My professor would often speak of the church within the church. His cryptic phrase used the word church to refer to two different realities - and, therein, is the key to understanding his thought.
He used the word church to refer to a spiritual community of Christ-followers. This use of the word communicated deep, spiritual relationships that were centered around a mutual commitment to living and growing as the followers of Jesus. Church in this sense of the word is about relationships (spiritual friendships), spiritual development, and living the ways of God that Jesus taught in everyday relationships, routines, and responsibilities. Acts 2:42, 43-47 describes this kind of spiritual community.
He also used the word church to refer to the institutional church. The institutional church is about organization and structure, roles and responsibilities, programs and activities and events, finances and funding, expectations and standards of conduct and belief. Because human relationships are often messy and chaotic, some kind of organization and structure are needed as the size of the group grows. We see this reality in Acts 6:1-7. A specific group of seven men were identified for a particular role and given specific responsibilities in order to address a specific need. Role and responsibility, organization and structure arose in response to a specific need.
Ideally, these two expressions of church would be compatible and interdependent. The institutional church would exist to foster the spiritual community committed to growing and living as the followers of Jesus. The institution - as in Acts 6 - addresses a specific need. The spiritual community, in turn, would keep the institutional church spiritually alive, vibrant, and healthy.
My professor's statement suggests a different reality. The institutional church is almost (almost?!) always dominant. The spiritual community sometimes exists within it - the spiritual community within the institutional church.
In my experience, the institutional church generally displaces the spiritual community. Instead of serving and fostering the spiritual community, the functioning and survival of the institutional church become the focus. The institution's functioning and survival dominate spending, determine priorities and focus, and dictate where energies are invested. Members become concerned when the institution is in decline (attendance and giving fall off) but seldom recognize the loss of spiritual vitality and health that always precedes institutional decline.
I have spent my adult life and my career serving the institutional church - managing the organization, making sure roles were filled and responsibilities were fulfilled, planning and implementing traditional events and activities, dealing with peoples' expectations and desires ... all the while being responsible for keeping the institution growing and well funded, working to keep the members happy.
My call and my passion are spiritual formation - spiritual growth and development that takes place in the context of deep, spiritual friendships. My gifts are used in living out that call and passion - (compare Isaiah 50:4 and Ephesians 4:7, 11-16.) I served the institutional church as a platform for living out my call and my passion, for using my gifts.
This past February, I made the decision to retire as an elder in The United Methodist Church. That means I am retiring from my leadership role in the institutional church. I am retiring from the itinerant ministry in The UMC. However, I cannot retire from a call. I cannot step aside from the passion God has placed within me. I cannot lay aside the gifts the Spirit has given me. God's call, the Spirit's gifts, the God-given passion are who I am. Let me be clear: I am not saying my identity is/was tied to a role in the institutional church. Far from it. I set that role aside with relief. What I am saying is I will continue to live out of who God has created and is creating me to be. I am eager to see what God has for me in this next stage of life.
More about the church within the church next week.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Sunday, April 21, 2019
The Gift (and Danger!) of Metaphor: A Meditation for Easter
Bringing our best thinking to Bible study (see last week's post - Bringing Our Best Thinking to Bible Study, 04/15/19) includes recognizing and honoring the use of metaphor in speaking of spiritual things.
In our effort to speak of spiritual things, we have only one language to use: our human language. We use human concepts and images to speak of God and the things of God. We use our understanding of the physical realm to speak of the spiritual realm. In other words (pardon the pun), we use the things we know (the physical) to talk about things we only partially know (the spiritual). Even at our best, we struggle for language to communicate the mystery that is inherent to spiritual things.
That's where metaphor comes in. Metaphor is like a signpost, pointing beyond itself to something greater. Metaphor belongs to the domain of poetry, not science. It is not exact. It is not precise. It always leaves room for mystery. Metaphor says "it's kind of like this, only more, only better." All biblical language, because it is human language, is metaphor.
For example, the Hebrew people used the concept of covenant to speak of their relationship with God. Covenant was a part of their human experience. It defined how two parties would live in relationship with one another. The Hebrew people used the concept of covenant (the human) to speak of their relationship with God (the spiritual). Their covenant with God defined how God would relate to them and they to God. (BTW, they misunderstood the concept and missed God's greater truth, but that's a topic for a different blog.)
In the same way, the Apostle Paul used common, everyday words from his culture to communicate the spiritual realities of what God had done in Christ. Our great biblical words - justification, redemption, righteousness, adoption - were not, originally, religious terms. They were human concepts chosen to communicate spiritual reality. No one term was adequate to communicate the full spiritual reality, so Paul piled up the images - the metaphors.
