Columnist Steve Blow of The Dallas Morning News is guilty of blasphemy in this June 26th column. No doubt, he only thought he was being funny, but in this instance God’s reaction must certainly be, as the English monarch’s once was, “We are not amused.”
This charge is not made frivolously. Blasphemy, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is “1.a. Any contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God. b. Any irreverent or impious act or utterance. 2. Theology. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 3. Judaism. a. Any word or deed meant to dishonor or revile the being or work of God, as a curse or profanity. b. The mention of the sacred, ineffable name of God” (139). This last definition may refer to a tradition of the Jews that God’s name was too holy to even speak, but the other definitions are accurate.
Steve Blow says he is a Baptist, but he disagrees with the leadership of the Baptist denomination in their teaching about women and suggests next year they recommend child sacrifices.
Now that we have put homosexuals and women in their place, it is only natural that we turn our attention to our children (27A).As everyone knows, children are out of control these days. But how different things would be if they understood their precious Biblical role as burnt offerings.
Of course, we all know the famous story of Genesis 22 of how Abraham stood ready to sacrifice Isaac. . .
Admittedly, Blow is attempting to write satire, in the style of Jonathan Swift, still known, after nearly 300 years, for A Modest Proposal, in which he advocated eating the flesh of children as a solution to the problem of begging mothers with a number of children. But Swift’s point was that a real solution to the problem needed to be found.
What is Blow’s point? His humor is wasted because the object of his ridicule is not Southern Baptists, but the Bible itself. Attacking the Bible is attacking its author, God; it therefore constitutes blasphemy.
Attacks Upon the Old Testament
Concerning Abraham’s offering of Isaac, Blow thinks “we have dwelled too much on the happy ending.”
When we read this story to children, we need to focus on how Abraham stacked up a good pile of firewood, how he tied up his boy and placed him on top of the waiting bonfire, how he pulled out his knife and prepared to plunge it into his son. . . (26A).
Blow chides Baptists for their failure to think, but his lack of thought is itself horrendous. For example, he apparently has not asked himself the most obvious question: “Why would God, who forbade human sacrifices repeatedly, have required one on this occasion?” It was a test of Abraham’s faith. How was it a test? It was a test because the requirement went against everything Abraham knew about the nature of God. It also went against common sense and the promises that God had made about Isaac, his only begotten son (of promise).
Abraham had to wonder. Nothing about this command made any sense. But Abraham knew something that Steve Blow may never learn: God is to be obeyed–whether or not we UNDERSTAND the reason for the command–whether or not we AGREE with the command. Modern man reasons thus: If God’s commands suit me, then I will keep them; if they don’t suit me, I’ll just ignore them, blaspheme God, and insult earnest souls for believing and following the Bible.
Abraham, however, believed that God knew what He was doing. The rationale for the entire test is explained in the New Testament in Hebrews 11:17-19:
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
Blow cannot pass such a test even knowing how it comes out (pity the man’s faith). No, he feels it his duty to chide God for requiring it in the first place. He is claiming the “rights of God for himself,” which constitutes blasphemy. And then to suggest that parents refer to this event to make their children keep their bedrooms clean and take out the trash is to lose sight of God’s purpose in this test. Isaac was not being chastised to make him behave better; there was nothing amiss in his behavior. Furthermore, he did not write a foolish letter of protest.
But not content to attack God’s integrity in the case of Abraham, Blow feels it necessary to target Jephthah, also. After telling of Jephthah’s foolish vow, he concludes: “Sad, isn’t it? But there it is, straight from the Holy Bible, so I see no room for anyone to disagree.”
Disagree with what? The events of Judges 11 occurred exactly as recorded. What do you want us to do about it, Steve? Jephthah was a man of faith (Heb. 11:33), but even men of faith occasionally do wrong things (David, for example). Jephthah did a foolish thing; no one can figure out what he expected to come forth from his house (Judges 11:31).
But there are some points about this event that should be noted. First, In the main text the New American Standard (a legitimate translation, not a mere paraphrase) renders the verse: “Then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” A marginal note suggests and in place of or.
There are those scholars who opt for or, who believe Jephthah’s daughter lived a life of celibacy, dedicated to the Lord. Such would be an appropriate reason to bewail her virginity. After all, if she were going to die, would there not be something more intense to mourn?
But, for the sake of argument, say that Jephthah offered her as a burnt sacrifice. Did he do so at the command of God? No. Did he petition God for a substitute offering? No. Does the text say God approved of what he did? No. Was Jephthah commended for his actions? No. Is there any suggestion that others ought to do what he did? No.
Blow thinks that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter are stories that are best forgotten; their only value to him is in demonstrating that the Bible should not be taken literally. Perhaps he has forgotten that God is wiser than he is and that even the Old Testament is Scripture.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation (origin), for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).
As a follow-up on that issue, we ought to stress that women are responsible for all the sin in the world (1 Timothy 2:12). And they really need to keep quiet in church, saving questions for their husbands at home (1 Corinthians 14:34).
One wonders exactly on what, if anything, Blow does agree with God. His blasphemies seem to know no end. They are only exceeded by his inability to understand what a text is saying. 1 Timothy 2:12 does not charge Eve with being responsible for the sins of the whole world. In fact it does not even mention the word sin.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:11-12).
The reason for this commandment follows:
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into the transgression (1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Does anyone, besides theologian Blow, see that this passage blames Eve for all the sin in the world? Both Adam and Eve sinned (so have we all). Paul did not blame either one for all the sin in the world.
Paul was merely stating two reasons why women do not have the leadership role in the church. The first reason involves the order of creation; the second involves the woman’s being deceived. Both Adam and Eve were guilty of sin. The difference in their transgressions lies in the way each sinned. Eve was deceived; Adam was not. He sinned with full awareness of what he was doing. He followed his wife’s lead. For these two reasons, men have the leadership role in the church. In a sense, one could say that women do not have the leadership role by design and by default.
However, these two facts do not make women responsible for all the sin in the world. Nor does it make them “inferior.” The Baptists actually stated the truth on this subject. They made clear the equality of men and women in the home:
The husband and wife are of equal worth before God. Both bear God’s image but each in differing ways. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect and to lead his family. A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God, as her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his “helper” in managing their household and nurturing the next generation.
These sentiments merely affirm what the Scriptures teach, but they mention equality twice. If Mr. Blow saw the entire text, he gave no indication of it.
We must not nap and allow the “modern interpretation” folks to put their dangerous spin on our Scriptures.Well, once again, bless you in your efforts to reduce our Bible to a plain and simple rule book.
These statements imply that he is in the camp of modern “interpreters” such as, say, John Shelby Spong. This postmodern approach allows us to ignore what we do not like to hear and say that a verse means whatever we want it to mean. Does the Bible say adultery is a sin? “No, no, that’s too simplistic; it’s an out-of-date interpretation. Actually, adultery can be the best choice and a beautiful thing, given the right circumstances. After all, the Bible isn’t a book of rules.” Most people can see such notions as clumsy attempts at rationalization. Blow, Spong, and others of their ilk only fool those who desire to be fooled.
Most follow-up letters to Blow’s column seemed to recognize his denigration of the Scriptures. An Episcopalian laments Blow’s “mocking the Scriptures.”
By ripping two Old Testament stories out of context to show (I guess) that the Good Book ain’t so reliable after all, Mr. Blow displays an unfortunate ignorance of the simple difference between description and prescription. Sometimes the Bible describes customs, activities and ideas that are not in any way prescribed (7-2-98, 2A).
This last comment referred to Jephthah and agrees with what we already discussed. Another reader lamented Blow’s “blasphemous argument” and his “deliberately perverting the truth” (July 5, 1998, 4J). But equally telling are the comments of those who agree with him. Consider Darren K. Price’s remarks:
If you believe in the Bible you MUST follow it to the letter, including passages that contradict other passages (good luck with that) (July 5, 1998, 4J).
The Bible does not contradict itself; it only contradicts what wicked men and lustful hearts want to do; therefore, they attack the Scriptures rather than repent. Woody Wood thinks Steve has done away with “selective inerrancy” and is willing to finance bumper stickers which say: “Steve Blow said it. I believe it. That’s it.” In the first place, Christians are not the ones who believe in selective inerrancy: Steve and Woody do. They refuse to accept any Biblical teaching that does not meet with their standards. We do not deny any of the Scriptures Mr. Blow brought up; rather we have already affirmed our acceptance of them. Second, the bumper sticker is also blasphemous. Some of us will be watching on the day of judgment to see if God thinks these two are nearly as cute as they think they are.
Steve Tinsley of Garland jumps on Blow’s bandwagon:
I hope all of the thinking people who read this column will see Mr. Blow’s point that fundamentalism degrades religion by favoring details over the message. The hate-mongers hiding behind the rules and regulations of religion were called Pharisees in Jesus’ day (7-2-98, 22A).
Our obviously love-filled writer is mistaken. Jesus never condemned anyone for keeping the law. The Pharisees were condemned for keeping man-made traditions and for keeping small details while overlooking serious concepts. The role of men and women in the home is hardly an insignificant detail; it is Christian doctrine.
If one were to publicly bash Jews, there would be a public outcry. One cannot even call homosexuality a sin without incurring the wrath of the “politically correct.” But take heart; hatemongers still have someone to unload all their hostility upon–Christians. And they can bash the Bible as loudly as they want. God’s Word and His followers can be insulted with impunity–at least in The Dallas Morning News.