For those who believe that they already know what the Bible teaches and consequently do not need to wrestle with its interpretation, their job is a relatively simple one, however uninformed.

—Lee Martin McDonald et al., Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature

It is not an easy thing for a soul, under the influence of error, to be persuaded of the contrary opinion.

—Irenaeus, Fragments

And those mutations are very few indeed. We each carry about 50 mutations in the approximately 3 billion base pairs of our DNA–complete novelties not found in the DNA of either parent (Wells 2006, 16). They are infrequent random accidents in an otherwise amazingly accurate DNA replication process.

Yet the variations resulting from genetic mutations are the raw material of evolution. It is an unguided process that results in the “preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations,” a phenomenon that Darwin called natural selection (1859, 81). The randomness of the mutations is the noise, and natural selection is the filter. Every “slight modification” that the mutations cause, “which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favoured the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would thus have free scope for the work of improvement” (p. 81). Natural selection “is just differential reproduction. Some organisms because of their features do better at reproduction than others. That is all there is to it. Nothing more” (Ruse 2010, 164).

What does [Darwin’s] idea of common ancestry mean for (1) our understanding of life, (2) of who we are, and of what our relationship with the rest of nature should be? Or consider Darwin’s idea of “natural selection,” the impersonal winnowing mechanism responsible for the emergence of new species over an unimaginably immense span of time. (3) If all the diverse species arose gradually by way of a blind natural process, in what sense can God still be called the author of life, if at all? And (4) if our own species is a product of natural selection, can Christian theologians still responsibly pass on the news that we are created in the “image” and “likeness” of God (Gen. 1:26)? Since human beings apparently evolved as one species among others, what does this imply for our ideas about the (5) soul, (6) original sin, and (7) salvation? And (8) what does “Christ” mean if Jesus also is a product of evolution? [Haught 2010, xii]

is the view of the Creator that their intellectual contortions force them to hold. In order to defend God against the challenge they see from evolution, they have had to make Him into a schemer, a trickster, even a charlatan. Their version of God is one who intentionally plants misleading clues beneath our feet and in the heavens themselves. Their version of God is one who has filled the universe with so much bogus evidence that the tools of science can give us nothing more than a phony version of reality. In other words, their God has negated science by rigging the universe with fiction and deception. To embrace that God, we must reject science and worship deception itself. [2007, 80]

Worshiping or even defending deception is something I must decline to do.

They also became the source of all our problems, at least according to Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12-19:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. . . . For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

He makes the same basic point in 1 Corinthians 15:21: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

The remainder of my sample of quotes I now present in the usual chronological order, beginning with two early ones:

† “When man fell into sin, the Heavenly Parent received a deep wound in His heart. As earthly parents, when a child wounds himself with a knife, take away the sharp tool and throw it into the fire, so also God took this sharp knife of sin with which His youngest child pierced himself to death and threw it into hell fire and began to heal those poisonous wounds with the oil of grace when He, Himself, had to suffer the agony and pain of hell because of this unfortunate child” (Laestadius, Mary’s Day sermon [1848]; Fourth Postilla, 189).

† Jesus “has given his life, in fact forfeited everything through love for the fallen sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, to open the gates of Paradise, which were closed through disobedience and sin” (O.H. Jussila, Siionin Lähetyslehti, 9/1919, from Greetings of Peace, 8/1949).

As we will see from the rest of the quotes, Conservative Laestadianism has firmly maintained that theological emphasis, and does so with an utterly credulous, unwavering acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical figures. It has been over one hundred and twenty years since Ingersoll asked the largest audience ever assembled at the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, “Is there an intelligent man or woman now in the world who believes in the Garden of Eden story? If there is, strike here,” he said, tapping his forehead, “and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent” (Lecture on Orthodoxy, 1884). Yet, despite all of the astounding scientific progress that has been disproving the story ever since, Conservative preachers are churning out references to Adam and Eve seemingly more than ever:

† “After God had created the earth and everything in it, He finally created man and a suitable ‘help-mate’ for him. He gave them Paradise as their dwelling place. The life of the first human pair was happy. They passed amidst beautiful trees and ate of their good fruit” (By Faith, 21).

† “God knew that man, whom He created in His own image and nature, would fall into sin and come under the dominion of the prince of darkness. God drew up, together with His Son in eternity, a plan of salvation for man” (Lepistö 1985, 119).

† “As a result of the Fall, man was separated from God and lost his righteousness. The trusting relationship of the child to the Father disappeared, and in its place, came fear and a need to flee from God. We all bear this poor heritage of the Fall of the first people, which is called inherited sin. Man became incapable of doing that which is right before God” (Uljas 2000, 28).

† “In an attempt to be acceptable before God, Adam and Eve clothed themselves to cover their nakedness. This work, which arose from the unbelieving mind, was an attempt to be acceptable before the Heavenly Father. The initial disobedience to God in the attempt to hide their sin kindled the Heavenly Father’s wrath. God punished the first human pair by inflicting trials upon them and their offspring. However, God’s anger was directed towards the works of the flesh which are filthy rags before Him. Nevertheless, in His great love and compassion He clothed Adam and Eve with the garment of righteousness” (VOZ, 9/1998).

† “Jesus watched His Father blow the spirit of life into Adam’s nostril on the morning of creation; He created man in His own image” (VOZ, 6/2001).

† “The Creator especially blessed mankind, having breathed the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils so that he became a living soul. God provided all life’s necessities for man in the Garden of Eden, and put man there to dress it and keep it. Through deceit by the enemy of souls, however, Adam and Eve fell into sin, and the shadow of fear and death descended on mankind” (VOZ, 12/2008).

† God’s work of creation, including man, was good, but God’s good work was “corrupted in the Fall. It corrupted God’s image in man. As a consequence Man’s will and nature are now inclined to evil. . . . Man is not tempted to do evil because of his genetic composition, but because of his sin-corrupted will and nature” (VOZ, 7/2009).

so far as this account is concerned, what, I ask you, could sound more like a fairy tale if you were to follow your reason? Would anyone believe this account about the creation of Eve if it were not so clearly told? This is a reversal of the pattern of the entire creation. Whatever is born alive, is born of the male and the female in such a manner that it is brought forth into the world by the female. Here the woman herself is created from the man by a creation no less wonderful than that of Adam, who was made out of a clod of earth into a living soul. This is extravagant fiction and the silliest kind of nonsense if you set aside the authority of Scripture and follow the judgment of reason. [§21]

Overwhelming scientific evidence that Luther could not have possibly imagined has shown the story to be “extravagant fiction” indeed.

