Can Christians Trust Their Feelings Too Much?

A cage match of the Bible, emotions, and the Holy Spirit

Recently, some well-meaning, God-loving people suggested that I may “trust my feelings” too much when it comes to faith.

Why, you ask? My writing in general led to this reaction, but especially the essay in which I wrote that Jesus primarily cares about four things:

1. The state of one’s heart and
2. following His commands,
3. which are A) love God with all you’ve got
4. and B) love others as yourself.

If you know you’re Bible, as I’m sure you do, you’ll recognize numbers 3 and 4 as the “Greatest Commandment” in Matthew 22:34–40.

An “expert in the law” asked Jesus which commandment was the greatest. Matthew doesn’t spell it out, but the expert likely meant for Jesus to choose from the 613 laws in the Torah.

Probably not the weird ones about dietary restrictions and regulating menstruation and ejaculation, but you know, the heavy weights like “Don’t have any gods before me” and “Do not murder.”

The expert asked for one greatest commandment, and Jesus quoted the shema, the daily prayer of faithful Jews, established by Moses in Deuteronomy 6:4–9:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength.” (NIV)

Hard to argue with that answer if you’re an observant first-century Jew living under polytheist Roman occupiers.

But Jesus adds a twist. The “other” greatest commandment, the one the expert didn’t ask for, is like the first:

“Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matt. 22:34–40, NIV)

In John 14:21–23, Jesus explains following Him — and thus, it seems, salvation — to his disciples during the Last Supper.

He impresses upon them the importance of following His commands. We find those commands most clearly, I think, in the Greatest Commandment.

We find them in the Parable of the Good Samaritan expanding our definition of neighbor from friends, family, and the Joneses to our worst enemies — to everyone. Even the Romans and their Jewish collaborators.

We find them in the Sermon on the Mount, whose teachings aim at our heart rather than our ability to follow rules (see Dallas Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy for more on this interpretation).

Jesus doesn’t care if you never commit adultery if you lust after every woman you see. He’s not impressed if you’ve never murdered but harbor hatred intense enough that you would murder if you could get away with it.

So, what’s the problem with my argument? It quotes Jesus, after all. Implicitly, it embraces Scripture as divinely inspired — which I believe it is, by the way.

Ah, but Paul says something else matters:

“If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” (Romans 10:9–10, NIV)

So, um, Paul seems to affirm Jesus’ concern for the state of our hearts. He adds, as far as I can see, only that you should “profess your faith” to be saved.

In the context of Romans, that verse seems to tell Jewish converts to Christianity to stop judging and expecting Gentile Christians to follow Torah law—all one needs is belief and profession of faith. I struggle to see the conflict with what I suggest Jesus most cares about.

In any case, are we going to view the Apostle Paul as more authoritative than the Son of God?

When I pointed out to my respondents their elevation of Paul’s words over Jesus’ words, they reminded me of Paul’s other words in 2 Timothy 3:14–17.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV, emphasis added)

All the “black letters,” I was told, carry equal weight with the “red letters” highlighting what Jesus said.

The problem isn’t my argument, after all. It’s the assumptions behind both my argument and the counter-argument that I emphasize feelings too much.

The problem resides in the epistemological conflict of Biblical inerrancy versus emotional, intuitive discernment of the Holy Spirit.

This Epistemological Conflict Isn’t New or Unique to Me

Epistemology is a fancy word for “the basis for how you know stuff.”

Science knows things based on observation, experimentation, and replication of results. Science can’t know “Why are we here? What’s the purpose of life?” because its epistemology, its way of knowing, doesn’t support those kinds of questions. So science doesn’t even ask them.

Philosophy knows things based on reason, logic, and earlier philosophical insights and arguments. It asks and answers “Why” questions but doesn’t appeal to the Divine as a source of its knowledge.

Religion, however, uses reason, logic, tradition, Scripture, and — crucially — experience of the Divine as bases for answering “Why” questions and knowing things about God, life, and afterlife.

