Joseph, Part 1: You Can Believe What You Read

I don't think I've gotten very personal in any of my posts yet, meaning I haven't said much about myself beyond what I think about a particular issue. So this post will be a little different in that regard.

I have two great children, a ten-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old son, and the three of us are all preparing for a community theatre production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat." As a preacher (and the dad of an actor or two) as well as an actor, I try to consider not just how "fun" a show is, but what messages it sends. "Joseph" is definitely a fun show that tells the events of Joseph's life reasonably close to what is recorded in the Bible. But I do have some areas of contention, which I am going to write about as a series of posts.

This first concern is a line that is not in our musical score, so our production won't be including it. But it was in the 1992 Canadian Cast Recording soundtrack featuring Donny Osmond as Joseph. The line is spoken by Potiphar as an aside as the Narrator and he describe himself and his wife. The Narrator sings, "Potiphar was cool and so fine," and Potiphar continues, "But my wife would never toe the line." The Narrator points out that, "It's all there in chapter thirty-nine of Genesis," to which Potiphar speaks, "Don't believe everything you read, dear."

So, obviously, as one who believes that the Bible is what it claims to be - the Word of God and truthful throughout - I have a little problem with this statement. Some would argue that the Bible contains the Word of God, and thus Potiphar's statement would be valid. Others would contend that the Bible is just a book written by people trying to understand God or their world and no different, no more accurate, than any other book ever written, and from their perspective Potiphar's statement would also be correct. But that is not what the Bible says about itself. Even as the Bible grows from the first five books of Moses to including the prophets, the books of wisdom, etc., it is consistently referred to as the Word of God, with all the unquestionable authority that implies. This web page does a pretty good job of defending whether the Bible lives up to that description of being the Word of God, saying many of the things I would bring out plus others I didn't know.

I understand that this little aside by Potiphar may be a reflection of Potiphar's character more than an attempt to make a statement. But I think it very much does make a statement, very lightly so it will not immediately offend. And that is just the kind of statement we have to watch out for - lightly, even humorously made, stuck innocently in the middle of a fun little song our children enjoy singing.

God Helps Those Who Help Themselves

That's got to be in the Bible, right? Actually, no, it is nowhere to be found in the Bible. But many people quote it as if it were. And so Representative and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently has helped herself to creating her own personal additions to the Bible. According to this article, for Earth Day she "quoted" (or at least paraphrased) the non-existent Scripture, "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us." Funny, I just don't remember that one. And she couldn't be bothered with a pesky thing like a Scripture reference. But apparently it is one of her favorites, as she has quoted it on several occasions.

It's one thing when the Enemy attacks the words of Scripture, but quite another to attempt to discredit the Bible on the basis of things that aren't even in there. By the same token, even when we quote Scripture that is actually in the Bible, we must be careful to not quote it in such a way that we make it say what it truly does not mean in its context. Those of us who hold God's Word in its proper high esteem should guard its meaning as well as its words.

Interestingly, one of the interviewees for this article was Claude Mariottini, who was my Old Testament teacher in college.

A Winner This Week One Way or Another

The leading contender for the worst theological statement of the week by a politician (a category that isn't all that hard to find nominees for) is Senator and presidential hopeful Barack H. Obama. He actually has two contenders in one speech made Sunday in Ohio according to this article or this one, but I'll only deal with one. In defending his view that same-sex unions should be a legal right regonized by the state from a Biblical basis, he "would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." First of all - huh? (For those of you looking for profound intellectual discussions, that last statement may feel a little like shopping for an engagement ring in a bait-and-tackle shop. But sometimes people say such outlandish things that for a few seconds at least, the only response anyone can make is, "Huh?") Where exactly in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus address same-sex unions? Was it the part where Jesus said that He didn't come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them and not one little part of a letter of them would pass away until heaven and earth disappear? No, that can't be it, because that would involve things like Leviticus 18:22 that explicitly forbid homosexuality. Was it where He went on to discuss those Old Testament ideas of forbidding murder and adultery and dealing with divorce and oaths? That can't be it either, because rather than declare how we've all moved beyond those Old Testament ways of thinking, Jesus taught that we need to practice these commands more thoroughly by subjecting our thoughts and not just our actions to the Lord and His commands. So if anything, Jesus was saying that passages like the one from Leviticus mentioned earlier should not just be obeyed in action but in our thought life as well. Oh, maybe it was the "don't judge" part. That's a favorite one, right? Except that to make that apply to homosexuality, which is expressly forbidden, wouldn't we also have to apply it to murder, adultery, and all those other expressly forbidden things? But if we do that, if we cannot judge any actions taken by others as wrong, we make Jesus contradict Himself, the Sermon on the Mount loses its power, and we have no basis for any law.

But second, in what way is a passage from one of Paul's most impressive letters "obscure?" It is likely that Obama was referring to Romans 1:26-27, and those two verses are neither mired in a problematical context nor worded in a convoluted manner. Paul's words are straightforward, condemning those, both male and female, who are practicing homosexuality.

So the two premises of Obama's argument, a "clear" teaching from Jesus and an "obscure" teaching from Paul, are without merit. But his real argument (if he had any premises to stand on) is that Jesus' teachings overrule Paul's. I have heard similar arguments by those who don't much care for what Paul had to say, but want to think of themselves as followers of Jesus. I've heard it stated this way: "I believe in the Word of God - those are the words in red." This is actually a full-blown denial of what the Word of God is. The Old Testament was written with the emphasis of "Thus saith the Lord." It is as if those are the first four words of the Old Testament, with a beginning quote mark before Genesis 1:1 and a closing quote mark after Malachi 4:6. And Jesus acknowledges that characterization in the Sermon on the Mount as I mentioned earlier. And the same Spirit that led the Old Testament writers is the same Spirit that led Paul and the other New Testament writers. Jesus came in a special way to Paul to have Paul represent Him to the Gentiles. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not divided. If Obama is following a Jesus that contradicts Paul, I know which Jesus that is not.

I don't know how Sen. Obama will fare on this Super Tuesday II, but he's the odds-on favorite to win my would-be contest this week.