But preachers could not resist trying to make it all seem sensible:

† “Once in the ‘beginning’ came that time when God with His word through His Son created the visible heaven, that is, the wide reaches of space and the Earth. In all this God paid close attention to detail. The stars, Earth and Sun stay in precise orbit and in the correct time unto this day. God is a God of order. Before this wonderful system, even modern astronomers consider the denial of God utter foolishness” (Päivämies, 1974).

The quoted writer makes quite a claim about the theistic conclusions of “modern astronomers.” Members of the National Academy of Scientists were surveyed about their religious beliefs in 1998, and of the physicists and astronomers in the survey, just 7.5% expressed a personal belief in God. The overall result among all the scientists surveyed was a 7.0% personal belief. Already in 1933 just 15% of scientists in a comparable survey had expressed belief in God (Nature 1998, 313). That might all have come as a surprise to the writer of the quote, whose comment about the orderliness of the orbits of celestial bodies goes back to the pious “natural theology” of Isaac Newton’s day.

† “Our children are being taught Darwin’s theory of evolution as fact! We do not object if our children are taught that a man named Darwin once lived; that he expounded a theory, and only a theory, which claimed that all life evolved spontaneously from nothing. But they should also be told that the so-called scientific community itself has never accepted Darwin’s theory entirely. They should be told the truth!” (VOZ, 1/1977).

The quoted writer calls for truth, but the truth is that the “so-called” scientific community had largely accepted Darwin’s theory by the end of his life in the 1800s; he was buried in Westminster Abbey alongside Newton as a national hero. The myth that there is some undercurrent of scientific objection to evolution is a persistent one, which Alan Almquist and John Cronin addressed twenty years ago. Regarding the “notion that agreement among scientists about the factual support for evolution is wavering,” they write:

Nothing could be farther from the truth. In Endler’s [1986] Natural Selection in the Wild we find a clear demonstration that evolution and natural selection are alive and thriving in the scientific community [Cooke 1986]. In fact, the vast majority of scientists generally favor evolution over other explanations for life. The recent signing by 72 Nobel laureates of a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a Louisiana law requiring the so-called balanced treatment of evolution and its primary opponent, creationism, in state schools (see Palca 1986, Norman 1986) is the clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced. That this was the largest group of Nobel laureates ever to sign a single document (Norman 1986) clearly indicates that if there is still confusion in the public mind concerning the validity of evolution the scientific community does not share it. [Almquist and Cronin 1988, 520]

I was initially sympathetic to objections about evolutionary “theory” (a scientific term for a testable explanation of observed phenomena, like the equally well-established “theories” of gravitation and relativity) and studied many of them in hopes that they would allow me to retain a creationist worldview. But it soon became apparent that, without exception, those objections were motivated by religion rather than science and fact. Here is an example:

† In Darwin’s theory of evolution, “it is taught that man evolved from apes. This is contrary to the Word of God. Genesis 2:7 states, ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.’ No other creature was created with a living soul. This clearly makes man different from all other of God’s creations. It is not possible, then, that man evolved as Darwin states. However, if this theory is presented to the young Christian child, it can cause heavy doubts to weigh in the mind and heart [of] the child. This should not be allowed to pass by uncorrected” (VOZ, 6/1977).

Rather than admit any biblical error, he concludes that it “has clearly been quite common for biblical authors to shorten the genealogies, leaving out those generations which they thought were not important [Mt 1:8 vs. 1 Ch. 6:7-9 cited]” (p. 16). Based on Deut 7:9, Reinikainen proposes an alternate calculation, in which “the Bible verifies that from Adam until the second coming of Christ there are about 1,000 generations.” Thus, able to acknowledge “about 10 times more than the amount verified earlier” of human existence, a “Christian believes that the Bible speaks the truth” (p. 16).

Unfortunately, we are still left wondering how Adam’s descendants, i.e., tool-making, anatomically modern Homo sapiens, could have been leaving their bones and artifacts strewn across the Mideast, Southern Europe and Asia, and Australia by 40,000 B.C., after having already occupied parts of Africa for over 100,000 years. Then there are those inconvenient Homo erectus fossils in Africa and parts of Asia dating back hundreds of thousands of years, which are accompanied by evidence of “human” activities; their own stone tools, fire usage, and even seafaring (130,000 year-old stone tools have been found on the island of Crete). And, going millions of years further back, there are Homo habilis and the Australopithicenes. All of those extinct predecessors look a lot like Homo sapiens but have features that gradually evolve toward our own as time moves forward: receding brow ridges, increasing brain capacity, improving bipedalism, emerging vocalism.

The book goes on for several pages with practical objections to evolutionary theory and concludes that a “Christian can examine the achievements of science, securely accepting that which is true, and rejecting that which does not verify the truth,” seeing through faith “that positive scientific results are not contradictory to the proclamations of the Bible” (p. 21).

dismissing evolution offhand after two centuries of reliable research by sciences ranging from geology to genetics smacks of ignorance and arrogance unbecoming to people of faith. I am not a scientist, but I am fully aware that knowledgeable people now almost universally accept Darwin’s version of evolution as updated by the discovery of the units of heredity known as genes. Like all scientific ideas, the theory is open to improvement or even falsification if the evidence leads in that direction, but so far it has withstood every test. [pp. xiii-xiv]

Whether it is “an outrage to the word of God” or not, I now accept that I am the product of evolution by (apparently) random mutation and natural selection. Like it or not, we are descendants not of any first human pair but of now-extinct hominids originating in Africa, who themselves have common ancestry with other apes, most closely the chimpanzee.

† “In Laestadian teaching we hold fast to the truth of traditional creation doctrine, that God has created man in his image and we are not descended from other species” (Aimo Hautamäki, SRK Secretary-General).

But the cold, unyielding scientific fact is that “traditional creation doctrine” is not the truth at all, and holding fast to it means going down with a sinking ship. It is a slow but inexorable demise, and those still on deck assuring each other that the Titanic is unsinkable are going to find themselves needing to change their story sooner or later. “About a century and a half ago Charles Darwin surprised the world with his remarkable new theory of evolution. Theology has yet to come to grips with it” (Haught 2000, 1). As discussed in the sub-section below, there are indications that the SRK is finally starting to do so, at long last.