Metaphor is a gift. When we recognize and honor metaphor, it helps us gain an understanding of spiritual things. But our understanding is partial, at best. There is always more to the spiritual reality than what we understand. So metaphor opens the door to understanding while, at the same time, inviting us beyond that understanding to explore "the more." What we understand through metaphor becomes the first step to understanding deeper spiritual realities.
But there is a downside to metaphor - a danger. The danger lies in reading the metaphor literally. When we read a metaphor literally, we substitute the human concept for the greater, spiritual reality to which it points ... and generally miss the greater reality! Rather than being a tool to help us understand the greater reality, the metaphor becomes a fact to believe. This kind of literal understanding is generally accompanied by being rigid in our thinking. (Which came first, the literal reading or the rigid thinking?) We believe these facts in a quest for certainty. We want to be right. (More on that desire in another blog.)
Reading the Bible literally (which is how most of us initially read it) has a number of devastating side effects.
In the last 200 years, a literal understanding of the metaphor of atonement has become the common way of understanding Jesus' death. This understanding asserts that, on the cross, Jesus died for our sins. That is, he took our place. He experienced the death we deserved. Because he died for us, we can be forgiven. We only need to believe.
This literal understanding of atonement reduces Jesus' death to a belief-based transaction with God. It is a deal God makes with us in exchange for our belief. If we believe in Jesus, inviting him in our hearts/lives, accepting him as our Savior, God will forgive us. The promise of "going to heaven when we die" is generally tagged on, to sweeten the deal. This understanding of Jesus' death was probably what was preached in most pulpits this Easter Sunday. It is a man-centered version of Christianity.
Atonement is a strong, biblical metaphor that comes from the sacrificial system of the Tabernacle. Like all metaphors, it communicates a truth. Atonement is about God's forgiveness. God forgives our sin. Our sin no longer separates us from God. Because we are forgiven, we are free to live in relationship with God without fear or guilt. We can approach God with confidence. (This truth is the heart of the book of Hebrews.)
The literal understanding of this metaphor gets the theme correct: forgiveness. But it falls short of "the more." It follows human thinking, projecting that thinking onto God: "Jesus had to die to get God to forgive us." It keeps us stuck in our old ways of thinking and living because the greater reality is missed. It keeps us focused on "what's in it for us," not on God.
The "more" that the atonement metaphor proclaims is about God. God forgives us because of who God is, not because of what we do. Forgiveness is God's gift, given freely, lavishly. It is the way God deals with our humanness, our weaknesses, our failures, our sin. The metaphor of atonement points us beyond forgiveness to change how we think about God and, thereby, how we relate to God.
Atonement is not about "getting off the hook" or "not getting what we deserve." It is so much more. It invites us to ground our lives in something beyond our normal human experience. It calls us to deal with our humanness the way God deals with it - with forgiveness. Forgiveness sets us free. It sets us free from guilt and shame, from pretense and denial. It sets us free to be honest and authentic, to learn and grow and change.
I like the way Richard Rohr expresses "the more" of the atonement metaphor: Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us. Jesus died to change our minds about God.
In our effort to speak of spiritual things, we have only one language to use: our human language. We use human concepts and images to speak of God and the things of God. We use our understanding of the physical realm to speak of the spiritual realm. In other words (pardon the pun), we use the things we know (the physical) to talk about things we only partially know (the spiritual). Even at our best, we struggle for language to communicate the mystery that is inherent to spiritual things.
That's where metaphor comes in. Metaphor is like a signpost, pointing beyond itself to something greater. Metaphor belongs to the domain of poetry, not science. It is not exact. It is not precise. It always leaves room for mystery. Metaphor says "it's kind of like this, only more, only better." All biblical language, because it is human language, is metaphor.
For example, the Hebrew people used the concept of covenant to speak of their relationship with God. Covenant was a part of their human experience. It defined how two parties would live in relationship with one another. The Hebrew people used the concept of covenant (the human) to speak of their relationship with God (the spiritual). Their covenant with God defined how God would relate to them and they to God. (BTW, they misunderstood the concept and missed God's greater truth, but that's a topic for a different blog.)
In the same way, the Apostle Paul used common, everyday words from his culture to communicate the spiritual realities of what God had done in Christ. Our great biblical words - justification, redemption, righteousness, adoption - were not, originally, religious terms. They were human concepts chosen to communicate spiritual reality. No one term was adequate to communicate the full spiritual reality, so Paul piled up the images - the metaphors.
Metaphor is a gift. When we recognize and honor metaphor, it helps us gain an understanding of spiritual things. But our understanding is partial, at best. There is always more to the spiritual reality than what we understand. So metaphor opens the door to understanding while, at the same time, inviting us beyond that understanding to explore "the more." What we understand through metaphor becomes the first step to understanding deeper spiritual realities.
