Here is a question from my class entitled Youth Culture, using the book Postmodern Youth Ministry as a reference.
Tricky question, as some churches use it well (as propaganda) and others seem to not shake the dust off the cover. Also we must make a distinction as to what type of propaganda does the church ascribe to. In Postmodern Youth Ministry, Tony Jones defines propaganda in three ways:
1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interest of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2) Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the selectied truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda.
3) A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
For a church to use the Bible as propaganda, it is best used as definition one; as a tool to spread the good word, to reproduce disciples and followers of Christ’s doctrine. These churches are churches that not only spread the propaganda, but believe it and act it out. In my opinion, this is how the Bible should be used as a tool to convince the world of Christ and his love for us, “advocating a doctrine” of love, hope and grace.
Unfortunately many churches tend to fall into the category of definition two; becoming a church that passes out material that is full of half truths and lies to propagate a cause, a political statement or a superficial Christianity. Christianity cannot be authentic in a church that is not honest with its parishioners. When a text is used to scare and push, rather than to convince and prod it is less effective to the listener. Especially when we all have Bible’s of our own or if not we have easy access to one. In a place where the Bible is so easily accessible the entrie blame cannot fall on the church that is spewing bad doctrine, it must be placed on the people in the pews who so readily accept the word of a man or woman just because they are speaking from a pulpit.
In summary the Bible in my opinion is used best as propaganda, convincing and educating followers, in a sense indoctrinating them using the word of God. Again having access to the Bible gives us the resource to hold the preacher accountable and to seek out truth for ourselves. It is no longer a church full of illiterate people, well possibly illiterate by choice…
No Comments on "How is the Bible used as propaganda in today’s evangelical churches? Is that okay?"
Agreed. Though isn’t it disconcerting how many “believers” will try to back up an idea with random, out-of-context scriptures? That’s not including the people who dissect every syllable to rationalize whatever flavor-of-the-month bad behavior they’re indulging. But it is great NOT to be living in the Dark Ages, when we all have the same access to the same words. People can pick and choose what they want out of the Bible, but at the end of the day, the truth is there in black and white.
hey, my bad behavior is solid, no fads here.
Wait a minute, you can’t pick and choose if it’s all “truth”. Is it all truth? If so, why isn’t it all followed to the letter? And what is this truth in black in white?
Sam since you’ll be delving more into some intense educational stuffs, should we be prepared more deep thoughts and perspective questions? It’s been a while since I’ve performed academic acrobatics. But college football season just started… oh hey congrats to Tulsa on the victory over S.F. Austin.
Right on. I’m actually writing about the Bible as propaganda again right now for a new book. I’m glad your class is tackling this issue, and I’ll look forward to seeing what you all come up with.
Peace,
Tony
Jason – good thoughts. I guess an example of what I’m talking about would be a verse such as the one where Paul says “do not be drunk with wine.” There are people who argue the importance of wine over the concept of “drunk.” Don’t know if I understand your question about whether the whole thing’s true and following it to the letter … sorry! P.S. Keep up the intellectual stuff, Sam; clearly I need it
So in that quote from Ephesians what truth is your example? That one should not drink or that one should not get drunk? Or simply that debauchery stems from drunkenness (which I can say is quite true) which is the real sin? Not the drinking itself, but the debauchery that follows?
My question is, say for example, in Leviticus, if our leaders or priests were to commit a sin which they do by virtue of being a man, I ask were are the sacrificial bulls or goats (male or female)? The sprinkling of blood and what not? The tents!? Or what if I like my steaks rare? I shave my beard and have cut off my side burns! Am I to be smote? The shirt I’m wearing right now is cotton and polyester, do I burn it and bring forth a cleansed goat?
But those are the words of God right? Are we all not choosing to follow those decrees? But in thinking about this whole word of God, who are we to even “interpret” his word? Are we so brazen to think we could derive any other motive to what has been written other than it’s literal meaning? There should be no ambiguity to His decree? No meaning to derive. It’s there in black and white. The words are absolute, no? Actually, come to think of it, aren’t translations blasphemous? The taking of God’s words and changing their meaning and/or context to fit another language?