The key is that you are considered fundamentally wrong and inept, beginning with the doctrine of original sin. Everything about you is flawed, and you desperately need to be salvaged by God. The damage to self is more than hurt self-esteem. Your confidence in your own judgment is destroyed. As an empty shell, you are then open and vulnerable to indoctrination because you cannot trust your own thinking. Your thoughts are inadequate, your feelings are irrelevant or misleading, and your basic drives are selfish and destructive. [1993, 74]

demand that the teaching of Darwinian evolution (the idea of species steadily developing or evolving) be removed as heretical from all schools. By every means possible, they seek strong scientific evidence for creationism, modeled as the “intelligent design” theory of the Universe. Not even once have we needed an explanation for the birth of the universe and evolution. We just simply believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. [Kiviranta 2008]

That same year, another SRK ordained pastor, Pauli Rentola, gave a presentation that seemed to seek an accommodation with evolution. Though he clung to a few whisps of mystery about transformation from one species to another, and attributed everything to “God’s wise creation work,” he had no criticism of modern science, which

has evolved the theory of evolution quite extensively from just a simple thought. Rentola made it known that species continually change in small ways constantly, which science tries to and has explained. Science also tries to explain some of the bigger changes between species, but explaining how a species transforms itself into another is still difficult. As believers we understand that all of the changes that happen in Nature are a testament to God’s wise creation work, Rentola said. [Junes 2008]

Extremist thinking has not been a part of the believers’ worldview. The doctrine of rationalism that submits the Bible to reason, as well as religious fundamentalism that requires literal interpretation of scripture, are both alien to living faith. The understanding of science and the origins of the universe and belief in God’s creation has not given rise to party lines that would break the love [between believers, rakkautta rikkovia rintamalinjoja]. Creationism is a foreign [vieras: strange, unfamiliar] attempt to reconcile man’s limited intelligence and God’s great, still ongoing work of creation. [Hintikka 2012]

Why is Ed worried about Noah’s Ark? None of us believe it, either.

—LLC Preacher [2009]

Both literalism and symbolism are evident from the very beginning of this sample of quotes:

† “Who is able to comprehend the amount and power of the waters of Noah? They covered even the greatest mountains and the highest hills. Their power raised the ark from the deepest bottom, held it up and safely carried it to the new land where the vine-tree is blooming. When the grace of God that is through the redemption work of our Lord Jesus is compared to the waters of Noah, who is able to comprehend its amount and power? The great flock of unbelievers was not able to comprehend where so much water could come from, which could cover the great mountains and the hills. How difficult it was also even to our consciences to open up to receive the gospel and to believe that its grace as the waters of Noah suffice to cover the greatness of our sins. . . . Where have the great mountains of our sins gone, and where the high hills of our proudness and vain glory? What changed the sight of our eyes to see this old ark as so beautiful a dwelling place, although it is tarred inside and out . . . ?” (Heikki Jussila [1915], from Greetings of Peace, 8/1970).

† “Noah himself believed the word of God and built the ark of salvation. The moment came finally, when men saw how all that Noah had prophecied, was fulfilled. When Noah stepped into the ark, it began to rain, and all perished. Surely the word of God would have then been acceptable, if it only had been [available] to be heard. But it was not heard, no matter how men prayed and begged for mercy. The waters only rose higher, finally covered all. How horrible it was to perish knowing that the reason for this terrible calamity was that they had not believed the truth God had proclaimed through His servant, the preaching of that gray-headed old man, who so lovingly and patiently had spoken of truth and grace?” (Arvi Hintsala, Greetings of Peace, 11/1949)

Noah was a loving, patient gray-headed old man speaking about truth and grace? Those writers were just making that up. Hebrews 11:7 tells us that Noah prepared the ark “to the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world.” That doesn’t sound very evangelical to me. All we hear about his supposed preaching career is that he was “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet 2:5).

† “It is very noteworthy that scientific examination reveals that the source of wine growing was in the regions of Ararat where the ark of Noah once rested” (Saari 1968, 13).

In the years leading up to the 1973 schism, those who ultimately departed were warned and rebuked many times by the Conservatives. It seems clear to me that the writers of the following two quotes had those events fresh in mind in their portrayals of Noah:

† “Before the first world was destroyed by the flood, the consciences of men hardened in horrible sins and acts contrary to nature. Not one repentant one could be found in the entire world, although Noah warned, admonished and reproached long. Only Noah with his family in the ark were rescued from destruction” (SRK speaker’s meeting presentation, 1973).

† “[E]vil corrupted people and made them fall to serve the filthy lusts of the flesh, even so deep that when God looked down He saw that the sons of God had seen the daughters of men that they were fair and they had taken them to [be] their wives. (James 6:2). This was sin before God that His children so mixed themselves with the world . . . Finally came the moment when people could see that what Noah had prophesied came true. When Noah entered the ark and God closed the door of the ark there was such a flood that all people and everything were drowned. Then they would have accepted the word of the Lord if they had been able to hear. But it was not preached, no matter how much they prayed and cried for grace. The waters just rose and finally covered everything. Oh, how terrible it was to be drowned and know that the reason for this terrible calamity was that one had not believed the truth, which God had let be preached by His servant, the sermon of that grayhaired old man who had looked so mild and suffering and had spoken grace and truth. So unbelief brought the people of that time to eternal calamity. Only Noah and his family were saved from this terrible fate. They were saved in the tarred ark through faith, for they were partakers through faith of the righteousness that is acceptable to God” (VOZ, 10/1974).

† “The sons of Noah were Shem, Ham and Japeth. Shem’s skin was white, Ham’s skin was black and Japeth’s skin was yellow” (VOZ, 5/1975).

I was even more surprised that it was taught to one of my children at a confirmation school in 2006.

† In the first world, the “disobedience and ungodliness of man became so great that God regretted that He had made man. In His love, God, nevertheless, called man unto repentance. Noah preached 120 years concerning the opportunities of salvation. He built an ark in which he and the animals were saved from the destructive flood. Only eight people were saved. All others drowned. After the flood, God made a covenant in which He promised never again to destroy the earth by water. He placed the rainbow into the clouds for a sign of this covenant. The faith of Noah, the preaching of faith and the saving ark signify today’s Kingdom of God. Outside the ark of the Kingdom of God there is no salvation from the destruction of the second world” (By Faith, 25).

There is, of course, only one Ark and the few people in it all know each other. Luther also made a comparison between the Ark and the Christian Church:

[A]s it happened when Noah was preparing the ark, so it takes place now. As he took refuge in the ark which swam upon the waters, so, it is to be observed, must you also be saved in baptism. Just as that water swallowed up all that was then living, of man and beast,—so baptism also swallows up all that is of the flesh and corrupt nature, and makes spiritual men. But we rest in the ark, which means the Lord Christ, or the Christian Church, or the Gospel that Christ preached, or the body of Christ, on which we rest by faith, and are saved as Noah in the ark. You also perceive how the image comprises in brief what belongs to faith and to the cross, to life and death. Where there are only those that follow Christ, there is surely a Christian Church, where all that springs from Adam, and whatever is evil, is removed. [The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude Preached and Explained, “The First Epistle General of St. Peter,” Ch. 3]

But note the difference in emphasis between his comparison and the sectarian interpretation of the Voice of Zion quotation. Rather than just being “God’s Kingdom,” i.e., Conservative Laestadianism, the Ark is a picture of the Lord Christ, the Christian Church, the Gospel, and the body of Christ, and taking refuge in it amidst the rising waters constituted salvation in baptism.

