Alpha-Omega

Do I Need to Give It All Away?

by

This past weekend (September 29 – October 2, 2011), I attended a retreat at Laity Lodge near Kerrville, Texas (address is Leakey, Texas).  “Laity Lodge is dedicated to enabling Christians to know Jesus deeply and to serve him in the everyday places of their lives . . . while reveling in a small bit of heaven on the Frio River.”  This is a part of a larger ministry (Foundations for Laity Renewal) to help, especially, the laity, “To serve God by creating opportunities for people to encounter God for the transformation of daily life, work, and our world.”

At the retreat, my wife and I were visiting with David Rupert (a contributing editor for The High Calling – another ministry of the Foundations for Laity Renewal) who produces the weekly newsletter for The High Calling.  He noted that one of the difficulties he faces is getting articles that help people focus on how to live out their faith in relation to their “secular” job(s).  That got me thinking about something that many a lay person in the church has brought up from time to time in studies.

Quite often emotions rise when people consider the “rich young ruler” (Mark 10:17-31; Matthew 19:16-30; Luke 18:18-30) who comes to Jesus wanting to know how to “inherit eternal life.”  This is the one who goes away sad when Jesus tells him to sell all he has, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus.  Through the years, I’ve heard many responses to this story:

  • Questioning:  “Does Jesus want me to do that?”
  • Fear:  “I haven’t done that.  Is God upset with me?”
  • Side-stepping:  “Jesus is just testing him; Jesus doesn’t really want him to do that.”
  • Clarification:  “I feel like I’m following Jesus, but I didn’t sell everything.  Is that okay?”
  • Obstinance:  “Jesus is crazy if he thinks I’m gonna sell everything and give it to the poor!”

I’m sure there have been others, but these are the ones that stand out to me.

Here’s my take:  I think Jesus did want that one person to do just that.  I think Jesus has called others to do the same or similar actions, but not all.  The water is obviously muddied, though, when we see Peter say after the man has gone away sad, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.”  Jesus responds by affirming Peter and the other disciples who have done this: “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.”

Since Jesus has responded in this way, doesn’t that say that Jesus expects all to do the same?  Am I wrong in thinking that Jesus calls only some to this extreme level of dedication?

Luke’s take, though, gives us an important insight.  In just thirteen verses after the interchanges between Jesus, the rich young ruler, Peter, and the disciples, Jesus tells the disciples what to expect when they get to Jerusalem (which they don’t understand), and Jesus heals a blind man outside of Jericho.

Then, chapter 19  of Luke opens with the story of a tax collector named Zacchaeus.  Jesus sees this one of short stature in a tree and says, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today.”  Many grumble that Jesus would associate and go to the home of one who was so despised by many in that 1st century culture.  Yet, Jesus’ willingness to share with him brings about a vast change of heart in Zacchaeus who says, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.”

Jesus’ response is NOT, “Sorry Zacchaeus.  You have to give all your possessions, not just half.”  Neither, does he respond, “Zacchaeus, I need you to quit your job as a tax collector.”  Jesus doesn’t even say that he needs to follow him on the way to Jerusalem.  He simply (yet profoundly) exclaims, “Today salvation has come to this house!”

Not everyone is called to give up everything and follow Jesus.  Some are called to give what they are able to supply the needs of those in need and to work in their “secular” with integrity, being sure to not defraud.  In doing so, I believe a divine element is brought forth and expressed in the “secular” world allowing others an opportunity to see God in their midst.

The Sermon on the Mount – 3: You’re Accepted. Do Something.

by

CLICK HERE to read all of Matthew 5 before beginning this session.

CLICK HERE to read basic assumptions about studying the Sermon on the Mount before beginning this session.

CLICK HERE to read the previous section in this series on the Sermon on the Mount before beginning this session.

