The Bible Says Many Things

Scripture contains many points of view and that's not a bad thing. It is an amazing collection- a storehouse and library of faith, spanning hundreds of years of history, story telling, empires, spoken dialects, written languages, and materials used.

Spending just a bit of time reading or studying the Bible, you may find these contrasts disconcerting, especially if you believe or have been told that the Bible contains no contradictions. This belief  is a corollary to biblical inerrancy. 

Which translation is perfectly free of human error? Does an original text exist somewhere and if it does, what is its written language? Is it in book form?  The early fundamentalists like Scofield argued that an error free Bible existed in the original autographs of the first writers and so the Bible is inerrant "in its original form."*

Instead of mentioning biblical infallibility, I sometimes hear this: "you can't pick and choose which verses you believe and which you don't." This suggests that all parts of the Bible are equal in value and importance. But let's be honest: Jesus, as other teachers did in his day, offered commentary on the Torah.**

Before Paul's conversion to Christ and the Christian way, Paul, as a Pharisee and extremist in a freedman's synagogue, hunted down law-breakers and followers of the way. His actions were the result of, in part, what and who should be banned from his faith community. *** 

It's more honest to state what everyone sees: there are not "seeming" contradictions in the Bible, and if we only believed, we would know that everything agrees. And that the conflicts  disappear in a cloud of wishful thinking. 

Why not respect our hearers' intelligence? Yes, interpreting Scripture does require reason, sorting things out, what is important and what is secondary. Why not start with the teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels as the most important words of Scripture?   

*See "Doctrinal Statement- What We Believe," Scofield Prophecy Studies. Scofield did not adhere to an error-free Bible existing in heaven, but held to the unity of the Bible with no contradictions in its message. Scofield originally believed in an agreement between science and the Bible arguing for both an old earth, as well as a young earth theory. 

**See William Trollinger, "Fundamentalism Turns 100: A Landmark for the Christian Right," The Conversation, October 8, 2019." Scofield's Bible included an overwhelming set of footnotes emphasizing that the Bible predicts a violent end of history which only true Christians will survive. "The Fundamentals," a series of leaflets begun in 1909, made the case for Bible inerrancy while simultaneously attacking biblical literary criticism, socialism, and evolution. 

***Luke 4: 16-30 places Jesus as a teacher in his home synagogue in Nazareth. The reading of Torah is followed by the teacher sitting in the seat of Moses to set forth commentary on the reading. Jesus' interpretation met with an unusually violent response from the congregants.

****For an excellent discussion of Paul's own faith development, see Elaine Heath, God Unbound: Wisdom from Galatians for the Anxious Church, 2016. Heath's explication of the "tradition behind the tradition" is as excellent as it is helpful.

 

Why Fear Asking Questions?

As a college student, I once attended a conference sponsored by Christian campus fellowship, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Some of my friends were active in this group and I found that the IVP books were of great benefit to me. My experiences with this group have impacted my life for the better. This particular retreat was led by a well-known author.

In one session (on the Gospel of John), I decided to go public with my doubts by challenging the main assumption of the leader in front of the group of about 200. The speaker began with the self-stated assumption that "the ultimate reality of the universe is God. Can we all agree on that?" I jumped in and said, "Aren't human beings really the ultimate reality?" There was a brief pause and things got quiet.  As nicely as he could, the leader said something like, "Though that's a good question, for our purposes we'll start with God as the ultimate reality." Ouch! (Note: It's not a good idea to challenge an authority in front of the whole room. You will never win that one).

A mentor of the great John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, gave him encouragement in his early ministry by telling him to "preach faith until you believe, and because you believe, you will preach faith."* My seminary professors used this phrase some, but I think it was meant for Wesley at a unique moment in his life and work. Perhaps it was the answer to improve his preaching.

But this is not a prescription for everyone. Can you imagine teaching the traditional Christian doctrines with your fingers crossed behind your back, thinking that if you say it enough, you'll believe? That's fruitless and a little deceptive, even without the crossed fingers. It's also teaching others to be dishonest and pretend they don't question things that, to them, seem unreal. This is especially true when the world's misery is explained away by spiritualizing or theologizing the suffering of others.**

So the next time I dismiss a difficult text, I need to know that I'm also dismissing others. When a Christian doctrine bounces off my ears as wishful thinking, I will need to accept that others have similar doubts. And no amount of repeating the right words will make the questions disappear.

1. Provide intentional group settings where authenticity and honesty is part of the group covenant. Recovery groups invite members to share their "experience, strength and hope."
2. Do whatever self-reflection -inner work- you need to go beyond anecdotes and share the meaning of a personal experience. 
3. Learn to share your growth of thinking on a particular question, how your understanding has changed from childhood on.
4.  In light of experience, even the questions themselves change.