But there is a downside to metaphor - a danger. The danger lies in reading the metaphor literally. When we read a metaphor literally, we substitute the human concept for the greater, spiritual reality to which it points ... and generally miss the greater reality! Rather than being a tool to help us understand the greater reality, the metaphor becomes a fact to believe. This kind of literal understanding is generally accompanied by being rigid in our thinking. (Which came first, the literal reading or the rigid thinking?) We believe these facts in a quest for certainty. We want to be right. (More on that desire in another blog.)
Reading the Bible literally (which is how most of us initially read it) has a number of devastating side effects.
- We focus on facts to believe - what is "biblical."
- We lose the sense of mystery - "the more" that is inherent to the spiritual realm.
- Our quest for certainty puts God in a box. Our understanding of God becomes limited and small.
- We generally create God in our image. We dress our human ways in religious garb.
- Our faith shifts from "faith in God" to faith in what we believe or to what the Bible says.
- We often and unknowingly become unteachable. Clinging to what we believe, we resist anything that does not fit with what we already believe. Our belief becomes the standard for judging "what is true."
In the last 200 years, a literal understanding of the metaphor of atonement has become the common way of understanding Jesus' death. This understanding asserts that, on the cross, Jesus died for our sins. That is, he took our place. He experienced the death we deserved. Because he died for us, we can be forgiven. We only need to believe.
This literal understanding of atonement reduces Jesus' death to a belief-based transaction with God. It is a deal God makes with us in exchange for our belief. If we believe in Jesus, inviting him in our hearts/lives, accepting him as our Savior, God will forgive us. The promise of "going to heaven when we die" is generally tagged on, to sweeten the deal. This understanding of Jesus' death was probably what was preached in most pulpits this Easter Sunday. It is a man-centered version of Christianity.
Atonement is a strong, biblical metaphor that comes from the sacrificial system of the Tabernacle. Like all metaphors, it communicates a truth. Atonement is about God's forgiveness. God forgives our sin. Our sin no longer separates us from God. Because we are forgiven, we are free to live in relationship with God without fear or guilt. We can approach God with confidence. (This truth is the heart of the book of Hebrews.)
The literal understanding of this metaphor gets the theme correct: forgiveness. But it falls short of "the more." It follows human thinking, projecting that thinking onto God: "Jesus had to die to get God to forgive us." It keeps us stuck in our old ways of thinking and living because the greater reality is missed. It keeps us focused on "what's in it for us," not on God.
The "more" that the atonement metaphor proclaims is about God. God forgives us because of who God is, not because of what we do. Forgiveness is God's gift, given freely, lavishly. It is the way God deals with our humanness, our weaknesses, our failures, our sin. The metaphor of atonement points us beyond forgiveness to change how we think about God and, thereby, how we relate to God.
Atonement is not about "getting off the hook" or "not getting what we deserve." It is so much more. It invites us to ground our lives in something beyond our normal human experience. It calls us to deal with our humanness the way God deals with it - with forgiveness. Forgiveness sets us free. It sets us free from guilt and shame, from pretense and denial. It sets us free to be honest and authentic, to learn and grow and change.
I like the way Richard Rohr expresses "the more" of the atonement metaphor: Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us. Jesus died to change our minds about God.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Bringing Our Best Thinking to Study the Bible
The spiritual realm is where life in its fullness is discovered and experienced. Apart from the spiritual realm, our lives are woefully empty and bankrupt.
Our understanding of the spiritual realm and our experience of it are inseparably tied to how we read and use the Bible. How we read and use the Bible determines the condition of our soul - what we are like deep inside. It determines both our spiritual depth and our spiritual maturity. The Spirit uses the teachings of scripture - particularly the teachings of Jesus - to fashion our hearts and minds in the likeness of Jesus. Given these realities, reason suggests our study of the Bible deserves our best thinking.
It seems to me, in spite of all the many hours Christians invest in the study of the Bible, that we seldom bring our best thinking to that study. We revert instead to simplistic thinking.
Simplistic thinking is black-and-white, either-or thinking. It reduces the complexity that is inherent to the spiritual realm into facts to believe and rules to follow. Simplistic thinking seeks certainty - knowing and believing and doing what is "right."
In our quest for certainty, we turn to some "expert" to teach us - a book to study or a video to watch or a teacher to lead us. We let the expert tell us what the Bible says and what to believe. Seldom do we allow the Spirit to guide our own thinking much less look for someone to teach us how to read the Bible so that it makes sense. It is easier to let someone do our thinking for us. Such is simplistic thinking.
Simplistic thinking often leads us to what we already believe. Rather than scripture shaping our thinking, we use scripture to reinforce and validate what we already think. Simplistic thinking leaves us unchanged and in control.