There were two dominant battle-cries of the Protestant Reformation:  1) sola Scriptura (only Scripture, which we will discuss in our next segment); and 2) sola fides (only faith).  The basic idea of sola fides is that one finds salvation (a topic to be more fully defined at another time) only by faith, not by works.  Passages like Galatians 2:16 were used as support for this idea.  This has morphed into the idea that if I have or accept the correct doctrine I have salvation (usually oversimplified to mean going to heaven) – I have been accepted by God.  Thus, I find salvation and acceptance with God through what I believe or think about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, etc.  Therefore, I don’t have to do anything to be Christian; I just have to cognitively accept a particular doctrine.  Very early on, I believe the author of the book of James saw the danger of this concept leading that person to write, “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2:17; 26)

Part of the problem is that people forget that Paul didn’t say one is not justified by “works” but “works of the law.”  Just reading Philippians 2 or 1 Corinthians 12-13 ought to make us see that Paul thinks we should do works.  As we begin to see now in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is clear that we are to be about works.

In the Congratulations (aka Beatitudes) that begin the Sermon on the Mount, I think we hear Jesus say, “Guess what!  Those of you who don’t think God accepts you just as you are: hear the good news.  You area already accepted!  You have the kingdom, comfort, the earth, mercy, etc!”  Then in verses 13-16, Jesus says, “Now that you know you are accepted, do something that shows you are!”

13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15 No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.“

Matthew 5:13-16 (NRSV)

In talking of salt, we shouldn’t think that the idea is that somehow there is a miraculous, chemical change of the salt into something that is not salty.  Rather, the point is likely about salt becoming diluted with impurities.  If you accidentally pour pepper into your salt shaker at home, are you really going to take the time to separate each grain of salt from pepper, or will you toss it all out and start over?

Thus the point of this aphorism is similar to Matthew 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart [those with a single-minded devotion to God], for they will see God.”  If our purpose, calling, or very being becomes diluted to the point that we lose our understanding of our identity – our acceptedness by God – what good are we in the Kingdom?

Verses 14-16 are very clear.  Unlike the words attributed to Jesus in John 8:12 where he is noted as say, “I am the light of the world. . . ,” here we see Jesus say, “YOU are the light of the world.  You have a responsibility to share your light with others – THROUGH YOUR GOOD WORKS!”  When we share our good works by doing them out in the open – being the people God created us to be and doing what God created us to do – we shed our light on others who hopefully realize they can – and have the responsibility – to share their light, their good works for the good of others and God’s kingdom!

The Sermon on the Mount – 2: Congratulations (aka Beatitudes)

by

CLICK HERE to read all of Matthew 5 before beginning this session.

CLICK HERE to read basic assumptions about studying the Sermon on the Mount  before beginning this session.

We begin with what has been traditionally termed the “beatitudes.”  Many of our English translations of these passages begin with, “Blessed are the _______.”  However, I’ve chosen to use the Scholars Version, which begins with, “Congratulations _______.”  The primary reason is that with the different wording, we can more easily hear them anew.

Many have declared that the “congratulations” are only a statement of the status quo, simply defining what people are – and maybe always will be.  I believe that the underlying idea is that Jesus (and the gospel writers) are implying that we should strive to be like these who have been named, which I will try to make clear as we go through them one-by-one.

 

Congratulations to the poor in spirit!
The empire of Heaven belongs to them.

Matthew 5:3 (SV)

 Congratulations, you poor!
God’s empire belongs to you.

Luke 6:20 (SV)

Most scholars feel that Luke’s version is the one that goes back to Jesus and deals specifically with the actual issues Jesus would have faced with the peasant class that was his primary audience.  This may be the case, but both have something to say.

First, notice that the “reward” in both is NOT riches.  The idea is not that God makes the spiritually or monetarily poor rich in their respective category; rather, each has the kingdom of heaven / God.

It is also important to realize that the statements are not that they will get the kingdom someday.  No.  They already have it.  This begins to give us a hint that Jesus isn’t concerned with us going to heaven when we die but making God’s kingdom manifest now in this life, which we will see more as we get deeper into the Sermon on the Mount.

So, what’s the point, then?  For Luke, it has to do with attitude.  Time and again, I hear people who have gone on a mission trip to help the poor.  First, they are amazed at the dismal situation that these people live with.  Then, they are amazed that these people they have come to help are often much happier than they are.  Sure, these would like to have a better financial outlook, but ultimately many of them have their priorities in a better place than many who are better well off.  They help others who are in similar predicaments and love giving out of their meager possessions to those who have come to help them.

