Christianizing Scripture

I either haven't made this disclaimer or it's been a while since I have, so here goes. This blog is NOT about criticism of individuals. I'll take issue with or shots at philosophies I find dangerous, but that's where it ends. For whatever reason I feel the ideas (and just the ideas) deserve a good kick to the curb, and maybe a sucker punch or two when the ref isn't looking. This brings me to this post's topic.

I recently attended a Bible Study exploring the first chapter of Ecclesiastes. As I've mentioned before, this is one of my favorite books. Yes, I'm that weird.

The leader of our study read from chapter one (____ is meaningless, _____ meaning pretty much anything) then used an excerpt from an author and some NT verses to say the exact opposite. Basically, it was using Scripture to argue with Scripture. I found this a bit disturbing, but it happens quite a bit. We don't like what something says, so we proof text our way out of it. There's a dangerous pattern to this.

I guess what surprises me the most is people who do this are the same who argue for taking other difficult passages literally, like "wives, submit to your husbands" and "if a man doesn't work, neither should he eat." I guess as long as it's not uncomfortable for you personally it's okay.

Ecclesiastes, like other OT books, has a lot of uncertainty at times. This makes the reader uncomfortable, which I'll argue is good. Sometimes people need that, or we'll feel too sure of ourselves. Try most of the time.

In these passages, the authors always come to a point of faith. Not certainty, such as "I can argue my way out of this" or really "I can" anything for that matter (unless it's through God). It ends with faith in One who is greater, One we could never fully understand. We can know Him, but we won't figure Him out. May He forgive us for suggesting we can.