. My love for words carries with me a passion for precision in the use of language. (It also makes me unbeatable–so far–at Scrabble.) It also means that I have an ear for speech and pay attention to what people say and how they say it.

I have also developed a keen awareness of how religious and spiritual communities develop their own code languages, known to insiders but not immediately obvious to outsiders, unless you tune in on them.

I have never been as interested in the study of systematic theology. It’s too much abstraction, too much effort to fit concepts into a system, and not enough digging into the words, and what the words mean in particular texts to suit me.

And so, I am happy doing exegesis. The problem is, the division of labor between biblical scholarship and systematic theology isn’t working very well. The biblical scholars merrily study ancient texts without being too concerned about bringing their insights forward into the world of here and now. And the systematic theologians are too busy with their abstract systems to immerse themselves in what the Bible scholars could tell them about what it meant. And so biblical scholars write amazingly erudite books about the Bible that only other biblical scholars will read, and systematic theologians write books about systematic theology that systematic theologians read.

The scholar in me must immediately qualify these statements. I am speaking about tendencies, not hard-and-fast categories. There are notable exceptions of wonderful scholars who bridge the gap between the Academy and non-academic audiences. 

The practical result is that many of the books and articles about the Bible that reach the general public tend to be written by people who have not spent their lifetimes immersed in rigorous study of either Biblical exegesis or systematic theology.

So, exegesis–”what it meant”–and hermeneutics–”what it means”–are like two neighbors on the opposite side of a high fence at the top of a hillside.  Neither pays much attention to the other and whatever the other knows is not being passed through to the other side.

Meanwhile, the big game is being played in an arena far away down the hillside. In that arena, the people with the loudest amplifiers teach the Bible in ways that are superficial at best and deeply flawed at worst.

My first goal is to take what I know as a biblical scholar–an exegete–and make it real in the contemporary world as a hermeneut. (I didn’t make up this word. Hermeneuts do hermeneutics!)

The big game about religion, politics, and the Bible is too important to let the people with bad exegesis and worse hermeneutics dominate the discussion.  It’s long past time to bring solid exegesis of the Bible and responsible hermeneutics about the Bible into the public arena.

[These words are excerpted from the "About" page, which I just completed. I have laid out as clearly as I can who I am and my passion and my purpose behind "Impolite Topics."  Click here to read the whole "About" page.]

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson 
http://kalindarosestevenson.com/ImpoliteTopics/about

written by Kalinda \\ tags: biblical exegesis, biblical scholarship, exegesis, hermeneutics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson

What authority in your life is primary? Is it God? The Bible? The government? Some person? An organization? A business? Whom or what do you fear the most? Or to ask the question in a different way, what authority will you obey above all others?

Some Christian churches claim that the central theme of the Bible is salvation from human sin. But if you read the Bible carefully, you will see that salvation from sin is nowhere nearly as important a theme as the question of power. At its core, the Bible is a book about the use and abuse of power and conflicting demands for obedience to authority.

The Bible, taken as a whole, is a study in the relationship between God, government power, and personal obedience. It claims that God is the ultimate authority, but has mixed messages about whether or not human rulers are agents of God’s authority on Earth.

Most of the Bible stories are about these questions of power and the abuse of power and about authority and conflicting claims to authority.  I didn’t learn those Bible stories in Sunday School. Instead, I learned sweet stories about being nice and giving to the poor. Mostly, I learned that I was supposed to be obedient to established authority.

In fact, the stories about Jesus are fundamentally the stories of a man who was acting against the authority of the government with its government-controlled religion. Again and again, Jesus confronted the abuse of power by the religious/political power system. Yet my religious education was almost exclusively about teaching me to obey established authority without question.

For most of us, this is the essence of both religious and public school education. Our lives are one long experience of being told that we must obey some external authority. When we are small, ultimate authority is vested in our parents and teachers and the other big people in our lives. For children, God is just another big person to obey. The idea of God easily becomes a Santa Claus type figure in the sky who is watching to see if we are naughty or nice. 

The older we get, the more complicated the questions about obedience to authority become. We have traffic rules, IRS rules, homeowner association rules to obey. Every where there are rules to follow. Don’t walk on the grass. Don’t litter. Don’t park here. And sometimes the obedience to rules makes the difference between life and death.

I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War and the tremendous personal anguish involved in questions of obedience to authority. In the era of the wartime draft, the government claimed obedience as its right. If it drafted one of its citizens, that young man had no choice. He had to obey or face the consequences.

