The term "alternative facts" entered the American lexicon in 2017, when Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway could not bring herself to admit that some statements were false; instead she suggested that those who made them were informed by "alternative facts." This inartful phrase attracted ridicule, and alternative facts became a synonym for falsehoods that are put forth (sometimes even by people who do not recognize them as false) in the service of a political or other agenda.
The Bible is not immune to corruption with alternative facts, although it is usually unintentional. Many of the things people mistakenly think are in the Bible are relatively harmless, such as the "three wise men," who are sometimes even given names (the Bible does not say how many there were, much less their names). A popular book from 2002 stated "It took Noah 120 years to build the ark," when the Bible says no such thing (it seems to be a common belief; I was unable to find the origin of the interpretation). Still, it is no big deal if somebody thinks that.
But there are cases that are not harmless. Some of the alternative facts attributed to the Bible (often by those who express the greatest reverence for it) foster bad theology or bad Biblical interpretation. Sometimes they support positions that harm the Christian witness in the world, or shape our attitudes in ways that are contrary to the way of Jesus. In the following, I present some examples where I think alternative facts have gained a foothold in the church in a way that is harmful.
Something about Mary(s)
I will leave aside extrabiblical traditions of the Roman Catholic (and sometimes Eastern Orthodox) churches, like the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. Instead, I offer two alternative facts commonly heard from Protestants who are ostensibly more Bible-centered. The first is that Mary was extremely young when she was pregnant with Jesus. I once heard a preacher say matter-of-factly "Mary was 12 years old at the time." Now, she may have been quite young, since the early teens was apparently a typical age of betrothal, but the Bible does not say, so sensationalizing by assuming the youngest possible age is uncalled for. Then there is another Mary, Mary Magdalene, the ex-prostitute. How do we know she was a prostitute? Well, we don't, and that's the problem. This tradition apparently arose from the statement that Jesus cast seven demons out of her (Luke 8:2) and from Medieval confusion that identified her with a “sinful” woman who anointed Jesus (Luke 7:37-50). It says something about the mostly male interpreters through the years that when they saw demons or sin associated with a woman, their minds automatically jumped to sexual sin, and not to the myriad other ways in which women and men sin.
While these may seem harmless, they reinforce attitudes where women are mainly seen in terms of their sexual and reproductive roles (prostitute, temptress, wife, innocent child virgin, mother) rather than as human beings equally in the image of God. The church often fails to treat women as full partners in the Kingdom of God, and myths like these do not help.
The Rapture
The music of Larry Norman was a soundtrack for many young Christians in the 1970s and 80s, and my High School youth group was no exception. One staple was "I Wish We'd All Been Ready," with its haunting refrain The Son has come, and you've been left behind (which I suspect inspired the title for the Left Behind novels). We took for granted that, in the near future, the events of the song would come true: A man and wife asleep in bed; she hears a noise and turns her head – he’s gone … Two men walking up a hill; one disappears and one's left standing still. It never occurred to us that this "rapture," where Christians would suddenly fly away to Heaven while everyone else was "left behind," might not actually be taught in the Bible.
While the second coming of Jesus has always been a part of Christian doctrine (the Apostles Creed says he will come to judge the living and the dead), the idea that this would begin with a "rapture" only became popular in the 1800s, when John Nelson Darby concocted a system called dispensationalism. All of the Bible was interpreted through the lens of Darby's system; this included not only the rapture but also a literalist view of prophecy that created a cottage industry of tying specific passages to current events (for example, figuring out who would be the Antichrist or what symbol corresponded to what modern nation). The system was taught in the Schofield Reference Bible, which was the standard Bible for American fundamentalists in the 20th century. It was further popularized in heavily marketed "prophecy conferences" (these still exist), in the Jesus Movement of the 1960s and 70s, and in sensational books by people like Hal Lindsay (The Late, Great Planet Earth). Today, it is most visible in the Left Behind novels and movies.
Biblical scholars tell us there is no good basis for this. I don't have the time (or expertise) to critique dispensationalism in general, so I will just look at two passages that are often taken to support the rapture. In Matthew 24:40-41 (also Luke 17:34-36) Jesus talks of his return and the associated judgment, and tells stories of pairs of people where one will be taken and one will be left. On the surface, this sounds like the "left behind" picture. But in context, those who are left are the fortunate ones, while the ones "taken" are being taken not to Heaven but rather to face judgment. Then there is 1 Thessalonians 4:17, where Paul says that, as Jesus returns, we will meet the Lord in the air. Most scholars say that this is the language of citizens coming outside the gates to meet and escort the returning king into the city. So we are not leaving Earth behind; we are greeting our returning Lord who will rule with us on a renewed Earth. For more sound approaches to eschatology (the study of "last things"), I would recommend books by N.T. Wright (Surprised by Hope) and Barbara Rossing (The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation).
