Although he wrote it
back in 2001, eminent biblical scholar Marcus Borg declared, “Conflict about
the Bible is the single most divisive issue among Christians in North America
today.” We don’t know if he would say the same thing now, for, alas, he died in
January. (In March I wrote about him here).
Today, though, it seems
to me that the most divisive issue among Christians is same-sex marriage—but
that squabble is largely because of opposing understandings of how to read and
interpret the Bible.
Borg’s book is titled “Reading
the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not
Literally.” In many ways it is similar to another good book written
three-quarters of a century earlier: Harry Emerson Fosdick’s “The Modern Use of
the Bible” (1924).
Recently, I have looked
through another excellent book on this subject: N. T. Wright’s “Scripture and
the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today” (2011). And then there is a
new book which I haven’t seen yet: Harvey Cox’s “How to Read the Bible”—but I
have read Jonathan Merritt’s informative interview with Cox about his book.
(That interview was published last month here.)
If more people had read
and heeded Fosdick’s book, many of the needless “Bible wars” of recent decades
could have been avoided—and maybe the newer books would not have been necessary.
Fosdick wrote about two
parties in the churches: one which thinks that “the essence of Christianity is
its original mental frameworks; the other party is convinced that the essence
of Christianity is its abiding experiences” (p. 102).
There are some who still
today see the Bible as a rulebook. That seems to be their primary “mental
framework.” The issue of same-sex marriage, for example, is decided by the
rules, the prohibitions, the condemnatory words found in the Bible and
considered binding at all times and places.
Others of us see the
Bible as a record of God’s grace, a book abounding with the good news of life,
love, light, and liberty—the 4Ls that I have emphasized for years. Those are
the “abiding experiences” that we find in the Bible and seek to live by today.
When I read the many anti-gay
or anti-same-sex marriage arguments from conservative Christians, I see that they
are legalistically holding on to the mental framework of the past, but I have
trouble seeing how they are upholding the abiding experience of a gracious God.
Certainly the Bible
contains condemnation of sin, that which destroys a proper relationship with
God and which injures others as well as oneself. That is, the Bible condemns
such sins as pride, greed, idolatry, and injustice.
All human actions that
devalue others—treating people like things, exploiting them, using them for
one’s own selfish ends, etc.—are all expressions of human sinfulness. It is
most likely that the only type of homosexual activity condemned in the Bible
were those kinds of actions. And there was, no doubt, that kind of activity
then.
And there still is. But
that certainly doesn’t mean that all homosexual activity is of that nature.
The Bible’s condemnation
of the sinful treatment of others is not a reasonable basis for rejecting
same-sex marriage between consenting adults who seek to live a life of
covenanted commitment to each other.
The abiding experience
of God’s grace for all people, including those who wish to be in a committed same-sex
relationship, should surely not be defined by people who read the Bible with
the mental framework of an era long past.
.jpg)
Thanks for your balanced view of the bible and the issues. i have been using the same logic in discussing the issues with no shortage of Korean Christian views. i quote Pope Francis quite a lot, "Who am i to judge?" Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteEd, thanks for your comments; it is always good to hear from you.
DeleteI think there is both something appealing as well as something a bit strange about the words of Pope Francis. But I greatly admire him and what he is saying/doing.
Maybe it is good for the Pope to deny the right to judge. But it seems to me he is very vocal on matters of justice and people being liberated from various forms of bondage. So if we proclaim a Gospel of liberation from ideas and actions based on falsehoods and prejudice that will likely result in people feeling judged.
The goal, though, is not to judge/condemn others but to peach the Good News of love and liberation for those who are oppressed and devalued because of legalism, ignorance, and prejudice.
Thanks for your profound comment. Judge or not to judge are difficult areas. Only preaching the good news of love and salvation is the action justified against our judge/condemn.
DeleteAs one pole looks at another, it does appear opposite. But can the poles hold together in unity, or are they mutually damned?
ReplyDeleteThe same-sex issue does seem clearly to be a polar issue--just as, say, slavery was at one time in this nation. It was not possible for the nation to hold together in unity with regards to slavery, although there might have been ways to solve the issue other than through Civil war.
DeleteBut both sides were not "mutually damned," by God, anyway, although there were people on both sides who wanted to damn the other.
In the end, though, the position that affirmed life, love, light, and liberty was victorious. And that, I believe, will also happen with regards to the present divisive issue in American society.
Life overcomes death, love overcomes hate, light overcomes darkness, and liberty eventually overcomes all forms of bondage.
