Long before there was texting, there was “proof-texting,” the phenomenon of referring to Bible verses to support your beliefs.
Unfortunately, proof-texting often goes like this: you have just made a point in a discussion, when a person who disagrees with you says with a smirk on their face, “Yeah, but what about…” and then they try to put you in your place by using a biblical quote or reference as a zinger.
I know I have engaged in this — hopefully without the smirk or the zinging attitude. I recall visiting with two women during a break at a denominational meeting. They were talking about the vision of every tribe and nation worshiping God in Revelation 5:9 as if it meant that everyone will be saved. I tried to burst their bubble by reminding them that the same book of Revelation (22:15) states that many others will be left outside the walls of the New Jerusalem. I wasn’t trying to win a debate, but I’m guessing that I came across that way.
What I think I really wanted was how they held divergent biblical claims together, because I wrestle with those same tensions. They gave me no response. I probably just came across like a fussy conservative crossing t’s and dotting i’s.
The term “proof-texting” itself is problematic. The word “proof” immediately puts us in debate mode, or even in trial mode. Two parties are at odds. One will win, one will lose. One will be deemed guilty of false doctrine and the other will be vindicated as a champion of orthodoxy. And the decisive factor will be the evidence or proofs that are offered. The winner will be the one who amasses the best and greatest number of proof-texts in making their case.
We may, sometimes have to be in a theological courtroom. But our first instinct should not be to regard a sibling in Christ as a possible heretic. We might believe they are wrong about a particular matter, but even if we’re correct in that assessment, they are still a part of God’s family of faith. So a debate forum or a courtroom is not the place to begin.
What I do find helpful, however, about “proof-texting” (in spite of the adversarial connotations of that term) is that it provides a window into the biblical texts that have shaped our thinking on a certain matter.
I don’t think I’m engaging in proof texting when I share that for me a key idea (and verse) is found in 1 Corinthians 2:16. “‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.”
My aim is to follow the mind of Christ. The first half of that verse warns us against thinking that we have God all figured out (and also shows Paul engaging in some proof-texting himself, for he’s quoting Isaiah 40:13). But the second half rejoices that we are not left completely ignorant about the ways of God. We have the mind of Christ and presumably are called to cultivate thinking in conformity to that mind.
Another important text is 2 Corinthians 10:5, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” Paul is in an adversarial mode here. He is refuting the teaching of false apostles who have come to Corinth.
What I find compelling is the idea of making our thoughts captive to obey Christ. The idea of “captive thoughts” will sound off-putting to some. But like many other paradoxes of the gospel, I would contend that we think most freely when our thoughts are captive to obey Christ.
A renewed mind, having the mind of Christ is to be both faithful and creative. We don’t want to be so bound to “proof-texts” that we become like those New Testament scribes who couldn’t teach without reciting precedents and proof-texts for everything they said. We are told the people were astonished when Jesus “was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:29). Instead of a numbing series of proof-texts, there was energy and freshness and authority. We want to think and speak outside the box, but not outside the Book.
What I appreciate most about some “proof-texting” is that it helps me to see what biblical texts moved someone to think this way or that. When I share the texts that move my soul (as I’ve done above), I don’t think of it as offering “proof” that my perspective is the best or only perspective. It’s a biblical perspective nonetheless.
The goal is not to prove who’s right, but make our thoughts “captive to obey Christ.” That last phrase about obedience is important. The church is full of people who have good, biblically-informed beliefs, but are not acting on those beliefs. It’s as if we think having the right beliefs is the sum total of God’s call.
If it’s really serving its purpose, a “proof-text” will empower us to act as followers of Jesus. An old maxim said, “The proof is in the pudding.” The idea is that we only really know the truth of a belief if we act on it. There is a time to debate Bible verses, a time to proclaim Bible verses, a time to converse about Bible verses, but most importantly, a time to act on Bible verses. That’s the best proof of all.
Gavel photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA:
9 Responses
Thanks David, I have long considered proof texting a dangerous undertaking, I doubt the authors of the text ever meant for what they wrote to be used as proof texts. We also know there are many texts that can be used as weapons against other texts. Jesus prayed that his followers remain as one, proof texts are almost always used to divide, especially when used in a way that ignores the big picture teachings of Scripture. I think a clear example of this is the current Hayes book The Widening of Gods Mercy versus the proof texters who would find “proof” to deny God’s mercy.
Thank you, David. Your insights are refreshing and helpful. I appreciate your sensitivity toward others while at the same time seeking to understand, embrace and obey the teaching of Scripture.
David, I appreciate your effort to give legitimacy to, and make room for, quoting or referring to Bible verses oneself, and to listen in good faith others who do so. I appreciate your stress on doing so with a desire to express what has moved one (or, when listening, has moved someone else) to bring some area of life into deeper submission to Christ.
But I have a worry here. You say “I don’t think I’m proof texting” when I do this. So you mean “proof-texting” to refer to some practice one should avoid doing. But when I look at what you say such avoid-the-practice “proof-texting” is –i.e., what you mean by that term– I am seeing two distinct things. . (See also the earlier Comment by Mr. Walcott.)