What difference does it make if people get their eschatology from Left Behind novels instead of the Bible? Most obviously, it damages the witness of Christ when his followers make false predictions. Around 1980, many made a big deal of the European Economic Community gaining its 10th member, which supposedly fulfilled a key end-times prophecy (they were silent when it added more members in 1986). I remember a Christian album (it might have been Larry Norman) in the early 1980s with the inscription "We are in the last decade." Then we have the people who get publicity by setting dates for the rapture (and who seldom repent when it fails to happen). But there are more subtle problems with this aberrant theology. Its unwarranted identification of the Biblical Israel with the current political state has kept the U.S. from being more of a force for peace and justice in the Middle East. It is an escapist theology that devalues the Earth and its people; attitudes of "it's all gonna burn" hinder us from carrying out our mandate to be stewards of what God has given us. Finally, if we view the Bible primarily in terms of puzzles to figure out we don’t let the Bible perform its real function, which is to guide us in faithfully following Jesus.
The Concept of Conception
I was disappointed when I saw that my church's new denomination, in the portion of its "Essential Tenets" based on the Ten Commandments (for the one prohibiting murder), used the phrase "from conception to natural death." That phrase is copied directly from the political culture wars, and the "conception" part has no basis in Scripture.
This may come as a surprise, as the dogma that "life begins at conception," once mostly a Catholic idea, has become so entrenched among Evangelical Protestants that we assume it must be in the Bible. But conception (like most of modern biology) is unknown in Scripture. The Bible reflects its culture by depicting reproduction in agricultural terms, as seed planted in soil. This is why women (it never blames the man!) are described as "barren" or "fertile." There are also poetic passages about God knowing us in the womb; these are more an expression of God's eternal love for us than any teaching about biology. So when is it that human life (in God's image) begins? The Bible does not tell us, and science can’t answer that question (although science can inform us, for example by telling us how twins can form after conception). If we insist on following Biblical language, references to "the womb" might instead suggest "implantation" as a more logical boundary.
I do believe that the Bible teaches a pro-life ethic – one that we should not confine to abortion but that also includes issues like war, violence, and poverty. When we draw an unjustified line in the sand at conception, that alienates many people, and also seems to have the paradoxical effect of encouraging opposition to contraception and thus increasing the demand for abortions.
God Wants Socialism (or Capitalism)
People of all political persuasions cherry-pick from Scripture to prove that God is on their side; this is particularly inappropriate in the area of economic systems. Isolated verses can be found that seem to support private property ownership and oppose welfare (such as Phil. 3:10, Anyone unwilling to work should not eat), or that seem to support a socialist society (Acts 2:44, All the believers were together and had everything in common.). This is perhaps exacerbated by things that some people think are in the Bible but are not, like Ben Franklin’s "God helps those who help themselves" or "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs" (Karl Marx, although Acts 11:29 has some similarity). There are also things that just seem strange, like prohibition against charging interest (Exodus 22:25). The basic problem is that modern society is hugely different from an agrarian society 2000 or 3000 years ago, so commands given in that context can’t simply be transferred into modern economies, any more than Biblical passages about foot-washing should be taken directly into our culture where people no longer spend much time walking in sandals on dusty paths.
This does not, however, mean the Bible is irrelevant to economic discussions. While it knows nothing of capitalism or socialism, it does tell us things about human nature and about God’s heart that should inform our participation in society. Care for the marginalized, protecting the poor from being exploited by the rich, and denunciation of selfishness are all common themes throughout Scripture, which probably rules out Ayn Rand-style social Darwinism and totally unfettered capitalism. We see in the Bible that humans with power over others tend to abuse it, so we need checks and balances to protect the powerless. We also see the God-given dignity of each person; this would speak against some of the excesses of corporate capitalism, but also against communism. The principles behind how God wants us to interact remain the same, but we must discern how to apply those principles in our own contexts.
A Resilient Earth
A noted fundamentalist theologian has written extensively in recent years on the "Biblical" view of various issues, always concluding that the Bible endorses conservative Republican positions. He is particularly vociferous in opposing calls to take better care of God's creation, which he has expressed by saying that God has made a planet that is "resilient" and could not possibly be harmed by exploiting all the natural resources God has given us. If you are waiting to see the Biblical basis for this assertion, you will be waiting a long time.
Of course in some sense the Earth is resilient. The planet would exist after any destructive human act imaginable. But if most life is gone except for cockroaches, that is probably not what God desires. We already know that it is possible for the Earth to be in a state that hinders human flourishing (ice ages, for example). It is obvious on smaller scales that the Earth on which we depend can be harmed by human activities. Examples include the smog that chokes cities in China, fisheries that have collapsed due to overfishing, and the Dust Bowl in the 1930s that was worsened by unwise agricultural practices. With the scope of modern technology, and our teeming population, is it really so hard to imagine that (despite the conspiracy theories to which this theologian subscribes) scientists are correct in pointing out that human actions can affect, for example, the Earth’s climate?