Lois, my question is, what is the word of God? Is it simply the Bible? Which version? Which translation?
I agree to a degree with Jason’s post.
God is larger than life and the Bible is God breathed. So if A + B = C, “The Bible was created by something larger than life.” This fact alone creates a situation in which man is inferior.
God is an omnipotent being. He/She created this world and universe as we know it. If there is a being that has the ability to count the hairs on my head and the ability to carve the Grand Canyon with a mountain stream, then there is no way to fully understand his thoughts and intentions. If God wrote the Bible through multiple vessels each vessel left its own sludge on the pure word before it got to the page. For this reason the Bible has to be read through a filter. The filter scenario creates a problem because man continues to f### up what God intended.
Everyone’s filter is different based on their personal experiences. This helps perpetuate the problem by which 10 people read a verse and derive 10 different meanings. In my not so humble opinion, GOD CREATED MAN FOR A PURPOSE AND FROM DAY ONE MAN HAS F###ED IT UP. THE INTRODUCTION OF MAN INTO RELIGION IS THE ROOT OF OUR CONFUSION.
So, in conclusion, the bible is not written in black and white. It is written in whatever color your eyes want to see. The only way we fix this rose colored mess is to have blind faith in a religious creed and stick with it. This would lead me into another topic of believing in Jesus which I don’t have time to discuss at the moment.
PS. I am not really a negative person. I am currently frustrated with the amount of anguish caused by man’s interpretation of what we should believe.
Smart, smart smarties … I am not one, but still I try
Just like with the U.S. Constitution, there’s a never-ending debate about reading the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law in the Bible. Both are important. Readers of Ephesians are cautioned not to get drunk; the sin’s not in the drinking nor the wine itself. How can I say that authoritatively? Because neither wine nor drinking are condemned anywhere in the Bible. So using some handy logic, I can draw a conclusion. Is everything in life, or the Bible for that matter, this open and shut? Maybe, maybe not.
God IS larger than life, and no, His ways are not our ways. Does that mean he defies all logic or reason and chooses to shroud Himself in utter mystery so we’re left grasping at straws? I say no. The Bible you hold in your hands today may not be as “pure” as it was in (HA) Biblical times. But thanks to the miracle of manuscript evidence, we know it’s not far off. Though I think something ought to be said for a being powerful enough to speak worlds into existence but somehow lacks the ability to preserve the integrity of His words. That doesn’t add up. (And no, I don’t think translations in and of themselves are blasphemous — at least two had to be made because we weren’t all born Hebrew or Greek.)
Leviticus, for all its monotony, has an important place in the Bible even for modern readers. So that we can say “oh, none of that stuff matters”? No. So that we can apply every line to our lives? No. It’s a picture of what it would take to even come close to pleasing a being of that magnitude and perfection: more than we can do. The Jesus of the Bible fulfilled (not abolished) all of that. That’s why I can have a clear conscience while eating pork chops in my cotton-blend shirt and reading the Old Testament. Are there still guidelines for the way I ought to live? Sure. They’re in the New Testament. But the Jesus of the Bible is also terribly pre-occupied with freedom and grace, not rules and religion.
I agree, though, that mankind mucks things up constantly, and always has. But the enduring story woven throughout the Bible is that we’re still loved by our Creator, and He continues to pursue us despite our screw-ups.
I would never condone “changing” or “manipulating” scripture, but yes, different people can get different things out of a single verse. Does that mean their little pearls of wisdom contradict one another? No. And that’s what makes it rad. For me anyway, looking at the Bible with “whatever color” eyes I choose is too milquetoast; a collection of books that profound and timeless demand more than that, I think. There’s truth in there, my friend, and plenty to go around. I can only speak of my own faith, but I assure you it’s anything but blind.