Thing One is the practice of referring to Bible verses as good evidence for (in the limit case, of “proof of”) the truth of some proposition. Thing Two is the practice of entering into adversarial debate (as in our legal system), where one side is simply trying to win, making the other lose. What’s called a “zero-sum game.”)
I think we should firmly distinguish these two things. If as Christians we have any genuine concern for having beliefs that are true, we an accompanying concern with whether there is (and we have) good evidence for them, If two surgeons realize they’ve come to different diagnoses about whether I have pancreatic cancer (and whether to do the Whipple procedure on me), I sure hope they review the evidence together–and seek more evidence to resolve the matter in the direction of truth. At their best, they will together, cooperatively, not as adversaries. If the two pastors in my church or profs in my seminary disagree, I hope they do the same with the Biblical evidence. That will mean asking which parts of Scripture –and, yes, even which verses of Scripture–are most relevant to the question, and what they indicate.
I feel this is important because I now hear so many people dismiss any role for evidential appeal to Bible verses as “just proof-texting.” As if citing verses as evidence is itself to be avoided. I’d urge that “proof-texting” should refer only to practices that make bad or defective evidential uses of the Bible, such as looking only at the verses that support one side (“cherry-picking), or reading verses out of context, and so on. The needed corrective (as for your friends bad evidential use of the “every tribe” nation), is not to avoid evidential appeal to particular passages, but to do so with better reasoning.
And so, If some focused set of verses have moved you to see the need for a deeper walk with Christ in some area of your life, I’d like you to be able to feel free to share them with me also as evidence–evidence for what is true, about the Lord asks of us. That’s not you being out to win, and make me lose, in a zero-sum game. It’s win-win all the way.
Let’s not give up on the importance of truth, and of the role that evidence must play in seeking it.
Helpful clarification.
I’m with you, Stephen, on this. I also think truth as established by Scripture is vital for Christians, and I wouldn’t want anything I said or was edited to say to call that into question. But I also want to disavow any attempt to use Scripture in a bullying way. That’s why I wrote the piece: to encourage Christians to explain and live out their beliefs from Scripture and yet without bullying others. I appreciate your distinction between Thing One and Thing Two but I would prefer to think of Thing One as Scripture doing more than providing evidence for the truth of a proposition (not less than that, but more than that). Instead I think of Scripture is God’s way of speaking to me in order to shape my thoughts and emotions and actions in conformity to God’s reality and kingdom (which is how I interpret 2 Timothy 3:15-16). I’m guessing you might agree to that change of nuance. Maybe some day we’ll meet and we can talk it through with great joy.
As a simple layman who has been a member of different denominations during my life, I find the “overuse of proof texts” by some pastors troubling. It seems often to be used by “conservatives” to demand adherence to their particular point of view. They seem to want to purify their congregations of all believers who are still falling into sin.
We are watching so many churches losing their young adults who are becoming “Nones” because of the dissent and meanness in the church they grew up in. I think that the rigidness of the proof texting conservatives is part of the reason for their leaving, not because they have lost their faith in God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Watching what has been happening in the RCA and the CRC, my current denomination and the one I grew up in, saddens my heart. As a Historian I have studied how the demand by pastors and their Consistories that only the “pure saints” can be members of the congregation resulted in those denominations dying with so much pain and suffering.
As I have observed the last few years, I have seen the demands of the conservatives using proof tests to demand that their opinion is the only one supported by the Bible. Like Mr. Walcott, I find the Hays book, The Widening of God’s Mercy a breath of clean air. Christopher and Richard Hays leave the human sexuality argument’s reliance on the interpretation of a few verses from the Bible to prove that LGBTQ+ Christians don’t have a home in our churches and instead argue that the central story of the Bible is God’s ever widening of his grace and mercy to include more and more previously condemned persons and nations into his family.
Pastors have to be careful when they preach a sermon, or a series of sermons, based on texts they feel will help their congregation to understand the faith that what they are teaching is in agreement with the story how God has loved and supported his creation and extended his irresistible grace to us while we were sinners and saved our souls.
As a woman in the CRC I get it. “Proof” texts have been selectively quoted to keep us out of council rooms and leadership in the CRC. I hope I can do better than lob scripture verses at others to prove my point.
David, thanks for your article. As I often do, I saved it for Sunday morning when I catch up on RJ articles I didn’t have time to read during the week.
I have two quick things, a comment, and a question.
My comment is this. I have always understood the trouble with proof-texting as, using Scripture to prove MY point, more than it is Scripture’s point. “Spare the rod, spoil the child” as a way to justify corporal punishment (use of physical force to discipline) as an example. Proof-texting becomes zingers when the focus is on me way more than on Scripture. Steven Wykstra’s comment about two doctors working out their differences is helpful because, in the end, it should not be about them winning an argument or debate.
My question is this. Can you tell me more about the photo of the open Bible? I am most intrigued by that picture. Let me tell you why. My heart skipped a beat when I saw the name “Scott Hahn” at the end of a quote. Scott discipled me in the late 1970s. I still love that man. I’d be eager to learn more about this photo.
I like your pithy saying about proof texting is about trying to prove MY point instead of Scripture’s point. As for the photo, that was supplied by the editors. I’m guessing it was Jeff Monroe.