|
||||
St. Luke’s United Methodist Church
|
|
The last time I gave the sermon, which was April 10, our total attendance was 107: usually at that date it is 575 or more. The attendance was that low, not because I was preaching, I think, but because of the blizzard on April 10. So I am repeating my sermon of that morning -- with revisions. And if you WERE here on April 10, you can’t leave; you must stay for the revisions. I have alerted the ushers to block the doors. Besides, IF you were here you were worried about getting home, rather than listening to what I was saying. The sermon was entitled “How Might a Methodist Read the Bible,” not MUST read the Bible, but MIGHT read the Bible, if a mythical Methodist is inclined to read it at all. As you would guess, the “might read” was strongly suggestive. I hope this now will be encouraging and enlightening for you, yet you might find what I say contrary to what you have been taught -- and maybe even currently believe. What I will say today IS contrary to what I was taught, as a young kid in Sunday School, in Alabama some seventy years ago. Looking back I might consider SOME of what they laid on me a mild form of child abuse; the FEAR, for instance. I was fortunate enough to question what I was taught as a kid; and in my early twenties, at the university, Pierce Johnson “opened up my world,” which exposed as untrue much of what I was taught. In seminary, Dr. Rist expanded my world even more. Then came crunch time. Our church required that I go to seminary to become a minister, yet as a minister I had Methodist people in my churches who did not want me to share what they had sent me to seminary to learn. Some of it was contrary to what THEY were taught as kids, AND what they still believed. Their attitude was, “Our minds are made up, so don’t bother us with the truth.” Most Methodist ministers have faced that dilemma. That resistance against more reliable information still exists, maybe in St. Luke’s, and perhaps as recently as the present-- though I hope not. So, if what I say today bothers you, just remember I am a one-shot deal, I’ll be gone by noon, or -- or you could seriously grapple with, and honestly consider, what I am saying -- which I hope you will. I am not the devil trying to corrupt you. Years ago in Sunday School they told me the Bible was the “Word of God.” I accepted that, after all, they were bigger than I, and I believed they REALLY KNEW. I later learned the words that described it as the Word of God. Words like “inerrant” and “infallible,” and “to be read literally.” Paul Little, for many years with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, gave his meaning to “inerrant and infallible Word of God.” He said about the Bible: “God was the primary author of the Bible.” “God so superintended the writers of Scripture that they wrote what he wanted them to write, disclosing the exact truth He wanted to convey.” ---As an aside, no writer of anything in the Bible thought he was writing Scripture--- “It became natural to use the terms ‘Scripture says’ and ‘God says’ synonymously.” Little virtually eliminated any human involvement in the writings that became the Bible. There were two things Little omitted in all his statements: HOW the writings BECAME the Word of God, and HOW he KNEW they became the Word of God. One day in class one of our members picked up Little’s book, read some, put it back down, and said, “All he does is assert, assert, assert.” That assertion, that the Bible is the “Word of God,” is the first of the five fundamentals published in 1910, which became what we know as Fundamentalism. Contrary to what many think, Fundamentalism is a modern day creation only about ninety-five years old. But fundamentalism is what I grew up in, as did many of you, and it still today is probably the most persistent influence in the Protestant branch of Christianity; it is the “religious right” we hear so much about. That word “right” means position on a continuum , not correctness. Fundamentalism says the Bible is God‘s Word and should be read literally, every word a quote from God himself. Dick Evans (remember him) used to say it is not WHETHER the Bible is the Word of God, but HOW is it the Word of God? Dick also used to say, quoting Leander Keck, “We should take the Bible seriously, but not literally.” Leander Keck taught at Vanderbilt, Janet Forbes’ school, right there in Tennessee in the heart of the Bible Belt. I believe taking the Bible literally is NOT taking it seriously. Fundamentalists who declare it the Word of God, just simply declare it, and never tell us HOW it BECAME the Word of God, and HOW they know it is the Word of God. And they give no “objective” evidence that it IS the Word of God. Fundamentalists say it is the Word of God quoting 2 Timothy 3:16, assuming it “proves” the Bible to be the Word of God. The verse does not “prove” it to be the Word of God, and besides, you can’t prove the validity of the Bible by quoting the Bible. That is like asking me who is the neatest guy around, I say, “I am.” I am the neatest guy around, and you ask why you should believe that, and I say, “Because I say I am.” That would be very questionable proof. You would want something other than what I say. Likewise, to prove the Bible would need more than a dubious internal affirmation. Please hear me, I am not saying the Bible is NOT the Word of God. The Bible contains MORE of the WORDS of God than any other collection of writings, but that does not mean that from the opening verse to the close, it is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, and to be taken literally. What I just said is