† “Noah was six hundred years old when the flood came and drowned everyone except Noah and his family. God saved Noah and his family for their faith” (Päivämies No. 46, 2009).

How did these people get to look so different, with adaptations to their specific locations, if there is no such thing as evolution? According to creationists, “microevolution” (a distinction from “macroevolution” that is cited far more by creationists than scientists) was enough to get the job done in a few thousand years. So why is it so hard for them to imagine the scientific reality that we have a common ancestor with these guys in the next picture that lived about 5-7 million years ago?

There is absolutely no evidence for such a worldwide deluge, and it is impossible to dismiss all of the practical problems, just a few of which are listed here. Basic geology and the fossil record provide no evidence for, and plenty of evidence against, any global flood. There are in fact no “fountains of the great deep” (7:11), and the amount of rainfall needed is far beyond what would completely saturate the air.

I’ve heard people attempt to reduce their dissonance about the Noah’s Ark story in some interesting ways. Perhaps all of the animals were miniaturized and teleported to the Ark. Perhaps their DNA was kept in test tubes on the Ark. All cultures have flood stories so that proves a worldwide flood. (Actually, it seems to indicate the likelihood that the Genesis account is just another instance of a common mythic theme.) The most frequent and conversation-stopping response however, is that nothing is too difficult for God. And just like that, God becomes a stage magician, waving his wand and poofing absurdity into reality for the sole purpose of conforming it to the words of an ancient text that can’t even get its stories straight. (Seven pairs of ritually clean animals, or one? Forty days of flooding, or 150?)

As Long concludes about the “utter ridiculousness” of the Noah story:

Sure, one can easily explain the whole fiasco by use of miracles: God made all the water appear and disappear; God prevented all the water from becoming too hot; God put the animals into hibernation; God kept the ark afloat; God repopulated the earth with life; and God erased all evidence of the flood. By invoking the miracle clause, however, Christians are using unverifiable events that any person can insert into any scenario in order to maintain the legitimacy of any religion. [2005, 60]

It seems to me that answers purporting to address any conceivable problem really turn out to be answers to nothing.

Why does the Old Testament incessantly violate my idea of right and wrong? Why does it regard women in such a poor light? Why are the people of Yahweh supposed to wipe out men, women and children but are allowed to take the virgins for themselves?

–Ken Daniels, Why I Believed

Not only were the explanations utterly unconvincing, but the

attempt to explain it away only lowered my respect for the apologists doing the explaining. Why would anyone, particularly mothers who love their daughters and daughters who value their dignity, even want to try to defend passages like these? The very inclination to justify such barbarism revealed to me the unyielding grip of an absolute faith upon its adherents. [Daniels 2010, 46]

Price asks the apologist for these texts how dangerous it would be if Christians nowadays were to actually heed and obey the commands of God that they read in them. “Can we really believe the true and existing God told the ancient shaman and his client warlord to exterminate every single Amalekite baby? Hold on! Wait a minute, my friend, before you begin to defend the gruesome act as an act of God, lest you utter some cold-blooded enormity you otherwise would never entertain” (2006b, 128).

In church, almost nothing is said about the Old Testament, much less these horrible texts. Robert Wright calls that “selective retention”:

You can just conveniently forget certain parts of your scriptural heritage. During the Crusades, when Christians were in the mood to slaughter infidels, they were very cognizant of God’s sanctioning faith-based mass murder in parts of the Bible. During the Cold War, when the United States was part of an international multifaith alliance that included Muslim and Buddhist nations, this motif was played down; whole generations of American Christians were weaned on a misleadingly sunny selection of Bible stories. [2009, 192]

The first of my sampled quotes is from the April 1938 Siionin Lähetyslehti. There O.H. Jussila spiritualizes God’s tormenting of innocent Egyptians for their leader’s stubborness. He also provides an example of a phenomenon I’ve noticed far too much–someone who considers himself saved praising God as being “merciful” for saving his lousy hide while damning everybody else:

† “When God announced to His people Israel in Egypt His merciful and saving plans for them and his instructions, He said, ‘And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood I will pass over you’, Exod. 12:13. On the terrible night when Israel slaughtered the Passover lamb, from the Egyptians’ houses were heard cries of anguish and wailing because the angel of death did not spare one home, but spread death from house to house. There was only one means which saved. God had not given this saving means to any but His own people. . . . Do you who read this have this blood for your protection? Or do you live in ‘Egyptian’ that is, in the perilous abodes of this world’s children without protection from the wrath of God. . . ?” (from Greetings of Peace, 3/1955).

† “is quite incomprehensible to the mind, but we should examine it through faith. Then we will see the firm trust that Lot had in the protection of God” (Saari 1968, 52).

Oh, come on. He told the men to do with his daughters whatever they wanted, and what they had on their minds was very clear to all concerned. It was a case of the rules of hospitality taking priority over the value of mere women in the ancient setting of the story. And we never hear about Lot getting drunk and impregnating those same two daughters:

And Lot . . . dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. [Gen 19:30-35]

† “The enormous number of casualties may raise questions even in the mind of a believer. Let us consider the terrible sins which the Canaanites wantonly practiced: snake worship, religious prostitution, and even more horrendous, children were sacrificed on altars to appease false gods. Does this horror have a parallel even in today’s society (abortion)? The measure of the sins of the Canaanites was full, invoking the wrath of God upon these people who had rejected Him from their forefathers onward; hence, total darkness and ungodliness. When we consider this suffering through the light of the Holy Spirit, how insignificant this is compared to the eternal torments of hell.”

Invoking hell only compounds the atrocity, though. Joshua abruptly ended the lives and thus any possibility of grace for thousands of hell-bound adult Canaanites. Of course, grace is largely a New Testament concept; the book of Joshua is a narrative of tribal conquest and records no efforts toward or even opportunities for Canaanite conversion.

But that hasn’t stopped the theologians from coming up with some pretty creative attempts to make it seem otherwise, beginning right in the earliest books of the New Testament. One of many examples is 1 Cor 10:2-4:

[A]ll our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

† “When Daniel explained Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, reciting to him his sins, he preached repentance to the king and offered the forgiveness of sins to him. Daniel entreated lovingly and tenderly ‘O King, let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and break off thy sins.’ But that loving gospel fell on deaf ears” (1968, 35).

† “Nathan was sent by the Lord to speak to David and to reveal his transgressions to him. This is how God has always done. He has spoken to all sinners through His servants. When David comprehended that he had sinned against the Lord, the servant was ready to pronounce forgiveness, and said to David; ‘the Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.’ It is no wonder, after receiving forgiveness, that David was rejoicing in his heart” (VOZ, 10/1976).