Our church youth group provided a scholarship for a young lady to attend the Lydia Patterson Institute in El Paso, Texas, and she’d come each summer to work at our church.  In summer 2010, a group of adults and I were going to Lydia Patterson to work there, and in the process, we were taking her home.  When we got there, they had provided an extensive home-cooked Mexican food meal for us – much more than we could ever eat in one sitting.  They really couldn’t afford it, but they wanted to give back.  That is the kingdom of God in action – the poor already having God’s empire.  As in Matthew 6:25-33 (see also Luke 12:22-31), they don’t worry about what they’ll eat, drink, or wear but strive first for God’s kingdom and justice / righteousness that is a present reality.  They already have the kingdom, because they live it.

For Matthew, it is NOT about appearances.  Jesus’ opponents are Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, and other Jewish leadership.  On the surface, these look “rich in spirit,” appearing to have everything all together.  Many of these lord their perceived superiority over others, often declaring that if the perceived “poor in spirit” would act right all their problems would be fixed.  Jesus, however, knows that the predicament of the poor in spirit (sometimes literally poor) is not necessarily their fault, and it is not a punishment from God.  They already have the kingdom of God when they treat people fairly, taking care of others – actually living out the kingdom.  Thus, they only appear poor in spirit to those in power, but ultimately the powers that be are not the ones to seek approval from.

Thus, we are to be like the poor and poor in spirit even if we aren’t.  The rich can live out the kingdom and live with integrity, even if it doesn’t look good to those in power.

 

Congratulations to those who grieve!
They will be consoled.

Matthew 5:4 (SV)

 Congratulations, you who weep now!
You will laugh.

Luke 6:21b (SV)

First century peasants in Galilee had much to grieve and weep about.  Many had lost their lands and were unable to provide enough food for themselves or their families.  Due to likely malnutrition many were probably dying.  We know from archaeology and the study of skeletons that the average life expectancy for such peasants was 30 years of age (whereas the more wealthy had a life expectancy of around 50).

Looking to Matthew 6:25-33 again (a very important passage for the entire sermon), we see the command to strive first for God’s kingdom instead of worrying.  When we live this way, we will console those who mourn, weep, and worry, and when we mourn and weep (are filled with worry) others who are striving for God’s kingdom will come to console us and help us to laugh.

 

Congratulations to the gentle!
They will inherit the earth.

Matthew 5:5 (SV)

The Roman Empire claimed to have inherited the earth.  However, those in Galilee Jesus was speaking to would have known stories about the Roman legions.  Some may have remembered first-hand the devastation that Roman armies wrought in their region in 4BC following the uprising after Herod the Great’s death of the same year.  The city of Sepphoris (only about 4 miles from Nazareth) was destroyed, so younger people would have certainly heard of this.  For sure, the Romans were not gentle or meek.  Jesus is, thus, giving a new way to live in the world.  Instead of relying on power and might, one should rely on gentleness.

 

Congratulations to those
who hunger and thirst for justice!
They will have a feast.

Matthew 5:6 (SV)

 Congratulations you hungry!
You will have a feast.

Luke 6:21a (SV)

At the heart of these is Matthew 6:25-33, again.  Notice in particular vs. 33:  “Strive first for the kingdom and God’s justice / righteousness, and all these (food, drink, and clothes) will be given to you as well.”  That is clearly the same thing that is being said in Matthew 5:6.

Luke’s version is a bit more practical but still related.  Striving for the kingdom as opposed to worrying will ultimately result in being fed.

How does this work, though?  Maybe I don’t have food, but I do have water.  I share that water with someone who does not have water, but maybe they have clothes or food to share.  By sharing what we do have, we are striving for God’s justice and righteousness.  Others who are striving help provide our needs.

 

Congratulations to the merciful!
They will receive mercy.

Matthew 5:7 (SV)

To understand this “congratulations,” we have to be clear about the meaning of the words.  Too often, “merciful” and “mercy” have been interpreted as “feeling sorry” for someone.  If I feel sorry for someone, others will feel sorry for me.  However, in the Greek, these words mean “concrete acts of mercy.”  Congratulations to those who provide concrete acts of mercy, making God’s distributive justice and righteousness a reality, for they will get the same in return.  Again, the example from Matthew 6:25-33 is appropriate.

 

Congratulations to those whose motives are pure!
They will see God.

Matthew 5:8 (SV)

The New Revised Standard translation translates the first part as, “Blessed are the pure in heart.”  The more clear connotation is blessed are those with a single-minded devotion to God – might I add, who hunger, thirst, and strive for God’s kingdom and justice / righteousness.

The phrase, “They will see God” is foreshadowing for an important aspect of Matthew’s understanding of the Gospel:

  • Matthew 18:20 – “Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am with them.“
  • Matthew 25:31-46 – “Just as you took care of the least of these, you took care of me.”

Thus, what we see is that Jesus believes that to be in relationship with God, we must be in relationship with others – both members of our community and the least of these (who may not be).  When we have devotion to God through devotion to others, we see God.

 

Congratulations to those who work for peace!
They will be called God’s children.

Matthew 5:9 (SV)

Here we find Roman overtones.  The Romans claimed to have brought peace, but they did it by power and sword – obviously not by peaceful means.  The caesars considered themselves sons of god(s) to have been able to bring peace – and many thought they were gods.  What we’ll see later in this sermon is that Jesus was a proponent of non-violence; thus, he does not intend that God’s children bring about peace by force.  Rather, in the broader context of the sermon and Matthew’s gospel, it can be argued that God’s children bring peace by providing enough of the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of all.

It is important to realize that in the Greek, the last phrase is “sons of God.”  For sure, I believe the inclusion of females is intended in the intent, but we MUST realize that the same Greek word calling Jesus “son of God” is used here of those who work for peace – even us.  Jesus, then, is NOT the only son of God.

 

Congratulations to those who have suffered persecution for the sake of justice!
The empire of Heaven belongs to them.

Matthew 5:10 (SV)

Some do not think this goes back to Jesus.  Whether it came off his lips or not, it is certainly his story.  He certainly hungered, thirsted, and strove for God’s justice / righteousness and was persecuted to the point of death for it.  The implication is clear:  we need to be willing to do the same!  Jesus didn’t die so we won’t have to.  The story of Jesus’ death sets an example for the rest of us of how to live a life of integrity.  When we are committed to something that is important, we stay single-mindedly devoted to it, even if it means death.

It is worthwhile to note that the same “reward,” the empire of Heaven, is given in the first congratulations we considered.  By Jesus’ opponents, he was seen as “poor in spirit,” because he did not follow the rituals of his opponents.  Yet, he put up with the persecution to stay true to his understanding of God’s kingdom and justice / righteousness.  He had the kingdom, because he lived it.

 

Congratulations to you when they denounce you and persecute you and spread malicious gossip about you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad!  In heaven you’ll be more than rewarded.  Remember, that is how they persecuted the prophets who preceded you.

Matthew 5:11-12 (SV)

 Congratulations to you when people hate you, and when they ostracize you and spread malicious gossip about you and scorn your name as evil, because of the Human One!  Rejoice on that day and jump for joy!  Because look:  your reward is great in heaven.  Bear in mind that their ancestors treated the prophets the same way.

Luke 6:22-23 (SV)

As in the previous one, some don’t believe these go back to Jesus, either, as they so closely mirror the experience of the early church.  Either way, we see this is also the story of Jesus, many of the prophets who preceded him (sharing a similar message as Jesus), and those (maybe even us) who stay true to living out God’s kingdom here and now.

Please, feel free to post questions or comments below!

CLICK HERE to read the next section on this series of the Sermon on the Mount!

Knowing Isn’t Everything – A Sermon

by

Here is a sermon I shared at First United Methodist Church of Wichita Falls on August 7, 2011. 

Listen to the sermon here:

Right-mouse-click here to download the audio.

The Scripture text that served as inspiration was 1 Corinthians 8, which is provided here from The Message translation:

1 The question keeps coming up regarding meat that has been offered up to an idol: Should you attend meals where such meat is served, or not? We sometimes tend to think we know all we need to know to answer these kinds of questions – 2 but sometimes our humble hearts can help us more than our proud minds. 3 We never really know enough until we recognize that God alone knows it all. 4 Some people say, quite rightly, that idols have no actual existence, that there’s nothing to them, that there is no God other than our one God, 5 that no matter how many of these so-called gods are named and worshiped they still don’t add up to anything but a tall story. 6 They say – again, quite rightly – that there is only one God the Father, that everything comes from him, and that he wants us to live for him. Also, they say that there is only one Master – Jesus the Messiah – and that everything is for his sake, including us. Yes. It’s true. 7 In strict logic, then, nothing happened to the meat when it was offered up to an idol. It’s just like any other meat. I know that, and you know that. But knowing isn’t everything. If it becomes everything, some people end up as know-it-alls who treat others as know-nothings. Real knowledge isn’t that insensitive. We need to be sensitive to the fact that we’re not all at the same level of understanding in this. Some of you have spent your entire lives eating “idol meat,” and are sure that there’s something bad in the meat that then becomes something bad inside of you. An imagination and conscience shaped under those conditions isn’t going to change overnight. 8 But fortunately God doesn’t grade us on our diet. We’re neither commended when we clean our plate nor reprimanded when we just can’t stomach it. 9 But God does care when you use your freedom carelessly in a way that leads a Christian still vulnerable to those old associations to be thrown off track. 10 For instance, say you flaunt your freedom by going to a banquet thrown in honor of idols, where the main course is meat sacrificed to idols. Isn’t there great danger if someone still struggling over this issue, someone who looks up to you as knowledgeable and mature, sees you go into that banquet? The danger is that he will become terribly confused – maybe even to the point of getting mixed up himself in what his conscience tells him is wrong. 11 Christ gave up his life for that person. Wouldn’t you at least be willing to give up going to dinner for him – because, as you say, it doesn’t really make any difference? But it does make a difference if you hurt your friend terribly, risking his eternal ruin! 12 When you hurt your friend, you hurt Christ. A free meal here and there isn’t worth it at the cost of even one of these “weak ones.” 13 So, never go to these idol-tainted meals if there’s any chance it will trip up one of your brothers or sisters.

The Sermon on the Mount – 1: Beginning Assumptions

by

As we begin to consider the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew 5-7), I think it is a good practice to begin by reading the entire passage straight through before reading commentary.  That opens our minds to think about and consider:

  • What we are interested in.
  • What we already know.
  • What questions we have.

If we begin with a commentary, it drives our minds.  Let’s begin by driving our own minds.  If you haven’t already read it (or don’t have a Bible handy), CLICK HERE!

We have to be clear that we are focusing on Matthew’s version of the gospel, so we need to be aware of some of his focuses and biases.  Therefore, let us keep these things in mind:

  • By far, Matthew is the most Jewish of the four gospels, so he is more concerned about all things Jewish than are Mark, Luke, or John.  Related to this is his reverence for the name of God; thus, Matthew often speaks of the kingdom of heaven instead of the kingdom of God.  Why?  It is improper to overuse or misuse the name of God, so “heaven” is substituted.
    When you think about it, there really is no difference in saying the “kingdom of Caesar” or the “kingdom of Rome.”  In the first century, had you been in Ephesus, you’d have still been in the kingdom of Rome even though you were not in the city of Rome!
  • The book is likely written in Palestine between 75 and 85AD.
  • Jesus is the “new and better Moses” who gives a new or re-interpreted law. The two are often compared.  In terms of the Sermon on the Mount, it is important to remember that Moses received the “law” from God on Mount Sinai (or Horeb).  Jesus gives a new law (or interpretation of the law) on a mountain.
  • Matthew focuses on the conflicts of kingdoms (i.e. the Kingdom of God / Heaven vs. the kingdoms of this age / Caesar / Satan / etc.).
  • Matthew has a real concern for the  church / community (Matthew is the only Gospel with the word EKLESIA– i.e. Church / assembly in Greek).
  • Discipleship is key in being a follower, learner, disciple of Jesus.
  • There is no ascension story; thus, Jesus is with us always until the end of the age (when two or more are gathered and when we serve the least of these).
  • Matthew probably used Mark and possibly other sources such as Q, changing both along the way to fit his needs.

It is most unlikely that this sermon was copied down verbatim, especially considering that most of the people Jesus dealt with were peasants.  Rather, it is likely a compilation of Jesus’ teachings (with modifications by Matthew and others) that had circulated in oral and, eventually, written forms.  Some even argue that parts may be creations of Matthew or his sources, and as such, may not go back to Jesus at all!  This does not necessarily mean, though, that their ideas are not inline with what Jesus may have thought – though at times they may be against Jesus’ ideas!

An important distinction that should be made is that Jesus and much of the New Testament as a whole is combating a “prosperity gospel,” which is easily found in the Deuteronomic tradition (i.e. books like Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings) and in Proverbs.  This basic theology is, “Do good, get good,” and “Do bad, get bad.”  Thus, the extrapolation is that if you are poor, sick, or having bad times, you must have done something wrong.  God is punishing you.  Jesus (as we will see in the Sermon on the Mount) is saying that God is present with us even in the bad.  Sun and rain equally affect the righteous and the unrighteous in good and bad ways.  Thus, when faced with good or bad, we have a choice in how we will respond.  Will we respond in a way fitting of God’s kingdom or in line with the kingdoms of this world?

Somewhat related to this discussion is the Greek word that gets translated as “righteousness” (or a form of that word) in most of our English translations of the New Testament.  Sadly, we typically interpret this word in very “individual” and “moralistic” terms:  i.e. I’m “unrighteous” if I tell a little lie.  However, the word can be equally translated as “justice.”  Yet, we’ve also put a narrow interpretation to this word.  With the backdrop of the U.S. justice department, we usually think this word deals only with making sure those who did something bad get punished and those who were falsely accused get off (retributive justice).  This idea is definitely one part of the Greek understanding of this word, but there is much more there.  The phrase John Dominic Crossan usually uses is “distributive justice.”  In addition to the punishment / reward idea in retributive justice, distributive justice means that everyone gets enough; thus, everyone should get what they need to meet their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs met.  CLICK HERE to read a PDF with more information about this idea.

As a friend of mine recently noted, the Sermon on the Mount (and I’d add other teachings of Jesus) can be quite vague.  I think this was purposeful to make us think on two levels:

  1. Simply to engage our minds.  It’s Jesus’ way of making us find and eventually use our own voices – affirming we have a voice, even if we are “the least of these;” and
  2. To make sure we don’t fall into the trap that there is only one way to do something.  In other words, he is only giving an example of how we could react.  Using insights from that example, we are to figure out other creative ways to respond to life.

Books that have influenced the interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount that will follow (and that might be useful for your own edification) include:

CLICK HERE to read the commentary on The Sermon on the Mount – 2: Congratulations (aka Beatitudes).

Biblical Authority?

by

CLICK HERE to download and print a PDF.

The Bible is an act of faithful imagination. It is not a package of certitudes. It is an act of imagination that invites our faithful imagination that makes it possible to live faithfully. The Bible is an act of imagination that is rooted in memory but that presses always toward new possibility that is still in front of us.

Walter Brueggemann
in Countering Pharaoh’s Production-Consumption Society Today

Imagination & Inspiration

Recently, I led a few different small groups through the Living the Questions video-guided study, Countering Pharaoh’s Production-Consumption Society Today. For one of those groups (in particular, just a couple of vocal people in that group), the most problematic or controversial portion of the first session was the quote above. The question posed to me following the viewing of that session entitled “The Way Out” was:

Do you believe the Bible is an act of imagination or inspired by God?

My best comeback did not occur to me until hours later, but I’ll start there. I don’t know that those two ideas – imagination and inspiration – are mutually exclusive. Even imagination can be inspired by God and imagination can inspire.

Consider Jesus’ parables in which he is often trying to explain what God’s kingdom is like; they are fictions that are used to make people think, re-think – even re-imagine – how they view the world and how they relate (or should relate) to it. Jesus took inspiration from God about God’s desires for the world that led to the imagination that created the parables. In the centuries since, consider all the preachers and teachers who, because they were inspired by God, could imagine new possibilities and ways of living out the Christian life.

Likewise, as can be seen in writing (poetry and prose), music, and art, sometimes one’s imagination can inspire others to a knowledge or awareness of God that they did not have before, leading them to live more faithfully as they press toward new possibility. How many of us have been moved by hearing a beautiful melody and / or words in a song that came forth from someone’s imagination?

Thus, I believe that the Bible comes forth from imagination and inspiration working hand-in-hand.

Discrepancies & Perspectives

My first response to the question was much more narrow in scope. For me, the Bible has to be a book of imagination, because there are so many contradictions and discrepancies between stories and books in the Bible.

