“The Word of God for the people of God.  Thanks be to God.”  How many of you have spoken that responsive statement before today? 

I would suspect that if you have ever been a part of the Roman Catholic, or a mainline Protestant tradition, like Methodist, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian, or Episcopalian, then you have probably heard these phrases.   

I am surprised at the controversy buried in the statement, “The Word of God for the people of God”.   Then again, I have never lived in a era when religious polarity is so pronounced.    I have never lived in a season when there is so much hunger for absolute truth.   I have never lived in a time when every village is a global village.    But this is the chaos in which we, who live on the edge of post-modernism, find ourselves.       

My intention is for St. Luke’s to maintain a table where all are invited, where diversity lives together in peace, where ideas are encouraged, where people change and grow because we study and talk together about our differences.    

So let us look with tender care at THE MOST DIVISIVE ISSUE in the Christian community, the Bible as the Word of God. 

I serve as a delegate to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church in 1996, 2000, and 2004.   We are a representative democracy in our denomination.   Every four years, 1,000 delegates gather from around the globe to re-define our polity.    Prior to the event, one of our agencies does a survey of the delegates on their demographics, beliefs, and practices.  One of the questions on the survey has to do with an understanding of the authority of the Bible.    

Which statement is most true for you? 

A.            The Bible is God’s direct communication, inerrant (without error) and infallible (trustworthy).  

B.       In the Bible, we discern the Word of God through the words of human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit.  

C.       The Bible bears authentic testimony to God’s self-disclosure in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

D.       The Bible is a means of grace whereby God speaks to us still today.

E.       The Bible is the record of how the early Jewish and Christian communities viewed God.      

It doesn’t take many of these choices to discern a spectrum.   

I enjoy a similar spectrum from one of the interview questions that our Staff Parish Relations Committee uses.    On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being Pat Robertson, where are you?   My response is 6.   I have fun with that scale over the last year.   On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being Pat Robertson and 12 being Rev. Fred, where are you?   When I ask that question at a meeting several months ago, someone answers, “3, 5, 7, and 9, depending on the issue.”   I do, indeed, think he describes St. Luke’s. 

If we stay with the spectrum, let me define the poles on the INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.  

ONE SIDE sees the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God.   This conviction flows out of the way they see the Bible’s origin:  it comes from God, as no other book does. The inspiration of scripture is understood to mean that God guided the writing.  The bumper sticker says, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”  

For these Christians, the Bible is to be interpreted literally, unless the language of a particular passage is clearly metaphorical, as in poetry or parable.  From this point of view, allowing non-literal interpretation opens the door to evading the Bible’s authority and making it say what we want it to say.   They see themselves as taking the Bible with utmost seriousness and criticize other Christians for watering it down. 

The ALTERNATE pole sees the Bible as a human product – the product of two ancient communities.   The Hebrew Bible (The Christian Old Testament) is a product of ancient Israel.  The New Testament is the product of the early Christian movement.  What the Bible says is the words of those communities, not God’s words.     

From this perspective, seeing the Bible as a human product does not deny the reality of God.   God is a reality known in human experience.   But we cannot talk about God (or anything else for that matter) except with the words, symbols, stories, and concepts known to us.   They are the only language we have.   Nevertheless, we have moments of the sacred.   These experiences go beyond our language, shatter it, and relativize it.  The Bible originates in such inspired moments.   However, the words are a human construction. (1)      

WHAT DIFFERENCE THEN DOES OUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE BIBLE MAKE?   The application of these perspectives bear the seeds of discord as we relate or legislate under their influence.    Let me rehearse a few situations. 

When I travel, I sometimes listen to Christian radio.  One night, I am listening to a call-in show about the Bible and ethical questions.  In response to a listener’s phone call, the host says, “Let’s see what God says about that,” and then quotes a passage from one of Paul’s letters to the church at Corinth.   I am uncomfortable with the host’s leap from God to scripture, even as I immediately understand it.   After all, the host sees what the Bible says as coming from God.    But the difference between seeing the Bible as a divine product and seeing it as a human product is apparent.   Does a passage from Paul tell us what God says or how Paul sees things? 

Think with me about the stories of creation in Genesis.     

If we see the Bible as a divine product, then these are God’s stories of creation.   As God’s stories, they cannot be wrong.  We find ourselves attracted to the debate which pits religion against science.    We may even become involved in conflicts about whether Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution in biology courses in public schools.    