*Words attributed to Wesley's Moravian mentor, Peter Bohler.

**Jesus died to show us there are no barriers to God's love. One way that people's suffering is minimized is to compare it with God's grief in unjustly losing God's only Son. While I understand it, I have never chosen to use it as an answer to people's suffering or misery, because others may hear it as "your grief or loss really doesn't matter when compared to God's." Even if we could measure or compare such pain, what about the theological- let alone the psychological impact- of this statement?

 

 

Teaching Morality: Why Be Moral?

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?

Yet you have made them a little lower than God,

and crowned them with glory and honour. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet...Psalm 8:3b-7

Drills on good behavior are tiring and tedious; sadly, this is what makes so much preaching and teaching punchless and boring. Reciting what's good or bad may create docile people.* Asking questions is apart of faith development, and not antithetical to it.  

Instead of enumerating moral (or immoral) acts, start with the state of mind, the inner person. Because this is the locus of transformation. The first question to address is- WHY- why be moral? Why should I care? 

Moral theology begins with two important faith premises. One, we are created for covenant love, capable of both receiving and offering it. We are equipped to live in relationships, where unconditional love is a lively possibility.** Why be moral? Because it is apart of being created in God's image and likeness, made a little less than God. 

Two, we are free to choose, within limits, for the good. Read Psalm 8 again. We can choose whether or not to be driven by hormones, the instinctual brain, or to choose to employ the reason made possible by the human brain. There are no guarantees what is right and what is wrong, except maybe well after the event. 

What is my spirit condition that goes before a kind, gracious- or a  thoughtless, hateful word? What is self-chosen? In Roman Catholic theology, the differentiation between venial and mortal sin is made, with the caveat that it is very difficult to label an act as a mortal sin. Can we be sure if the original intention was evil? What are the intended consequences and the unintended consequences? ***

A Moral Examen

1. Can I love God without needing or expecting anything in return? 

2. Can I love others without hope of payback?

3. Can my actions spring forth from a loving heart?****

*The UMC mission, "to make disciples for the transformation of the world" has erred greatly on the side of listing traits, or even behaviors, of a Christian disciple. In this, unconditional love becomes secondary. The above is as much a value as it is a mission statement. 

**This possibility is limited by free will, our choosing the good. For example, addiction destroys free will, rendering people, created in God's image, incapable of choosing for the good. I do not believe addiction is first a sin, it is a illness, evidenced at the cellular level. See Gerald May, Addiction and Grace, 1988. 

***I am indebted to the Spiritual Direction Institute of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Cenacle, for my understanding of Catholic moral theology. Included in this is spiritual direction received under one of the Cenacle Religious. 

****See John Wesley, Christian Perfection: Edited with an Introduction by Thomas Kepler, 1954. Perfection is best understood as action flowing from loving heart, not as perfect behavior and flawless judgement. 

Does God Need to be Pleased?

Questions can linger. Several years ago, the Spiritual Director asked, "By going into ordained ministry, and serving  for all those years, you did what God wanted you to do, right?

"I guess." was my reply.  I never saw it as a matter of pleasing God. But I hear that word "pleasing" God often in congregational worship- and have used it myself. It's another phrase that's used without much thought. But think of the absurdity of somehow pleasing the Lord of all the powers of the universe. 

As I read the Bible, there are responsibilities for living in a covenant relationship with God. You do this for me, then I will do this for you. You refuse to do this for me, then I will do bad things to you (and generations to follow!) * It appears God has little use for people who do not please. Any reading of Scripture cannot skip over it.

As is often the case in Scripture, there's another side to this question. Because of who God is, there is no need to please her if it were even possible: "The God who made the world and everything in it, the God who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is God served by human hands, as though God needed anything, since God gives to all mortals life and breath and all things." Acts 17: 24-25 

Are we still talking about pleasing God? 

What thoughts come to mind when I hear something about "pleasing God?"

• Arrogance in assuming we know how to please God.
• The irony of trying please God who is supposed to love us unconditionally. 
• A bargaining chip to get what I want, i.e., "I need a favor." (Pop icon Jelly Roll)
• Guilt and shame in never measuring up. 
• Inability to please people, much less God. 

Considerations

1. Consider omitting references to pleasing God from prayers, etc. For Scripture texts, provide context. **
2. Indicate that our primary responsibility is to fulfill our purpose, to make good on the gifts God has given us. 
3. Teach the difference between transactional and transformational God-covenant. One is based on shame and guilt, the other on unconditional love.
4.  Measure intention- i.e., why be moral? Loving to get something we want in return is not about love. How do I love without any hope of return, reward or gain?
5. What effect do these words have on the listeners? How do others hear these words? 
6. What are the drawbacks of living to please others?
7. Any leader can use insider knowledge on what God and use it as a cover for what he or she wants.