  • Creation
    • Was man created first and alone (Genesis 2:5-8) or last of all (Genesis 1:26-31) with woman?
    • Were both men and women created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) or was woman created from man (Genesis 2:20-23) – after all other created animals proved to be unsuitable mates for Adam?
  • Sacrifices
    • The Torah (especially Leviticus) says they are necessary. Amos 5:21-23 says God has no desire for them, but Malachi 3:8-11 declares that God is being robbed because the offerings are not being made!
  • Birth Narratives
    • Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 cannot be harmonized unless elements of each account are dropped or ignored.
  • Crucifixion Accounts
    • Would Jesus need help carrying the cross as noted in Mark 15:21 or would he carry it himself as written in John 19:17?
    • Was Jesus crucified by 9am as Mark indicates in 15:25 or after noon as John declares in 19:14?
    • For that matter, was Jesus crucified after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-25 details the last supper, which is the Passover) or before (John 18:28 notes that the Passover meal would be eaten that evening after the crucifixion)?
  • Resurrection Accounts
    • How many women would go to the tomb: 1 (John 20:1), 2 (Matthew 28:1), 3 (Mark 16:1), or a handful (Luke 24:10)?
    • Who would meet them there: 1 young man dressed in white who is already there with the stone already rolled away (Mark 16:4-5), 1 angel who descends from heaven in their view to roll the stone away (Matthew 28:2), 2 men dressed in dazzling white who appeared while they were there with the stone already rolled away (Luke 24:2-4), or no one (John 20:1-10)?
  • Apostle to the Gentiles
    • Is it Paul (Romans 11:13) or Peter (Acts 15:7)?
  • Christology
    • Did Jesus empty himself of trying to be like God (Philippians 2:6-8) or did the fullness of God dwell bodily in Christ (Colossians 1:19)?
  • God
    • Is God only in heaven (Matthew 23:9) or is God above all, through all, and in all (Ephesians 4:6) – the one in whom we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28)?

I could go on, but even this is overkill.

The response that I always get is, “But you have multiple perspectives of the same event. Ask three people to describe a car accident that they all saw, and all will have seen something different.” True, but REALLY look at some of the differences noted above. In a court of law, if different witnesses shared perspectives as different as these, the judge and jury would assume someone was lying.

An additional problem is that the majority of the folks that respond in this way about “differing perspectives” will (especially in defending a particular part of their viewpoint or theology) say that, “In the Bible, God says. . .” indicating that ultimately they don’t think there are multiple perspectives but only one – God’s. Many in trying to defend their lack of committal on the number of perspectives will say something like, “Well, there are multiple perspectives in the stories, but in terms of theology, God has intervened and made sure the important stuff is correct.” Look above. There are even differences in theology in the Bible. Besides, who gets to decide which parts of the Bible are from God and which ones are human in origin?

Peripheral or Important?

Once in a disagreement about whether Christians can disagree over topics of theology I brought up 1 Corinthians 8 where the apostle Paul makes clear that since there really is only one God, there is not a problem with eating food sacrificed to idols, because the food was sacrificed to nothing ultimately. Yet, he realizes that for some it is a problem, so he said we need to affirm other people’s beliefs about food sacrificed to idols. We should not eat such food in front of them as it might make them eat food that they consciously and wholeheartedly believe they should not eat. The gentleman with which I was disagreeing responded that this was a “peripheral topic.” Says who? Who gets to make that decision? For the author of Revelation, this was not a peripheral topic as for him it showed where one’s allegiance was. For him, one should never eat food sacrificed to idols (see Revelation 2:14 and 2:20). There was no gray area.

Whereas more liberal or progressive Christians are often chastised by their more conservative or fundamentalist brothers and sisters for “picking and choosing” what they want to believe, we see above that this is happening in all camps.

God-Breathed

Of course, in speaking of biblical authority many will quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which says:

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” (NRSV)

Many will also exclaim that “inspired by God” is more literally translated as “God-breathed” (or I would add equally, “God-spirited” or “God-winded”). “See,” they say, “it’s all from God. You have to accept it all whether you like it or not.” I have several responses to that line of thinking.