The spiritual realm is far too complex for simplistic thinking. The spiritual realm is a realm of mystery. There is always more to the spiritual realm than we can understand or explain. Our understanding of this realm and, thereby, our understanding of God is, at best, partial. There is always more to God than we can comprehend. The Apostle Paul spoke of our limited understanding in 1 Corinthians 13: We know only in part ... but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part; then I will know fully (verses 9-10, 12.)
Our best thinking embraces the mystery of the spiritual realm. It constantly seeks "the more" that the Spirit has for us. We hold our beliefs lightly as we look to the Spirit to guide us into a deeper understanding of mystery. Our best thinking keeps us open and teachable, willing to entertain new concepts and different perspectives. It allows for grey areas that do not divide neatly into black-and-white categories. It embraces the tension of both/and thinking, refusing the temptation to seek certainty through either/or thinking.
Our best thinking involves faith. Our faith is in God and in who Jesus revealed God to be. Our "certainty" is tied to God's merciful and gracious character (Exodus 34:6-7), to God's nature of self-giving, servant love (1 John 4:8-10). Whatever "the more" is, it will align with God's character as revealed to Moses and in Jesus. As we seek a deeper understanding and experience of the mysteries of the spiritual realm, the Spirit guides our steps. God's love, mercy, grace, acceptance, and forgiveness are signposts that mark the path in the unexplored dimensions of the spiritual realm.
Our best thinking makes us active participants on the spiritual journey rather than passive recipients. It makes us God's partners in what God is doing in us, transforming us into the likeness of Jesus. It makes us God's partners in what God is doing through us to transform the world.
Surely, such a grand enterprise calls for our best thinking, don't you think?
Monday, April 8, 2019
But I Say to You ...
How we use the Bible is a key factor in our spiritual lives. Our approach to scripture determines the outcome. So, once again, I come at this critical issue from another direction; this time, from the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. His teachings in Matthew 5 guide us in how to read and use the Bible.
Matthew's gospel was written to a Jewish audience. The gospel presents Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, as one greater than Moses. Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount call the Jewish audience beyond their focus on obedience to the Law of Moses. We would do well to learn from what Jesus taught lest we repeat the failure of the author's audience: a behavior-oriented spirituality.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus indicated that he did not come to abolish (do away with) the Law, but rather to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He came to bring the Law to its intended end. That objective is spiritual maturity: "be perfect (mature) as your heavenly father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Such maturity is expressed in the ability to love even one's enemies (Matthew 5:44).
This goal of spiritual growth that leads to Godlike maturity shapes how we read and use the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible lead us to love as God loves - unconditionally, without excluding anyone (see Matthew 5:44-47)?
The fulfillment of the Law goes beyond a focus on behavior - what to do, not do. Six different times Jesus quoted the Law, "You have heard that it was said" (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38), then said "but I say to you" (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39). Each time, Jesus moved beyond the Law's focus on behavior to the underlying spiritual principle. Jesus pointed to the spiritual principle as the guide to how one lived. He understood that one could keep the Law (avoid the prohibited behavior), yet violate the spiritual principle. His teachings focused on the deeper truth.
Spiritual truth leads us to spiritual maturity; the Law's focus on behavior becomes an obstacle to spiritual maturity. The Law's focus on behavior was on what not to do. It never leads us beyond the negative focus of what to avoid doing. Living by spiritual truth moves us to the positive dimension of what to do, ultimately, to love as God loves. The Law's focus on behavior leads us to judge and segregate ourselves into us-them divisions. In other words, the Law does not lead us to love who God loves. Spiritual truth leads us to embrace all.
Jesus' distinction between a focus on behavior (the Law) and spiritual truth shapes how we read the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible lead us to spiritual truth or to rules that focus on right-and- wrong behavior? Does our reading of the Bible lead us to the transformation of heart and mind (internal focus) or to what not to do (external focus on behavior)?
We probably cannot grasp how monumental Jesus' statement in the Sermon on the Mount was: "but I say to you." Jesus placed his teachings over the teachings of Moses and 1000 years of historical interpretation of the Law.
Jesus boldness shapes how we read the Bible. Jesus' life, teachings, and ministry (reflecting the character of God and the ways of God) become the guide to how we understand the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible reflect what Jesus taught and how Jesus lived?
How we read and use the Bible is vitally important! We would do well to give it our best thinking ... but that's my next blog.
Matthew's gospel was written to a Jewish audience. The gospel presents Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, as one greater than Moses. Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount call the Jewish audience beyond their focus on obedience to the Law of Moses. We would do well to learn from what Jesus taught lest we repeat the failure of the author's audience: a behavior-oriented spirituality.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus indicated that he did not come to abolish (do away with) the Law, but rather to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He came to bring the Law to its intended end. That objective is spiritual maturity: "be perfect (mature) as your heavenly father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Such maturity is expressed in the ability to love even one's enemies (Matthew 5:44).