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession uses this same example as one of its biblical arguments for repentance being comprised of contrition and faith. It asserts that “the Power of the Keys administers and presents the Gospel through Absolution, which is the true voice of the Gospel” and “can properly be called a Sacrament of repentance” (Article 12a; McCain 2005, 162). After several pages of discussion that conforms remarkably with Conservative Laestadian doctrine on the topic, the Apology mentions Nathan’s encounter with David along with two other Bible stories. (Those are God’s rebuke and promise of grace to Adam, and Jesus’ proclamation “Thy sins are forgiven” to the sinful woman who anointed his feet with her hair in Luke 7:48.) David’s terrified statement, “I have sinned against the LORD” (2 Sam 12:13) was an act of contrition. “Afterward, he hears the Absolution, ‘The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.’ This voice encourages David, and through faith it sustains, justifies, and enlivens him. A punishment was also added, but the punishment does not merit the forgiveness of sins. Nor are special punishments always added” (p. 165).

† “The Old Testament is the evidence and document of the way revealed by God. The children of God in the Old Covenant believed the prophecies and promises concerning the coming Savior of the world,” who “was seen through faith in the sacrificial animals of sacrificial worship.” Salvation was “through faith upon the word of promise regarding Christ” (By Faith, 13-14).

† “The Hebrew congregation was of the Jewish people. They observed the Old Testament Tabernacle worship of God. They performed those sacrifices and offerings which God had spoken of through Moses when He established the Levitical priesthood. The priests of the tribe of Levi performed these duties every day, offering sacrifices for sin. This sacrificing directed the people to that one great priest, the Lord Jesus” (Alajoki [1985], 91-92).

So why was nothing written about such sacrifices for David, one of the highest-profile sinners of the Bible? Instead, he simply had his sins pronounced forgiven. If you want to consider the encounter one of confession and absolution, you have to abandon the idea that the animal sacrifices were what did the job before Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. Think about it.

Naaman the Syrian merely had to wash in the River Jordan:

† “Through Elisha, the Spirit of God humbled Naaman to repentance. This repentance is portrayed by the washing in the River Jordan” (VOZ, 7/1998).

No animal sacrifices were involved there, either. Perhaps the answer is that the ‘old believers’ merely had to believe “on the promise” of the coming Savior. We see that along with some references to the animal sacrifices in the remaining quotes of my sample:

† “The transition between the Old and the New Testament times was difficult. The time of sacrificial worship and faith in the promised Messiah was ending, and faith in the fulfillment, Jesus Christ the perfect sacrifice, was beginning. God in his infinite wisdom provided a precursor to Jesus, someone to help with the transitional time. This was Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist” (VOZ, 12/1999).

† “The Son, Christ, existed for a long time among men only as the Word of the Promise. They, who believed the Promise, awaited its fulfillment. They probably thought that God tarried long. However, He did not tarry, not even to try the faith of the children of God of the Old Covenant. His time had not yet come” (Uljas 2000, 116).

† “In the worship service of the first covenant, the high priest offered the blood of animals for himself and the errors of the people. . . . Yet, in those sacrifices, it was revealed through the Holy Ghost, of the day of Christ, the Lamb of God, who would offer himself as a perfect atonement for sins” (VOZ, 12/2004).

† The living water that Jesus gives “is found in the gospel, and Jesus invites all who are thirsty to come to Him and drink. Scriptures [1 Cor 10:4, Isa 55:1 cited] show that the Old Testament travelers also believed upon this water of life and the promise of the coming Messiah” (VOZ, 5/2008).

Accurate or not, viewing the characters in the Old Testament through a Christian lens as “believers in the promise” was something Luther also did, and with ample precedent from the New Testament writers themselves. The following is from a sermon of his for the third Sunday before Lent, from Epistle Sermons: Epiphany, Easter and Pentecost (Lenker 1909):

Such signs were repeated again and again at various times, the last sign being given by Christ in his own person–the Gospel with baptism, granted to all nations. For instance, God gave Noah the promise that he should survive the flood, and granted him a sign in the ship, or ark, he built. And by faith in the promise and sign Noah was justified and saved, with his family. Afterward God gave him another promise, and for a sign the rainbow. Again, he gave Abraham a promise, with the sign of circumcision. Circumcision was Abraham’s baptism, just as the ark and the flood were that of Noah. So also our baptism is to us circumcision, ark and flood, according to Peter’s explanation. 1 Pet 3:21. Everywhere we meet the Word and the Sign of God, in which we must believe in order to be saved through faith from sin and death.

Thus the children of Israel had God’s word that they should inherit the promised land. In addition to that word they were given many signs, in particular those Paul here names—the sea, the cloud, the bread from heaven, the water from the rock. These he calls their baptism; just as our baptism might be called our sea and cloud. Faith and the Spirit are the same everywhere, though the signs and the words vary. Signs and words indeed change from time to time, but faith in the one and same God continues. Through various signs and revelations, God at different times bestows the same faith and the same Spirit, effecting through these in all saints remission of sins, redemption from death, and salvation, whether they lived in the beginning or at the end of time, or while time progressed.

† After the Fall, God “promised a redeemer, a savior who would overthrow the power of the devil and offer complete atonement for sin-fallen man. Thus the ‘Old Covenant’ or promise was born, and those ‘old believers’ from antiquity by God’s grace, were saved by living faith in those promises. As the ages passed and biblical epochs unfolded, God repeated His promise again and again. In the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs God reconfirmed His covenant. . . . The Old Testament prophets were later able to behold, by faith, a distant but approaching moment when the Creator would send the promised savior. God then began to further open the mysteries and reveal through these prophets that great miracles and wonders, and incomprehensible to the human mind, would mark the arrival and life of the coming Redeemer.”

† “Look at these white horses which had left on their journey [Zech 6:6]. They knew their destination, where they had to go. For it is said here, that behold, these that go toward the North Country have quieted my spirit in the North Country. How surprising this is. How surprising that this is verified by the geographies, although afterwards this has been tried to be changed a little so that it would not be this clear, according to the geographies and maps. So in the new edition it says ‘in a Northern Country.’ But here it says ‘in the North Country.’ And if this is not acceptable to us that it is thus and that in it is no changing. And so it happened that living Christianity was preserved in the North Country, in Sweden.”

Zechariah has a vision of four horses with different colored horses pulling them in various directions. An angel tells him that they are the “four spirits of heaven, going forth after standing before the Lord of all the earth” (NASB, 6:5). Of a chariot pulled northward by white horses he is told, “See, those who are going to the land of the north have caused my spirit to rest in the land of the north” (NASB, 6:8, literal translation), or as the KJV puts it, “the north country.” Much has been made of this in Laestadianism, due to its roots in the northernmost reaches of Europe.