Military training is fundamentally an exercise in teaching people to obey authority, even at the cost of their lives. This is why there are ranks with visible insignia, and people are taught to salute signs of authority.

While my husband was an officer in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, we lived for three years on an Air Force base in Arkansas. We had a sticker on the front bumper of the car signifying that this was an officer’s car.

I used to drive on and off the base to go to work each day, and always felt a bit awkward each time the guard saluted as I drove back onto the base. Even then I thought it was odd. What was he saluting? I didn’t deserve the salute, because I was not an officer in the Air Force. He was told to salute a sticker. If intelligent people can be trained to salute a sticker on the bumper of a car, think of how powerful the forces of persuasion are to persuade people to kill as an act of obedience to authority.

This blog is named “Impolite Topics.” Most churches have their own list of impolite topics. For many churches, the most impolite of all the impolite topics is the question of power in relationship to the government. These churches tend to be mainstream, established, and practicing traditional religion. In contrast, churches made up of people who feel oppressed or excluded from social power are not so polite on the topics of religion and politics.  The topics of power and confrontation of government abuse of power are no longer impolite topics, but become central to the teaching of the church.
 
In my book, Going Broke With Jesus, I wrote about what Jesus said about money as part of his condemnation of the abuse of power by the government and temple system. One of these stories concerns the temple tax. Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:19-26 tell two versions of a story in which members of the political and religious establishment attempt to trap Jesus with a question about paying the temple tax with a coin with Caesar’s image on it.  Jesus answered with the words: ”Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.

If anyone has any idea that money is simply a matter of personal morality, this episode brings to the surface the relationship between religion and government. This is a story about taxation. But it is about more than taxation. It involves questions of authority on Earth. Do believers obey God or the government? Interpretation of this particular episode goes far beyond money. The Bible verse: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” is responsible for shameful moments in church history, when Christian churches kept silent while governments perpetrated atrocities.
Going Broke With Jesus, Chapter 9, By Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Religion, politics, and the Bible are completely interwoven with questions about authority and obedience. And so this is the fundamental question: What authority will you obey above all others?

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: authority, Authority And The Bible, Bible, God's authority, Impolite Topics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, obedience, obedience to authority, religion and politics, Vietnam War

This is the continuation of a series of posts beginning with “Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?” about the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to authorize the teaching of an elective course on Bible in public high schools. It brings to the surface just about every question imaginable about the relationship between religion, politics, and the Bible.

Although my crystal ball is a bit clouded right now, I predict that the effects of this decision will echo throughout the land in courts and school boards for years to come.

In these posts, I will raise questions, objections, and suggestions for the problems involved in teaching what I am going to call, “The Public Bible” in public schools.

The Board has chosen to name the courses:

“Requirements for Elective Courses in the Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament and Their Impact on the History and Literature of Western Civilization.”

Let’s start with the name.

Nothing about language is ever neutral, and this decision to refer to Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament is a demonstration of language that is attempting to tiptoe through a minefield.

What are we going to call the portion of the Bible that is not explicitly Christian, and is the whole Bible for Jews? The Board has chosen to divide the Bible into two parts named the “Hebrew Scriptures, with “Old Testament” in quotations, and “New Testament.”

Already we have tripped the first mine.

At this point, I have a story to tell about the first time I stepped on a landmine about the name of this portion of the Bible.

During my doctoral work, I met regularly with a woman who was both a Professor of Political Science with a Ph.D. from University of California at Berkeley, and a Roman Catholic nun, who lived in community with other nuns at the private Catholic university where she taught.

Sister Barbara not only taught college level political science, she also offered spiritual direction. And so, I met with Sister Barbara for almost two years. She was without doubt the most radiant, happiest, and wisest person I have ever met, and I loved her dearly.

At one point, she invited me to spend a weekend on a mini-retreat in the convent, which was part of the college. I slept in a room that reminded me of my college dorm room, took showers down the hall, and ate meals with Sister Barbara in the nuns’ section of the cafeteria.

Sister Barbara had told me that very few young women were entering the convent.  During one of the meals, I met a young woman who was the only new member to join the order in recent years. The new member turned out to be a Jew who had converted to Christianity and decided to become a nun. Not very far into the meal, I told her that I was a doctoral student in Bible at the Graduate Theological Union, with an Old Testament emphasis.

