Reading the Bible literally — Hold On (part 2)

Reading the Bible literally – Hold On (part 2)

I am trying to make a case for moving beyond literalism because for me and for millions of others it (literalism) is a stumbling block.  For my children’s friends, “literalism” combined with notions of inerrancy, infallibility, and the perceived mean-spiritedness and judgmentalism of much of what passes for evangelical Christianity in the public media these days has caused them to discount Christianity as a whole.  They know nothing of the historical-metaphorical approach to Scripture as an alternative.  In general, I think it is fair to say that most mainline clergy, most of who have been trained in alternative approaches, have abdicated their responsibility for teaching these approaches to laity.  It often places one under criticism from a certain wing of the church and it’s easier just to just “go along to get along”.  It is unfortunate that often some of the most critical persons do not recognize the evangelical motives of those seeking to bridge gaps in understanding.  Marcus Borg has written in his recent book, Speaking Christian, that “literalism is not only a public relations problem (for the church) that needs to be addressed for the sake of outsiders.  It also very much impacts insiders; for Christians, it narrows, reduces, flattens, and ultimately distorts the meanings of the Bible and Christianity.” (p. 26)

So on to the matter . . . another tragedy for those who read literally is the failure to make distinctions between what is of central importance and what is of lesser importance in the Scripture.   When one reads flatly without distinction as to what really preaches Christ,  it is like a wall and removing any stone threatens the collapse of the whole thing.   Folks steeped in my own tradition of Lutheranism need to be reminded that Luther (and the other Reformers) did not affirm literalism or inerrancy. Luther, after all, thought that both James and Revelation should be thrown out of the New Testament.  Most Christians across the historical spectrum have not read the Bible literally.  (see part 1.)

Literalists often reason this way:  a perfect God would not inspire an imperfect Bible.  Inspiration gives it a divine guarantee of being true – literally, factually, and absolutely.  This ignores the fact that this undermines a chief confession of the Bible about God:  the God of the Bible uses ordinary, fallible, sin-ridden folks to accomplish extraordinary things.  “Finitum capax infinitum” is the Latin expression:  the finite is capable of the infinite.  Why make the Bible something supernatural when God chooses ordinary vessels, “jars of clay”.  We ought not accord the Bible a status reserved only for Jesus.

Perhaps we ought to recall that the Bible never claims for itself inerrancy or complete factual and historical accuracy.  It claims to be inspired by God,  to be sure, and I believe it is – but that is not the same as factually accurate. The Biblical writers hope to convince us to believe as they did; they write in order to be persuasive.  See John 20:20-31 for a summary.

So what does it mean to say that the “Bible is the Word of God?”  Notice that Christians do not say “words of God”.  Word is being used in a special or metaphorical sense.  Word means a language, a communication, a disclosure, a revealing.  Is the means whereby the Spirit of God continues to speak to us – sacramental as some understand that word.  Therefore, of course, Christians confess and believe that Jesus is the “Word of God”.  This “Word” became flesh, embodied. He was a person. A book can be the “Word of God” and so can a person.  So the Bible is filled with words about the Word.  Jesus is the norm of the Bible. If Jesus and the words in the Bible are in conflict (they sometimes are), Jesus trumps the Bible. In Him we see more clearly than anywhere else the character and passion of God.  To echo the language of Martin Luther, the Bible is the manger in which we find Christ.  (submitted 21 Sept 2011, Pastor Christensen)

 

Reading the Bible literally – Hold On!

(Be forewarned; this gets a teeny-bit technical)

I write as one who has taken the Bible with utter seriousness now for five decades.  I try to read it daily.  I work with it almost daily. I preach from it regularly. I love it and find it more delightful, more inviting, and richer as I grow older. I believe it is the source and norm of Christian faith and life.  I am also a person whose struggle with the Bible began in college days when I became convinced of the validity of the theory of Evolution and tried to reconcile it with the “creation” materials in the Scripture.  So – how one approaches the Bible has been of ongoing interest to me, and in particular, how the Lutherans have approached the Bible.  (By the way, Martin Luther’s approach to the Bible would likely shock many of us modern Lutherans – but that’s another topic.)

