All Scripture is God-Breathed

"All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright. This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work."
- St. Paul, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, New Jerusalem Bible

2 Timothy is a dark letter. Compared to the rest of Paul's works, and to the New Testament in general, it is full of conflict, sadness, and struggle both inward and outward. There are moments when the glory of grace could not be brighter, but the most uplifting passages and stirring exhortations of 2 Timothy nevertheless presuppose a difficult road ahead.

In the midst of this comes a small section on "the sacred writings". Paul exhorts his protege to remain faithful to the scriptures and the teaching he has received on and from it. This bidding to hold fast to scripture is not without its urgency. "This is what you will need for the days ahead," says Paul. "And you are definitely going to need it."

Paul's tone, then, is somewhat foreboding. After all, Timothy and his Ephesian church are in a difficult situation to say the least, as is Paul himself. But these words are meant for comfort and assurance. Paul is here offering not merely an old friend's encouragement, but the key to Timothy's difficult task. The experienced apostle's point is that the scriptures are the foundation and means of Timothy's work, and they will not let him down, no matter how rough the road.

This point is driven home by a brief look at the overall context of the letter. Paul is on death row and, if the local heretics have their way, so is Timothy's church. Timothy's mentor and father in the faith has the opportunity -- the necessity -- to tell Timothy all that he needs to know, do, and have in order to build the Kingdom in this hostile environment. In this context his constant refrain is, Hold fast to the scriptures, for they are what you need; indeed, they are given by God Himself for this very purpose.

Here it must be noted that what many tend to read into v. 16 is simply not there; namely, a statement of the modern doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible. Such a doctrine, regardless of its accuracy, is simply absent from this text. Paul is here giving one long exhortation to courage, perseverance, and faithfulness in the thick of opposition; the furthest thing from his mind is the age of the earth and whether Jonah really spent three days in a fish's belly. Only if we read in our own notions of what "inspired" might mean can we find a claim here of Biblical infallibility as it is currently formulated. Paul's literal language, "all scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)", is an evocative, wonderful phrase for God's personal involvement in the creation of the scriptures, but it is far from being support, by itself, of this doctrine. There is much to be said on either side of this controversy, but none of it will be said here.

What, then, does Paul mean? He is clear about one thing: these scriptures are what you need. They give wisdom, leading to salvation (v. 15); they are our foundation and means for "refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright." They thoroughly prepare the agent of the Kingdom of God, so that he is ready to undertake and complete "any good work." Truly Timothy would have had a near-hopeless task in front of him had he not "the sacred writings".

What meaning can this have for us? Many of us still seek to answer this question within an overly modernist context. We know what the world needs, and that is good authority; we know what good authority is, and that is facts and laws; therefore the Bible is the source of reliable facts and laws.

Others of us are overly postmodern. We know what the world needs, and that is freedom; we know what freedom is, and that is choice and subjectivity; therefore the Bible must be the great affirmer of such things.

Both of these models, and others like them, assume much too readily that we know what the world needs. All of us alike exalt ourselves above the Bible, putting the scriptures into our own molds. In the words of N. T. Wright, "we have tended to let the word ‘authority’ be the fixed point and have adjusted ‘scripture’ to meet it, instead of the other way round." No one expects that what the world needs after all is the Bible; instead, we look for ways to make the Bible fit our own preconceived notions of problem and solution.

Paul would have us act differently. Paul's message to Timothy is that the Bible is profitable for thoroughly equipping the man of God, not because it is fact or law or timeless call to existential decision, but because by it "the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (v. 17) But Paul's message is not merely utilitarian. The Bible does not just happen to have this effect on and through the church, this is so precisely because all scripture is God-breathed.

Whatever the full meaning of this rich and beautiful phrase, it is the greatest reason we could have for taking the scriptures as they are. Perhaps this is impossible; perhaps we can never quite pull away from our own presuppositions. The question of whether we can ever actually get at the Bible without bringing a bit of ourselves into the picture, or even whether this is desirable, is not for now to decide.

What is clear is that this God-breathedness calls for a robust and vibrant praxis centered around the Bible. Liturgy and living, meditation and memorization, praying and preaching, reflection and research each play a role in building the Church's life on and around scripture. We must rush forward into this great and terrifying book God has given us, constantly working out fresher and more accurate ways of talking about and living by it.

...liberty and justice for all.

Ben highlighted how many cords of life intersect, inform, and influence each other. My first post at Cerberus is not quite religious, although the conclusions are hopefully from an increasing application of Scripture to my worldview, namely the distinction between Creator and creature, and the idea that all human beings are crafted in our Creator's image.

Last night, Republican nomination hopeful Ron Paul appeared on The Colbert Report, unlike several other candidates warned to stay away from the program. Stephen Colbert, who does his best to satirize and emulate Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly (whom Colbert affectionately calls "Papa Bear"), grilled the Texas congressman with the same battery of questions raised against anyone questioning Bush II's "War on Terror." Colbert insisted that traditional American freedoms should only be defended when Americans were free from terrorist threats. "I don't want to be free and dead!" Colbert argued.

Congressman Paul countered, "I want to be alive and free, and I think we can do that," and earned roaring applause from the audience.

Benjamin Franklin warned that "those who surrender their freedom for security deserve neither." I first encountered this statement in high school, before the September 11 attacks. After the War on Terror was underway, and the hideous PATRIOT Act was passed, not many dared to question whether the Bush regime had impaired American freedoms to protect them.

