By What Authority?

I subscribe to Richard Rohr's daily e-mail meditations from the Center for Action and Contemplation.  Rohr is a Franciscan priest who writes about the intersection of spirituality and culture.  I deeply appreciate his insights.  Recently he inspired me when he began a series answering the following questions “By what authority do you say the things you do, Richard? How do we know these are not just your ideas? Why should we believe you?”  Another way of framing the questions might be to ask, why do you believe the things you do?  or What are the foundations of your faith?

I thought it might be interesting to think about those questions and blog a bit.  So I'll be blogging about a few of my sources of authority in no particular order.

First - the Bible.  There are scores of more conservative Christians who would shake their heads at me saying that.  They would argue that I don't really believe the Bible.  Depending on what you mean by that, they may be correct.  I do not believe the Bible the way they do.  I do not take the Bible literally.  Indeed, there are things in the Bible that I do not believe are God's word to us and there are things I just do not believe.  I would go so far as to say that in order to really believe the Bible, one cannot take it literally.

So what do I find in the Bible if  "plenary verbal inspiration" is not a descriptor I would ever use?  (Plenary verbal inspiration is the idea that the very words of the Bible are individually chosen by God.  Many who hold that view would say that it only applies to the original autographs or documents written by the Biblical writers.  Others apply the idea even to some translations, usually the KJV.) 

I do not expect the Bible to be without contradictions nor do I expect it to be a book of history in the modern sense or of science.  I believe that taking the Bible seriously requires one to recognize that it is comprised of metaphor, parable, myth, poetry, and is the stories of fallible human beings trying to make sense out of their experiences of the Holy... and sometimes misinterpreting it entirely.  I am inspired by my ancestors in faith who struggled with the presence of the Divine One.  I am challenged and humbled by their courage and strength and I am warned by their weakness and cowardice. 

Theirs are not the only stories.  There are similar struggles in every culture in the world.  They are the stories that are central to my culture and my faith so I stand in them, wrestle with them, and hopefully learn from them and become a better follower of Jesus because I take them seriously.

The Bible Guarantees It

We've all seen the advertisements that were running before May 21st with the tag live - "The Bible Guarantees It." And then, nothing unusual happened on May 21st. What are people to conclude? The Bible is not reliable. Of course, many conservative Christians have responded by saying that the Bible does guarantee many things... just not that, and they have a long list of things they would say the Bible does guarantee.

I'd agree that the Bible does guarantee a few things: God loves us. God's yearnings for us are more wonderful than we can imagine. Grace truly is amazing... but beyond that, not much. Some time back I quoted The Shadow Rock UCC Church in Phoenix who say "We know that to understand the Bible means taking it seriously but not literally." I'd go a little farther, I think, and say, "Taking the Bible seriously means not taking it literally," and I take the Bible seriously. It is a central book in my faith. There are lessons there that can be found nowhere else. I believe that God chooses to speak through that book in a unique way and it truly is inspired. I believe the Bible... but, I do not believe that it provides predictions regarding the future. I do not believe that it provides simple answers to complex questions. I do not believe that proof texts can easily be applied to the issues we face today. I do not believe it is a science book nor do I believe that it is a history book in the sense we understand history books to work today. Taking the Bible seriously requires that I understand these things before I open the pages and read stories, letters, poems, and songs that serve to shape my faith and help to give direction to my life.

So how do I respond to the folk who are distraught because the Bible seems no longer to be trustworthy? I tell them that they don't understand what it is or how it works.

More about being Biblical

I have read that Christianity is the only major religion where the scriptures do not need to be read in the language of the founder. Think of Islam as an example. The Koran is only the word of Allah if it is read in Arabic... and indeed, it should be read aloud to be it's holiest. If it is translated into English or any other language, it is no longer the unadulterated Word of Allah.

That makes sense to me. Language is a way of conceptualizing the universe. The structure of the language both describes the universe and defines the way the individual can experience it. Last year I even heard a story on NPR about disappearing languages that mentioned a language that counts in both base 12 and base 20. Living in a culture that sees numbers in base 10, I automatically translate that idea into one that is completely foreign to them... or am just puzzled that "they" don't see the universe as it really is... base 10.

The semantic range of a word almost never exactly corresponds from one language to another. There is a reference that many pastors have on their shelves called The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which tries to take important words in the Bible and show their semantic range. The word we translate as "salvation" from the Greek has an article some 70 pages long, explaining what it meant to those who used that term and thought in the original language. And you thought the Amplified Bible was tedious? The Muslims know, and rightly so, that once you translate the text is is not and cannot be the same. Translation requires interpretation. Let me give an example of that. There is a Greek word that is often translated servant - "diaconos." In the early church the term became a technical term, referring to a church officer. We transliterated it to "deacon." When translating, any time the translator comes across that word, s/he has to decide whether the word is referring to a servant or to a church officer. The translators of the KJV had a theological position that helped them. "Women cannot be deacons," they thought, so any time the word clearly referred to a woman, they always translated it as "servant." Their theology dictated the translation.

There were theological decisions made regarding which books would be included and which left out of the Bible. And different traditions disagreed as to which books belonged in which categories.

Finally, even if we agree which books are in and which are out and can make a "perfect" translation, we have literally thousands of manuscripts of the scriptural texts which often do not agree with one another. Those who say that the scriptures are "inerrant in their original autographs" are simply hedging their bets... they want to make a theological statement but it is meaningless. We do not and never will have the original autographs. Some fundamentalists have seen this for what it is and claim that God would not allow us to not have an inerrant word... so it must be the KJV!

OK, so what does this say to those of us who want to be "Biblical?" It tells us that the Christian scriptures are not documents written by the finger of God on stone. They are living words, meant to wrestled with in the context of the community of faith. They are not, God's instruction manual for human beings. They are the history of God's people struggling with their experience of God and trying to live lives of authentic faith in their times and cultures, reflecting both the best and the worst of human nature.

So, do I believe the Bible is true? Absolutely. Do I believe it is historical? Sometimes, but usually I think that is an irrelevant question. Do I believe it is inspired of/by God? Absolutely, but that never means dictated by God. Do I believe the Bible is central to Christian faith? Absolutely, but the Bible is not the object of our faith or devotion, that is Jesus, the Word.

Are we a "Biblical" church?

this is a slightly edited version of a short article I just wrote for our church newsletter, also called Thin Places.

Is Cambridge Drive Community Church a Bible believing church? That is a question that is often asked, but it usually carries with it considerable baggage. Generally, the question really being asked is something like, "Are you fundamentalists?" or "Do you take the Bible literally?" or possibly, "Are you conservative, like me?" or "Does your pastor use lot of proof texts in his sermons?" or maybe even, "Do you read the King James Version of the Bible?"

When we were visiting Phoenix some time back and looking for a church to attend, we came across the Shadow Rock UCC Church that addressed this question in a way that inspired me. They answered, "We take the Bible seriously but not literally." I think that is a good start, but I want to go a bit further. Taking the Bible literally is not being Biblical. Indeed, I have never met anyone who takes the entire thing literally - check out the wonderful book, The Year of Living Biblically to see what I mean. So to make that claim is to be dishonest at the start. Worse than that, it does violence to the text of the scripture. The Bible is composed of a wide variety of types of literature, written in different times, for different purposes, to different audiences, in different languages that reflect different paradigms of reality. We live in a very different world from theirs and face wildly different issues. Indeed, through the centuries covered by the Biblical text, the writers reflected different cultures and times and issues and answered them in ways that were often contradictory. To be "Biblical" requires that we take all of this into account when we come to the text and form our faith.

So, what does it mean to be a Bible believing church? First, we must look at the scripture for what it is. We do not believe that our scripture was lowered from heaven on a golden cord nor do we believe that a founder discovered golden tablets hidden under a stone which were translated by an angel. We don't believe that God dictated each word to a scribe who copied what he or she wrote. We have a scripture that reflects the differing experiences of men and women through the centuries, wrestling with faith in their contexts, and sharing their experiences. We have a scripture that includes a wide variety of types of literature which are meant to be handled and understood in different ways. And as Howard Moody, pastor emeritus of Judson Memorial Church in NYC, reminds us, the Bible is not the Word of God... Jesus is.

We must remember that truth and historicity are not the same. Whether or not a story took place the way it is reported has little to do with the truth embedded in that story.

Harry Emerson Fosdick spoke of the effective preacher having a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. It is a good metaphor for the task of Biblical interpretation (and we always interpret the Bible - just translating it requires interpretation). It is not enough to even understand all of the setting of the scripture, the original intent of the authors, or the message that was conveyed to the original hearers. We must also ask the question, "how does this word translate to our situation?" knowing that answer may be different today than it was 10 years ago and is likely different than it was 2000 years ago.

So, is CDCC a Biblical church? I hope so... Unfortunately, many of those that claim to be are anything but...

No on 8, #8

We've all heard the arguments that marriage in the Bible is one man and one woman and that God planned it that way. The implication is that the way we did marriage in the 1950's is exactly the way it has always been done.

The other day I received an e-mail with a list of amendments to prop 8 to make it more consistent with the Bible...

* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)

* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him.(Gen 19:31-36)

We could add more verses to illustrate polygamy, bride prices, women treated as chattel, etc. all of which are not condemned...