This goal of spiritual growth that leads to Godlike maturity shapes how we read and use the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible lead us to love as God loves - unconditionally, without excluding anyone (see Matthew 5:44-47)?
The fulfillment of the Law goes beyond a focus on behavior - what to do, not do. Six different times Jesus quoted the Law, "You have heard that it was said" (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38), then said "but I say to you" (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39). Each time, Jesus moved beyond the Law's focus on behavior to the underlying spiritual principle. Jesus pointed to the spiritual principle as the guide to how one lived. He understood that one could keep the Law (avoid the prohibited behavior), yet violate the spiritual principle. His teachings focused on the deeper truth.
Spiritual truth leads us to spiritual maturity; the Law's focus on behavior becomes an obstacle to spiritual maturity. The Law's focus on behavior was on what not to do. It never leads us beyond the negative focus of what to avoid doing. Living by spiritual truth moves us to the positive dimension of what to do, ultimately, to love as God loves. The Law's focus on behavior leads us to judge and segregate ourselves into us-them divisions. In other words, the Law does not lead us to love who God loves. Spiritual truth leads us to embrace all.
Jesus' distinction between a focus on behavior (the Law) and spiritual truth shapes how we read the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible lead us to spiritual truth or to rules that focus on right-and- wrong behavior? Does our reading of the Bible lead us to the transformation of heart and mind (internal focus) or to what not to do (external focus on behavior)?
We probably cannot grasp how monumental Jesus' statement in the Sermon on the Mount was: "but I say to you." Jesus placed his teachings over the teachings of Moses and 1000 years of historical interpretation of the Law.
Jesus boldness shapes how we read the Bible. Jesus' life, teachings, and ministry (reflecting the character of God and the ways of God) become the guide to how we understand the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible reflect what Jesus taught and how Jesus lived?
How we read and use the Bible is vitally important! We would do well to give it our best thinking ... but that's my next blog.
Monday, April 1, 2019
Asking A Better Question
We who call ourselves Christians turn to the Bible for guidance. It is important to us if something is "biblical," that is, taught in the Bible.
In last week's post (Is It "Biblical"?, 3/25/19), I questioned this kind of thinking. I suggested that we were asking the wrong question when we asked "Is it biblical?"
We who call ourselves Christians often treat the Bible as though it is God's final, most complete self-revelation. We turn to it and quote it as though what the Bible says is the final word on what is true. We place our faith in its total reliability.
In reality, the Bible is not God's most complete self-revelation. The Bible bears witness to - is the record of - God's most complete self-revelation. Jesus and Jesus alone was, is, and always will be the most complete revelation of God's nature and God's ways. Consider the testimony of the New Testament writers:
So we turn to the Bible ... to know what Jesus revealed to us about God! Whatever "truth" we identify must be in harmony with God's nature and character, in harmony with God's ways, an expression of God's grace. In other words, "biblical" truth will always be in harmony with who Jesus revealed God to be.
Some things in the Bible are an expression of our human nature, not God's nature ... of our ways, not God's ways. (I developed this thought in last week's post.) Our thinking, our understanding, our position might actually be "biblical," i.e., found in the Bible, but not in harmony with God's nature and character or an expression of God's ways of grace. Because it is "biblical," we think we are "right" when, in reality, we are out of step with God.
So, the better question to ask: is my understanding, my thinking, my position in harmony with the nature and character of God? is it an expression of God's ways of grace? is it in harmony with the life and teachings of Jesus? Is it Christlike?
In last week's post (Is It "Biblical"?, 3/25/19), I questioned this kind of thinking. I suggested that we were asking the wrong question when we asked "Is it biblical?"
We who call ourselves Christians often treat the Bible as though it is God's final, most complete self-revelation. We turn to it and quote it as though what the Bible says is the final word on what is true. We place our faith in its total reliability.
In reality, the Bible is not God's most complete self-revelation. The Bible bears witness to - is the record of - God's most complete self-revelation. Jesus and Jesus alone was, is, and always will be the most complete revelation of God's nature and God's ways. Consider the testimony of the New Testament writers:
- He (Jesus, the Son) is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being (Hebrews 1:3, NRSV).
- The Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son ... who has made him known (John 1:14, 18).
- Jesus speaking to his disciples: whoever has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9).
- He (Jesus, the Son) is the visible image of the invisible God. In him, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Colossians 1:15, 19).
So we turn to the Bible ... to know what Jesus revealed to us about God! Whatever "truth" we identify must be in harmony with God's nature and character, in harmony with God's ways, an expression of God's grace. In other words, "biblical" truth will always be in harmony with who Jesus revealed God to be.