I was completely unprepared for the explosion that followed. The new nun became irate and began to lecture me. “It is not Old Testament. It is the Hebrew Bible.” And she declared that she was “sick and tired of Christians who call it Old Testament.”  As I sat there, pulling out the shrapnel, I mused over a converted Jew in a convent who lost her temper when I mentioned the “Old Testament.”

Since then, I have heard many people argue for one name or another. Although I have never attended a meeting of the Texas State Board of Education, I can imagine many heated discussions over precisely this question.

“What do we call this section of the Bible?  If we call it “Old Testament,” we will offend many Jews. If we call it “Hebrew Bible,” we will offend many Christians.”

Let’s just look at the traditional Christian designations of “Old Testament” and “New Testament.” What does this mean?  Why old and new?  The simple answer is the old has been superseded because it was somehow deficient. If we add this to the idea that is prevalent in Christian churches that the Jews are part of the old covenant, this means that the old law that has been replaced by the new covenant, defined by grace instead of law.

So, out with the old!  In with the new!  They have the old stuff. We have the new stuff. But we really don’t want to offend Jews with the idea that their sacred book is “old” and needs to be replaced by something “new.”   

All of a sudden, “Old Testament” and “New Testament” are no longer simple historical designations. They are theologically loaded categories.

So, what do we do? One solution is to use the name, “Hebrew scriptures.” This seems like a good solution. Now we are not using a value judgment to identify this portion of the Bible

Since all of the books were written in Hebrew (with a few words and sections in Aramaic here and there,) let’s call the Bible the “Hebrew Scriptures” so that Jews will not be offended.

But then logic asks, is “Hebrew scriptures” really a parallel construction to “New Testament?” And if we are going to keep using the term “New Testament,” aren’t we still claiming that somehow this is the new and better covenant?

Here is another question–which I doubt came up in the discussions. If we are going to use language to designate the first part of the Bible, why not use language to designate the second part? Why not “Hebrew Scriptures” and “Greek Scriptures?” Now there is no value judgment about which is better. Both are simply referring to the original language. Yet, somehow, most Christians would probably ask, “Where is the idea of new covenant?  What happened to the “new” testament?”

And here’s another question. Why are they “Hebrew scriptures” in the plural, but the Christian portion is a singular “testament?”

I haven’t even asked all the relevant questions yet, but I will end for now with this suggestion.  As Bob–my friend from doctoral work who always started every conversion with a joke–put it, “What we have is the “Bible” (Old Testament) and the “Appendix” (The New Testament.)  By the way, Bob is now a New Testament Professor at a public university. This tongue-in-cheek suggestion acknowledges that there is a whole more Hebrew Bible than Greek Bible.

Here we are, not even past the name of the course, and we have already hit the first minefield. What shall we call the “The Public Bible?”

So far, the efforts of the Texas State Board of Education to name the course have raised more questions than answers.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Hebrew Scriptures, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, New Testament, Old Testament, public bible, teaching bible in public schools, Texas State Board Of Education

Religion, politics, and the Bible come together in the question: Should the Bible be taught in public schools? 

Broadly speaking there are three answers to this question.

• The first is a definite “NO.” The state has no business teaching religion and religion has no place in schools paid for with public money.




• The second is a definite “YES.” Public schools have no right to “ban the Bible” from the majority of the Christian population. Teaching religion in public schools is essential to educate a morally upright population.




• The third is a definite “YES with qualifications.” This position argues that the Bible is an essential part of our own history and culture. Study of the bible is necessary to understand literature and art, as well as the religious roots of our own history and government. However, the Bible must be taught “neutrally,” without bias for or against any religion.

As a prime example of the third position, the Texas State Board Of Education has approved an elective course about the Bible in the state’s public high schools.

What is striking to me is how hard the Board is trying to walk the tightrope of the third position, by acknowledging that the Bible has been an essential part of Western history, at the same time it attempts to lay out guidelines for teaching such a course that do not violate state and federal law. See “General Meeting.”

Here is: “Requirements for Elective Courses in the Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament and Their Impact on the History and Literature of Western Civilization.”

The notes about the meeting also include  Summary of Comments about the proposed courses.

The proposed Bible courses raise significant questions about the connections between religion, politics, and the Bible. 

This course, and the comments about it, demonstrate the challenges of teaching a religious book without being religious about it in a society that is not supposed to promote one religion over another.