Well said, Leroy. One thing I would suggest is that most of the time people who use biblical texts to condemn homosexuality are simply proof-texting. They have the traditional bias against, and fortunate for them they can find some texts to buttress their views. With that sort of issue, I think it's quite rare that someone comes to a position BECAUSE of what the Bible says.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your helpful comments, Anton.
DeleteI think you are certainly right, and if we compare the homosexual issue to that of slavery, as I just did in my reply to 1sojourner, certainly the Southerners in the 19th century did not come to their position on slavery because of what the Bible says. But, as you know, many sought to use the Bible ("proof-texting") to justify the position they had taken primarily for economic reasons.
Anton rightly pin-pointed the real dilemma. Most often, we are so deeply buried in our "traditional bias" that we are not able to see the truth beyond our bias. As you know, Leroy, Korean Christian community is very happy to find some biblical verses of their excuses/satisfactions, for they really hate the homosexuals.
DeleteThank you, Leroy, both for bringing up Fosdick's thoughtful distinction between ancient mental frameworks and abiding experiences and it's application to the divisive issue of same-sex marriage. For those of us still wrestling with some of those old mental frameworks, you were also helpful to point out that it's "most likely that the only type of homosexual activity condemned in the Bible were those [exploitive] kinds of actions."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Fred, I appreciate your words of affirmation.
DeleteThanks, Leroy, for the reminder of the complexities of biblical interpretation. As Chance and I wrote some fifteen years ago, biblical meaning is a complex interrelationship between at least three levels of textuality: the literary text, the social text (its history), and the self text (the reader in front of the text). In fact, I think most of what we hear as passing for biblical interpretation is mostly the latter, that which readers bring to the literary text.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Milton, for your helpful comments. I fully agree with both your and Brad's three levels of textuality as well as your evaluation on most contemporary biblical interpretation. Of course, eisegesis has been a problem for a very long time.
DeleteLeroy I would like to throw another recent book into the mix: "Making Sense of the Bible" by Adam Hamilton, pastor of Church of the Resurrection (in Overland Park or one of the KC suburbs) the largest UM church in the US. Adam writes as a pastor to lay people, not as a scholar to scholars. He has a helpful approach to homosexuality, gay marriage, and other thorny issues.
ReplyDeleteCharles, thanks for introducing Adam Hamilton's book. I was aware that it was out, but I have not been able to find a library copy (and am unwilling to buy it without seeing it first).
DeleteI have heard Hamilton speak and have visited his church (to hear Jim Wallis preach), and I have a lot of respect for him. I look forward to seeing his new book on the Bible.
Early this morning, a local Thinking Friend (and one of the few women on my TF mailing list who comments from time to time) wrote,
ReplyDelete"Leroy, this blog is timely and helpful even to someone like the proverbial choir member being preached to by the pastor which in this case I am. The Bible is so full of uplifting, heart-softening, loving verses to live a good life by -- a tool of kindness -- it's a shame its words can just as easily be forged into an ugly, hurtful weapon."
This morning I also received the following comments from a Thinking Friend in North Carolina. (I first met him as a boy in 1959 and haven't seen him in 50 years, but I much appreciating him reading my blog articles and writing occasionally.)
ReplyDelete"I continue to find your articles of great interest and read them regularly. I also have to admit I am one of those who feels there are absolutes of right and wrong whose origins do not exist in the social experiences of each generation but rather in the holiness of God as revealed in Scripture. Those absolutes give us no automatic right to act as judge, jury, and executioner when we disagree with someone's moral actions. Neither do they give us the freedom to do as we please with no thought for the impact it will have upon our relationship with the Author of those absolutes. What we view as those absolutes causes some of our deepest and long-lasting social and spiritual divisions."
I appreciate these thoughtful words, but I read into them (partly through previous comments by made who wrote them) a gentle rebuttal of the position I took at the end of my article.
DeleteI tend to be skeptical of reference to "the holiness of God as revealed in Scripture." Emphasis on God's holiness tends to lead toward legalism and criticism of the actions of others who do not measure up to what we consider to be God's holiness (made known through various prohibitions).
My interpretation of God comes mainly through the Gospels, and I don't find a lot there about God's holiness. I do find a lot about God (through Jesus) bringing life and light to the world: "What has come into being in him [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of all people" (John 1:4, NRSV). And through Jesus we know the love (grace) of God and God's liberating power from all forms of bondage.
