Month: March 2011

It seems like a silly exercise, attempting to define a text that is so hotly contested. But you are always at a disadvantage when you have to debate using the terms of your opponent, and the Protestant Mainline has for too long allowed the proponents of the selective literalist heresy (the so-called “fundamentalists”) to define the terms. We speak in rebuttal, state what scripture is not, but rarely do we make a positive claim about scripture. I believe that if we are to re-engage scripture in a deep and meaningful way, in a way that allows us to seek biblical guidance for our very different contexts, we must have some operating definition of this pillar of Protestant belief. So consider this a working draft, a synthesis of the many responses I have given to Christians of every stripe, from my UCC sisters and brothers to members of the radicalized religious right, when asked to define my understanding of “The Bible.”

I would love to hear from colleagues and friends who can help me clarify and correct. This post will not be acceptable to those readers who belong to a religious trajectory that is in fundamental disagreement, especially one that claims a perfect text or interpretation. This is not the forum for that debate. Many blessings- Gary

The Holy Bible is a collection of religious writings composed and edited over a period of a thousand plus years. It tells the story of multiple trajectories of belief, all originating with a Semitic people commonly known as the Hebrews. The earliest texts, composed (with small exceptions) in Hebrew, are shared by both the religious trajectory known as Christianity and the trajectory known as Rabbinic Judaism, with both groups adding material in the years after the Jewish War (approx. 70 CE) to create an accepted canon. In the Christian tradition the additional materials were composed in Greek and are referred to as the “new” testament or covenant. This material reflects the belief that Jesus (circa -3 CE to 30 CE)  initiated or taught a new relationship between humans and the divine, telling the story of his earthly ministry and collecting documents from early Christian communities.

The texts preserve multiple understandings of the human relationship with the divine. Conceptions of God recorded in scripture include belief in multiple deities, in a  universalist monotheism, in an anthropomorphic deity filled with ego and rage, in a Platonic deity that is unchanging and incapable of relationship. The texts include history, poetry, fiction, legal codes and correspondence, and often reveal more about the historical and cultural contexts in which they were composed and edited than in the era they pretend to cover. The Bible is the story of the winners, the version accepted by those whose understanding became authorized, that was associated with earthly power, yet in its pages can be found alternative narratives, the voices of the oppressed and marginalized. At it’s best, the Bible is intimate and compelling, a very human story of the individual and communal search for right relationship with God. At it’s worst, the Bible is a tool for the creation of false gods, of idols onto which we project our own desires and prejudices.

The Bible is composed of ancient texts written in ancient languages and recovered in multiple versions of often fragmentary manuscripts. There has never been a single universally accepted version or translation of these texts, as no such Bible ever existed. There is no single authorized interpretation.

Contemporary Christians must use caution when attempting to interpret this ancient complex text, placing passages in their original context as well as following the theological trajectories in the two millennia since the text took it basic form. Progressive Christians can gain the most in their engagement with scripture when they combine the technical knowledge of scriptural interpretation with their own context as a living and practicing covenant community.

When visiting a new congregation I like to show off my sense of humor, trying to offer a nice mix of comfort and challenge, so I spent much of the week looking for something light-hearted and funny to say about the first Sunday of Lent. “Satan walked into a bar,” “Knock knock. Who’s there? Temptation.” You won’t be surprised to hear that none of these worked out. To tell you the truth, sin and temptation just aren’t funny. It is hard to do an upbeat sermon for Lent.

We have become accustomed to avoiding the subject of sin lest we make someone uncomfortable. In an age of religion-consumers, we try to keep things happy. And we certainly we need some comfort and happy in our lives. It sometimes feels as if we are under constant assault, as if beloved institutions and systems have been corrupted by a “me-first” culture. But even in dark times, the Way of Jesus demands that we avoid corruption and sin. So, yes, this is a sermon about sin. Those who were contemplating a nap might want to settle in.

This past Wednesday I opened the newspaper to the “Dear Abby” column and got quite a shock. A single gay man explained to Abby his discomfort at being sexually propositioned by a heterosexual couple. No matter what you might think about same-sex relationships, the question and Abby’s response were about the ethics of inviting someone into adultery, as if adultery could ever be ethical. In fact, as a country music fan, I have become increasingly alarmed at lyrics which condone sex outside of a covenanted relationship. Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but I preferred the day when country songs condemned rather than celebrated that lyin’ cheating dog of a man. Continue reading “Do Not Try This Alone: A Sermon for Lent I”

Today’s gospel lesson, the Transfiguration as recorded in Matthew, is a troubling text. For most of us, it doesn’t feel right at all. While Jesus performs miracles, this sort of appearance of figures from Israel’s distant past… well, it’s just not on, is bizarre and unique. It may make you feel a little better to know that many scripture scholars find this text odd as well. In many technical ways the Transfiguration is not like other divine interventions in the synoptic gospels.

I believe, however, that we can decipher this text. Let us first turn our attention to Elijah, and the mystery of why Ahab is recorded as being the worst of all kings. This has also been a troubling text. Ahab was a pretty bad king, but others were pretty bad too. It turns out that just after Elijah oversees the mass murder of the priests of Baal, he takes Ahab up the mountain to renew the covenant with Yahweh. This overlooked text is carefully modeled on the incident in Exodus where Moses takes the leaders of the Exodus people up the mountain to eat and seal the covenant. Ahab is the worst of all kings because he is given an opportunity to renew covenant and then falls back into disobedience and sin. Elijah is not just a great prophet, he is a covenant-maker. Now we know why Elijah shows up in this threesome, what connects these three figures. Continue reading “Team Edward Snooki Samson Soprano: A Sermon for March 6th”