Some things in the Bible are an expression of our human nature, not God's nature ... of our ways, not God's ways. (I developed this thought in last week's post.) Our thinking, our understanding, our position might actually be "biblical," i.e., found in the Bible, but not in harmony with God's nature and character or an expression of God's ways of grace. Because it is "biblical," we think we are "right" when, in reality, we are out of step with God.
So, the better question to ask: is my understanding, my thinking, my position in harmony with the nature and character of God? is it an expression of God's ways of grace? is it in harmony with the life and teachings of Jesus? Is it Christlike?
Monday, March 25, 2019
Is It "Biblical"?
(This post continues the conversation about the Bible and how it is used - see my two previous posts: 3/11/19 - Even the Devil Quoted Scripture; 3/18/19 - More Thoughts About How We Use the Bible.)
So both sides in The UMC controversy over LGBTQ+ issues quote scripture to support their position. How do we know which position is the "Biblical" position? For that matter, how do we know what is "biblical"?
When we talk about something as being "biblical," our thinking is based on the following logic.
This kind of thinking seems clear; the logic, sound. And it keeps things simple: what the Bible says settles any issue because the Bible is from God and reflects God's position on the issue.
The logic, however, is flawed. Premise A is only partially true. The Bible is indeed God-breathed or inspired. So, it has a divine nature. It is how God has revealed the Divine Self to us so we can know God and God's ways. However, the Bible is not just divine. God's self-revelation and self-communication came through human beings ... which means the Bible also has a human dimension to it. (The divine-human nature of the Bible was presented in last week's blog: More Thoughts About How We Use the Bible, 3/18/19.)
Premise B is also only partially true. The Bible is indeed trustworthy and reliable. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-20 speak of how the scriptures (the Hebrew scriptures) instruct and guide us. Through the Bible, we catch glimpses of God's nature, God's character, and God's ways. The Bible helps us know God and guides us in how to live in relationship with God. It helps us to know the ways of God and, thereby, how to live as God's people. But the Bible also presents the partial, incomplete, culture-bound thinking and understanding of its human authors and editors (as I said in last week's post). It reflects the effort of various authors and editors to understand and explain the mystery of God in their different historical times and situations. So, in reality, the Bible contains a variety of theological views and understandings, some of which contradict one another!
Because Premises A and B are only partially true, the conclusion is false. Just because something is in the Bible does not mean it reflects God's position or the "right" position. More often than not, when we argue a position is the "biblical" position, what we are really doing is using the Bible to validate and support my position. We are saying, "My position is the right one. See, the Bible says so."
Which brings us back to the original questions: how do we know which position is the "Biblical" position? For that matter, how do we know what is "biblical"?
Perhaps we are asking the wrong question.
A better question: which position/thinking reflects the nature and character of God? the ways of God? the teachings and ministry of Jesus? Which position is the most Christ-like position?
More about that in next week's post.
So both sides in The UMC controversy over LGBTQ+ issues quote scripture to support their position. How do we know which position is the "Biblical" position? For that matter, how do we know what is "biblical"?
When we talk about something as being "biblical," our thinking is based on the following logic.
- Premise A: the Bible is from God. It is God-breathed, inspired (2 Timothy 3:16).
- Premise B: because the Bible is from God, it is totally trustworthy and reliable.
- Premise C: the Bible says such-and-such.
- Conclusion: this such-and-such position is God's position and, therefore, the "right" position.
This kind of thinking seems clear; the logic, sound. And it keeps things simple: what the Bible says settles any issue because the Bible is from God and reflects God's position on the issue.
The logic, however, is flawed. Premise A is only partially true. The Bible is indeed God-breathed or inspired. So, it has a divine nature. It is how God has revealed the Divine Self to us so we can know God and God's ways. However, the Bible is not just divine. God's self-revelation and self-communication came through human beings ... which means the Bible also has a human dimension to it. (The divine-human nature of the Bible was presented in last week's blog: More Thoughts About How We Use the Bible, 3/18/19.)
Premise B is also only partially true. The Bible is indeed trustworthy and reliable. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-20 speak of how the scriptures (the Hebrew scriptures) instruct and guide us. Through the Bible, we catch glimpses of God's nature, God's character, and God's ways. The Bible helps us know God and guides us in how to live in relationship with God. It helps us to know the ways of God and, thereby, how to live as God's people. But the Bible also presents the partial, incomplete, culture-bound thinking and understanding of its human authors and editors (as I said in last week's post). It reflects the effort of various authors and editors to understand and explain the mystery of God in their different historical times and situations. So, in reality, the Bible contains a variety of theological views and understandings, some of which contradict one another!
Because Premises A and B are only partially true, the conclusion is false. Just because something is in the Bible does not mean it reflects God's position or the "right" position. More often than not, when we argue a position is the "biblical" position, what we are really doing is using the Bible to validate and support my position. We are saying, "My position is the right one. See, the Bible says so."
