The Conservative Bible Project: Where are these free-market parables?

Some have been asking questions about the quality and economic orientation of the New Testament. One attempt to (dramatically) re-orient the text has come from Conservapedia.

My Critique of the Conservative Bible Project

I wish I could separate the wheat from the chaff. Initially, it seems odd to me that we would find absolute free market endorsement in the New Testament (for instance tobacco, violence in the media, or endorsements of sinful behavior in advertising). So any nuanced and holistic understanding of the text must begin–based on my reading of the sermon on the mount–on those fundamental limits (among others) to free market activity. Hence, this passage from the ten Conservative interpretations principles of the project, simply misses the point:

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

The parable of the talents is neither free market nor socialist nor endorses any other market. Its an argument for the value work and creativity, but not necessary in the free market–thats an incredibly important distinction. (Also the free market allows people to be lazy–those who have accumulated wealth, those who charge inordinate prices for their work, and those. I’m not sure how this discrepency squares with the Conservative Bible project’s philosophy.)

How someone uses their talents is something their work out with saviour. At best, this is an argument for keeping the welfare state accountable and transparent (sure he doesn’t say transparency, but transparency in the welfare would hopefully have the effect of helping ensuring money was used effectively and prudentially).

In the same way, the sermon on the mount doesn’t endorse socialism–it endorses compassion, love, and probably dignity. Second, conservatives, please stop abusing the word “socialism” your most astute and media savvy people even admit this just sounds silly. The need to provide a rationale, when neither view is defended is mostly an exercise in futility and unnecessary infighting.

Critique #2: Conservative Bible Project

The members of the conservative bible project apparently think the bible is “dumbed down” by various translations and this must be rectified. This is simply incredible:

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level.

So apparently, our kids shouldn’t be able to read the text. Also, those in other countries with less than a 7th grade education are likewise out of luck. BTW, I thought it was 3rd grade–but I haven’t done the research and will have to defer to him. I just believe our kids should have access and we probably shouldn’t be calling them “dumb” or implying that either. Same goes for new christians.

#3 Criticism of the Conservative Bible Project

Apparently, the Conservative bible project doesn’t seem interested in what the greek says or a simple translation, or using terms that the Jews used themselves (which is an issue of truth and history):

Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.”

I didn’t know so-called Liberals were so wordy or that using the Greek and Hebrew translations of words which probably best mirror that actualities of the times of Jesus was such a bad thing.

At the end of the day, most economic/political readings of the Bible are going to be based on interpretations and suggestions rather than a verifiable textual answer. Even in that search it would be difficult to answer the Bibles emphasis on helping widows, orphans, and outcasts. And like Amy Sullivan I curiously wonder how the Conservative Bible Project will translate:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

However, we would do well to Ernesto Tinajero at Sojourners: Faith Politics, and Culture points out:

Of course, this flies in face our need of God’s grace and need for a humble heart. Jesus’ words challenge Consevapedia’s worldview. They also challenge my worldview, as they should. The truth is, all Christians try to remake God into our image. This is the very definition of the sin of pride. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, and Christians all have fallen short of the glory of God. Then we try to use God as justification for our own biases, making the word of God an echo chamber.…Once, a theology professor made a comment I keep coming back to. He said if you read the Bible and it does not challenge you, then you are reading yourself and not the Bible.

Please, at least take a minute of prayer and reflection before launching into another (ravenous) us vs. them battle which makes the church look silly. Don’t let Satan use the systems of this world against us. For the sake of your sanity and soul, please don’t let politics, economic philosophies, or ego hijack the message of Jesus.

Just my humble opinion.

Endnotes:

Here are all Conservopedias ten critiques of current (aka liberal) bible translations:

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[1]

Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[2] Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle” Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;[4] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities

Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.