If it’s all from God, God is an idiot, because not even the all-knowing God can keep all the details straight! Yet, if it was all from God, why do we have four very different gospels? If God wrote it, wouldn’t we only need one?

Also, if we take this very literally, we have to realize that at the time 2 Timothy was written, the only official Scriptures were the Hebrew Scriptures – the Old Testament. The first time that a list of New Testament books would even match our current canon was 367AD in Bishop Athanasius’ Easter letter to his churches, and that was not an official statement for the whole church, just his region. On top of that, even to this day, the Ethiopic Church and the Coptic Bible of the Egyptian Church each has a different New Testament canon than Protestants, Roman Catholics, or Orthodox Christians. Roman Catholics and Orthodox even accept the Apocrypha. Since the Scriptures were not completely defined yet when 2 Timothy was written, does the letter only affirm the Hebrew Scriptures? Since churches disagree on what the canon is, how do we know which ones are God-breathed?

Another interesting spin on this concept is that the beginning of the passage can also be translated as, “Every scripture inspired by God is also useful. . .” (see footnote in the NRSV). Could that mean that all texts that we deem as Scripture are not inspired by God?

Let’s think about this from another standpoint, though, focusing on the translations of “God-breathed,” “God-spirited,” and “God-winded.” The image that should be drawn to mind is the second creation story in Genesis 2:7 where God “formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed, spirited, winded into his nostrils the breath, spirit, wind of life, and the man became a living being.” The Bible is just words on paper unless made alive by God’s breath, spirit, wind. Maybe, then, the Scriptures are not God-breathed in their creation but in their interpretation. This can help keep us focused on what’s more important – what a passage MEANS according to the original author, not whether or not it really happened.

If this is the case, then maybe we can affirm that God did not call the Hebrews in the book of Joshua to kill all those not like themselves. That would mean that the ancient Hebrews misinterpreted their experience and understanding of what God was calling them to do and be in this world. The real point then, is not killing, but staying true to what God has called us to (assuming we heard God correctly to begin with!).

Much of the early church and New Testament was expecting an eminent return of Christ to the earth. It has never occurred, but if we see that Scripture is God-breathed in interpretation, not writing, we can be inspired and receive life to know they got it wrong. Maybe Matthew’s gospel is more correct that Christ returns every time we gather together as a community (Matthew 18:20) and when we help the least of these (Matthew 25:40).

There Are Still Choices

The problem is, no matter whether we think the Bible came from God in its writing or in its interpretation, it makes no difference if we don’t actually pay attention to what the Bible actually says. Many who claim that God gave the Scriptures in their writing are unwilling to help the poor because they either don’t deserve it or are just lazy. Many who claim that God breathes life into the Scriptures in interpretation are unwilling to love, pray for, or talk with their enemies.

How do we know what to listen to, though, when the Bible is full of contradictions? A rule of thumb that I like to follow (and which I’m borrowing from Marcus Borg) is, “When the Bible and Jesus disagree, Jesus trumps the Bible” – at least for Christians. That can be hard to swallow though, as in Matthew 5:21-42, Jesus quotes the Bible and then makes the mandate even more difficult to follow!

Another choice we have to deal with is how we will interpret a passage. Being United Methodist, I come from a denomination that claims that our primary source is Scripture. Yet, what I see in practice is that we often interpret our primary source in light of a preconceived theology. Here are some examples.

Because we have a theology of the Trinity, we assume the author of Mark’s gospel has that same theology, and we read that theology into Mark – a theology that is not there! Likewise, because we have a theology of a miraculous birth (taken from only Matthew and Luke), we can’t understand why we find this verse in Mark 3:21: “When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’” “If he had a miraculous birth, why are they questioning him?” we ask.

For centuries, we have seen God working through people with different understandings and ways of doing things. Some of these people have had questionable backgrounds, and God still used them mightily. Why, then, do we have to assume that each book of the Bible has to agree? God can still speak to us – give us life, inspiration, and imagination – through differing experiences, understandings, and stories.

Ultimately, it comes down to faith. Can I trust that God has my back if I step out in faith to do what God through the Bible might be calling me to? Can I trust God to give me inspiration even if all the “i”s and “t”s are not dotted or crossed – even in inconsistencies and contradictions?

How do you define Biblical authority?