For Christians, experience of the Divine includes the Holy Spirit, a part of God Himself. God wants to partner with us, and He does so through his Spirit. Yet we tend to distrust this.

Traditionally, the Catholic church has prioritized tradition as a basis for its knowledge and doctrine. What did earlier Popes say about that?

Then the Protestant Reformation proclaimed, “Sola Scriptura,” or “by scripture alone.” Forget the Pope. What does this German translation of the Latin translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts say about that?

If you prioritize Scripture as a basis of knowing God, how can you trust that it’s reliable and up to the task? Science has the scientific method, philosophy has reason, the Catholics have tradition. What’s the Protestant guarantee of Truth?

Enter inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility.

If you want to guarantee that Scripture alone provides the Truth, then you say Scripture is divinely-inspired and then build on that claim to also make Scripture inerrant and infallible.

How can a divinely-inspired book contain any errors or flaws? It can’t, obviously. Look, the book itself says so right here in 2 Timothy 3:16–17.

Experience of the Divine, of the Holy Spirit, is much more subjective and difficult to pin down than the (translated) words on a page.

When you start saying, “God’s leading me to do X” or “I feel the Spirit guiding me to Y” or “I think God spoke Z to me through my Bible reading this morning,” then many people in certain faith traditions may question whether you’re really hearing from the Divine or if you’re being misled by your emotions and desires. They may fear that you’re reading into the Bible rather than “plainly reading” the words on the page.

And that’s a valid concern. But the concern doesn’t make hearing from the Spirit invalid as a way of knowing things about God, faith, and the Bible.

Many Christians, including inerrantists, agree that the Bible is a “living Word,” meaning it has the capacity to speak to our lives and circumstances despite our vast differences from ancient Jews. How does a “living Word” work if not through the Holy Spirit impacting us?

For many faith communities, nonetheless, emotions, feelings, and intuitions are viewed with skepticism, suspicion, and distrust. “That’s probably you, not the Holy Spirit within you.”

Often, the emotions (ironically) of anxiety and fear drive the response. Sometimes, it’s motivated by a desire — perhaps fear-based, maybe malicious — for control.

“Instead of listening to your feelings, listen to the inerrant Word of God. Sit here, and let me tell you exactly what it means.”

I Don’t Get Inerrancy, and Neither Does the Bible

The Biblical inerrantists don’t seem to realize that the Bible itself does not support their view of the Bible.

To be clear, I believe the Bible is divinely-inspired. I believe God inspired his children to tell His story a certain way, but I do not believe God dictated every word to zombified scribes.

Scripture cannot be separated from the human authors through whom God worked, and therefore it cannot be separated from their ancient audiences, purposes, and contexts.

Which leads to errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions. And that’s okay.

The Bible tells me so.

In Jeremiah 36, we learn that Jeremiah’s scrolls were burned. So Jeremiah dictated them again to the scribe Baruch and someone — maybe Jeremiah, maybe someone else, Scripture doesn’t say — added to them.

So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them. (Jeremiah 36:32, NIV, emphasis added)

That’s not me saying Jeremiah’s scroll experienced some additions and edits. I’m quoting divinely-inspired, inerrant scripture!

Whatever “inspiration,” or “God-breathed,” may mean, Jeremiah 36 — the Bible itself — shows that inspiration does not refer to entering a trance, waking up some time later, and staring in amazement at the words you transcribed from God’s dictation.

That idea sounds like blasphemy, like sheer terror, to many Christians. It sounds like disrespecting Scripture. It sounds like lowering Scripture to the level of sinful, flawed humanity.

Or is it respecting Scripture on its own terms? Dr. Tim Mackie of The Bible Project podcast says:

“… the tendency to downplay the Bible’s human authorship is rooted in a deficient understanding of God’s involvement in creation through the person of the Spirit of God. … After humans are created, God’s work in the world by his Spirit is almost always through human agency.” (emphasis added)

You might accuse Tim Mackie and The Bible Project of some things if you like, but you can’t accuse them of not revering, studying, and knowing the Bible.

