Without the Bible we would be worshiping idols. I think God comes to us most directly, with exceptions, through the Bible. It is a two-edged sword that it profitable for correction and reproof. I think it is safe to say that we wouldn't have any of the creeds or any kind of catechism without the Bible. The Bible is what leads us to God. The Bible is a lamp to our feet. Maybe it is possible to put too much importance on the Bible but we should pay attention to what the Bible says, and what the Bible says about it's self.

Qualifiers: I've never heard of Gungor, and didn't spend any time looking at anything else of their site.

I think he's over-reacting. The criticism about legalism has validity, but I'm not sure that it's as universal as he seems to imply. Part of where I think he's in error is that the people who are a problem make a lot of noise and get a lot of press.

I see what he's saying about Bible-ism (which is a better term than "Bible-anity," methinks), though he'd need to explain it a lot more than he did. The idea would be sort of a missing-the-forest-for-the-trees kind of thing. I'm not sure that there's a majority of churches acting so, but I guess that the phrase "much of" gives enough wiggle room.

If that's what he means, I've certainly felt that way in watching popular reactions to certain situations. (I don't want to start a side fight by naming which ones at the moment.)

Having said that, I'd want to see exactly what he wants to do with this. A lot of people sit around criticizing the Church. Some are great, others aren't.

"I know that there are plenty of problems in the American church. But I've never thought that one of them is that we pay too much attention to the Bible."

That is very well said. I think that what he's talking about, though, would be like the people who have such respect for their Bibles that they'd never let you set anything on top of it, won't fold a page, won't write a note or highlight, or do anything else to damage it ... you know, like read it.

That's my take, anyway. That might change if I spend some time perusing his blog.

I've learned the hard way (i.e. through experience and my own mistakes) that so often that when people spout opinions, criticisms or things they are against, that it comes from some kind of personal experience. In other words, Mr. Gungor must have had some bad experiences (or read about or knows someone who had bad experiences) with this sort of thing.

Also he sounds suspiciously like a moderate Baptist. Remember moderate Baptists were very much opposed to terms like "inerrant", and requiring missionaries and seminary professors to sign statements of faith. In the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message, it says about the Bible, "the criterion of interpretation is Jesus Christ". That phrase was taken out of the 2000 BF&M. The reason conservatives (called "fundamentalists" by their opponents) said it needed to be taken out is because it was the "escape" clause for liberal seminary professors. The "liberal" baptist would say something like, "Jesus is my criterion. And Jesus would permit women to preach, therefore, we must see Jesus' wishes as trumping Paul in forbidding women to have authority over a man." That's something of a straw man, but the idea is that your own personal view of "Jesus" allowed you to trump "the clear teaching of Scripture".

So it was taken out. The moderates (called "liberals" by their opponents) said that was wrong. That Jesus is our highest authority. That we have a relationship with Jesus, and I'm exagerating, but basically accused the conservatives of bibliolatry over Jesus, much like Gungor did here.

I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Gungor turned out to be a "moderate" baptist of the BGCT or CBF or New Baptist Covenant camp.

I understand what he's getting at, though I wouldn't go as far as painting all of the American church with it. Heck, I don't think you can do that with any statement on what the church is. Churches are a lot of things.

The point I see him making is many folks are more interested in their knowledge of the scriptures than their knowledge of the savior. They can proof text you until the sun comes up, filling every sentence with 2-3 scriptures proving their point. They worship their knowledge of the book rather than the man the book is about. They're more interested in being right than righteous, in doctrine than relationships.

It seems that there are a large number of folks like than in the US and they are the vocal ones. I think he has a valid point because they are setting the public tone in many areas and defining what Christianity 'is'. I get his frustrations because it's maddening to see Christianity defined as knowledge of a book rather than knowledge of a savoir.

That said, reading their quoted Facebook page makes me squirm a bit. It sounds very 'emergent'. Long on passion, short on specific convictions. Big words (a friend used to call them the church of the English majors) and big ideas, but not so much detail.

Oh, also, because it needs to be said: I'm not questioning Michael Gungor's faith or motivations in the least. I'm just trying to get a handle on this. One motivation I have is that Gungor is HUGE among our college and young singles. We're even taking a break from one of our homegroups because there's a Gungor concert that night. So I'm just trying to prepare in case we need to start having some cautioning conversations.

OK, just reread the Gundarr quote. Here's what bugs me. He uses as his evidence the fact that evangelical churches talk about the Bible before they talk about Jesus on their beliefs page.

In a systematic theology sort of way, that order makes sense. (And systematic organization of doctrine seems to bug Gondor. On his church's "what we believe" section, he begrudgingly gives you a link to a more systematized doctrinal statement.)

It makes sense that what you believe about the Bible come first, because that's how we know anything about Jesus. And so the Bible leads us to Jesus. The order of most typical faith statements make sense. Chronological, logical or systematic order is not the same as order of importance.