This is the dilmma that we face.  The Texas State Board of Education is attempting to meet that challenge head-on.

In my next post, I will make some comments about these course requirements and the comments.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, Bible in public schools, religion and politics, religion and the Bible, Texas Board Of Education

One of my most vivid memories from my first days as a seminary student was of the New Testament professor who stood at the front of the lecture hall, waving a book with a red cover.  The book was the United Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testament. It is a version for serious scholars, with dense textual notes about variant manuscript traditions.

The professor was a man given to flamboyant gestures (and was also the single most important reason why I chose to become a biblical scholar.) As he waved the book, he declared:

 ”This is the New Testament.  Everything else is a translation.”

It’s true.  Every Bible published in English (or French or Spanish or Russian or Tagalog or Mandarin or any other language on the face of Earth) is a translation from manuscripts written in ancient languages, such as Greek, or Hebrew, or Latin.

If I had my way, every Bible published in any language would be required to have this warning emblazoned on the front cover. 

“Warning:  THIS IS A TRANSLATION. Use with caution and humility, because translators often miss the point.

Translators often miss the point because translation is the result of a complicated process, with so much room for errors and distortions at dozens of steps along the way.   

The first problem concerns the manuscript itself.  The finished document can never be better than the original document.  In the case of the Bible, there are a wide variety of ancient manuscripts behind various translations.  In the case of the King James Version, the translators used the best manuscripts available at the time. More recent translations are based on manuscripts that were discovered long after the King James translators did their work.

The second problem concerns the original language.  Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew are dead languages, which means that translators attempt to translate ancient words they may not understand.  Every once in a while, a scholar will stumble upon some ancient document that explains a mysterious word that no one quite knew how to translate.  (This is part of the problem with translations of 1 Timothy 2:12, where “authority” is used to mistranslate an extremely rare Greek word.  I’ll definitely return to this topic in a later post )

The third problem concerns the modern language. We all have heard about something being “lost in translation.” The challenge of any translation from one language to another is to convey the original intention of words in one language into the same meaning in a new language. 

Living languages are dynamic.  As I pointed out in “Is Godspeak A Biblical Language?” , the English spoken in 1611 was dramatically different from English spoken in 2008.

So the challenge is to translate words from a dead language into a dynamic living language, using the best manuscripts available, in a way that accurately conveys the sense and intention of the original words in a way that is consistent with contemporary language. This is not an easy task.
 
So, what about the “thou” language of the King James Bible, especially related to the Lord’s Prayer?

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Mt 6: 9-13, King James Version.)

In the King James version, God is addressed with “thou” language. After four hundred years of usage, this “thou,” “thee,” “thy,” and “thine” language is deeply imbedded in Christian usage, as conventional elements of Godspeak. 

However, in modern speech, no one uses “thou,” “thee,” “thy,” and “thine,” except in wedding ceremonies when relics of King James English remain in the exceedingly odd grammatical construction, “I thee wed.”     

My first question is: Does the Lord’s Prayer in Greek use a distinct set of pronouns for prayer?

In other words, does Biblical Greek require “Godspeak” as the language of prayer? The short answer is: No. There is only one second person singular pronoun in Greek. The Greek New Testament has no separate pronouns for God.

So, where do “thou” and “thee” come from and why are they in the King James Bible? To answer this question, we need to take a little trip into the history of English.

English and German are cognate languages. That means they share a common Old German ancestry. German has distinct pronouns for “you,” depending on whether “you” is singular or plural, and on the closeness of your relationship with the person identified as “you.”

English used to make similar distinctions. ”Thou” was the pronoun of familiarity and “ye” was the pronoun for formality. (For more, see “Thou.” ) 
 
When the King James translators got to the Lord’s Prayer, they had a translation decision to make. Even though biblical Greek does not have distinct second personal singular pronouns, King James English did.

One of the goals of the translators was to use simple, clear, contemporary English. In addition, the context of the “Lord’s Prayer” in Matthew 6:9-13 is Jesus’ instruction to his disciples.  He is teaching his disciples how to pray. The sense of the instruction is that Jesus is telling them to use simple, direct language.  

In other words, “thou” is the language of intimacy and closeness. “Ye” is the language of formality and distance. So the King James translators used “thou” language rather than the formal “ye.” This was a theological decision based on what they understood about the prayer and the particular challenge of translating that prayer into meaningful English.