As Mackie also says, human fingerprints cover the formation of the Bible. Anyone who spends a little time on Google can learn the detailed history of the Bible’s writing, compilation, editing, and canonization.

That’s a problem only if you want Scripture to be the guarantor of Truth rather than the experience and guidance of the Holy Spirit, only if you distrust the Divine-Human partnership, only if you idolize the Bible instead of the Spirit.

What’s happening in the Sermon on the Mount if not a Divine-Human partnership in which Jesus channels His Father’s spirit and views some of his Holy Scriptures as more Holy and imperative than others?

Jesus quotes Torah repeatedly in the Sermon on the Mount, only to reinterpret it for his followers:

“You have heard it said that … But I say ….”

That’s not very inerrantist, is it? Now wait a sec, Jesus, all of that scripture’s “God-breathed.” Or did you not read Paul?

Paul Would Lose His %$&# Over Biblical Inerrancy

Let’s turn back to Paul and 2 Timothy.

It’s so obvious that it’s easy to forget. Paul didn’t have a New Testament. His letters hadn’t been canonized as Scripture yet. Neither had the non-Pauline letters.

So when he tells Timothy that “all Scripture is God-breathed” or “inspired,” Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures, or what we call the Old Testament.

Whose laws many Christians, including some inerrantists, say were nullified by the New Testament covenant established by Jesus and unpacked by Paul and the other NT letters.

So, Paul certainly wasn’t describing his letters as “God-breathed.” He was talking about the Old Testament. He was telling Timothy, “Don’t throw out the Hebrew Scriptures even though the experience of Jesus changes everything we thought we knew about our Scriptures, our Torah, and our faith.”

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness ….” (2 Timothy 3:16–17, NIV, emphasis added)

OT scholar Pete Enns jokes that “Paul couldn’t teach Paul at many conservative seminaries.” Paul used his Hebrew scriptures in creative ways, taking them out of their original context and applying them to his reality, to his experience of God, in light of Jesus.

We see Jesus doing something similar in the Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard [insert Torah law here], but I tell you …”

Neither Paul nor Jesus regard their Holy Scriptures — in our Holy Scripture, mind you — as the Truth, period, no more discussion, no more questions for the rest of time. We’re supposed to engage with Scripture.

Jeremiah 36, Jesus, and Paul seem to agree — based on what they say in the Bible— that every sentence of the Bible is not equally inspired. The Bible itself does not support how inerrantists view the Bible.

Lastly, can you imagine how Paul would respond if he knew some Christians view his ideas as equal to the ideas of Jesus?

We take Paul seriously, right, so recall that Paul says Jesus was equal to God but did not regard His Divinity as something to exploit; instead, He was obedient even unto death on a cross, dying for us even while we remained sinners. Remember that Paul described himself as the worst of sinners.

“And you’re equating ME with Jesus Christ, the Son and equal of God?! You’re emphasizing ME over the Holy Spirit, which IS God Himself?!

“Sit down, we’re going to have a long, long discussion. Wait, what is that? No, no, NO, put that book away.”

I Bet Most Biblical Inerrantists Eat Shrimp and Wear Mixed Fabrics

The “black letters” of the Old and New Testaments say many things that even the staunchest Biblical inerrantists dismiss out of hand (or don’t even realize are in the Bible).

Leviticus describes both homosexuality and eating shellfish as “an abomination.”

It tells us to not wear clothes woven from multiple types of fibers.

It says we must wait a certain amount of time after menstruating or ejaculating and perform purification rituals involving sacrificing turtledoves before entering a place of worship.

Of course, we’re told to not eat any unclean animals or any meat prepared in an unclean way.

But find me the Biblical inerrantist who doesn’t eat shrimp and pork, wear shirts made of 60% cotton and 40% polyester, and attend church while menstruating or the morning after marital relations during menstruation.

Better yet, find the inerrantist who doesn’t have really good reasons for why it’s okay to not follow those “God-breathed” “black letters.”