Some believe this matter is the core or central issue that divided Lutherans prior and subsequent to the decision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Assembly actions on ordination practices which allowed same sex persons in committed and faithful relationships to become ordained.  At the bottom of the issue, many said, was a division about the authority of the Bible. Both sides believed they were/are being faithful to the Scripture.   The presiding Bishop of the ELCA, Mark Hanson, has acknowledged that there are two quite different approaches to the Bible in the ELCA.  This should not surprise if one has an awareness of the history of Lutheranism and how the ELCA came into being.  The point is:  there are significant differences within the ELCA as to how to understand the authority of the Scripture.  These struggles are part of a larger crisis in our culture about how to approach the Bible.

What I intend in this article (part 1) and the next (part 2) is to make a case as to why the Bible should not be read literally.  I want to acknowledge indebtedness to the work of two persons who have been recently influential and helpful for me on broader issues of interpreting the Bible and it’s authority:  N.T. Wright and his book:  THE LAST WORD (Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scriptures) and David Lose and his book: MAKING SENSE OF SCRIPTURE.  Wright is an Anglican, a bishop and teacher in the Church of England; David Lose is an ELCA Lutheran who teaches at Luther Seminary, St. Paul)  I wish to be very clear that in what follows I am not attempting to categorize or to speak directly to ELCA issues.  For example, there are many in the ELCA who would have a “traditionalist” position on the ordination issue referred to above and who would not subscribe to a “literalist” perspective.  I am simply responding to a larger issue of how folks in our culture approach the Bible.

First of all, what do we mean by reading the Bible “literally”.  This is important because “literal” today doesn’t mean what “literal” did centuries ago, to Martin Luther, for example.  For the Reformers “literal” meant the sense that the first writers intended.  For us “literal” means taking at face value, reading as one would a history or science textbook. It means, in other words, exactly what it says.  For many modern “literalists” the terms of “inerrant” and “infallible” (neither a biblical term) accompany their vocabulary.  Some folks use the term “Biblicism” or “Biblicists” for these “literalists” (often disparagingly).  “Inspired” is a biblical word used by all camps.  Interestingly, three in ten Americans reports that she/he reads the Bible “literally”.  Two reasons not to read literally (part 1.) and at least two more in (part 2):

1.  Most Christians across history have not read the Bible literally.  Oddly, the doctrine of “inerrancy” that most literalists claim to uphold is relatively recent (about a century and a half old).  Most of the Christian Church’s brightest theologians did not (and do not) subscribe to anything close to inerrancy and most adamantly opposed such a notion.  St. Augustine, for example, for many years remained on the margin of the Church, the chief impediment to his conversion being the notion that Christians took literally the idea of Jonah spending three days in the belly of a whale.  Only after Ambrose, bishop of Milan, introduced Augustine to a notion of metaphorical interpretation, that is that metaphors can speak of spiritual realities rather than historical facts, did Augustine take the Bible seriously (and those who read it).

Not that pre-moderns brought the same historical and scientific skepticism to the Bible that we bring, early Christians (and almost everyone else before the Enlightenment) didn’t imagine that for something to be true, it had to be factually accurate.  This is a “modern” and not helpful notion.  So, the fact that the Gospels sometimes diverged was seen as faithful and fitting recognition that the God’s truth as revealed in Jesus was too large to be contained in a single perspective.  Flattening the biblical witness to conform to a reductionist understanding of truth limits the power of the Scripture and the Holy Spirit.  Karl Barth, perhaps the 20^th century’s greatest theologian, said:  “I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.”

2.  Reading the Bible literally distorts its witness!  In the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus drives out the money-changers from the temple in Jerusalem days before his crucifixion.  In John’s Gospel, he does this in the beginning of his ministry and two years before his death.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke report Jesus as being killed on Passover day while John says it is the Day of Preparation (the day before Passover).  Inconsistencies like this are part of not just the Gospels but many other books of the Bible.

If the purpose of the biblical writes is not to report history accurately (as we understand history) but rather to confess and evoke faith – which I believe is a better way to understand their purpose, then these inconsistencies might be understood as helpful to revealing the confessions of the authors.  Rather than ask who got it right or attempt reconcile these differences (and preserve inerrancy), we might ask “why?” – why doe John understand this differently?  As it turns out, both of these differences stem from John’s theological claim that Jesus is the new Passover lamb.  So, once Jesus begins his ministry there is no need of Passover sacrifice and he is crucified the same day, even the same exact hour, at which the Passover lambs were sacrificed on the Day of Preparation.

There is no need to reconcile these difference; they serve the author’s proclamation and witness.  Literalists believe they have to “rescue” the gospels often writing long books to reconcile differences rather than letting these differences serve the gospel and ending up with accounts of Jesus’ life that none of the gospel accounts offers – hence, often distorting its witness.  (end, part 1, submitted by Pr. Christensen)

 

Off The Top of My Hat . . .

Just a couple of quotes that I find interesting (both of them lifted from then last issue of The Christian Century, issue of July 26):

“Our realists are too cynical and focused on power in this world to acknowledge any higher authority.  And all too many of our believers evoke God only to secure more power for the United State.” (Alan Wolfe)

“True history is the enemy of reverence.  We do the authors of American independence no favors by embalming them in infallibility, by treating the Constitution like a quasi-biblical revelation instead of the product of contention and cobbled-together compromise that it actually was.”  (Simon Schama, Newsweek – issue of June 26)

I was intrigued at where the blame for deficits is being placed by the opposite sides in our current U.S. “debt-ceiling” crisis.  One side places the blame on President Obama’s stimulus package, the other on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the previous administration.  It seems to me it’s a matter of both.  A commentator on TV put the cost of the economic stimulus at $1.1 Trillion (Ari Fleischer).  The cost of the two wars is currently running between $2.3 and $2.7 Trillion.  When operations in Pakistan are added, it is estimated war costs will exceed $4 Trillion. Unlike previous American wars, the current ones have been largely financed with borrowed money.

It is also interesting to me that the two countries that are the biggest sources of refugees are Afghanistan (3,054,700 persons displaced) and Iraq (1,683,600 persons displaced).  The country hosting the most refugees is Pakistan, followed by Iran, Syria, Germany, and Jordan. (submitted by Pr. Christensen, 28 July 2010)

The Safety Net Frays!

In the past few years, the social safety net has helped more Americans than in any time in a generation.  Yet it appears many of our leaders are set upon dismantling it, piece by piece.  Employment hovers near double digits — for over two years now.  At a national hiring day in April, McDonald’s got more than a million job applications and rejected nine-tenths of them.

The Minnesota State legislature and Governor have struck a deal and most are relieved.  I have not yet seen the particulars of the budget agreement  and I ought to be cautious.  However, I worry about the impact upon our state’s neediest persons.

At Trinity we have experienced a definite “uptick” in numbers of persons requesting financial assistance.  Recently we discovered that both Blue Earth and Nicollet County have referred folks to churches for assistance. (At least, this is what the requesters are telling us.)  We simply do not have the resources to assist other than to apply an occasional Band-Aid.

Nationally, the congress appears shocked (yes, shocked!) that deficit spending is going on after we have spent $1.2 trillion dollars on recent wars and, of course,  we will need to continue responsibility to our veterans. Programs for the needy and poor go readily on the chopping block because these folks seem least likely to fight back.  When the Church speaks on their behalf, she is accused (as recently in MN) of believing in “socialist fiction”.

For three decades in these United States the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer.  Yes, we are redistributing wealth here:  we are shifting more and more of it to the already wealthy!  Last year, as an example, John Paulson, a Goldman Sachs innovator who designed junk mortgage-backed securities took home $4.9 billion in pay.  Mr. Paulson took home a billion and a half more dollars than the federal food stamp program spent in all of the five boroughs of New York City.

To be sure, we need to cut spending and get our fiscal houses in order.  It is immoral, however, to balance budgets on the backs of the poor.   Inequality of the kind mentioned above kills jobs, destroys hope, diminishes the middle class, and bodes ill for our future.  The Old Testament prophets had a great old, tried and true, word for it: SIN.  (submitted by Pastor Christensen, 20 July, 2011)

Trinity Finances — FYI

Dear Trinity Friends,

As the year has progressed, we have updated the congregation periodically on our financial situation.  This month is a mix of good news, sort of good news, and news of concern. The good news is through the Christian generosity and financial stewardship of this congregation, offerings are trending just a wee bit above where we were last year.  That is something to be very proud of in these trying times, and is critical to maintaining our mission.The sort of good news is that despite several unavoidable increases including a $1,500 increase in insurance premium costs, an additional $500 of expense for interest on the Line of Credit money borrowed last year, and unplanned building maintenance that totaled almost $2,000 more than last year; overall spending is only up $1,500 over last year.  We have been fortunate to have been able to tighten our belts in several other areas to compensate for these expenses without reducing our mission. Our news of concern is that, as many of you may be aware, summertime has traditionally been a financially slow time for our congregation.  Last year, Trinity was forced to borrow $10,000 in order to make ends meet and, of that, $7,440 remains to be repaid.  The goal for this year is to meet our budget without incurring additional debt at years end, and, if we are so blessed, to be able to pay off the Line of Credit as well.  So, please keep Trinity in your thoughts and prayers.  (Pastor Eric. 14 July 2011)

