two birds with one stone

[kayre]

saxikath and gypsyjen both asked me questions about Biblical interpretation.


from saxikath :And now a question of mine: You've said that you believe the Bible was written by humans, and thus has human flaws. (Something I agree with!) Given that, how does one -- how do you -- decide what of it is true, or at least worth accepting, and what isn't? It seems to me that accepting the human origin of the Bible opens the door for people to say, for example, that "women, keep silent" is true and "the greatest of these is love" is false (that's a silly example, but it illustrates the point).

from gypsyjen: The way you deal with "but by Him", though, does feel to me a bit...unsatisfactory. Not having actually read the Bible yet,(I've tried, but it's REALLY hard to get past the first bits for me) I don't know how important this bit is, or if there are contradictions to it, etc. Could you educate me a bit on it?

I’m hoping I can respond to both questions by discussing the verse gypsyjen asked about, John 14:6: “Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” To a conservative Christian, this means you have to believe in Jesus-- no further interpretation needed. But reading closely, that isn’t quite what it says, is it? My answer will be incomplete, both because I don’t want to totally bore you, and because I don’t really have all the answers and information on the tip of my tongue, even if I may seem to think I do, sometimes! Anyway, here’s a brief version of the kind of thought process I go through when I examine a verse or idea.

I’ve already mentioned what is known in Methodist circles as the “Wesley quadrangle:” scripture, tradition, reason and experience. This is not something John Wesley articulated, but an analysis of the types of arguments he used in his writing and preaching. I’ll look at each verse through each of those “lenses.”

Scripture: Rather than assuming any verse can stand on its own, we hold it up to the rest of the Bible, looking for similar ideas, but also for contradictory. Since this is a saying of Jesus, we can start by seeing if the other three gospels seem to say the same thing. There are certainly other passages that can be read the same way, but there are also sayings and stories that can be interpreted as being much less exclusive. The saying in question also seems to invalidate the entire Old Testament (as indeed many conservative Christians would agree)-- but another gospel quotes Jesus as saying he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. I could go on for pages with Biblical arguments on each side; to me, the important point is that there are arguments on both sides, scripturally.

Reason: Again, rather than taking the surface reading of a verse, we can look deeper-- now to such things as text criticism and historical analysis. A specific point with this verse is that it is in the Gospel of John, the latest written. Many scholars think that it is, as a result, the gospel most influenced by the early church; and that the more a verse serves the needs of the early church, the less likely it is to have actually been said by the anti-authoritarian Jesus. A verse like this, which demands unequivocal affirmation of Jesus, serves the church better than, say, the saying in the gospel of Mark that we have to come to the Kingdom of God like little children. I could go on, but it would take much time and space (Jen, if you want more details, maybe we could take it to email?)

Tradition: Christians have been wrestling with the Bible for 2000 years-- what do they all have to say? Surprisingly, despite the generally fundamentalist emphasis on this verse, nearly every great Christian theologian finds exceptions to it. Many agree that the First Covenant, with the Jews, is still valid, based on Paul’s writings.... many also conclude, based on other portions of the Bible, that God is not capricious enough to condemn a righteous, well-meaning person who doesn’t affirm the right doctrine. (Wesley specifically writes that God will make exceptions for those to whom the name of Jesus has been made hateful by the actions of Christians. He meant Jews who had been persecuted, but the same could certainly be applied to many today who have suffered under judgmental versions of Christianity.) I may be taking a much more liberal line than many past theologians, but they don’t stand in total opposition to me, either.

Experience: Personal revelation. This can mean dramatic stuff like visions, or the simple feelings and thoughts that may lead us to question the common interpretation of the Bible. For me, much of my liberal thinking is based on my personal inner sense of a God who is truly compassionate and accepting, not judging and questioning. (God didn’t ask me a single doctrinal question during that near-death experience!)

Finally, a fifth element, which Wesley (and perhaps those who analyze his writings) takes for granted: community. All of the above thought process needs to happen not just in the individual, but in community, sharing and testing each other’s ideas. (It is possible that one who disagrees is not in error, but is called to the prophetic role to correct mistaken ideas. To some extent, I see myself that way, though I hesitate to use the word prophet-- but my church community doesn’t utterly reject my ideas, and I also have a community of scattered friends, both within and outside my church, who share my beliefs and affirm my teaching.)

Of course, none of these points really provides a firm answer. I could find scholars who would argue each side of every argument I’ve suggested, and communities that accept or reject any interpretation imaginable. I can also point to communities that would accept my personal experiences without question, and others who would be worried about my mental health. This is where I rely on God’s paradoxical nature. I do believe that there are right and wrong interpretations.... but I also believe that God will cut a great deal of slack for those who adopt the wrong interpretations in good faith. I suspect we’ll all, to some extent, be surprised by some of what we learn in heaven, and think “oh, how silly of me!” The real damage of narrow interpretation is not that it keeps some people out of heaven, but that it blocks the Kingdom here on earth-- the Kingdom where justice and compassion are held in perfect balance.