Anyone who takes Christianity seriously has seen all of the abuses listed over and over again. I’d like more details about #3 “the abuse of biblical balance.” Does this pertain to the “pick your sins” mentality or even the “hierarchy of sins” mentality? Hard to tell from the brief description.

I think they’re all related! As a missionary in Japan, the one I’m most sensitive to is #1. I’ve recently been in dialogue with a missionary from another group who says that our model for our work is Paul. He takes that from just a few passages in Romans where Paul explains the vision for his ministry, and says that missionary work is threefold: evangelism, church planting, and church strengthening. Based on that, this missionary dismisses the work of missionaries involved in holistic ministries as being off the mark.
I counter this by saying that we have to look at the whole Bible to perceive the overarching work of God in redeeming humanity – individuals as whole persons, their relationships, and society. And if we are going to look at any one individual in the Bible as being our model for missions, that’s Jesus, not Paul. In fact, I would think that Paul would say to us, “Don’t blindly try to imitate my ministry! Find out who the Father has created you to be, who Jesus has redeemed you to become, and how the Spirit has gifted you – then go live that out!”

I think the abuses of selectivity and biblical balance are the ones that I consider the most serious.
This is manifest when we twist passages to mean what we think that they must mean. A specific lens is allowed to distort the whole.
I don’t think that the first is actually a separate abuse of scripture – it is simply a subheading under selectivity and balance.
The fourth and fifth – words and context don’t bother me, although recognition of the excesses can be important in conversation.

I am with RJS
#2 and #3 are the key problems (the others fit under these two, it seems to me), and are additionally rampant problems.
I grew up in church. I had a great familiarity with much of the whole of Scripture. However, I had been handed a set of lenses that were built out of a few textual ‘keys’ and some specific Reformation interpretations of those texts. These lenses were the interpretive grid for the whole of the rest of Scripture (with much of the book then relegated to ‘interesting narrative’ with little doctrinal value, perhaps only useful as a collection of morality plays, or even Christian entertainment).
In past years reading some of the great thinkers of our day, I have begun to see with a set of lenses built out of something (hopefully) approaching the sum total of Scripture and interpreted by the whole church (both geographical and historical)…

RJS:
While the abuse of words can seem minor compared to the others, it can at times have large consequence. For example, I’ve come to believe that the extreme zealousness of the neo-reformed can be traced in part to an abuse of words, particularly the hyperextension of hyperbolic modifiers, such as “all” or “every.” Such modifiers are never allowed by these interpreters to be rhetorical devices such as we use in everyday speech today; if a verse uses the word “all” then they insist that literally and absolutely every single instance of the circumstance in view is unchangeably and unalterably governed by that verse. I think much of John Piper’s theology is built on such hyperextension of words and verses.
One shudders to think what would happen if Paul had written in an epistle the equivalent of our common phrase “this was the word day EVER!” Some modern exegetes would probably insist that since Paul wrote under inspiration, whatever first-century day that was was indeed the ultimate worst day in all history.

Mark,
I don’t see hyperCalvinism – of Piper’s variety or any other – as an abuse of words. I see it as a complete lack of Biblical balance. Everything – every last thing – is wrestled into submission to an overriding preconception. This is blatantly apparent in Calvin’s writing – and in Piper’s.
I see the most serious abuse of scripture an unwillingness to take the entire text as it is given. We need to be formed by scripture – this includes texts like Romans 9 (one that I struggle with) – and the more common assumption of free will, and a God who responds in relationship with his creatures portrayed throughout all of scripture. We need Romans and James and Matthew and Galatians and Timothy …

RJS,
I don’t disagree with you at all. I didn’t mean to say that such hypercalvinistic abuses were solely the result of word abuse. Rather, it would be more proper to say that abuse of words is a frequent bulwark to the larger concerns you bring up. That is, hyperextension of words is used to proof-text the imbalanced theological pre-commitments in play. Fair enough?

Hmmmm, another is approaching the text in such a way as our assumptions and certainties are always affirmed instead of challenged.

I see #2 and #3 a lot (okay, all of them really), and at the moment I’m more concerned with how it leads to abuse of people. Not volunteering enough time at church? You must not be spiritual enough. Husband abusing you? Well he apologized, so why aren’t you living with him yet? All of course backed up with a few verses quoted with no concern for either history or a big-picture view of the life of the Church and of individual Christians. It’s one thing to abuse the bible for “doctrinal” reasons, but it’s another when it actually starts messing up people’s lives.

