The 100-Minute Bible: Closer to Reality Than We Might Think
A publisher in Britain this week released the 100-Minute Bible, a version of the Bible from Creation to Revelation that can be read in about 100 minutes. The idea is to give those of us with hectic lives an introduction to Christian scripture in hopes that our curiosity might drive us to the unabridged version.Certainly there are those who are outraged that such a version cheapens Scripture and leaves humanity with a version of God and/or Christianity that is comparable to caffeine-free Coke. But in reality, were most Christians to sit down and read the 100-Minute Bible, they would probably double their annual Bible reading time. Indeed we already cheapen Scripture when we fail to follow through on the commands of God listed therein.
When we justify the status of the poor and look the other way at need, we rip out certain precepts from the Sermon on the Mount. When we think Africa’s problems are not our own, we eliminate the Great Commission and the first chapter of Acts. When we found divisive and imposing institutions in the name of God, we ignore the lessons taught by the Tower of Bable. When we demand our own security in the forms of diversified investment accounts and stingy pocketbooks, the story of Abraham goes missing. When we fail to believe that people can change and we withhold our forgiveness, Jesus almost disappears entirely. All said, perhaps the 100-minute Bible, replete with omissions, is actually more Bible than we already want.
My challenge for those outraged that someone could cheapen the Bible by reducing it to 100 minutes worth of reading is for you to pull your own Bible off the shelf and find what you’re already editing out of your life. I think you’ll be shocked to find that our 21st-Century American Capitalist Christianity (what we think is Christianity at is finest, but could be the worst idolatry ever to exist on the earth) nearly ignores the 2,000 plus verses demanding justice for the poor and the less fortunate. And the Bible demands this justice to all poor, even those who don’t deserve it.
The 100-Minute Bible is not anathema to the faith. It merely calls attention to the ways in which we’ve already slashed Scripture for years.
|
Comments (12)
2:56 PM
I notice you mention justice for the "poor" on several occasion. How would you define this group of people, and what injustice(s) do they endure?
-Burgwah
2:56 PM
Very worthy question, Mr. Burgwah. A quick, surface-level study of poverty will show you that it comes at the hands of many antagonists. Some poverty is generational and some is situational. Therefore, justice for those in poverty (not earning a livable wage) brought on generationally would be to offer access to better education and easier steps towards earning a livable wage. Because these individuals did not ask to be born into a difficult situation (just as you and I did not ask to be born into relative prosperity), their ''justice'' would be in having equal access to the resources necessary to escape poverty. Likewise, those whose poverty is situational, need special relief, perhaps in the form of tax breaks, a higher minimumk wage, and low interest loans. Situational poverty looks like divorce, unexpected or uninsured health costs, or a hurricane wiping out your home without flood insurance. Exceptions to the rules of our capitalism would help these individuals reach a level playing field.
Let us remember that only a few people ''ask'' to be and to remain poor. Others are faced with trying times beyond their control. To look upon them with indifference is sin. A great resource for the above poverty discussion is Ruby Payne''s "A Framework for Understanding Poverty." Of interesting consequence is her discussion of society''s ''rules,'' another way in which the playing field is not level.
8:05 PM
Here''s a test question for you from Burgwah U: How would you compare/contrast American poverty to American prosperity in relation to poverty in 3rd world nations or America during the 30s and 40s?
-Burgwah
8:35 AM
Sam,
just thought I would check your blog... it has been a while and I am encouraged to hear your thoughts and your opinions! Keep on speaking truth!
Shan
shantrabolek.com
2:13 PM
I''m not sure if this is what you''re looking for, professor, and it may be an over-simplification, but I find a similarity in that these people, the poor, largely go unnoticed until disaster strikes. Hurrican Katrina, a Great Depression, genocide and AIDS bring poverty to the level of national concern. Otherwise, they fly below the radar, and we continue to ignore their obvious needs at the expense of our own souls.
1:05 PM
A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. He who gathers in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame. Proverbs 10:4-5 ESV The contrast portrayed in my question is that many third world and Pre-30s America did not provide citizens with social welfare. Since the inception of the American welfare state, America has drastically reduced poverty. However, there have been welfare states that were miserably inefficient, so maybe welfare isn't the factor in play. Perhaps it is proper to draw a correlation between poverty and prosperity. Honestly, how many nations consider a person with air conditioned shelter, adequate transportation, overweight and owning a big screen television with satellite or cable connections. It could be said that the prosperity of diligent Americans escalate the lifestyle of those in poverty by growing the economy at a healthy pace. There are obviously those individuals that do not have the luxuries mentioned above, but there are also plenty of organizations fighting for those individuals. So, why are these organizations not effective or are they? Maybe citizens refuse to confront these issues, because they rely on the government to deal with these problems (over 40% of the US $2.57 trillion budget is allocated to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...that's over $1 trillion).
-Burgwah
1:20 PM
Professor-
I am afraid we are both fighting unwinnable battles here. Hopefully the dialogue can continue and can be both unthreatening and enlightening.
I am also afraid that I don't get your point. While the Bible does have plenty verses about working hard and earning your keep, I can easily find 10 verses about justice for the poor and lending a hand for every capitalist verse you find me. That being said, I do feel as though you and I are in agreement regarding the absolute slacker: the one who does not want to change, resents everyone, will not try to change, and only wants a free ride. In my mind, this person is worthless, does not deserve a single penny, and should be left to himself to die. But, I cannot picture Jesus supporting such an attitude.
I did not intend to have a discussion about welfare or government programs- you brought those words into play. While Justin Jones (R-Alabama) and I agree that the church is to be the primary instrument that helps the poor, I cannot help but be realistic and admit that it has largely failed this task. Were it to be more involved and seek to end poverty, there would be no need for big government to use trillions of dollars to help individuals who need medication, housing and food. I as a Christian cannot let people die, starve and go homeless. Because the Bible demands justice for the least of these, I must follow such a notion and seek their playing field to be leveled.