*Exodus 20:5-6: You shall not bow down and worship them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments." The theme of blessings and curses is repeated in gruesome detail in Deuteronomy 28.

**For example, Romans 12:1-2 NRSV states "I appeal to you... to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God... Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect." In biblical faith, the people of God are delivered from slavery. No one owns your body; you and your body now belong to God. Paul is drawing on the idea of acceptable sacrifices for the goal of transformation. Like repentance or metanoia, transformation leads to a true discernment of one's gifts and an honest estimate of one's limits. (12: 3-8). 

Pain

In his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground. Luke 24:43 NRSV

Pain is tossed around alot in sermons, messages, etc. It's often used without much context or meaning. This is a sign of laziness and leaves listeners guessing.

I sometimes hear about "the pain or sin of addiction." Addiction begins by providing more pleasure than pain. Maybe the pain of recovery is more apropos, since it's in recovery that I learn about my true self, the harm I have caused, the destruction I did to myself, the sense of time and opportunities wasted before recovery. (I suspect that addiction is yet another term thrown around without much thought or concretizing).

It's helpful to clarify the intended meaning of pain-- instead of using it as a blanket term covering anything distasteful or annoying (a pain in the ass).

The definition for pain in Merriam-Webster: 

a localized or generalized unpleasant bodily sensation or complex of sensations that causes mild to severe physical discomfort and emotional distress and typically results from bodily disorder (such as injury or disease).

Another commonly used meaning for pain:

        mental or emotional distress or suffering : grief. 

The text above -from Luke 23- is an example of the most extreme kind of mental and emotional distress. Remember that the sweat was "like" drops of blood. Whatever our faith allows us to believe, Jesus' distress is a human response to being abandoned by friends and God. (1). 

Consider that, before his torture and execution, Jesus's emotional distress is also one of human ego loss and grief. Jesus cries over Jerusalem, which refuses the gathering of the mother hen and her chicks. (2) The disciples' illusions of messianic deliverance and kingdom died a painful death: "we had hoped he was the one to redeem Israel." Luke 24:21  A disciple that Jesus hand-picked turns Jesus into the authorities for questioning. (3) The others in the inner circle run away as fast as they can, leaving their garments behind if  necessary. (4) Another disciple stays closer for awhile, until he denies any association with Jesus.(5) 

Jesus preaches the nearness and immediacy of God's reign and life in that kingdom, (6) which results, ultimately in his being taken into custody and losing all power over his fate. Those story-lines do not present Jesus' ministry as successful when contemporary measurements of church success are applied. The failure and humiliation was public even before the torture and cross. 

Ego-loss is not always something we associate with Jesus' Passion. But if the pain he experiences is not physical sensation but mental anguish, then there is something teachable and preachable here:

1. Use pain-- but explain it. Pain as emotional distress suggests a therapeutic, psychological framework. Sin is a theological idea. Brokenness is sometime used instead of pain or sin. Another concept from Korea, han, allows for the corporate nature of both pain and sin. (7)  

2. The mystics offer insight into emotional distress. The paradigm of Purgation-Illumination- Unification informs the ego-loss experienced in life with God. This is not a therapeutic scheme, but rather, a spiritual one. Although I am not a mystic, I can still learn from their experiences and writings. (8)

3. The ego thrives on false consolation and programs promising happiness which eventually cause more pain. St. Ignatius of Loyola set forth the discernment of spirits as essential in understanding our pain, and making decisions amidst uncertainty, (9)

(1) Matthew 27:46 

(2) Luke 19:41

(3) Mark 14:10 

(4) Mark 14: 50-51

(5) Matthew 26:69-75

(6) Matthew 12:28, Mark 1:15, Luke 10:11, 11:20, 17:21

(7) Han, according to Suh Nam Dong is “a feeling of unresolved resentment against injustices suffered, a sense of helplessness because of the overwhelming odds against one, a feeling of acute pain in one’s guts and bowels, making the whole body writhe and squirm, and an obstinate urge to take revenge and to right the wrong—all these combined." See Yes Magazine, August 24, 2022. 

(8) For a contemporary treatment of this, see Elaine A. Heath, The Mystic Way of Evangelism: A Contemplative Vision for Christian Outreach, 2008.

(9) See, Pope Francis, "Let Us Dream: The Path to a Better Future, 2020, specifically Chapter 2, "A Time to Choose.