consistent with what has been the teaching in the 13 United Methodist seminaries for the past 50 years. And if you have been in any United Methodist Church for any length of time and have not heard that, then the ministers you have listened to were either on the fringe of our church, or had been intimidated by that resistance I mentioned. They were afraid to tell the truth for fear of offending people. I say this today, knowing my state of retirement means I am immune to intimidation. In other words, you can’t fire me -- I’m already fired. Now, I want to take you to one of my favorite writings in the New Testament, the one page letter of Paul to Philemon. I’ll tell you what the letter is about, then read it, and then ask a question. Three persons are involved in this letter, PAUL, who wrote it, PHILEMON, to whom it was written, and ONESIMUS about whom it was written. PAUL was the great apostle, who wrote at least 25% of the New Testament, and who was the architect of the Christian faith. Jesus, you should know, did not create Christianity, Jesus is the person Christianity was created ABOUT. Jesus was born a Jew, taught as a Jew, and died as a Jew: Jesus was never a “Christian.” If that is shocking, I’m sorry, but somebody, before today, should have told you that. PAUL was the great evangelizer, PHILEMON was one of his converts. PHILEMON lived in Colossae; the church met in Philemon’s house. PHILEMON was evidently “well to do,” having such a house, and he also owned slaves, at least one that we know about. The third person, ONESIMUS, was PHILEMON’S slave, that is, until he ran away. But one day in a city, far from Colossae, ONESIMUS ran into PAUL, and became a Christian under PAUL’S ministry. When Paul discovered that Onesimus was a run-away slave, and that Philemon was his owner, (the very Philemon Paul knew in Colossae) he had a problem -- what to do about Onesimus? He decided to send Onesimus back to Philemon asking Philemon to accept Onesimus back as a Christian brother, rather than as a slave. He would write a letter to Philemon asking him to do just that, and Onesimus would carry the letter with him. Onesimus did go back, taking the letter with him, and Philemon accepted him back as a Christian brother. How do we know? First - We have a copy of the letter. Second - If Philemon had not accepted Onesimus back, do you think he would ever have shared the letter? So the letter of Philemon is a letter written by one man, Paul, asking another man, Philemon, to free a third man, Onesimus. A very PRACTICAL HUMAN situation, with Christian overtones. That’s the situation, now let’s read the content of the letter. 4When I remember you in my prayers, I always thank my God 5because I hear of your love for all the saints and your faith toward the Lord Jesus. 6I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective when you perceive all the good that we may do for Christ. 7I have indeed received much joy and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, my brother. 8For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, 9yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love—and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus. 10I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment. 11Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to you and to me. 12I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you. 13I wanted to keep him with me, so that he might be of service to me in your place during my imprisonment for the gospel; 14but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced. 15Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it. I say nothing about your owing me even your own self. 20Yes, brother, let me have this benefit from you in the Lord! Refresh my heart in Christ. 21Confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. This is undoubtedly an authentic letter from Paul about a very practical, human situation: one man asking another man to free a third man. My question relates to the Bible as the Word of God: WHEN and HOW did this letter become the “Word of God,” and what “PROOF” does anyone have that it did? The only non-evasive answer I can imagine from anyone is, “We don’t know, we just believe that it is the Word of God.” That’s okay, I accept that completely, not only for Philemon, but I also accept it for the rest of the Bible, but just because John and Mary, and millions of others, just accept it is the inerrant, infallible Word of God to be taken literally, does not mean I must, or that you must. We can’t quarrel with anyone believing the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God to be taken literally, none at all -- that is their freedom. It is just that in the Methodist seminaries for the fifty years, literalism has not been the dominant teaching to ministers, and it is okay for a Methodist minister to say so, even from a Methodist pulpit. We ministers do not have to read the Bible that way, and neither do you. Please note: I am not telling you how you MUST read the Bible, but how you MIGHT: yet fundamentalists tell you how you MUST read the Bible. Essentially, fundamentalists say, “We believe it is the word of God to be read literally, therefore you should.” Here is my next question: how then might we read Philemon? My first suggestion is extremely simple: read it as if you were Philemon, after all, Paul wrote it to Philemon. Read it as if you were Philemon, the original recipient. When Philemon read the letter he was not reading the Bible, he was not reading scripture, he was not reading the Word of God. He was reading a letter from Paul about Onesimus, period. And that is the way we should