As we begin a new academic year, September invites us to return to learning, reflection, and thoughtful conversation. It’s a fitting time to revisit not only what we believe, but also how we read, interpret, and understand the ideas that shape our faith.
This month, Alumnx Council member Rev. B. Dundee Holt (DMin., ’25) invites us into that conversation with his thought-provoking reflection,
Making the Case for Biblical Cherry-picking
I come to de-villainize the practice of biblical cherry-picking as I believe it to be a human and practical inevitability. I believe that acknowledging that there are no innocents – that all of us cherry-pick – is beneficial when we take the next step to explore or question what hermeneutic values or embedded beliefs guide us.
Cherry-picking is a term that a believer or group of believers might use to deride another believer or group that does not privilege the same biblical texts that they do. Honestly, all of us do it, and for good reason. It is not always informed by self-serving motives.
First, not all biblical texts bear equal weight. Would anyone argue, for instance, that it is as important to know the intricate and painfully specific design elements of the first temple as it is to know the prayer that Jesus taught the disciples? In a conversation recorded in the synoptic gospels, even Jesus holds that some scriptures are more important than others. Most Christians cite the Ten Commandments as essential to one’s faith walk. But when asked, Jesus cites only two commandments from the corpus of 600+ as the most important. And neither of those are included in the Ten. The Apostle Paul is even pickier, citing only one of the two commandments.
Contempt for the Old Testament laws is woven into the fabric of much western Protestant thought. Yet fundamentalists sometimes use strict adherence to some of those laws as a litmus taste of one’s true Christian faith. There are Christians appalled that shopping malls are open or beer sold on Sundays — as they strongly believe in keeping the Sabbath (although, technically, the Sabbath is Saturday, so props to our Adventist siblings!) — but they claim their right to eat whatever they want, and for women to wear pants. But not for men to wear dresses. A step too far, perhaps?
We cherry-pick because that’s the way we are made. It makes sense. Not everything is equally important. Plus, our brains can’t retain everything. Choices must be made. We are impressionable. Certain texts, doctrines derived from them, and interpretations imposed on them, find their way into our psyches. We are especially receptive to ideas that speak to our life experiences, interests, and cultures, and/or that affirm embedded prejudices that we may not even be aware of. Sometimes that’s good and sometimes not.
We place ourselves in danger and become dangerous when we believe that our firmly-held personal views or those of our particular faith communities are pure. That we don’t cherry pick. That we understand and relate the whole council of God as God intended. I wonder: Can we entertain the possibility that the words found in Isaiah 55:8 “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways” might apply to us? Can we admit, with the writer of I Corinthians 13:9 that we only know “in part”?
I confess that I am more likely to preach from liberative texts than restrictive ones because I approach scripture through the hermeneutic lens of Jesus’ words “I come that they might have life and that they may have it more abundantly.” What does this look like?
Both Acts 2:17, 18 and 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35 are biblical texts. I will gladly preach the former, which holds that God has gifted both men and women to preach, but refuse to preach the latter which suggests that women should be silent in the church. Is that cherry picking? If so, I plead guilty and believe that God is pleased.
I wonder though: why cherry-picking instead of mango or plantain?