So to accuse churches that talk about the Bible before they talk about Jesus in their faith statement of bibliolatry is pretty over the top in my book. and how much can you judge from a website really? To know how relational with Jesus a body is, it takes a lot more than perusing their website.

Good grief. Michael Gungor has a valid point. Perhaps he has overstated his point, or his theology is off, or he has in some way minimized the importance of the bible, or he might even influence someone negatively, BUT his point is valid and worth considering. We are all theologically imbalanced, shaped by biases and beliefs that are not fully accurate. Consider what rings true in his words and dismiss what doesn't. Express your own beliefs and critical thinking. I far from agree with everything Mr. Gungor says in this short quote, but I do ask how his words and my response to his words exposes my own flawed beliefs. Do they in some way point me to Jesus?

As far as his music and lyrics go.... they may not give me a clear understanding of the gospel and they may mention Jesus less than I'd prefer, but might God use them to point me to Jesus? Might they waken something in me that want's more? Might I be more prone to hear God's still and small voice wooing me to Jesus. And might I trust that God is able (and does) use this soulful passionate young man (in spite of his theological flaws) to awaken many to His deep grace and the power of redemption?

Hold fast to your passion for the scriptures and yet see God move through the theologians and the Gungors and even those pushed to the margins of this world.... planting seeds, confounding the wise, showing up in mysterious uncharted ways to grow His kingdom.

Shrode / Salguod, thanks for the comments.

Salguod, you wrote: "Think about this - for the first 1,500 years of the church, the Bible as we know it did not exist."

So it wasn't until the King James was written that we consider the Bible existing? I realize that it wasn't that accessible to many or most christians, but the canon was finalized sometime in the 4th century, correct?

That being said, I agree overall with the points both of you made. I think the problem you've pointed out is getting rarer in our country as time goes by. We're starting to err the other way. Both sides (puffed up with Bible knowledge versus being Biblically illiterate) are equally bad.

ljjasper - I'm a bit confused, are you saying we shouldn't be talking about this?

I hope I didn't appear to come down too hard on Mr. Gungor. If it helps, I really think he's talented and I like his music. I also agree that his music can draw people to God, even though it's not always explicitely about Jesus. I think I was just pointing out the irony of his comment about churches putting Jesus down the list (which I agree with the above commenter - its silly that Gungor uses that in his argument) versus where he puts Jesus in his music.

Here's why I think this is important and worth talking about. The biggest struggles we have today with young people, from my experience, is Biblical literacy (and by that I don't mean that they aren't experts. I mean many of them don't appear to understand the Gospel and that's after being in church all their lives) and leaving the church.

So, I think it's important that Gungor dismisses both the church (calling "much of" American Christianity "Bible-anity") and - in my view - the importance of the Bible.

I'm not on a witch hunt here, but there are some people I care about a whole lot who absolutely LOVE Gungor and I'm just wanting to make sure I know how to speak to this situation, if that's necessary.

Thanks for commenting.

Not at all.... I think you/we should be talking about it. I just think Gungor, in whatever failings he may have in furthering biblical literacy, may be furthering the gospel, planting seeds, playing a role in God's bigger story without comprehensively being "spot on" in all things. I think of musicians as more poets than scholars. We need to listen to what they are saying, focusing on that which affirms the gospel and champion those things alongside them. Spiritual growth is a lifelong process and the "bits and pieces" that point us to Jesus are all good.

I expect the young Mr. Gungor may have something different to say about the bible and the church five years or ten years down the road.

Recently had a discussion with a friend who I respect as knowledgeable in the scriptures that I think is relevant.

A friend of his asked him - "How many times have you read the Bible through? I hear you quoting it all the time - even parts I've never remembered reading." My friend said "zero, how many times have you read it through?" His friend answered "six times.....and I can hardly quote it all"

The point being - I think there's a difference between reading the Bible as a personal discipline, apart from community, and immersing ourselves in it for our sustenance. When we do the latter, we care less about it being a "discipline" and more about it being vital. We don't have to read through it systematically, we focus rather on being transformed by what we do read.

Thus, the "focus" should not be on the "Bible", but on the transformational Gospel that resides within it. Note: I'd prefer saying its all about the Gospel, rather than its all about Jesus - kind of the same thing, but the distinction is important - and for another thread.

I'm guessing that this is kind of what the guy is trying to say, but he is in his 20's (or so) and most of us (save for Andrew who is wise beyond his years) "I think" are older and have a different set of lenses that we look at these things through.

Good grief. Michael Gungor has a valid point.

I might agree if I could figure out what his point truly is. At its heart, what is his main issue? Is it....