But the words were not written by anyone who had the slightest idea that a place like Lapland even existed. Rather, they were written in Judah by someone who had returned from exile in Babylon. His journey homeward had taken him along the fertile crescent, through the lands of Assyria and Israel that lay to the north of Judah along the Mediterranean coast. When Zechariah looked northward, what he saw was the route from which many of his country’s enemies had come, and a hostile land from which he himself had returned.

The supposed “North Country” prophecy is not emphasized much anymore in Laestadian Christianity. The change is evident in a 2008 revision to a song verse originally written in 1973: “The Spirit now rests in the earth’s northern land, The words of the prophet how clearly they stand.” Now, “The Spirit sends servants to preach through the lands.” The shift is probably more due to the emergence of Laestadian churches in Africa and South America than any newfound reluctance to impose modern geographical knowledge on ancient writers.

The life of a believer is often compared to a journey, and often more specifically to the Exodus:

† When the wandering Israelites “finally came to a spring, the water was too bitter to drink. God instructed Moses to throw a tree, which God showed him, into the water. Moses did this and the water became sweet. When a child of God has murmured, as these Israelites had murmured before finding the spring, the water would at first be bitter and unsuitable. When one is in faith and obedience and submits oneself to follow God’s instructions, then God makes the water sweet. Jesus is ‘the branch,’ and by and through Him we receive the water of life. Once the travelers’ thirst had been relieved, they suffered from hunger. They suffered from hunger although they had plenty of cattle with them. The people murmured. Moses prayed. God sent swarms of quail and manna which fell like dew to feed them. It was not fitting for them to eat of their own cattle; neither can today’s journeyer on the way to Heaven seek nourishment from that which he has brought. One has to be content with that which God provides as food” (VOZ, 5/1990).

† “God did not forget His chosen people as they fled from Egypt. He shielded them from being seen by the army through the night, as He caused the wind to create dry land through the sea. The angel of God and the pillar of cloud went behind the people ‘so that the one came not near the other all the night.’ When the way was dry across the sea the Israelites were able to cross with a wall of water on both sides. When the Egyptians tried to follow in the way that was prepared for the Israelites, God did not allow this to happen. He allowed the waters to return upon the Egyptians so that His people could go free” (VOZ, 7/2006).

† Lot’s wife “was instructed not to look back to her former life in Sodom. She was disobedient, looked back, and was turned into a pillar of salt. Likewise many of the travelers on the Wilderness Journey remembered Egypt’s fleshpots and longed for them. They died in the wilderness before the sojourning flock reached the Promised Land” (VOZ, 6/2009).

† “The stories of the Old Testament are often symbolic. They have an inseparable connection with the happenings of the New Testament” (By Faith, 23).

† “The Old Testament is a good teacher; it has many lessons for us about the importance of faith from the beginning of time” (VOZ, 9/2008).

All it takes is one miniscule disagreement with the Bible for the whole house of cards to come tumbling down. And eventually, if they allow themselves to be pressed, it will happen to every honest would-be inerrantist. There is no such thing as an inerrantist. Inerrantists just haven’t realized it yet.

—Thom Stark, The Human Faces of God

† “Due to the manner of its birth, the Bible also has a human side. The saints of God, who spoke and wrote the Word of God, were bound to the image of the world and the culture of their time. This is seen also in the writings of the Scriptures. However, the divine and the human aspects are so intertwined in the Scriptures, that there is no reason to ponder what is divine and what is human in them. The Bible is the Word of God in human words. . . . Some people say that the Bible does not need to be interpreted so literally, nor do its teachings hold any longer, for it has originated within the sphere of the old Semitic and Hellenistic cultures. We cannot agree with these statements, if we consider the Bible to be God’s Word” (2000, 22-23).

problems connected with the New Testament, not only internal contradictions but also major external ones, contradictions between what my church had always taught me and what was taught in the Bible. And here my church was teaching as it always had, not only that the Bible is God’s true and holy Word, but also that only the New Apostolic Church is truly based on the Bible! [2003, 343]

Here are just a few of the issues no longer even disputed in biblical scholarship that come to my mind as I contemplate the claim of “one book, one doctrine, and one plan of salvation”:

• Multiple authors of Genesis with different theological agendas, who provide conflicting accounts of both the creation and flood stories;

• Significant evolution of God from a talkative, blundering, temperamental warrior deity to a distant “Father” who limits his human interactions to the occasional dove or earthquake and is approachable only through the loving, caring image of his Son;

• Edicts and actions made under God’s command that reflect the cruel, misogynist, scientifically ignorant, and genocidal nature of the Old Testament writers and that are completely dismissed by the New Testament writers of a (slightly) more enlightened age;

• Conflicting claims about the existence of any place of eternal torment, or indeed any afterlife at all;

• Detailed and exacting demands for sacrifice followed by the claim that God does not desire sacrifice, which is then followed by the claim that the old sacrifices were really about Jesus all along;

• Significant evolution of Jesus from a servant–submitting to John’s baptism of repentance and showing anger, limited powers of healing and prophecy, and uncomprehending anguish about his fate–to the mystical, divine Son of God;

So what is left is the kind of “biblicist” faith reflected in this next quote:

† “Exactly how the historical facts concerning the life and work of our Lord and Savior were collected and how they were transmitted to others and by whom, we don’t know, but we trust to faith in its accuracy and purposefulness” (VOZ, 7/2007).

† “In following the paths of science, we may sometimes mistakenly believe that which can not stand in the light of the Bible” (Päivämies No. 44, 2009).

† “We believe that the Bible is God’s Word. While men have written the Scripture, they have not done so as an expression of their own will, but God has moved them by His Spirit to express His own will. God’s Word is not to be treated or regarded in the same manner as man’s Word but rather granted our highest esteem. . . . We believe that God’s word is Christian faith’s highest authority, and thus Christian faith’s guiding principles and doctrine must be examined and evaluated in the light of God’s Word” (LLC, The Bible, God’s Word).

Tom Harpur says that most Protestant Christians “have mistakenly elevated the Bible into an infallible ‘paper pope.’ Taking a view of the New Testament that would have astonished its authors–whose only Bible was what we call the Old Testament–they have to an alarming degree become Bible worshipers. The Bible has become an idol, assuming the place reserved for God alone” (2003, 100).

Actually, there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the Bible. What we find in the Gospels is a great deal of copying from one source, Mark [c. 70 A.D.], which is quite spare in its details and paints a very human picture of Jesus, and another now-missing source “Q” that Matthew and Luke appear to have both used to recount Jesus’ sayings. Added onto that are conflicting details in important stories, mistakes about history, geography, and customs of the time, and differing views about the nature of Jesus himself.

