Skeptic Tank Text Archive File

Front Page: spring 1990 (continued p. 12)


WE COME NOT TO DESTROY THE BIBLE 

     Reaction to our first issue was mainly what we had expected.  We 
received a few letters of praise, but most of the mail was very negative.  A 
young lady in Louisiana wrote and asked us to take her name off our mailing 
list.  "As far as I'm concerned," she said, "it (TSR) is trash." We  could 
only assume that she thought Jerry Moffitt's rebuttal article was trash too, 
and that's too bad.  We thought that, for the position it defended, it was a 
well written article.

     Many copies were returned to us with "refused" stamped or written 
above the address labels, and  we have to wonder about the objectivity of 
people who aren't even willing to consider opinions that disagree with theirs. 
Do they seriously believe this is the way to discover truth?  Two of those 
who refused to accept their copies are actively involved in publishing The 
Spiritual Sword, a guardian-of-the-faith paper sponsored by the Getwell 
Church of Christ in Memphis. If they had mailed us a complimentary copy of 
their paper and we had refused to accept it, they would undoubtedly accuse 
us of being terribly close-minded, yet they probably see their own actions as 
some kind of bold stand for the truth.  Incidentally, we are not really ex-
pecting to receive a complimentary copy of The Spiritual Sword, because  we 
have twice sent to its editors subscription checks  that have never been 
acknowledged or cashed.  If we can't even buy it, we aren't very likely to 
get it free.

     Some of the most abusive letters came from relatives and former friends 
and associates of our missionary days. Many of these we have not bothered to 
answer, because we can see nothing to be gained from trying to reason with 
people determined to base friendship on matters of individual conscience. 
When Peter and the other apostles were charged "not to teach in this name," 
they said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:28-29), so all that 
we ask of former friends and associates is the same kind of consideration: the 
right to respect our consciences rather than follow what others think is the 
correct course for us.  After all, what good would it do us to fill a pew or a 
pulpit if we just cannot believe what we would hear or be required to preach?

     We have often been accused of wanting to destroy the Bible, but the 
charge is simply not true. We have no desire to destroy the Bible; we just 
want people to understand it. In the sermon on the mount (if it occurred as 
recorded), Jesus tried to reassure those who thought he may have wanted to 
destroy the law: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I 
came not to destroy, but to fulfill," (Mat. 5:17). In the same way, we can 
honestly say that we are not publishing this journal or engaging in public 
debates with the hope that our activities will destroy the Bible.  If any 
person should seriously advocate that Bibles be collected and burned, we 
would raise our voices in opposition to the proposal as loudly as any inerran-
cy advocate. It would be the height of folly to destroy a book that has 
probably had more influence on western civilization than any other single 
document.

     A better understanding of the Bible is what we hope to accomplish. 
The problem is that the average "God-fearing" person doesn't really know 
much about the Bible; he just knows that he is supposed to believe it is the 
inspired, inerrant word of God. At home, his Bible is lying unopened, collect-
ing dust. If our quarterly journal or any of the debates we participate in 
result in just one person like this  studying the Bible in a serious, (see 

DESTROY page 12) intelligent way to see if the inerrancy doctrine can be 
sustained, we will consider our work worth the time and effort we are putting 




into it.  If after such a study, anyone chooses to continue believing in the 
inerrancy of the Bible, he will at least have our respect, but what we can't 
respect are the many who believe in Bible inerrancy without knowing why 
they believe it. They just know that they are supposed to believe it.  This 
makes them no better than a Moslem who believes in the inspiration of the 
Koran, because... well, just because he is supposed to believe it.

                 ********************************

     FREE SUBSCRIPTION: A free one-year subscription to The Skeptical 
Review can be obtained by writing to P. O. Box 617, Canton, IL 61520-0617.