Again, I suggest that the adversarial model of discerning truth which is so prevalent in evangelicalism causes many to use the Bible as a weapon and not as God’s grand Story of salvation. We use the Bible to slice and dice others—it is a double edged sword after all–rather than a gift to build others up in the faith. Until we get beyond “I am right” and “Everyone else who does not think and believe JUST LIKE ME is wrong”, we will have Bible abuse.

What concerns me most is the complete lack of relating the scripture to one’s everyday life. We sit and listen to sermons, talk about how good they are but fail to apply it to our own lives. The other thing that concerns me is the utter lack of biblical knowledge. Just a few weeks ago in a class I help facilitate at my church, a young lady asked if Pres. Obama was the antichrist. When I asked her how she would define the antichrist, she could not give an intelligent response. So how can you accuse someone of being something that you don’t even know what it is in the first place?? When asked where she got her info, she said some from the Bible (questionable), some from our church, some from other books. Sigh….

“But I’ve been thinking of the many who have a great idea, know the texts where that idea is found, and then run everything in the Bible… through that one idea.”
And everyone thinks you’re talking about everyone but them.

I’ll admit that I’m one of these folks who find “a great idea, know the texts where that idea is found, and then run everything in the Bible — and I mean everything — through that one idea.” But isn’t any statement about the “most important command” designed to do this–tell us which commands (of the many that have come from God himself) should be given priority over the others, and in that way serve as a lens for understanding and properly applying them all? Isn’t that part of what it means to say that the Jesus Creed “is more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices?” Doesn’t Jesus himself do this, but just with a different “idea” than others?
I’m not saying that any such practice can’t be taken too far, but don’t we have to do this to some degree? Is it rather a matter of what idea we use and to what degree we allow it to color everything else?

Let me add, too, that I try to be explicit about what I prioritize in the scriptures and why; I think that’s important (which I don’t see often enough). And a rule of thumb I try to use is that if my systematics or interpretation of one scripture appears to contradict (not merely limit or inform) other parts, I question my interpretation/systematics.

Sounds like a great read. I’ll have to check it out.
All of these are common abuses, but around here, I often observe abuses of “the whole gospel” (#1) and “biblical balance” (#3). I personally am most guilty of perpetuating the abuse of “selectivity” (#2). (Give me Matthew 25 any day, but keep Romans 9 for yourself!)
I would add to the list the abuse of “interpretation” (dismissing other perspectives or growing complacent in your own because “you have your interpretation and I have mine”) on the one hand and the abuse of “authority” (rhe Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it) on the other.
The trick is to find a way to interact with fellow Christ-followers while 1) respecting the authority of the Bible, and 2) recognizing that it always requires an interpreter. This can be tough.

Wow. This looks really good. Having been both on the recieving end of abusing Scripture, I find this a topic of much interest.

I just finished reading this book and I second the sentiment that it needs to find a wide audience in today’s church. I agree with the above commenter that they are all related, but part of what makes the book so rich is Brauch’s ability to help distinguish between them.
The abuse of the whole gospel is particularly interesting, and widespread. To truncate the gospel has the effect of shading the meaning of the text so that words like salvation, or redemption, or justification, or any other number of rich and important works are only translated in the reader’s mind based on the breadth of his or her understanding of that which is “the gospel.” I see this a lot in my own church where the gospel is defined only as Jesus’ death and resurrection for the payment of sins. In this case our singular task becomes to proclaim this message, while serious issues like God’s care for the poor and the liberation made available through Jesus, issues of violence and oppression, and even the nature of powerful movements of God such as the incarnation are relegated to secondary issues or events.
Such abuse will likely include, or even be the result of, the abuse of biblical-balance, the abuse of selectivity and the others, but it also acts as a force that pushes readers to the other abuses as well.

I agree with the assessment of Calvinism in comment #6 as being a balance problem, but I also see a word abuse problem as well – assuming I understand what that means. From my observation, words like Justification, Righteousness, Cross, Propitiation (mercy seat…) are key systematic theological terms, which take on meaning within the philosophy of Calvinism. These systematic meanings are then read back into the text, overriding the meaning as suggested by context. So, I guess this is a little bit of “abuse of context” as well. I doubt that this is peculiar to Calvinism!

heh … interesting to me that in a book review about abusing Scripture (which often turns into arguments over this jot and that tittle) the comments have become a “discussion” over which abuse is greater and which is lesser …