What happened next?  English changed, but the words did not. No one uses “thou” in ordinary speech. What I find particular fascinating is that the only second person pronoun in contemporary English is “you,” derived from the formal “ye.” This means that “you” can refer to your closest friend and your worst enemy, and is both singular and plural. In other words, the formal “ye” has turned into the all-purpose, one-size-fits all pronoun “you” of contemporary English. 

In the process, the language of intimacy in the King James Bible of 1611 became the language of formality in the King James Bible of 2008. The common speech of ordinary people turned into the formal, stuffy, archaic language of Godspeak.

King James translators used “thou” to convey the essence of the teaching they thought Jesus intended: ”You don’t need special language to pray.”

But as English changed and the King James translation remained stuck in time, this liberating insight has been turned on its head. To many people devoted to the King James translation, prayer to God requires its own formal language.  In other words, when you pray, you must invoke God in the archaic language of Godspeak.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: 1 Timothy 2:12, Bible translation, Godspeak, Greek New Testament, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, King James Version, Lord's Prayer, thou

“Words are static.  The world is dynamic.”
Dr. Ben Mack

I am a fan of crossword puzzles.  Occasionally the New York Times Crossword will provide a clue for a “biblical” word. The correct answer will be something like “shalt” or “hath.” Although I don’t get too annoyed by clues in crossword puzzles, every time I see this, I see it as a perpetuation of the idea that the King James English is authentic biblical language in a way that ordinary English of the early 21st century is not.

Instead of calling this type of language “biblical,” I am going to call this “Godspeak.”  Godspeak is a unique and strange language, spoken only inside certain churches and used on the pages of the King James Bible. 

In other words, King James English is “Godspeak.” Along with the idea that the “Authorized” King James Version is somehow the official “Word of God,” King James English has been endowed with the idea that it is somehow the official language of God and all business dealing with God must be conducted in Godspeak.

Godspeak has its own rules of grammar and its own distinct vocabulary.   Here are the first two rules of Godspeak.

Rule #1.  When you pray, you must use a certain set of pronouns to refer to God and anything belonging to God: thou, thee, thy, thine.
So, when you pray the Lord’s Prayer, you pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.”
 
Rule #2.  You must use odd verbal constructions, such as “shalt,” “wouldst,” “doth,” “hath,” or “art.” So you pray to “Our Father who art in Heaven.”  You learn that “Thou shalt not kill”

The question I raise is this: Is Godspeak a biblical language? Certainly, Godspeak occurs throughout the King James Bible, but does that make Godspeak biblical? In fact, what the New York Times Crosswords calls “biblical” language is neither more nor less “biblical” than contemporary English.  

Let’s consider the English of the King James Version. The King James Bible was a remarkable linguistic accomplishment for many reasons. (My problems with the King James Version concern the way it is used in the contemporary church.  I stand in awe of the translation itself.)  

Among his other talents, James was a Bible scholar who worked on his own translations. When he commanded that a group of scholars create a new English translation, he had several purposes. 

He wanted to replace The Geneva Bible, which was the Bible of the Protestant Reformation, with a version that was friendlier to the Anglican Church and reinforced his authority as head of the Church of England.

He also wanted the Bible translated into common speech–the vernacular–so that ordinary people could read it.

Just in passing–this is the same motivation that led Martin Luther to translate the entire Bible into his own regional German dialect in the 1530s and in the process, set the stage for his dialect to become standard “High German.”

So, the goal of the translators was to use the common speech of the time. It was not elevated speech.  It was not fancy speech.  It was not the speech of the aristocracy.  In 1611, the King James Bible was written in the ordinary English of ordinary folks.   

(Coincidentally, Shakespeare was still writing his plays when the King James Bible was published.  Shakespeare wrote his plays from approximately 1587 to the year of his death, in 1616. Shakespeare also wrote in the common speech of his time.)   

Meanwhile, four hundred years have passed. English is a dynamic, living language.  As I recently heard Dr. Ben Mack say so succinctly, “Words are static.  The world is dynamic.”  The words on the page of King James Bible are static, but the meaning of the words has changed as the world has changed around them. 

Often, people will argue that the King James Version is so elegant, so beautiful, so refined, that putting the words into ordinary English would not sound “biblical” enough.

And that is exactly the point.  The ordinary speech of the 17th century has become a relic in the 21st.  No one uses “thou” and “shalt” in ordinary speech. This means that the ordinary speech of the King James Bible has become the elevated language of Godspeak.

