A Strange Mix - Part 2b

At the end of my last post I refer to biblical authors (plural). This characterization is intentional as there are those who, while acknowledging that different individuals penned the various biblical books, are explicit or implicit in affirming that there is a singular author – God. Some take the view that God dictated the precise words we encounter in the Bible.¹ Others are slightly more subtle, arguing that God worked through the individuality of the human writers, yet still conclude that the resulting message is fully attributable to God. From these approaches come views about the Bible being absolutely accurate in all that it states – about history, science, psychology, etc. because, if it comes directly from a perfect God, it obviously cannot contain any errors.²

Now, I admit that this understanding creates serious problems for me. Here are three examples: When I read in the Bible that God created a flat earth and a domed sky over it with lights traveling their courses within and over the dome (Genesis 1), as a person of the 21^st Century I am confronted with a credibility problem. Similarly, when I read a story in which God appears to approve of a man protecting visitors to his home by offering his own virgin daughters for the sexual pleasure of his neighbors (Genesis 19), I am shocked and offended at the suggestion that this is somehow a good deity. Or again, when I read a passage where women are told that they are not to have authority over men, not to braid their hair or wear pearls or gold or expensive clothing, and where women are held responsible for the origin of evil in the world (I Timothy 2:9-15), I must conclude either that God is a sexist or that this teaching does not come from God.

Staying with the theme of the Bible and picking up again on my first “strange mix” posting – something else I really value in liturgical worship is the cycle of biblical readings (the lectionary) that includes four  readings each Sunday: normally one each from the Jewish scriptures, the Psalms, the New Testament letters, and a Gospel. Following each reading on Sunday morning, the reader proclaims: “The Word of the Lord,” and the congregation responds: “Thanks be to God.” And I have no problem affirming this each week, but in doing so I do not mean that the words we have heard are a direct, unmediated communication from God. Rather, for me the connection between the biblical narrative and the affirmation “The Word of the Lord” has to be much more nuanced.

In this regard, I have found most helpful the writings of Marcus Borg, Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University.³ He states directly – and, again, this will cause some of my Christian friends to gasp – that the authorship of the Bible is not divine but fully human. More precisely, the two “testaments” of the Christian Bible are the literary product of two diverse groups: the ancient Hebrews and early Christian communities. To see the biblical authorship in this way though does not in any way deny the reality of God. God (or “the Sacred” or “Spirit”) is a reality attested to in human experience, that cannot be relegated to being simply a human creation or projection.⁴ And, of course, as in anything we say, whatever we say about the Sacred will be a human creation. We cannot talk about God except with words, symbols, stories, concepts, and categories known to us, for they are the only language we have. Nevertheless, when we have experiences of “the holy,” “the numinous,” “the sacred,” these experiences go beyond, shatter, and relativize our human language and categories. From the perspective offered here, the Bible – as a fully human product – originates in such experiences.⁵ And so it is “the Word of the Lord,” not in terms of origin or authorship but in the sense that the biblical narrative constitutes a human response to the experience of the Sacred, of God. And, to the extent that we are open to this dimension of the Bible, it can be a channel through which we encounter God in our lives.

1  Clark H. Pinnock. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. 1971: Chicago. Moody Press. pp. 89-95.

On p. 90 Pinnock quotes J.I. Packer who says: “If the words (emphasis added) were not wholly Gods, then their teaching would not be wholly God's.

2  Ibid., p. 94: “Because Scripture is a divine Word . . . we insist on its truthfulness in all that it teaches.”

3  Marcus J. Borg. Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally. 2001: San Francisco. Harper San Francisco. I highly recommend this book in its entirety. On the present topic though, see especially chapter 2, pp. 21-36. I have also found very helpful the writings of retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, especially his book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture. 1991. San Francisco. Harper San Francisco.

4  On the question of God I recommend Marcus J. Borg. The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith. 1997. San Francisco. Harper San Francisco.

5  Much of my argument (and language) here comes directly from Borg (op.cit.) p. 22.

A Strange Mix - Part 2a

In the last post I wrote about my appreciation for forms of worship rooted in practices that hark back nearly two millennia, to the formative centuries of the Christian community. While I experience the possibility of deep meaning in this tradition, I am at the same time a person of the present day who demands a faith that also makes sense within the context of the twenty-first century. Thus the acknowledgment echoed in the title, that in terms of spirituality I may be considered a rather strange mix.

The German monk Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) was, as you probably know, one of the early leaders in what came to be called the Protestant Reformation. While perhaps best remembered for his re-definition of “salvation,” he also proposed, a new principle for interpreting the Bible. The approach he championed was based on the view that the true meaning of the Bible's words are to be found in their “literal sense.”¹ This understanding, which was more fully developed in the years following the Reformation period, was broadened to associate the biblical words with the very words of God.² In my family and in the faith communities I grew up in, this was the understanding I was taught and, in my experience, it is the understanding of many if not most Christians (at least in the United States) today.³

I have often commented, tongue in cheek, that out-growing a fundamentalist upbringing requires years of attending a “fundamentalists anonymous” program. And it has in fact been a gradual process, but through the years I have come to the place where I can no longer affirm the so-called “literal” understanding of the Bible. Now, for many Christians, such a statement is anathema. However there are too many things in the Bible that I simply cannot believe literally.

That does not mean however that I do not take the Bible seriously. Besides being made up of many different books written by different authors and reflecting numerous time periods and historical/cultural settings, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are composed of a variety of different types of literature as well. There are origin stories, nationalistic propaganda, liturgy, poetry, sermons, and apocalyptic, to name a few. Now, we all know that poetry has layers of meaning deeper than what a simple literal reading might suggest. Sermons and nationalistic language may use hyperbole (not literally true or accurate) to get a point across. Stories can teach important lessons and in this sense communicate truth without necessarily being literally factual or historical. And apocalyptic is characterized by hallucinatory or dream qualities with its fantastic visions. So to take a literal approach to everything in the Bible is actually to mis-read and thus to mis-understand what is intended.

It seems to me then – and it has been experientially the case for me in my own spiritual journey – that not being tied to a literalistic interpretation not only leads to a clearer understanding of what the biblical authors desired to communicate but it actually opens up the possibility of discovering deeper meaning in the Biblical narrative. This approach has helped lead me to the understanding that faith is not only about a journey inward but also and equally a call to the journey outward.

1  Theologian and biblical scholar Hans Frei, quoted in David E. Klemm. Hermeneutical Inquiry, Volume I: The Interpretation of Texts. p. 11.

2  J. I. Packer. “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God. pp. 77-101.

3   I heard a Rabbi speak recently who suggested that most Jews grow up with a literalistic approach to the Jewish Scriptures as well.