Which brings us back to the original questions: how do we know which position is the "Biblical" position? For that matter, how do we know what is "biblical"?
Perhaps we are asking the wrong question.
More about that in next week's post.
Monday, March 18, 2019
More Thoughts about How We Use the Bible
Last week's blog (Even the Devil Quoted Scripture, 3/11/19) spoke of how we Christians often quote the Bible to validate our position on some issue (such as the LGBTQ+ issue of the 2019 General Conference). This common practice can actually be a misuse of the Bible! Those of us who like to quote scripture to prove we are right generally ignore the nature of scripture.
Those of us who quote scripture to validate our position/belief generally emphasize the divine nature of scripture. It is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Every word was inspired by God. Our faith in God is expressed in our faith in the reliability of the Bible. For us, the Bible is the final word from God regarding any issue. For us, the Bible is inerrant and infallible. We read it literally (it means what it says and says what it means) and take it seriously. We treat every book of the Bible, every passage in the Bible with equal value. Anything less than this absolute faith in the Bible leads to substituting human wisdom for God's wisdom which only leads to destruction.
This way of reading the Bible overlooks the full nature of the Bible. It is both divine and human. God's word to us, God's self-revelation came through human beings. "Men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21, NRSV). The Spirit did not override the humanity of those who spoke from God, i.e., dictate verbatim every word. The Spirit spoke into and through their humanity. Thus, God's word comes to us in and through human culture, languages, historical situations, world views, literature, and thinking. To get to God's word in scripture requires us to distinguish what is divine (God's truth that is eternal and unchanging) and what is human (the human aspects of those who spoke for God). That is, we have to interpret the Bible. Interpreting the Bible (and we all interpret it) involves this kind of discernment. A piece of peppermint candy illustrates the thought (my favorite, oft-used illustration of this truth). The divine truth that we desire is the candy. In order to get to it, we have to unwrap it from the plastic wrapper that is used to deliver it. The failure to do this kind of discerning work results in us chewing on the wrapper rather than tasting the sweetness of God's eternal truth. We treat a cultural, time-bound thought as though it were an eternal, timeless truth.
Recognizing the human dimension of the Bible leads us beyond giving every book and every passage the same degree of authority to speak for God (and, thus, confusing the wrapper with the candy). Many texts clearly reflect the nature and ways of God. They teach us of God's merciful and gracious character (Exodus 34:6-7; 1 John 4:8). They reveal that God relates to us out of grace and forgiveness. They help us know the ways of God and the ways of the Kingdom. (A bit of self-promotion: see my book A God-Shaped World: Exploring the Teachings of Jesus about the Kingdom of God and the Implications for the Church Today - Westbow, 2017. Available through Amazon.com.) Some texts reflect our fear-based human condition and how we treat one another when we live out of that nature. Other texts, by contrast, reflect more of the culture and historical period than they do the nature and ways of God. They help us know how the people of that time thought and what they did, but they do not reflect a developed understanding of the nature and ways of God (for example, the command to kill citizens of a defeated nation as a sacrifice to God, Joshua 8:1-2, 24-29). If we treat this cultural, time-bound thinking as God's eternal truth, we chew on the wrapper and miss God's eternal truth. We allow the cultural thinking of a previous era to shape our thinking and relating today instead of allowing the truth of God's nature and ways to shape our lives.
Those of us who place our faith in the total reliability of the Bible are uncomfortable with this recognition of the human dimension of the Bible. And yet we commonly practice the principle of distinguishing the cultural from the eternal, the human from the divine. We do not require women to wear a head covering in worship or when praying (1 Corinthians 11:6-7). We understand that requirement was a tradition in that time and culture. We do not have to follow it today. We enjoy bacon, pork ribs, and ham although eating the flesh of pigs was forbidden in Leviticus 11:7. We enjoy catfish but Leviticus 11:10, 12 prohibits it. Leviticus 19:27 instructs men regarding their haircut. Leviticus 19:28 prohibits tattoos. We don't follow either command. We don't kill a couple who commit adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). We have moved beyond an eye for an eye retaliation (Leviticus 24:19-20) - well, not completely. I could go on but I am quoting the Bible to validate my point!
What I am saying is those of us who insist on the total reliability of every word in the Bible do not practice what we say we believe. We pick and choose. We use human wisdom to discern what is cultural from what is eternal truth, to discern what of the Bible is human and what is divine.
One other example of how we pick and choose. Leviticus 19:18 calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus tied this obscure verse from Leviticus with the Shema, the call to love God with all of our being, Deuteronomy 6:4-5. He said all the law was captured by these two commands to love: love God, love neighbor. That same chapter of Leviticus - chapter 19 - calls us to embrace the alien as a citizen and love the alien as ourselves (19:33-34). We quote one text and ignore the other. And in the UM LGBTQ+ controversy, those of us who insist on Biblical authority quoted from Leviticus to condemn homosexuality as incompatible with Biblical teaching. We quote one text and ignore the other.