MacDonald and Porter ask, as they must to preserve their faith, “Is there a reality of the past that is beyond the scope of the historian’s inquiry?” The historian cannot, as a historian, “answer reasonably about the origins of Christian faith, but what of Christians? Is it possible to arrive at some other approach that accounts for Christian origins and is, at the same time, historically responsible?” This they term a “historical-theological approach” (p. 15), and take recourse in the role of faith: “If the historian could prove the unique actions of God in history, there would indeed be no need for faith at all.” Yet, it is also true that “even though one cannot prove it historically, to deny the resurrection of Jesus is to deny the very heart of the Christian proclamation” (p. 16).

The fundamentalist hears his own voice magnified through the Bible and mistakes it for the word of God.

—Robert M. Price, The Reason-Driven Life

is not the authentic Word of God, but a system of belief and practice of their own devising. Then they search the Scriptures to find proof texts that support their particular view. They make the leap directly from the Bible to their current debate, without considering what the Bible really says. Is the translation they are using an accurate one? Is the original text on which the translation is based dependable? What did those words mean in the time and context in which they were first spoken or written? How do those words fit into the total context of the biblical canon, including both Old Testament and New? What is the meaning of those words in the light of the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ? When they pull a prooftext out of context and say: “The Bible says . . .” they may not be teaching what the Bible–the whole canonical Bible–says, but only what they are forcing one small bit of the Bible to say. [Taylor 2003, 167]

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the Kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for behold, the Kingdom of God is within (έντός) you.

The word entos (έντός) can be translated as either “within” or “among,” and the choice has been a point of controversy in Christian theology. “The correct location of the Kingdom of God would seem to be an issue central to Christian theology–so central, in fact, that a resolution of the έντός question is imperative, if Christians are truly to be one body of believers” (Marcin 2008, 2).

After doing an initial analysis on the word έντός, Marcin says that “it does seem at this point in our analysis that the Kingdom of God is more within us than among us.” But, he continues, “to give a semantic answer–even a tentative one–is not necessarily to capture the full meaning of a word, especially its meaning in the context of so important a scriptural passage” (p. 6). So he continues his analysis, and then concludes as follows:

Theological preference aside, analyses of the simple meanings of the preposition έντός, its adverbial counterparts, its antonym, and its Septuagint usages in the Old Testament leave little doubt but that the Kingdom of God is “within” us, and provide scant support for the notion that the Kingdom is to be understood as being “among” us. [pp. 8-9]

That is certainly the meaning that Origen took from the passage: “The Savior does not say to everyone, ‘The Kingdom of God is within you.’ For, in sinners, the kingdom of sin exists. Without any ambiguity, either the Kingdom of God reigns in our hearts, or the kingdom of sin” (Homilies on Luke, No. 36; Lienhard 1996, 197). The original Greek was Origen’s mother tongue, so his interpretation is hard to disregard.

† “The leading theologians of [Finland] and princes of the church do not believe in the trinity of God as is the Jehovah Witnesses’ fashion. Therefore, they have left out of their Bibles the verse: ‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one’ [1 John 5:7]” (VOZ, 6/1979).

There is actually a very good reason why others “have left out of their Bibles” this verse: it is simply not authentic. The Comma Johanneum, as it is called, does not appear in any manuscripts until the 7th century. It’s one of the more notorious of several cases where scribes made additions to the text of the New Testament. I find it especially tiresome to see evil motives assigned to the viewpoints and actions of those in “the world” when they turn out to have a sound factual basis.

Apostle Paul did his share of allegorizing right in the New Testament. An example is where he treated Abraham’s fathering of a bastard son by a slave woman as part of an allegory about the old and new covenants. Instead of being the powerless sexual pawn of a barren old woman desperate to appease her husband’s patriarchal need for an heir, the slave woman becomes “mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children” (Gal 4:25). And just like that, the profane becomes sacred, the sordid becomes spiritual.

There’s been no shortage of creativity among Conservative expositors, either:

† In Rev 12, John is “looking into the future at how living Christianity would be born. Indeed, you have heard awakened souls crying in remorse over their sins, as here the woman, or the Lord’s congregation, cried as she travailed in birth. The congregation is a travailing woman through which Jesus brings forth a manchild, or a new man. The old man becomes ill when the new man must be born. The woman’s crown of twelve stars signifies the light of the gospel, the doctrine of the apostles. Man’s wisdom is the moon which is dark of itself, and thus is to be put under the feet, if the gospel is to enter the heart by faith and a new man is to be born. As the woman is clothed with the sun, so the church is clothed with the Sun of Righteousness, Jesus Christ” (Raattamaa, [1897], from Kulla 1993, 68).

† “The burning of the bricks of Babel portrays nothing else than a strange fire or a false doctrine. It burns the clay brittle, hard, and durable. The false doctrine with a false spirit also burns man’s conscience into a hardened condition” (Saari 1968, 22).

† “As God took one rib of Adam and of it made Eve, likewise the Church of God is taken of Christ” (VOZ, 5/1974).

† “It may seem to the carnal mind that Jacob did wrong by taking the blessing. But before God, the blessings of God always belong to the Christians, the people of God. It is that spiritual Church of God here on earth, the Mother Rebecca, who prepares and makes ready the savory meat for her son Jacob. She also does the clothing of her son. The goodly raiment of her firstborn son was with her in the house (in God’s kingdom)” (VOZ, 7/1975).

† “Ananias and Sapphira had sold a possession and decided to give part of the price to the apostles to be used for common needs. They did not tell the apostles that they had hidden a portion of it for their own needs,” and were struck dead. The “congregation of God cannot be deceived even if an individual is. Ananias and Saphhira had fallen into the sin of greed of which the Word of God says that it is the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:9-10). The temporal possessions had formed into a true god for them. With the help of these goods, in form of gift giving, they could even care for the needs of undying souls. The Giver of all gifts, the blessing God, was forgotten.” They “began to see the fellowship of the believers in a different light than before. They did not see God’s kingdom as the foundation and pillar of truth anymore. They did not believe that the Spirit of truth guides the congregation and the decisions thereof. Human failings in the congregation became apparent to them and when this happened they did not find it important to be obedient to the voice of the congregation. It was not hard to deceive the congregation anymore even to the point of telling lies” (Siionin Lähetyslehti, 2/1976).

Similarly, Jacob was really thinking about Laestadian heresies when he came up with a scheme for getting some of what was coming to him from his recalcitrant boss:

† “[W]hen the flocks of Laban and Jacob were divided, as divisions have often been made, the ‘spotted sheep’ and those which were a little white were left in Jacob’s flock. And such still is the flock of God’s children. Not all the sheep are pure white and spotless” (VOZ, 11/1976).