read it, and let the message (Christian’s don’t own slaves who are brothers) come through, without literalizing the words or putting those words into the mouth of God. Paul’s belief in God’s will impelled him to write the letter, but the content of the letter was Paul’s. Paul was applying a new Christian principle to a human situation, brothers in Christ do not own one another, and therein is the “Word of God,” but not the literal words that Paul wrote. Making the Bible into the Word of God is making a “graven image” out of the book that says not to make graven images. Exodus 20:4, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image . . .” That is commandment number 2 of the Ten Commandments. And the gospel of Luke is much like Philemon. In the first paragraph Luke says he is writing this for Theophilus. So read Luke as if you were Theophilus, and remember, Theophilus had no idea he was reading scripture, or reading the Bible, or reading the Word of God. So whatever part of the Bible you’re reading, read it as if you were an original recipient. That is my first suggestion, for all the New Testament. The messages carry their own validation. The second suggestion is more complex. Your comment now could be, “It is now two thousand years later; the world has changed.” Am I glad you said that !!! It IS two thousand years later, our world is vastly different from the world of the Bible. How is our world different? For one thing, every writer of any portion of the Bible believed that he (there were no SHE writers) lived on a flat earth, and today none of you believes we live on a flat earth. Copernicus, in 1543, said, “Folks, we live on a round earth.” A hundred years later the Enlightenment began, which brought a whole new understanding of science, of philosophy, of medicine, of mathematics, of a person’s freedom to think and to reason, which people never had before. Here is one the best things done by the United Methodist General Conferences of the last fifty years. They developed the quadrilateral; four guidelines to help us think religiously and theologically. And don’t be afraid of thinking theologically; you do it every day, though you may not know it. The FIRST guideline is scripture; the Bible is the most important ingredient in understanding our theology, what we believe. The Bible is the foundation, the beginning document, the base, it is “square one,“ the original human / divine encounters out of which our own divine encounters emerge, and we must take the Bible VERY seriously. The SECOND guideline is tradition. Tradition is what scholarship has said about the Bible from its writing until the present. Tradition includes the vast study the Bible has undergone, especially for the past one hundred and fifty years. What did Martin Luther or John Wesley say about the Bible? What did Harry Emerson Fosdick say, or Martin Rist, or more recently, Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong? It would be foolish indeed to ignore what has been done in 19 hundred years by way of exploring and unveiling truth about the Bible. I wanted to say stupid, but many otherwise intelligent people who are not stupid, ignore this tremendous resource. And -- this may be hard for you to accept -- what did Bill Selby, or Dick Evans, or Janet Forbes, or even Fred Venable say? We are a part of YOUR tradition; you have heard our teachings. Tradition is the second guideline of doing theology. It means you read the Bible through the filter of what the scholars from the writing until now, have written or said. The THIRD guideline is reason. This one would be impossible for the hard-core fundamentalist like Paul Little, because his emphasis was on believing what he asserts rather than using reason and honoring truth and reality. The hard-core fundamentalist would object to our Methodist quadrilateral saying if we did not take the entire Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God, we could not know which words were, and which weren’t the Word of God. Well, that is one of the reasons God gave us a brain, and a mind, and the power of choice, so that we could. And God also has given us his Spirit to aid in our discernment. I believe there is one other facet to reason, it includes the truth that we know from sources other than the Bible; science, for instance. I have no right to deny observable scientific facts just because the Bible say something else: the shape of the world is a example. The Bible writers believed it was flat, I believe it is round. That is my informed choice. Credible science teaches evolution, the Bible says we came from Adam and Eve, I choose to believe credible science. That is my informed choice. The FOURTH guideline is experience. This is where we make our commitment. At our deepest level, we commit our selves, our sacred honor, to the truth of God wherever we find it, be it in the Bible or anywhere else. In reading Philemon, for instance, we would need to ask if we are ready to give freedom to those whom we have kept in slavery. You recoil at that: you haven’t kept anyone in slavery, you say. But how about yourself? Have you kept yourself in slavery to addiction, to less than desirable patterns of behavior, to damaging habits, even to an outdated manner of reading the Bible? Are you willing to free yourself? --- don’t answer that quickly. We each have our own perceptions of the faith, and we must update and find more realistic perceptions. Read the Bible as if you were the original reader, or, read it through the lenses of tradition, and reason, and your own sacred experience. You will be blessed if you do. Amen, salaam, shalom, and peace. |