The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
“Cherry-picking” has nothing to do with picking cherries. With respect to writers or writings (among many other categories), the term cherry-picking implies the selective affirmation of certain points of any writer to the exclusion of other points by the same writer. We like what we like, but we don’t like what we don’t like.
In newspapers and news magazines, most editorials are unsigned, but virtually all newspaper and magazine columnists attach their names to their writings. Those of us who are avid readers of pundits follow certain columnists zealously, certain others with less enthusiasm, and still other columnists with a high degree of skepticism, if we read them at all.
There are some columnists some readers avoid like the plague. Nevertheless, because all writers and all readers cover a very wide political, social, and cultural spectrum, there is someone and something for everyone somewhere in the print media. However, no one appeals to everyone. As Mr. Lincoln famously observed, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Thus, to cite a personal example, I usually try to read everything that syndicated writer George Will says about anything. I strongly agree with about twenty per cent of it, I agree and disagree with perhaps twenty per cent of it, and I am mildly enraged by sixty per cent of it, and it is hard to become mildly enraged. Sometimes I am so put off that I glance only briefly at the first paragraph or two before ceasing altogether, deciding to try to prevent some sort of cardio-vascular event within my person.
On the other hand, I read everything I ever see that is written by David Brooks. Almost always I agree him. When I don’t, I still greatly respect him and his thinking.
I also respect the knowledge, honesty, and integrity of George Will. It’s just that I disagree with him on many matters of substance. I devour David, but I cherry-pick George.
I say all this because it relates to how you or I or anyone reads the Bible. Most people who consider themselves Jews or Christians give at least minimal deference to the Bible. To one degree or another, most Christians consider the Bible to be the divinely-inspired “word of God.” Those who believe the Bible to be God’s word to humanity in any measure theoretically believe they are equally devoted to the whole Bible, simply because it is, as has been claimed for three thousand years or so, “the word of God.”
No one can realistically be devoted to every word of the entire Bible. Intellectually and theologically, that is not possible. No one thinks equally highly of every biblical book or every biblical character. How many people go into paroxysms of truly informed praise for the entirety of Leviticus, Numbers, I or II Kings (ditto Chronicles), Ezra, Hebrews, James, or Jude? Who is favorably and enthusiastically disposed to Cain, the Canaanites, Ahab or Jezebel, Herod, Judas, Caiaphas, or Pilate? All these books and people are in the Bible, but hardly anyone is truly devoted to any of them.
As for Jesus, which Jesus do we prefer? The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), or the Jesus of John? Each Gospel writer had his own Jesus, but three of those Jesuses are basically similar, and one, the Jesus of John, is very different from the other three. Two notably disparate Jesuses are portrayed in the four biblical Gospels.
In none of the Gospels is there a consistent Jesus. For instance, in Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus loudly cursed the Galilean towns of Chorazin and Bethsaida because they has refused to accept him and his teachings. However, only four verses later, and possibly only minutes after having lambasted the two towns, Jesus said the famous lines made more famous by Handel’s Messiah, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest; take my yoke upon you, and learn of me. For I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls” (Mt. 11;28-29).
Which Jesus do you prefer: the Woe-Jesus or the Come-unto-me-Jesus? Do you like the Jesus who bids little children to come to him or the one who turns over the tables of the money-changers in the temple?
By sophistry and elasticity, the mind may attempt to construct a consistent Jesus, and that may appeal to certain kinds of head-Christians. It is difficult to accomplish, but it is often tried. On the other hand, the heart is thrown by the contradictions presented in the Gospels, and so heart-Christians may find it much more convenient to overlook or ignore passages in which Jesus comes across as ultra-righteous or super-judgmental or imperiously vindictive.
Are we perhaps drawn to the Jesus of Paul? For Paul, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were everything, while the teachings and words of Jesus were almost nothing. Jesus is quoted by Paul as having said almost nothing. That may be because Paul knew almost nothing of Jesus’ words or teachings. He never knew Jesus. He only knew people who knew Jesus. Apparently he did not ask them very much about what Jesus actually said. Nevertheless, Paul wrote at great length about how he believed Jesus perfectly fitted into the plan of God for the salvation of the world. For Paul, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus explained nearly everything about Jesus anyone needed to know.
What Jews believe about the Old Testament and what Christians believe about the New Testament is the result of careful lifelong cherry-picking. We know what we like in the Bible, and we also know what we do not like. Inevitably we all have our own personal Bible which consists of particular books (but not others), particular passages in particular books (but not all passages), and particular words of particular people in the Bible (but not all of their words).
Everybody cherry-picks the Bible. Those who are not cherry-pickers consciously or subconsciously choose not to take the Bible seriously. The Bible is inconsistent and contradictory and of enormously varying levels of theological and literary quality. The book of Esther, which never once mentions God, is far below Isaiah or Hosea in biblical value. The Gospel of Luke is in the celestial heavens compared to the hellish oblong blur of the intentionally mystifying and frequently incomprehensible book of Revelation.
There is an obvious danger in admitting any of this to anyone, however. Opponents of Christianity or of every religion can say that all sacred scripture is neither sacred nor genuinely scriptural, because it is demonstrably inconsistent. It is not all inconsistent, however, any more than all the writings of all atheists or agnostics are consistent. Atheists cherry-pick other atheists. Everybody cherry-picks everybody and everything. If we do not do that, we will all go mad. “A foolish consistency,” said Ralph Waldo Emerson, “is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
The lectionary is intended to give preachers, and thus congregations, a well-rounded selection of biblical passages to be used in worship over a two or three-year period. However, cherry-picking is involved in the very selections that are made, those that are included in the lectionary and those lectionary readings that are chosen by the preacher. Scriptural selections have always been made as long as there have been preachers to select them.
Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists often describe themselves as “Bible-believing Christians.” In saying that, they seem to suggest that everything in the Bible can and should be believed. However, even Bible-believing Christians truthfully cannot make such a demonstrably false claim.
Those who suppose themselves completely consistent in their understanding of the Bible delude themselves. The best anyone can accomplish, including any writer of any book in the Bible, is general consistency, moderate consistency, but never total consistency.
Biblical scholars spend their entire careers investigating chapters and verses and individual words in scripture, wanting to make it intelligible to other scholars and preachers and lay people. We should all be grateful for their extraordinary efforts. But we and they fool ourselves if we think the Bible is “all of one piece.” It is not. It is myriads of varying kinds of pieces, patched together with the best of intentions but sometimes also with the worst of results.
Cherry-picking is essential to a genuine appreciation of the Bible. In the process, however, rationality must always trump ideology. We must never try to force ideological assumptions to twist the Bible to say what it does not say. If it says things which we know are irrational, we must conclude that even if it is in the Bible, parts of the Bible are simply wrong. Then we must press on. Otherwise we shall become biblical schizophrenics, always trying unsuccessfully to create consistency where there is none.
Careful cherry-picking matters. Careless cherry-picking muddles. Wisdom evolves from selecting for oneself (and it is also hoped for others as well) the most wholesome, nutritious, and life-sustaining cherries God had provided us from the tree of life.
John Miller is a writer, author, lecturer, and preacher-for-over-fifty-years who is pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. www.chapelwithoutwallshhi.org