• Well, you see, the Old Testament described many cultural practices and customs as laws, and those things are not meant to apply to us today.
• The OT has universal moral laws, too, like worshipping God alone, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, and the sinfulness of homosexuality.
• So, we follow some OT laws and not others. Simple!

Okay, then, will you begin stoning gay people as commanded in Leviticus 22:13? You take the Bible as inerrant, don’t you? You follow the Old Testament’s universal moral laws about sexuality, right?

My point is this: Biblical inerrantists come up with creative, flexible, decidedly non-inerrant interpretations of Scripture whenever it suits their preferences, needs, or emotions and intuitions.

They follow Jesus’ example of engaging and interrogating scripture, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount (good).

They heed the Holy Spirit’s guidance when it nudges their emotions about not stoning gay people to death (good).

And they follow the Pharisees’ example of imposing their particular interpretation of Scripture onto everyone else because only their interpretation can be correct (not so good).

Inerrancy Doesn’t Mean Inerrant

Beth Allison Barr, author of The Making of Biblical Womanhood, recently appeared on my church’s podcast, Metamorphosis.

I asked her about inerrancy. She answered that she refuses to use the word “inerrancy” any more.

It doesn’t mean what people think it means, she said. We think it means that the Bible contains no errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions.

But in practice, “inerrancy” means that a person or group’s interpretation of Scripture contains no errors.

• I say the Bible means X, and you can believe me because the Bible’s inspired and inerrant. It’s Truth. It’s your guarantee of your beliefs and your trip to Heaven. And, also, your good standing in my congregation.
• No, my interpretation isn’t culturally, socially, or historically influenced. I’m not separated from the Biblical authors by 2000+ years of history, cultural difference, social change, and even geography. I’m just reading the words on the page.
• No, my interpretation isn’t affected by the difficulties and complexities of translating ancient languages spoken by people living with radically different contexts, categories, and worldviews. Just plain reading here!

There’s no such thing as a “plain reading” of Scripture. We must consider its context if we wish to understand and respect it. We can’t escape our context.

We must embrace the Divine-Human partnership of studying and applying the Bible’s principles in collaboration with the Holy Spirit.

We must learn how to parse and trust our feelings, intuitions, and genuine experiences of the “voice” of the Spirit. A Holy Spirit that can’t reach us through reason and emotion and intuition and “speaking” and the illumination of Scripture is not a very big Spirit — nor a very big God.

But What If We Are Wrong?

Will we make mistakes discerning the Spirit sometimes? Of course.

But that’s why Jesus cares more about the faith and love in our hearts than the correctness and certainty of our theology.

It’s why Jesus chose and partnered with twelve nobody fishermen who fail Him repeatedly throughout the Gospels, not the Pharisees who kept Torah perfectly.

It’s why God transformed Saul, who followed Torah zealously, through an experience of the Divine into Paul, who preached love and grace over law.

It’s why Jesus says to tend to our hearts and follow the commands to love God and love others.

It’s why Jesus does not say to memorize the Nicene Creed written centuries after His death, to memorize your denomination’s doctrine, or to profess faith in Him even if you live in the first-century Americas, southern Africa, or East Asia and have never even heard of people called Jews in a place named Israel.

It’s why we have so much help investigating and discerning our experiences, emotions, intuitions, and interactions with the Holy Spirit:

• Scripture in its whole and its context;
• prayer and contemplation;
• pastors and mentors;
• close friends and family;
• church and denominational traditions;
• ancient and modern theologians;
• books, websites, and podcasts;
• honest self-reflection and common sense;
• Medium articles.

It’s why one’s faith journey is faith.

Will we get it wrong sometimes despite our best efforts and all the help and guardrails we have? Yes, sometimes.

Am I wrong in this article? In all of my articles? Maybe.

That’s why we have grace.

I clarify the complex and controversial. Follow me.

Use my referral link to sign-up for Medium, and I receive a portion of your membership at no extra cost to you.