What Ron Paul hopes to do as a President is lead citizens into national security by taking seriously these crucial freedoms. He does not draw that imaginary circle around Americans and suggest that the truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to only citizens of the U.S., but to all other human beings. At the core of his platform, and of the libertarian philosophy of government, is the idea that peace is best preserved by using our rights such as free speech and self-determination and by respecting those same exact rights of other nations and and other peoples.

The United States, particularly in the Middle East, is guilty of abusing these sovereign principles of other nations. Paul recognizes that the interventionist policies of the last half-century have put our nation in a dangerous situation. At the center of most of these policies is a twisted self-interest that denies the same rights to others which we seek to protect for ourselves. The solution to these problems is not more of the same, but a return to the classic ideals of our founding fathers who recognized these truths.

In the early 1950s, Iran nationalized the various oil corporations in the country. Naturally, Great Britain and the United States were opposed, and in 1953 through a pair of coups, one failed and one successful, installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the Iranian monarch, the Shah. The official rhetoric for the coups was not economic, however, and Eisenhower continued Truman's ideas of "containment." The new Shah would be a safeguard against communism in that region. To ensure democracy, Pahlavi establish single-party rule and established government tests for any Muslim scholars hoping to become mullahs. The United States also collaborated with Pahlavi to aid him in developing nuclear weapons, thus expanding the anti-communist arsenal.

When the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1979-80, which was understandably hostile towards the former Shah and ousted him, Pahlavi fled to several countries. President Jimmy Carter ignored the Iranian demands for justice by providing him brief asylum and medical aid. In a completely unjustifiable, but understandable, move, Iranians took American hostages. The tortured Americans had their own freedoms violated by a nation which had endured nearly three decades of quisling governments denying rights of self-determination.

When Ronald Reagan became President in the 1980s, he did not change the fundamental tune of American foreign policy in the Middle East, but instead turned to a new ally, Saddam Hussein. The Reagan administration encouraged Iraq to go to war against Iran, which it did with help from the United States, including arms and the ability to manufacture more potent, unorthodox weapons. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were allowed to tour advanced weapons production sites.

It should be noted that most of the genocide committed by Saddam Hussein was committed during the presidencies of both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, or the twelve years from 1980 to 1992. The crime for which Hussein was executed, the gassing of 154 Kurds, occurred in 1982. In 1982, the Reagan administration dropped Iraq from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states so that American finances could work their magic. Sean Hannity, when he cross-examined Ron Paul about his negative comments about the Iraq war, at the same time suggested that the war was fought to bring a genocidal maniac to justice, that this maniac worked alone, and that he certainly worked against the interests of the United States government.

Only when Saddam invaded Kuwait and international pressure escalated did the United States turn against their former ally.

After September 11th, the United States invaded Iraq for reasons that are numerous and misleading, and all of which probably reveal that the current War in Iraq is unjust. That will be discussed perhaps later, perhaps not.

The past decades of political theater and statecraft have left one nation in shambles and our own nation disillusioned. In such times it is almost impossible to look towards an honest and hopeful future. But in such cases we should remember some of our favorite truths of the past. It is best for the safety of the United States and the liberty of its people that elected officials mind our nation's business and not meddle in the affairs of vastly different cultures and political situations. As you think about candidates for the 2008 Presidential race, see whether opportunist candidates would continue these bizarre foreign policies of intervention or the wisdom of peace.

Welcome to Cerberus

Have you ever met someone who has a Bible verse to legitimize every activity in which they engage? I have, and though I am loath to fall into such a category, I will risk it.

"A threefold cord is not quickly broken," says the Preacher of Ecclesiastes. Perhaps good old Solomon did not have quite this situation in mind, but a more interesting curiosity presents itself to my mind; namely, the irony of juxtaposing a scriptural quotation with the three-headed dog of Greek myth. It's something of a mixed metaphor, one might say, to apply the scriptural with the pagan so closely together.

As such, it is appropriate that this blog begin with such a paradox, as it is our conviction that Christian thought must always be brought to application, and even confrontation, with the world. As Stephen and Daniel have already forecast, this blog will not only deal with theology, not only with philosophy, not only with culture, but it it will deal with all of them together. It's our belief that this is not something strange or forced. Rather, they need each other in order to fully be themselves. What was that about a threefold cord?

Promisamos hablar inglés aquí, excepto cuando queremos paracer erudito.

Welcome to Cerberus!

Welcome to Cerberus. Much like a scholarly journal, Cerberus should be typed in italics while particular postings would be akin to articles, and thus in quotation marks. Remember that when you quote us for your next paper.

I'm looking forward to blogging with Stephen and Ben as I've enjoyed what they've written thus far. As Stephen said, most topics will focus on religion and theology, culture, and other social issues. The three of us, as far as I know, take seriously the idea that Scripture informs our worldview and our approach to anything we encounter. This isn't a particularly new idea to any of us, but it is still exciting and we hope that comes through in our writing.

We really hope you do leave comments. Hopefully this will be a place that fosters discussion, not hasty argument, and use of the heads that the good Lord set squarely on our shoulders.

Ich kann nicht italienisch.

Welcome to Cerberus

Cerberus is a collaborative blog authored by me, Daniel, and Ben. It will almost certainly deal with religion, theology, philosophy, social issues, and a myriad of other topics. As a collaborative blog, there will be a certain level of discussion-oriented content. However, the exact bounds of its content and mode of expression will become evident only as it takes shape.

I don't know how often we will be able to post, but having three authors should ensure fairly regular updates.

Comments are welcome from all readers. Involvement in the conversation is not limited to the three authors, but we are the only ones who get Cerberus heads.

"Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate."