The Wizard of Oz and the Bible – Part Three

As we come to the final post in this consideration of The Wizard of Oz and the Bible, let's refresh our thinking concerning Brian McLaren's statements In comparing the Bible to the Wizard of Oz Brian McLaren states:

“As in so many issues these days, the problem isn’t the Bible; it’s the assumptions we bring to the Bible about how it is supposed to be interpreted. We make demands of the Biblical writers that we don’t make of any other writers, and I’m not sure our demands are sensible or fair at all. As an analogy, I often refer to the Wizard of Oz in my teaching. Does this mean that I believe Dorothy was a historical figure? No. It means that I accept the story of Oz as being part of our culture, and that I can use it to illustrate truth or provide analogies to truth.” (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/301-emerging-church-versus-scripture)

Is McLaren on the right track? Are people reading their Bibles in the wrong way when they read with the understanding that the Bible contains historical, truthful statements that can be read in light of their plain meaning?

Most people believe that the Bible contains some historic truth. For example, when the Bible speaks of a city named Jerusalem in the land of Israel, people understand that the Bible is accurately stating historic fact. Likewise, references to Rome, Athens and Egypt refer to real places. There are many other examples ranging from people and events to social customs.

People seem to have more difficulty with other passages such as the account of Jonah. Should we read this account as history or should we view it as we would the Wizard of Oz?

The Bible gives us an indication of which way we should interpret it. When the scribes and Pharisees were challenging Jesus to give them a sign He said:

"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Jesus referred to the very account many people consider to be fiction, and indicated that it actually took place. He went on to say, "The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here."

Jesus understood that there were actual men of Nineveh who repented. They existed in history and will stand up in the future to testify. These men repented on account of Jonah's preaching just after he had been released from his stay in the belly of the great sea monster.

McLaren suggests that we may be interpreting the Bible incorrectly because we view some passages as historic when they are really more like the Wizard of Oz. Perhaps McLaren is onto something here. However, the proper way to state it is that people are tending to read the Bible more like the Wizard of Oz when it is actually historic.

Jesus viewed the Bible as God's Word when he spoke of "invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:13). He also called God's Word "truth" (John 17:17), affirmed it as factually true (Matt 22:29) and taught the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35).

The question of how to interpret the Bible is an important one. However, there is no indication that Jesus struggled with this issue at all. He viewed the Bible is historically accurate and as truth given to us by God. If he accepted it in that way, so should we.

The Wizard of Oz and the Bible – Part Two

Brian McLaren suggests that the mere fact that the men who wrote the Bible referred to people does not mean that they believed those people were actual historic figures: "Can the Bible writers similarly refer to stories or concepts from their times and not be expected to be affirming of their complete historicity?”

In part one of this post (The Wizard of Oz and the Bible - Part One) we looked at some instances in which the Bible writers referred to people who were not historical figures. We saw that the Bible contains accounts that include non-historical information.

This should not surprise us. In fact, we regularly use similar language in our daily lives. When the weatherman tells us that Old Man Winter is going to be here for several more weeks, we know that he is not referring to an octogenarian with a seasonal name.

When Dick Clark sits high above Times Square on New Years Eve and announces that Father Time is marching on, we know what he means.

When Clark then mentions that he will shortly be joined by the mayor of New York City, we know what Clark means. We do not have to think twice to determine what is meant.

For some strange reason, People who dislike the Bible are unwilling to allow for similar language usage in the Scripture.

McLaren would have us to believe that because of the fact that some of the language in the Bible may refer to fictional characters or non-historic concepts, that we can apparently without limitation quite properly call into question the historicity of a wider range of people, events and concepts mentioned by the Bible writers.

From this notion, the Emergent Church writers wander into the darkness calling into question all kinds of Biblical truths proclaimed by the Biblical writers. For example, they wonder whether homosexuality is really a sin, or whether the atonement is necessary, or whether Jesus is the only way to heaven.

This approach by the Emerging Church writers brought forward the notion that we should call a moratorium on preaching against homosexuality for several years until we can study it further. In other words, in spite of two thousand years of theological reflection and teaching on this topic, we come to find that we are lost at sea in regard to the clear teachings from Romans 1 and several other passages.

The hermeneutical shift is unwarranted and goes like this: Since writer A has in the past made a reference to a non-historic person or to a fictional concept A, then one can rightly bring into question whether writer A meant that concepts B, C and D are historical too. Further, because concept A is non-historical one can not only question the historicity of concepts B, C and D but can also leave the historicity of those concepts open for continuous, ongoing discussion as long as one wishes, based merely on the fictional nature of concept A.

Most people learn how to make the proper distinctions at an early age. That is why children know the difference between the Grinch and Jesus. They don't confuse the notion of which one is real and which one is imaginary.

For adults who have difficulty along those lines, a good hermeneutics course would help. In the meantime, if they continue to struggle with the difference between fact and fiction, perhaps they should do something other than shepherd God's people.