But if we see the Bible as a human product, then we read the opening chapters of Genesis, not as God’s account of creation, but as an ancient Hebrew poem.   If we ask, what are the chances that Israel’s creation poem contains scientifically accurate information, the answer is about zero.   Genesis does not answer the scientific question of “how” the world was created.  It makes a statement of faith about “why” the world was created.      

Then we could think about the laws of the Bible.  If we think of the Bible as a divine product, then the laws of the Bible are God’s laws.   To illustrate with a contemporary controversy, the law in the Hebrew Bible prohibiting homosexual behavior between men is found in Leviticus:  “You shall not lie with a male as with a women; it is an abomination.”   If we see the Bible as a divine product, then this is one of God’s laws.   The ethical question then becomes, “How can one justify setting aside one of the laws of God?”    

if we see the Bible as a human product, then the laws of the Hebrew Bible are ancient Israel’s laws, and the prohibition of homosexual behavior tells us that such behavior was considered unacceptable in ancient Israel.   The ethical question then becomes, “What would be the justification for continuing to see homosexual behavior as ancient Israel did? 

The question becomes even more acute when we realize that the law is embedding in a collection of laws that, among other things, prohibits planting two kinds of seeds in the same field and wearing garments made of two kinds of cloth.  We do not worry about these matters; most of us wear clothing made of blends without giving it a second thought.   We readily recognize some of these prohibitions as the laws of an ancient culture that we are not bound to follow.   Why, then, should we single out some as the laws of God?     

This is just one argument in a very complex spiritual issue.    And I want you to speak to one another in love.   Many persons connected to the families of St. Luke’s live in the hope and hurt of this conversation.       

For me, the conversation warms up over another passage.       

Women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing not with their hair braided, nor with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God.  Let a women learn in silence with full submission.   I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She is to keep silent.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.  Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.  (I Timothy) 

Not only are women not to teach or have authority over men, but they are not to braid their hair or wear pearls or gold or expensive clothes.   Furthermore, they are held responsible for the origin of sin in the world:  it was the woman who was deceived, not the man.   The good news is that women can be saved – through childbearing.    

If the Bible is seen as a divine product, then these are God’s restrictions on the behavior and roles of women.  Indeed, for those Protestant churches that continue to prohibit the ordination of women, this is the way the passage is seen, even through the other restrictions are ignored.  For them, the ordination of women is against “God’s Word.” 

However if the Bible is seen as a human product, then this passage tells us about how an early Christian author saw things. The contrast between this text and other more supportive readings requires that we recognize multiple voices in early Christianity speaking about the role of women and that we seek to discern which voice to honor. 

There is much at stake in this spectrum.    Those of us who are not clearly a 1 or a10 feel the tension.   Thus we must discern how to read and interpret, how to hear and value, the voices of the Bible.   Study becomes imperative!   The Bible does not come with footnotes that say, This passage reflects the will of God, the next passage does not.   Or this passage is valid for all time; the previous passage is not.   Thus, any and every claim about what a passage of scripture says involves interpretation.    On a scale of 1 to 10, where are you? 

Return to the survey of General Conference delegates.   The published report of the findings, “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the US Delegates at the 2004 General Conference”, (www.gbgm-umc.org) summarizes the results.    These numbers reflect the percentage response of the 550 United States delegates who returned their questionnaires.    

Which statement is most true for you? 

A.      The Bible is God’s direct communication, inerrant (without error) and infallible              (trustworthy).   (8)

B.       In the Bible, we discern the Word of God through the words of human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit.   (26)  

C.       The Bible bears authentic testimony to God’s self-disclosure in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.   (27)

D.      The Bible is a means of grace whereby God speaks to us still today.  (33)

E.       The Bible is the record of how the early Jewish and Christian communities viewed God.   (6)    

As your pastor, I do affirm that the Bible is and ever shall be the primary source of authority for all Christians.   And that biblical authority must not be viewed as static truth that falls off the pages of the Bible.   

Instead, it is a dynamic process that is empowered by the Holy Spirit in the midst of prayer, dialogue, scholarship, and application to the issues of today. 

I encourage your to study!   I need to demonstrate how the Bible, complete with its inherent inconsistencies, time-bound understandings, and theological evolution, is the composite of Holy Spirit-inspired human words that point to the divine Word.    

That is, the Bible is the dough of human hands,  

raised by the work of the Holy Spirit in the church  

to be the primary witness to the Bread of Life  

who is Jesus, the Risen Christ, the Word become flesh.    

 

(1) Marcus Borg uses the human-divine distinction in Reading the Bible Again for the First Time.