These are the "absolutes" I want to emphasize.
True, LKS, the gospels say little about God's holiness. I am reminded of one passage, which is, to me, very significant: "Be perfect, therefore, as your father in heaven is perfect (Mt 5:48 NRSV). Tall order, huh? But I think we need to read this in light of its immediate context in Mt: 5:43-48. About loving our enemies, about how God sends his rain on the just and the unjust, and then the command, "Be perfect . . ." And of course we should read it in the larger contexts of the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, and the still larger context of the Book of Matthew.
DeleteYour article was a walk down memory lane for me. While at William Jewell College in spring 1978 I wrote a paper on Harvey Cox, and it’s good to know that he’s still publishing! While at Southern Baptist Seminary in spring 1979 I wrote a paper on Harry Emerson Fosdick and read his _The Modern Use of the Bible_. It was a definitive book for me. I appreciate your reminding me of it and applying it to the contemporary debate on the Bible and homosexuality.
ReplyDelete(BTW, for a recent article on Romans 1 and homosexuality, see http://www.jrdkirk.com/2015/05/11/homosexuality-and-romans-1/
And to add another book to the ones you mentioned in your blog, I would point to John Dominic Crossan’s 2015 book _How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian: Struggling with Divine Violence from Genesis to Revelation_. See http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-Still-Christian/dp/0062203592/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431384883&sr=1-1&keywords=crossan+how+to+read+the+bible)
In the first paragraph above I say that Fosdick's book was "definitive" for me. I meant "determinative." It helped "determine" my theological outlook when I was in graduate school. I suppose that it was in fact "definitive" in that it helped me "define" my own approach to the Bible.
DeleteMichael, thanks for linking to this article by Kirk. I found it interesting to read the article by a NT scholar (as opposed to a theologian, for it is the latter whom I usually read). Some time ago I enjoyed reading some of Kirk's book "Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul?" (2012).
DeleteThanks, too, for alerting me to Crossan's book; I was unaware of it but it seems to be one that we Mennonites should be greatly interested in as well as you Quakers.
Thank you for this thoughtful post, Leroy. I'm so glad to be among fellow pastors, teachers, and seekers at Rainbow Mennonite Church. I appreciate thinking about "abiding experiences" and the Bible being a record of God's grace, abounding in good news. Amen. One of the reasons I find the study of the Bible so rich and challenging and one of the reasons I still grant it authority and want it to remain central in our worship/church life, is that there are so many rich discussion within the pages of scripture itself. For example, the same story is told differently in different gospels; the commandments give detailed instructions for offerings and sacrifices, and in other places it says God doesn’t want our sacrifices, but rather our actions of justice and mercy. I believe these “contradictions” reflect different voices, historical periods, stages of interpretation and memory; they make space in scripture for the variety and complexity of human experience. In other words, I have come to view the Bible not as a static book but a living witness, always requiring fresh interpretation and integration with our life experience. To quote a former colleague, "The Bible is like a diamond with many facets, full of creative tension." Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ruth, for taking time to read my blog article and for posting your thoughtful comments.
Delete(For all of you who don't know Ruth, I am happy to tell you that she is my pastor!)
All over the news today is the story of the finding by Pew that American religious affiliation has fallen significantly from 2007 to 2014, even as the number of unaffiliated people has climbed. While the decline in affiliation affects all ages and demographics, it is most pronounced among the young. Apparently we are getting confirmation of what Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote in 1998, "Why Christianity Must change or Die."
ReplyDeleteMy Sunday School class is currently reading "My Bright Abyss" by Christian Wiman, a piercing look at life and faith by a poet who has been fighting a very dangerous cancer for many years. One insight he provides that relates to how to read the Bible is this: "Any belief that does not recognize and adapt to its own erosions rots from within. Only when doctrine itself is understood to be provisional does doctrine begin to take on a more than provisional significance. Truth inheres not in doctrine itself, but in the spirit in which it is engaged, for the spirit of God is always seeking and creating new forms." (Page 111, paper edition.)
Personally, I read the Bible in the spirit of Job 40:6-7, "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you will declare to me." The Bible is a book of sacred questions, filled with many mysteries and challenges. To try to force it into a grid of answers is to deny its true power, and to undermine its authority. The youth of today are reacting to the abominations of their elders. From Fred Phelps to Jimmy Swaggart they have done an amazing job of making God's name stink among the gentiles. The rest of us have done too little to counteract these clanging gongs.