Those of us who quote scripture to validate our position/belief generally emphasize the divine nature of scripture. It is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Every word was inspired by God. Our faith in God is expressed in our faith in the reliability of the Bible. For us, the Bible is the final word from God regarding any issue. For us, the Bible is inerrant and infallible. We read it literally (it means what it says and says what it means) and take it seriously. We treat every book of the Bible, every passage in the Bible with equal value. Anything less than this absolute faith in the Bible leads to substituting human wisdom for God's wisdom which only leads to destruction.
This way of reading the Bible overlooks the full nature of the Bible. It is both divine and human. God's word to us, God's self-revelation came through human beings. "Men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:21, NRSV). The Spirit did not override the humanity of those who spoke from God, i.e., dictate verbatim every word. The Spirit spoke into and through their humanity. Thus, God's word comes to us in and through human culture, languages, historical situations, world views, literature, and thinking. To get to God's word in scripture requires us to distinguish what is divine (God's truth that is eternal and unchanging) and what is human (the human aspects of those who spoke for God). That is, we have to interpret the Bible. Interpreting the Bible (and we all interpret it) involves this kind of discernment. A piece of peppermint candy illustrates the thought (my favorite, oft-used illustration of this truth). The divine truth that we desire is the candy. In order to get to it, we have to unwrap it from the plastic wrapper that is used to deliver it. The failure to do this kind of discerning work results in us chewing on the wrapper rather than tasting the sweetness of God's eternal truth. We treat a cultural, time-bound thought as though it were an eternal, timeless truth.
Recognizing the human dimension of the Bible leads us beyond giving every book and every passage the same degree of authority to speak for God (and, thus, confusing the wrapper with the candy). Many texts clearly reflect the nature and ways of God. They teach us of God's merciful and gracious character (Exodus 34:6-7; 1 John 4:8). They reveal that God relates to us out of grace and forgiveness. They help us know the ways of God and the ways of the Kingdom. (A bit of self-promotion: see my book A God-Shaped World: Exploring the Teachings of Jesus about the Kingdom of God and the Implications for the Church Today - Westbow, 2017. Available through Amazon.com.) Some texts reflect our fear-based human condition and how we treat one another when we live out of that nature. Other texts, by contrast, reflect more of the culture and historical period than they do the nature and ways of God. They help us know how the people of that time thought and what they did, but they do not reflect a developed understanding of the nature and ways of God (for example, the command to kill citizens of a defeated nation as a sacrifice to God, Joshua 8:1-2, 24-29). If we treat this cultural, time-bound thinking as God's eternal truth, we chew on the wrapper and miss God's eternal truth. We allow the cultural thinking of a previous era to shape our thinking and relating today instead of allowing the truth of God's nature and ways to shape our lives.
Those of us who place our faith in the total reliability of the Bible are uncomfortable with this recognition of the human dimension of the Bible. And yet we commonly practice the principle of distinguishing the cultural from the eternal, the human from the divine. We do not require women to wear a head covering in worship or when praying (1 Corinthians 11:6-7). We understand that requirement was a tradition in that time and culture. We do not have to follow it today. We enjoy bacon, pork ribs, and ham although eating the flesh of pigs was forbidden in Leviticus 11:7. We enjoy catfish but Leviticus 11:10, 12 prohibits it. Leviticus 19:27 instructs men regarding their haircut. Leviticus 19:28 prohibits tattoos. We don't follow either command. We don't kill a couple who commit adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). We have moved beyond an eye for an eye retaliation (Leviticus 24:19-20) - well, not completely. I could go on but I am quoting the Bible to validate my point!
What I am saying is those of us who insist on the total reliability of every word in the Bible do not practice what we say we believe. We pick and choose. We use human wisdom to discern what is cultural from what is eternal truth, to discern what of the Bible is human and what is divine.
One other example of how we pick and choose. Leviticus 19:18 calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus tied this obscure verse from Leviticus with the Shema, the call to love God with all of our being, Deuteronomy 6:4-5. He said all the law was captured by these two commands to love: love God, love neighbor. That same chapter of Leviticus - chapter 19 - calls us to embrace the alien as a citizen and love the alien as ourselves (19:33-34). We quote one text and ignore the other. And in the UM LGBTQ+ controversy, those of us who insist on Biblical authority quoted from Leviticus to condemn homosexuality as incompatible with Biblical teaching. We quote one text and ignore the other.
All of this picking and choosing which texts to quote to validate our position (and people on both sides of every issue do it) raises the question: does the text we quote reflect the nature of God, the character of God, the ways of God, the life and teachings of Jesus?
More on that thought in another blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)