Even in a crowded field of highly imaginative allegory, this one stands out:

† “Spiritually, we understand the heavens [that ‘declare the glory of God,’ Psa 19:1] represent God’s children. “Heavens” here is plural. We could say that the heavens represent the local congregations, all of which are united. That same sun of God’s grace which is mentioned later in this text goes through its circuits.” The person who serves in whatever capacity is “serving in the firmament,” which “shows the handiwork of God” (Quentin Ruonavaara, sermon given 1978).

† “Hezekiah, himself, had experienced that time was not in man’s control. It was just as difficult for him to understand, as it is for us, that time and the laws of nature are ruled by God. It is a blessed and marvelous thing that the Sun of Grace moves counterclockwise and wipes away previously committed sins” (2000, 118).

† “Jesus proclaimed the gospel message of the kingdom of God to the sick: ‘Your sins are forgiven unto you.’ It was a common understanding at that time that physical sicknesses were caused by sin or evil spirits. The scribes held that only God can forgive man’s sins. To them, therefore, Jesus’ proclamation of the forgiveness of sins was blasphemy. It is because of unbelief that people are unable to overcome the powers of sin. They are tied to the bed of sin which is sinful life” (VOZ, 10/2002).

† “Unbelief was the greatest sickness during the time of Jesus’ life on this earth, and it is still the greatest today. When unforgiven sin weighs on the heart of man, it can cause the same deafness and dumbness that plagued the man in our text [Mk 7:31-37]. Ears do not hear the call of the Father, and the tongue becomes halting and made of clay” (VOZ, 8/2007).

† “It is related [in Luke 18:9-14] that the publican went to his house ‘justified’ rather than the Pharisee, implying that he was justifiable. Jesus does not say that he was saved or that he was made righteous by humbling his heart. With a humbled heart, the publican still needed to ‘seek the kingdom of God,’ as Jesus teaches” (VOZ, 8/2007).

Consider, too, the fact that Jehovah’s organization alone, in all the Earth, is directed by God’s holy spirit or active force . . . To it alone God’s Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book.

—The Watchtower, from Diane Wilson, Awakening of a Jehovah’s Witness

The Bible sits somewhat uneasily on a pedestal in Conservative Laestadianism. It is revered as the Word of God, yet the reader cannot really depend on its words for instruction. Instead, God expects obedience to whatever “faith” and “God’s Children” say that it says:

† “The Bible does not ask us what we consider to be the most important or what we would regard as foremost in our life. The Word of God shows us that, and God expects all of us to follow the Lord Jesus in the obedience of faith and in the flock of His children” (By Faith, 8).

† “The Bible is a closed book, if the Lord, himself, in His grace does not open it” (Havas [1933], 37).

† “[T]he real author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit who worked through the holy men of God to produce a written declaration of God’s relationship to, and plan for the salvation of man. As a consequence it cannot be understood or interpreted in the way that God intends without the key of the Holy Spirit to unlock the otherwise mysterious and locked book of the Bible” (VOZ, 3/2007).

† “The reading of God’s Word is a good thing. However, the Bible teaches that faith comes by hearing and accepting the gospel. Study and knowledge of the written Word of God is necessary for us, because it leads us to seek Christ and His grace kingdom. It also teaches a child of God to grow in the knowledge of God and the Savior, Jesus Christ” (Uljas 2000, 25-26).

Luther showed his confidence in the Bible’s value to the individual Christian reader by translating it into simple, clear German that everyday people could read, men and women alike. (I find it easier to read than a modern German novel, but perhaps that’s due to my focus in learning the language.) He also criticized the idea of Scripture being obscure or ambiguous: “Are we not obscure and ambiguous enough in ourselves, without an increase of it by obscurity, ambiguity, and darkness being sent down unto us from heaven?” (The Bondage of the Will, §36).

The remaining quotes of my sample, presented chronologically as usual, emphasize the value of the holy book without too much concern about divine revelation of it:

† “Dear brothers and sisters, how could we despise God’s holy book wherein has been revealed to us such great treasures. From the Bible we have learned that God in His righteousness punishes sinners with everlasting death. When He by His word made Himself known to us, we began to despair and fear. It was grace to us to comprehend our wretched state in the reflection of the law. But what would we have drawn for a cover for our wretchedness if God had not through His word revealed to us our Lord Jesus as a Savior. . . . God’s holy book, the Bible, is an invitation to the wedding of the King’s son where the bridegroom, Jesus, shows and reveals His love towards His bride. . . With heartfelt desire and full confidence we study the Bible at home and at services which testifies God’s good will to men’s salvation, testifies of our bridegroom Jesus and of the reward that awaits us at the end of the journey” (Matti Suo [1895], from Greetings of Peace, 7/1952).

Indeed, this quote directly criticizes the understanding that the Bible is a “dead letter”:

† “In the understanding of some, the word of the Bible is a dead letter and it comes alive only when persons who have received the Holy Spirit explain it. For if the word of the Bible were living, they would have received life by reading it. But since they have not received peace or life from it by reading, they have drawn the conclusion that it is a dead letter. And even Paul says, ‘The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life’ (2 Cor 3:6). But if the word of the Bible were a dead letter, how then could there be a power to kill in it, as the words say, ‘The letter killeth‘? It does not say that the letter is dead but that in the letter itself there is that killing power” (Matti Suo, Siionin Lähetyslehti [1919], from Hepokoski 2002b, 13).

These next authors offer the refreshing view that reading of the Bible is important for its own sake. The first quote even notes that scriptural knowledge can help guard against “misleading word phrases and explanations” that one might hear from an erring preacher:

† “We should not discontinue reading the Bible even though we do not understand it and it does not remain in our memory. We have often experienced how God through His Holy Spirit reminds and reveals His word when He sees necessary. . . . With what would the Christian, God’s child, war against the onslaughts of Satan, if there did not exist the word of the Lord, that two edged sword, Eph. 6:17. Satan attacks from all sides and in all places. With false spiritualism and freedom of the flesh. There are former separations and new ones will come, Matt. 24:5, Acts 20:30. A preacher, in whom we have confidence and whom we love, can get lost and if we did not have the written word of God in our memory, and did not read it, then with misleading word phrases and explanations, we can be brought easily astray. We take modes and manners that are not in accord with God’s word. For that reason let us keep the Lord’s word dear. Let us read it!” (Eino Rimpiläinen, Greetings of Peace, 3/1955)

† “Dear brothers and sisters, it is so important for us to know the Scriptures, for the devil is as a roaring lion walking about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet 5:8). God’s Word is the voice of God from heaven” (Elmer Alajoki, presentation given 1994).

† “Dear young believers, do not forget what a treasure you have in your home when you have the word of God there. Many of you have your own Bibles. Do not let them sit neglected on the bookshelf. When we examine how we spend our time, we find that we have the time to do those things that we really want to do and to read those books and other materials that we enjoy reading. Let’s find time to read and to study the word of God” (Jim Frantti, presentation given 1999).