A Great Summer Read

I invite you to consider an excellent, stimulating, hope-filled book to place on your summer reading list – one that I found to be a “just couldn’t put it down” piece!  I recommend: Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, He’ll, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.  The author is a person whom I had never read or even heard of before, Rob Bell.  Rob Bell is the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a church whose worshippers number about 10,000 persons every weekend.

Bell’s book is currently selling rapidly; it is also available in electronic versions at about a lesser ($9.00) price. Bell has stirred the ire of some “evangelicals” as he challenges various strains of Christian certainty and arrogance particularly about the question of the eternal destiny of non-Christians.

He is charged by some of being a “universalist” – i.e., that it doesn’t matter what one believes and any religious path is a good as any other.  However, that notion never appears in his book and Bell is a passionate believer in Jesus Christ.  But he refuses to place limits on how far God’s love in Jesus Christ can reach. I  found his book filled with good insights and indeed “good news”.

Bell’s book is “aimed” at the normal lay person and is easily read and not filled with technical theological jargon.  I am convinced that you will find it as exciting, compelling, and inviting,  thoughtful, and challenging. (submitted by Pastor Christensen, 08 July 2011)

 

Welcome!

Welcome to the Trinity Lutheran Church (St. Peter, MN) Pastor’s Blog.  Submissions will be made weekly by one of the two pastors.  Opinions, observations, reflections, comments, etc, are those of the submitting pastor and not necessarily the congregation.  We hope you enjoy this new tool.

“Moral Document”  – “Socialist Fiction”?

As a shutdown of all but the most essential of state governmental services looms near,  the anxieties of many in St. Peter are climbing especially because of the numbers employed by the state of Minnesota in our community.  The partisan rhetoric, the blaming,  the name calling, the depth of disagreement, and the heat of argument increase.  Enlightenment, understanding, and willingness to compromise appear to be casualties.  Frustrations with elected officials turn rapidly toward anger.  To be sure, we citizens of Minnesota are in for a “wake-up call”.

The church is not immune.  The recent letter of Archbishop John Nienstedt, archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church in Minneapolis and St. Paul, to governor Mark Dayton calling the state budget a “moral document” and the response of State Senator David Hann, assuming  the archbishop was criticizing the legislative proposal and calling the archbishop a believer in “socialist fiction” alerts us to the deep anxieties.  So what is the role of the Church in this matter and in the larger issues of public policy issues?   Some would have the church say nothing and do nothing, stay out of the political world.   One of the great changes in my lifetime is to have witnessed  the conservative spectrum of Christians in the United State move from a “say nothing, do nothing” perspective to one of active political involvement often of an openly partisan nature.   Local congregations differ in their response to the question of involvement in public policy issues even within the larger “families” of Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.  Perhaps you might ask a pastor or some congregational member with knowledge about his or her congregation’s stance.

It often surprises to learn that most Christians work jointly to advocate on behalf of those who may not have much of a voice otherwise. Christians understand their “neighbor” to be anyone who is in need. Christians believe that God is at work in the world in all kinds of ways including through government.   Across the centuries the church has helped millions of poor folks, organized social institutions, orphanages, hospitals, chemical treatment centers, and spoken out against tyrants.  In my lifetime the church has played and continues to play a leading role in ending racial divisions in many countries.  The point isn’t to take one political side or another, but to work with governments to help take care of all the people of God, in the church and beyond it,  especially the needy neighbor.  To that end, Christian churches often partner with Muslims, Jews, and others to influence public policy.

Archbishop Nienstedt  spoke out of that great tradition his concern that the poor, the aged, the unemployed, the homeless, the weak and the helpless, “the needy neighbor” remain of primary importance. The divisions are deep and real.  Let us pray for willingness to compromise, open minds and hearts, an awareness of history and concern for the future, deeper understandings, generosity, gentleness, and justice

Submitted by Pastor Charles Christensen (23 June 2011)