Yes... it is a bit silly, but it does underscore the fact that marriage in the Bible is a very different institution that we have today and that to try to use Biblical understandings of marriage as an argument for prop 8 is, well, really silly.

Bible meme

I ran across this Bible meme at Bob Cornwall's blog who got it at Even the Devils Believe.

1. What translation of the Bible do you like best?

These days, I'm using The Message most often. I know it is not always a good translation and at times it misses the point entirely... but there are times when the phrasing is just perfect for today. If I want accuracy, I go to the NRSV.

2. Old or New Testament?

My gut wants to immediately say, "New," but there are some amazing stories in the Old that I would never want to lose. So a slight edge goes to the New.

3. Favorite Book of the Bible?

It's going to be one of the prophets... probably Isaiah

4. Favorite Chapter?

Isaiah 60... Arise! Shine!

5. Favorite Verse? (feel free to explain yourself if you have to)

how about 2? Romans 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NRSV)

6. Bible character you think you’re most like?

boy... I'm not sure I want to answer this honestly for all to see...

7. One thing from the Bible that confuses you?

how it inspires such idiocy in people

8. Moses or Paul?

Frankly, neither one... and both. Moses is kind of a cardboard character. We don't get much of his guts. And Paul, I'm not sure that I would like him in person. He seems a bit to sure of himself for me. Having said that, both of them are important characters to my faith.

9. A teaching from the Bible that you struggle with or don’t get?

This really is the wrong question. It isn't an instruction manual, there for us to study and learn whether A, B, or C is the proper answer. It is a story book, telling the story of people's experience of God through the centuries and their interpretations of those experiences.

10. Coolest name in the Bible?

Zipporah. As other's have said, I wanted to use this as the name for our daughter. We could have called her Zippy for short. Well, not really... but it has been a fun story in our house. For a while Alexis used it as her screen name.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

On the 26th, my family took a short trip down the coast to San Diego to visit the San Diego Natural History Museum to view the exhibition of 15 of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was a wonderful experience that struck me in multiple ways.

I was reminded of the necessity of scholarship and continued study. Two examples that really struck me...

First some background for any who are not familiar with biblical scholarship. Through the years, there were many, many manuscripts of the scriptures. They don't always agree. When trying to come up with accurate texts, biblical scholars make judgements regarding the weight of the various manuscripts. One important variable is the age of the manuscript and, in general, older = better. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the manuscripts that we had for the Hebrew scriptures tended not to be all that old with the oldest manuscripts being of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible rather than Hebrew texts. (Translation, of course, represents another bucket load of issues...) So, the Dead Sea Scrolls are extremely important in learning what the Hebrew scriptures originally said.

In 1 Samuel 17, we have a story that children from the Jewish and Christian traditions all know, the story of David and Goliath. The Bibles on my shelf all say that Goliath is about 9.5 feet tall. That is reflective of the manuscripts that are extant... except for the Dead Sea scroll of this text. In it, Goliath is about 6.5 feet tall. Still, tall for his time but not the unbelievable height of current stories. So, what happened? Remember that the Dead Sea scroll is much older than other manuscripts of this passage. It looks as if somewhere along the line, after the Dead Sea scrolls were produced, someone made a mistake in copying the story, making Goliath 3 feet taller. The mistake stuck. Likely, the original story had Goliath at 6.5 feet. That very well may change some sermons on that passage.

The second example would have completely changed a sermon from just a few weeks ago. On the 16th, I preached on Matthew 11:2-11, a wonderful story where John the Baptist sends his disciples to inquire of Jesus, "Are you the one we're waiting for or should we look for someone else?"
Jesus replies, "Go back and tell John what's going on:
The blind see,
The lame walk,
Lepers are cleansed,
The deaf hear,
The dead are raised,
The wretched of the earth learn that God is on their side. (MsgB)

My sermon said something along the lines that Jesus was both calling into question the common understanding of the Messiah (a king who would overthrow the powers of the world in a violent war) and was telling John's disciples to just report back what they had seen.

At the exhibit, I learned about the Book of Enoch. It was a book that was very popular at the time of Jesus but no copy existed until one was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the book, there are many passages that point to the Messiah. In one, those exact words were used to describe the Messiah's work. Jesus was not merely telling them to look around. His answer was a clear, "Yes! I am the one!" for anyone familiar with the Book of Enoch. No doubt, John's disciples would have known it.

The exhibit also made me think about community and about the nature of fanaticism. More on both later.

If you are anywhere near San Diego and have a chance to see the exhibit, do so. It is extremely well done and more than worth the cost of admission. You do have to make reservations though and it feels as if the earlier in the day, the better. It runs through January 6, 2008.