Who is Naughty and Nice

Yesterday I posted about the “Pick-a-Bible” syndrome and its relationship to a post-truth society. Today I consider the “naughty vs. nice” method of deciding who is right on religious matters (e.g., re faith and practice). In a post-truth feelings-based society, it becomes natural to turn to how nice a person is in order to decide who is right. How do you feel about that person? If a person is “not nice,” then the “truth” presented by that person is probably wrong. If a person is “nice,” then the “truth” presented by that person is probably right. Kent Brandenburg considers this in his The Who-Is-Nicer or Who-Is-Meaner Argument for the Text of Scripture blog post. Not only are “deciders” using the “nice” criteria, but also “debaters” are putting it out there to help the “deciders” decide. Kent wrote, “I wish there was a moratorium on mentioning it [the “style” and “tone” of argumentation, rlv]. Just leave it alone and continue the debate.” This is a discussion we Christians shouldn’t have to have, but nevertheless need to have.

We all could be kinder, nicer, love more, forgive more. I believe that. However, how “nice” we are does not mean we are correct when we speak about the Bible, salvation, or any number of theological issues. God’s transcendent truth decides right and wrong, good and evil – not how we feel about it, or how we feel about the persons presenting it.

Furthermore, this is not an issue of one side is always nice and the other side is always naughty (i.e., mean, mean-spirited).[i] Both sides in the Bible versions debate can be both nice and mean. It is a matter of how the different sides approach this, their “style.” The “fundamental” side (and KJVO in Bible version debates) tends to express their meanness plainly without any façade.[ii] The “neo-conservative” side (and MVO in Bible version debates) tends to dress up their meanness in “nice clothes” so we can focus on the clothes instead of the meanness. This is especially noticeable to me because I have worked part of my life in construction, where strong men may get mad and express it forcefully; and part of my life in education, where you seldom see much of the in-your-face mean and nasty stuff. Instead it is more likely “stab you in the back with one hand while shaking your hand with the other” – all the while keeping a bright smile on the face, being quite “nice.” There is something better about the severe blow that you can see coming from someone you know is mean, as opposed to the sucker punch that is about to blindside you from someone whom you thought was nice![iii]

This “nice equals right” mentality rises from secular, saccharine, and silly views of what “nice” is. In support of this – or because of it – both secularists and people called Christians have recreated Jesus in their own image of “nice.” The Jesus of the Bible tells us to turn the other cheek. The Jesus of the Bible also turns over the tables of the moneychangers. The Jesus of the Bible tells us to speak the truth. The Jesus of the Bible also calls people hypocrites, serpents, and vipers. I have a feeling some people need to reassess the concept of Jesus that they have installed in their minds.

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” Psalm 119:160

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth…” John 14:6

“…yea, let God be true, but every man a liar…” Romans 3:4

---

[i] Is “arrogant and condescending” better than “mean and nasty”? No. However, it is often easier to weasel out of what you said in an “arrogant and condescending” way – “I didn’t mean it that way.” That malarkey is easier to sell to the foolish than claiming you didn’t mean something you said in a “mean and nasty” way.
[ii] Perhaps this is a general trait of “Fightin’ Fundamentalism.” Additionally, too many King James supporters have drunk from the fountain of Peter Ruckman’s nastiness. I lived 60-something years of my life without owning or reading any of his works, except one small pamphlet on segregation that another preacher gave me years ago. Last year I decided I might not be as knowledgeable as I should be on the KJV debate issues without actually reading something Ruckman wrote, so I ordered a couple of his books. If the rest of his books are anything like those, they could be edited down to about half size by taking out all the bombast about how wrong everyone is except him.
[iii] Example: “I’m going to guess you can’t read the original Bible languages,” by a guy who might not be able to read them in the way regular folks think folks mean when they say they can read something.

The “Pick-a-Bible” mentality

Many people say we are living in a post-truth society. I am not sure I even understand exactly what that means. According to Dictionary.com, “post-truth” is an adjective meaning, “relating to or existing in an environment in which facts are viewed as irrelevant, or less important than personal beliefs and opinions, and emotional appeals are used to influence public opinion.” This definition is applicable to what we see – one’s personal beliefs and feelings supplant absolute truth. Truth is not transcendent, but rather related to and defined by the culture.

How unlike post-truth culture Christians should be! How like post-truth culture contemporary Christians are! The modern “Pick-a-Bible” mentality fits well into this mindset and structure. I recently listened to a guy named Matt Baker on a YouTube channel called UsefulCharts. He said:

Anyone doing serious Bible should never rely on just one translation. It is always best to compare several different versions.[i]

Such statements can be multiplied many times over – many of them made by much more well known Christian teachers. This quote simply happened to be the most recent in my hearing. This reminds me of the adage that someone with two watches never knows what time it is.[ii] The adage refers to the problem of having too much conflicting information. This saying has been loaded in all sorts of spin cycles, with the resulting “wisdom” based on what setting is used by the one loading for spin. Yes, it is possible that the one watch you have is not correct. Nevertheless, it is very true that the more watches you wear the less certainty you have about what time it is, when they send conflicting information.

Interestingly, there is a “Coordinated Universal Time” (or UTC).[iii] UTC is a closely synchronized (coordinated) time standard by which the world regulates clocks and time. Government clocks and personal wristwatches all find a standard in UTC. There is objective truth. It may be “5 o’clock somewhere” but people do not get to govern what time it is by saying what time they feel it is in their hearts! Somehow, we have ditched such a standard in theology, and there is no standard in Christianity. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes.

---

[i] I know nothing of Matt Baker, but was reviewing some Bible history which he was presenting. In his talk, he said he uses the NRSV New Testament because “it’s very ecumenical and the one that most academics use.” I am suspect of the NRSV being “the one that most academics use” but his statement is certainly liberal leaning.
[ii] In this form – “A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure” – it is often known as Segal’s Law. Someone wrongly credited the saying to Lee Segall of Dallas, Texas, and it was later thus attributed in print with a misspelling, Segal’s (sic) Law. It seems to have actually originated in the San Diego (California) Union newspaper, September 20, 1930 in this way: “Confusion.—Retail jewelers assert that every man should carry two watches. But a man with one watch knows what time it is, and a man with two watches could never be sure.” It can be seem widely quoted in other newspapers after this, with credit to the San Diego – which seems to support this as the earliest source.
[iii] Some of us in older generations knew UTC as Greenwich Mean Time, but that is no longer the terminology used.