#5. Proof-texting is a bad habit that we need to break ourselves of. Simply citing chapter and verse does not end any theological/biblical argument!
I will define proof-texting as the idea that if we can cite a single verse from the Bible which
supports the point that we are trying to make, then no “Bible believing” Christian can disagree with us, because the word of God is on our side. Did you catch the subtlety there? In proof-texting, we are using the Bible to support and promote our agenda, rather than proclaiming in a way than allows the word of God to speak to the people of God. The big problem here is the temptation to quote verses out of context. I think most all of us have probably done this at some point. I know I have! And, as is illustrated in the picture above (two-column text, without normal paragraph formatting) treating each verse as an independent literary unit only serves to enable & encourage this type of behavior.
Let me give you a real-life, personal example from my past. I was involved in a King James-only church that was literally a cult (the Bishop of the movement died in prison while serving time on a child molestation charge). We were taught that while there were other true believers, we could not leave that church because the Bible says that every man must “abide in the same calling wherein he was called” (1 Cor 7:20). The context, of course dictates that the “calling” spoken of here is not the particular church or ministry one was called to follow Jesus in, but rather the life circumstance (slave or free – v. 21). But who needs context when you are trying to control people! (OBTW, if you are ever considering starting a cult, use the old KJV, ’cause its a lot easier to do this type of thing).
Here’s another one of my favorites: “Of course tithing is a requirement for all New Testament believers. Jesus Himself said that you ought to tithe (Matt. 23:23)!” Never mind that in this context Jesus is rebuking His enemies (the Pharisees), not teaching His disciples! Don’t bother carefully considering the relationship between the Old Testament Law of the Tithe and the New Testament principles of abundant generosity, systematic & sacrificial giving. Don’t bother asking how does the tithe for the poor (a form of social welfare in the OT) parallel NT giving to support the religious establishment (staff salaries, real-estate, etc.) My point is not even to try to resolve the question of tithing in the New Testament (I’m sure you can find plenty of blogs on the internet about that, including here) but rather to make the point that citing one New Testament verse is hardly adequate to settle the issue. So why get involved in complex theological issues when you can simply cite a verse and the masses will follow!
One final thought. How about this one: choosing a particular translation of a verse which better supports the point you are trying to make. I’m not talking about choosing a translation because you have studied the Greek and believe it is most faithful to the original. I’m talking about picking a translation because it better supports my agenda and the point I am trying to make in my sermon, lesson or teaching! Once again, we are using the Bible to support our agenda, rather than placing ourselves under scripture’s inherent authority.
What do you think? Have you seen other examples of the abuse of proof-texting, or taking scripture out of context? Is there ever a time when proof-texting is appropriate? How can we avoid the pit falls?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click here to read the next post in this series
While I agree prooftexting can be abused and in the way you describe it here, to promote fear and control, is terrible, the New Testament gives us ample example of how to proof text well. Jesus and the Apostles loved to proof text. Even using half a verse, parts of a passage that worked well while leaving out the parts that didn’t, etc.
Perhaps there is a difference between proof texting to further our agenda, versus God’s. Of course, most people proof texting to further their own agenda will claim it’s God’s agenda. But in Jesus’ case, I think we can be sure it WAS furthering God’s agenda!
I don’t disagree. How do you determine that? Is the bible Jesus prooftexting or the Gospel authors prooftexting? Paul, definitely prooftexted, is that a different category? I just get nervous about this argument, because hermeneutically, it is what we see in the New Testament. They used the Old Testament to show how Jesus was the Messiah. We are supposed to use the bible to show “this is that.” We are not supposed to use the bible to promote fear in people and control them. Jesus is the Messiah, how do I know. The bible tells me so. Here, here and here.
In the wilderness, Jesus effectively used the art of proof-texting to battle back the Devil and his temptations. The word is like a double-edged sword…one side of the blade is for loving rebuke and spiritual warfare, the other side of the blade only edifies yourself. Excellent post Brad!
A Couple thoughts on this thread… there may be a discernible difference between proof-texting to further/support my agenda and quoting scripture to edify, encourage, instruct, explain, etc. However Jason does bring up an important point here about how the NT authors use/quote from the OT. They essentially engage in eisegesis (pouring new meaning/significance into scripture) as opposed to exegesis (drawing out the meaning that God intended/put in there in the first place). But things can get scary pretty quickly if we adopt a freeform, allegorical interpretation as our own methodology in the same way and with the same authority that the NT apostles did.
On the other hand, I think we can also get scary pretty quickly if we don’t do it, as well. Viewing genocide in a positive way, for example. Or suggesting that the Bible gets it wrong when it reads itself.
I appreciate careful exegesis and have learned a lot from it that I’m grateful for. But I’m not convinced that it is a necessary, sufficient, adequate or Biblical response to Biblical abuse.
I think Jason nailed it here on his reply. Personally I have disciplined myself (not with perfection) to make sure I am NOT lifting something out of its intended context. But proof texting should be just that. Using Scripture to PROOVE a point
Such great conversation here.
As I stated on FB, I’m convinced that proof-texting can be a redeemable way of “doing theology” in certain cases. Allen and Swain convinced me (http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-3/JETS_54-3_589-606_Allen%20&%20Swain.pdf).
That being said, I think it needs to be done a bit more careful that some systematicians have done in the past and certainly shouldn’t be done in order to clobber or halt theological dialogue. I have encountered proof-texting where the texts did not, in fact, prove the users case… in fact, the texts were not even relevant or were not used properly.
I don’t know if I’d agree that the NT authors were doing eisogesis though. That just feels wrong. but maybe that’s the evangelical-influenced me. 🙂
The term “Proof Texting” may have been around for a long, long time, however, in 34 years of salvation and theological pursuits, I have only run into the term in last few days. In this short period of time, I have determined that one of the primary problems with the discussion around “Proof Texting” is determining what exactly is “Proof Texting”. If by “Proof Texting” we mean what the Apostle Paul regularly employed in his epistles, then those who are in opposition to it have a tall order in front of them. If the definition is relegated to that which is offered in this article, then “Proof Texting” should be avoided at all cost. So, the challenge regarding this subject is clear (at least to me); In order to determine if we should be engaging in “Proof Texting” as a matter of theological pursuits, then we must spend adequate time defining exactly what “Proof Texting” is.
Lance – I think you’re right. For more see my reply to Luke’s comment below. But no, simply citing a chapter and verse to support a point or argument that you are making is not inherently wrong. What I’m objecting to is the idea that simply citing a single verse to support my point automatically ends the discussion – that’s just silly. And for many what comes next is “Well if you don’t agree with my interpretation, then I guess you just don’t believe the Bible at all!” (i.e. you must therefore be a wretched unbeliever). So yeah, defining terms definitely helps.