That being said, I cannot omit the case of the Wal-Mart worker. Your Proverb speaks of diligence, but 40-hour weeks at $5.75 an hour isn't very much. Do the math. One can barely clothe, house and feed oneself on that pay, much less a son or daughter. Forget a savings account. And God forbid there be an emergency doctor visit, lawsuit, or major expense.
And once again, we are faced with a reality where a theology doesn't work. I parted ways with Reformed theology when I saw that it offered no hope or solutions to today's person in search the relevance of Christianity. And so I abandoned it. As much as laissez faire and compassionate conservative work in theory, the starving and dying still exist. And this is why capitalism is a bitch. At its best, it is amazing, creating unheard of wealth, and big screen TVs and boats for every Joe Paycheck. But at its worst, it prostitutes the minimum wage earner, the immigrant, and the ignorant. Profits are big, but so are deficits.
Please let me know when the next quiz will be.
3:19 PM
Here your next question from Burgwah University (a friendly school that grades no one):
It has been established that capitalism prostitutes the less fortunate.
It has been established that the church and other organizations has not been effective in eliminating poverty to date.
It has been established that poverty has declined in relation to increases in goverment
subsidies and/or prosperity.
Realistically or unrealistically can poverty be eliminated in a democratic society?
If not or if so, what is a viable approach to battling poverty? (How do you bring the less
fortunate into the radar without the help of an epidemic or disastor?)
I will continue to type in elavated prose to coincide with prose found in the original
posting. Therefore, the verse from proverbs was not an antagonistic response, but merely
a verse of wisdow, a proverb, I stumbled across yesterday. I did not seek out this verse
for the purpose of posting to your blog, but found it applicable to the conversation.
Here is another soon to be printed in fortune cookies worldwide: "Reading between the
lines of a blog response from Burgwah would be a waste of time, there is no contempt
therein unless you have been run over by all four wheels of a Chevy Blazer." - Burgwah
6:04 PM
Great questions, professor. And even greater prose.
At the core of this discussion is the nature, scope, and limitations of democracy. In its purest form, a direct democracy, each citizen has a vote on every matter. Rising populations and vast geographics make this impossible over time, thus a direct democracy morphs into a representative democracy where people elect people to vote on every matter and make decisions.
Complicating matters is capitalism, a monetary and not a governmental system. It begs the question: Can monetary systems be governed, or can only people be goverened?
I am afriad that I am schooled in the ways of prose, but not so much in the ways of politics. However, I do know that poverty is bad, because it severely limits the choices an individual is able to make. Therefore, if a democratic society is one that gives its citizens the most freedoms, and therefore the most choices, is poverty anti-democratic?
Insetad of waxing philosophical and chasing our own tails, I merely suggest this: If you have money, give it to people who don't. You will feel better and it will give you more satisfaction than a Sports Illustrated football phone or a Newt Gingrich bobblehead. I appeal to Christians and humans to do that. Regardless of what government may or may not do, the power of individuals (especially in a democratic society) is limitless.
I just ate Chinese and my fortune cookie read: "A cucumber can be food or a weapon; it depends on who is holding it."
4:04 PM
"I parted ways with Reformed theology when I saw that it offered no hope or solutions to today's person in search the relevance of Christianity. And so I abandoned it."
Whoa!!! Not fair...or true.
Reformed theology has much to say about the protection of and caring for the needy.
Now you may "feel" as though, by and large those of the Reformed persuasion have done a poor job of portraying a sense of urgency or concern for the needy but it certainly has nothing to do with reformed dogmatics.
All of the great reformed theologians had a wonderful view apropos of personal welfare toward those in need. Furthermore, let me remind you that there are many reformed members of the emergent movement that you (and I) so dearly love.
Anyway, just wanted to inject that bit of clarity...bitch. I am and always will be the great blog mediator and Lord Leandros.
4:11 PM
Let me add a 'my' before Reformed. Reformed theology as I understood it was one that mandated you tell people their friends were in hell and God chose them to be there, so deal with it.
While I agree with you that reformed theologians have given a lot to the faith, and may be emergent, I abandoned my strict grasp on the the theology because it had too many answers and not enough action. I do know many reformed thinkers who give away more than they earn and love others through their actions.
This often gets clouded, however, with a focus on a who's in and who's out mentality. I do maintain my belief in the sovereignty of God, and perhaps in a more sovereign God than most Calvinists.
Chew on that, Benotavo.
1:57 PM
I'm still not satisfied.
You say, "I abandoned my strict grasp on the the theology because it had too many answers and not enough action" -
Me: "It?" What about "it" - meaning, theology - had no action? (What bad examples of reformed theology were you studying?) Again, I think you are confusing the shortcomings of the followers with the theology itself. i will even grant you that some of those espousing reformed theology are lacking - both intellectually and spiritually. But of what set of theological principles could we not find some examples of such deficiencies? As a set of dogmatics, reformed theology never strays from action - in fact, Calvin himself, and all the Reformed Fathers, were all about a call to action, in terms of social justice, evangelism, and discipleship - much more so than theologians today.
You say reformed theology..."as you understood it." Well, my point is you most certainly must have learned it wrongly. Properly understood, I'm of the opinion that reformed theology will lead a person to great action.
I think you, like me (eventually) became turned off by reformed followers b/c of the arrogance and focus on the wrong things. But, again, this isn't b/c of the theology itself. I could list a hundred reasons why that happens - but I'll spare us.
All in all, you're my bitch now. Admit it.
Post a Comment