On occasion I have seen Genesis 8:22 (God's covenant with Noah) invoked in this context: As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease. We should probably not base public policy on this poetic expression of God's faithfulness, but we might also note that it does not promise that "cold and heat" will be balanced as we would wish.
A better guide might be Genesis 1:26-28, where we are given dominion over the rest of creation, and Gen. 2:15 where we are given the task to till and keep the garden. While "dominion" has sometimes been interpreted as exploitation, the connection in the passage is with functioning as God's images, which means ruling on God's behalf like the benevolent king that God is. "Till and keep" suggests that we actively protect the creation and help it to flourish. The word "stewardship" best describes our God-given role in regard to the Earth, and (just as with financial stewardship) this may mean sacrificing our immediate wants for the sake of long-term good, including the good of our neighbors and of future generations.
Jesus and a Literal Adam
As evidence has made it more difficult to hold onto some traditional interpretations of Genesis 2-3, a well-known preacher recently said something to the effect of "I believe Adam and Eve were historical people because Jesus believed it." He is not alone; Jesus is often invoked by those arguing for a "literal" Adam. But this is an alternative fact; in none of the Gospels does Jesus even mention Adam (or Eve). When pressed, people point to Matthew 19:4-6, where, when asked about divorce, Jesus answers, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Jesus is citing Genesis 1:27 (and 2:24), which says, So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. But what is Jesus affirming? He says that God made humans male and female from the beginning – that is true regardless of how one interprets Genesis. Ultimately, his teaching is that marriage is ordained by God and we should not destroy it. This does not depend on the literalness of the story, and it says nothing about how Jesus would have interpreted other elements of the passage. To assert that Jesus is affirming a literal Adam here is like saying that someone who cites "Love your neighbor" is affirming the literal existence of the Good Samaritan.
There are a couple of verses in Paul's letters where it does seem like he believed in the literal existence of Adam (although that is not the only interpretation and it was not his main point). We can wrestle with those in deciding how to interpret the story in Genesis, but to bring Jesus into the debate in this way falls prey to an alternative fact.
What Fall?
I heard a Christian Old Testament professor describe a conversation he had with Jewish scholars in graduate school. He mentioned "the Fall" in Genesis 3 – the belief, articulated by Augustine around 400 AD, that the transgression of Adam and Eve fundamentally changed all humanity into hopeless sinners, a state inherited by all subsequent generations. In much Christian theology, the Fall is THE reason we need Jesus. The Jewish scholars' reaction was basically "What fall?", because Jewish interpreters have not read Genesis 3 that way.
Now, it is sort of cheating to call this an alternative fact. It is not unfounded in the Bible; there are a few verses in the letters of Paul that can be read that way (although there are other interpretations). But the traditional concept of the Fall is not found in Genesis 3, or in the rest of the Old Testament. If people get that doctrine from Paul (as interpreted by Augustine) that's OK, but if they claim it is directly taught in Genesis, that's an alternative fact. In its context, Genesis 3 illustrates Israel's disobedience and exile, and is more about showing us what sin is like than about telling us how sin got started. The Bible clearly teaches that we all sin and fall short of God's intention, but this tradition of how we ended up in that state has less Biblical support than is often assumed. Allowing that the traditional Fall is not the only or even the best interpretation can make a difference in thinking about God’s fairness (why should I be born condemned because others sinned thousands of years ago?), and can also reduce the tension between Augustine's inheritance model and the scientific evidence that there was no original couple in the traditional sense.
A related concept, also not found in the Bible, is original perfection, which goes beyond the Biblical description of the creation as "good" to assume some sort of perfection. For example, it is often assumed that there was no death of any sort before the Fall (sometimes two passages in Paul are cited, but in context these clearly refer only to human death, and perhaps more to spiritual than to physical death). Some assertions are even more outlandish, such as claiming that the pre-Fall Adam was super-intelligent. Good (which has a sense of "complete") is not the same as perfect, especially when we use modern human standards to measure perfection.
Final Thoughts
Nobody gets the Bible completely right, least of all me. That should not even be our main goal; instead we should seek to be shaped (by the Biblical witness among other things) into the image of Jesus. So we should not be the "Bible police," hunting down alternative facts so that we can express disapproval (and show how smart we are). That is a temptation that I need to resist.
But the Bible is vital for our life as Christians, which means we should try to avoid misunderstanding it. Some alternative facts are harmless, like traditions about three wise men. However, when these alternative facts affect how people are treated, or what we look to as our future hope, or how we live in the church and the world, they can keep us from being the people God calls us to be. It is my hope that the church will be more discerning, leaving behind alternative facts and instead letting the real messages of Scripture guide it into greater faithfulness.
| Disclaimer: The views expressed in this essay are the opinion of the author of this essay alone and should not be taken to represent the views of any other person or organization. |
Essay written in 2018. Page last modified March 24, 2019