1) That we should be doers of the word and not hearers only.
2) That we should spend less time studying the Bible and more time in some other Christian activities (maybe praying, worship, aiding the poor, etc.?)
3) That we shouldn't focus on law and sin; we shouldn't judge other peoples actions; and we should instead simply be more positively loving towards people.

If it's #1, fine, good scriptural reminder. If it's #2, fine, but I personally don't see it as much of a problem and I see a modern failure to spend more time learning the Bible as a much bigger issue. If it's #3, I think it is as dangerous as the legalism it criticizes.

I personally think it is mostly #3. If it is something else, I missed it.

I love Gungor.

I can't really add much to the overall discussion, but I agree that reading that raises a red flag. While I can sort of see what he's trying to say about the worship of the Bible, you can't know of Jesus without the Bible. His dismissal of it seems a bit simplistic to me. I mean, the Bible is God-breathed, His inspired Word to His people. How else are we to know (even at the smallest level) who God is, or what God says, without it? How are we to know about Jesus and what he said without it?

Zach, I appreciate the posting of the lyrics to some of Gungor's songs.

I don't think that anyone here has questioned the legitimacy of their Christianity.

I didn't read all of the comments but my thought is that this is again the conflict that took place between the Pentecostal churches (all spirit) and the mainline churches (all doctrine.) We rubbed off on each other and I hope that we are all more open to Bible study and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

there’s a good chance that under the belief section you will come across the Bible before you come across any language about Jesus. You will probably find more theology about what you need to do to go to Heaven than you will about following the teachings of Jesus, or the Kingdom of God, or anything like that.

I love Gungor, and I (in the last year or so) have become fairly tired of ragging on people for what they believe and picking at minute details (personal conviction), but that seems like a false dichotomy.

Bible or Jesus? Heaven or Jesus? Hmm..

I think Gungor has a point in saying we may not be putting the emphases where they should be, e.g. do our websites/printed material/words/actions point to Jesus as our ultimate satisfaction or to religion? Do they lead people to do more things or instead tell people about the one who did it all for them? I think in this issue his point is valid.

At the same time, I see where mainstream Christianity is coming from, honestly. In a widely diverse and plural nation like America, "Christian" can mean anything from Catholicism, to Calvinism, to Charismaticism. There are so many 'flavors' and 'interpretations', and while they differ on many nonessential issues, they also differ on some essentials.

For a curious beiever (or nonbeliever) to know exactly what "flavor" of the Gospel and of Bible interpretation they're dealing with, I think we have tended to err on the side of being more descriptive in our theology. Somehow, this saddens me, that the word "Jesus" and reading the Bible doesn't bring about a unified understanding, but I do realize that we're jacked up people who all have skewed visions of true glory.

I do think this theological descriptive clarification is at the expense of leading many to believe this (knowing things) is what we're all about. Hopefully our spoken words and deeds prove differently.

So, I understand Gungor's qualms. I also see in both parties (Gungor and Established Church) good things and bad things. It's part of being the Bride of Christ.. we're not really fully sanctified yet and we still all see things somewhat differently. But we can all hope in the fact that Jesus will come again and gather those who truly know him and those that he truly knows.

The challenge from Gungor is that he won't be gathering people on the basis of their ability to articulate theology. The challenge from large evangelical Christianity is that he won't be gathering people on their ability to be 'authentic' and truly care about others either. As broken humans, we can do neither thing truly well and therefore can't base our hope for future glory in either.

Thanks be to Jesus, who is our only hope!!! :)

I think that a look at a recent sermon of his might clear this up.

If you go to the teaching section, he preached on New Years Day. He talks about how the basis of our faith can't just be a book. Books in themselves are empty. Christ and He alone is the author and finisher of our faith. The Bible is a testimony, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to what people saw, Christ resurrected. I think 1 John 1:1-4 clearly agree with him.

I think Michael was simply beginning to form the line of thought that he explores in the message he gave on New Years.

Thanks RD

I have been assuming that Michael's intentions are clean, and that as a pastor he believes in the Bible and sees the value of it.

What I didn't like was the false dichotomy/straw man that assumes that most churches are worshipping the Bible or basing their faith on a book. I believe that kind of reasoning was foreign to the guys who actually wrote the Bible.

It's not an either/or, it's a both/and.

If you read upthread, I'm sure I mentioned this, but I've seen too many young people leave the church, with no real foundation of truth. So I react fairly passionately when someone that they all love and respect like Michael Gungor starts counseling them that most churches are idolotrous of the Bible. Our problem is not revering the Bible too much. It's being too lightweight in the truth, and having faith that blows around like the wind.

Now, having said all that: I have not yet read the sermon you mentioned, so - again - I may be completely misreading the guy. I just wish he would exort people to Jesus without (appearing to be) putting up a dichotomy of Jesus versus the Bible. If I've misread him on that, I'm in the wrong, definitely.