Despite the fact that Godspeak occurs in the King James Bible, Godspeak is not inherently “biblical.” In the next post, I will demonstrate why using Godspeak to pray the Lord’s Prayer dramatically changes the original intention of the prayer.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Ben Mack, biblical language, Geneva Bible, Godspeak, King James Version, Lord's Prayer, Protestant Reformation, translation of Bible

At this point in the presidential election campaign, John McCain’s candidacy depends on two salvation stories. The first story is of John McCain, prisoner of war. The second story is of John McCain, born-again evangelical.

We all know the first salvation story. John McCain, Navy pilot, was saved after five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

It’s the second salvation story that could easily tip the balance between success and failure. What is this story? It is the story of the moment when he was born again.  But John McCain has not told this story, leaving evangelicals to wonder if he is really one of them. 

The article, “McCain Hasn’t Ignited Evangelicals’ Passions,” refers to the enduring doubts evangelicals have about John McCain.

Stirring her morning coffee, lifelong Republican Grace Droog voiced her doubts – and those of many evangelical voters – about what she isn’t hearing from John McCain in this year’s presidential election.
“I look for something about his faith,” she said. “It’s very important, it’s what our nation was founded on.”
Her pal Joan Rens nodded; she, too, wants McCain to talk about his religious beliefs. “I wish he would so we would know how he stands on his religious views and where his faith lies,” she said.

These two women are saying that they want to hear something from John McCain that they are not hearing.

Compare this to the last election, when these same evangelical voters were wildly enthusiastic about George W. Bush.

“George Bush has a very compelling personal story, a very compelling religious experience and in their hearts they believed he was a man who loved the same Lord they did,” said Zylstra. “They might not agree with all his policies, but they trusted him that when the chips were down, he would do the right thing. McCain is not a man who incites the same passion.”

What is the salvation story difference between George Bush and John McCain?  Bush made clear that he has a born-again salvation story, even if he didn’t tell the whole story. In contrast, if McCain has a born-again salvation story, he has not told it. And this is the real missing piece for many evangelicals.

The idea of a dramatic salvation story goes back to the Apostle Paul. As Saul, he persecuted the early Christian church, until he was knocked down in a blinding salvation experience.

Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. (Acts 9:3-9, New Revised Standard Version.)

Paul’s experience is the gold standard of born again experiences. A blinding flash of light. Knocked to the ground. A voice from heaven. Stricken blind. Speechless. This is what a real born again experience is supposed to be like.

In certain segments of the evangelical world, people will ask:”When were you saved?” They expect you to tell a specific story of a specific moment in time when you had your own Damascus road experience. They want to know when you were you struck with the sudden recognition that you were a sinner in need of salvation.

I have heard many salvation testimonials in churches. The more dramatic the better.  I have also seen people doubt whether or not they were really born again because they never had “a-blinding-light-on-the-Damascus-Road-type” of experience.

This is the reason why “Amazing Grace” has become the unofficial hymn of evangelicals, as they identify themselves as “wretches” who were saved by the grace of God.

The author of the hymn, John Newton, had his own Damascus Road experience worthy of Paul. He was a Christian sea captain, involved in the slave trade, until the time he thought his ship would sink in a powerful storm.  He prayed and was saved.  He repented his role as a slave trader and  become a prominent clergyman. 

Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav’d a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

‘Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev’d;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believ’d!

Thro’ many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
‘Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promis’d good to me,
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

“Amazing Grace,” by John Newton

In contrast to John McCain, George Bush has a compelling evangelical story. Bush is a master at speaking in evangelical code language, with sufficient hints about his pre-Damascus Road days.  When he spoke of his faith, evangelicals understood. “George is one of us. He has been saved.” 

But John McCain has not even hinted at a born-again experience and this is the fundamental reason why evangelicals have not embraced him as one of their own.

The real irony in all of this is that few of us have ever endured anything like John McCain’s five and half years of imprisonment as a prisoner of war. The fact that he is alive and running for president is a testimony to salvation, but this is the not the kind of salvation story that evangelicals want to hear.

Whatever anyone says about judges, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, or any of the other hot button topics for evangelical voters, the real issue for many evangelicals is that John McCain has not told his born-again salvation story. This means they don’t know if he is one of them.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Amazing Grace, born again, Damascus Road experience, election, George W. Bush, John Newton, prisoner of war, salvation