One of the things which I am discovering about my sermon
series on “Confronting Our Doubts” is that each topic could actually be a
sermon series in its own right. That was
certainly the case last Sunday, when my topic was “Is the Bible Literally
True?” There was much more to say on
this topic. Following the service,
someone asked me to elaborate more on the conclusion of my sermon and to post
my four points about how I, personally, read and interpret the Bible.
So, today I am going
to blog a follow-up to my sermon on interpreting the Bible literally, with the
promise that I will post a blog on Thursday, previewing the sermon for this
coming Sunday, January 20th: “Can I Be
Christian and Also Accept Evolution?”
In my sermon, I tried to treat all viewpoints fairly and
sympathetically. And, I really
appreciated the point made in the “Preface” to the 1978 “Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy.” As I paraphrased
the Statement in my sermon: “What is
important is not so much whether we interpret the scriptures literally or
not. Rather, what is most important is
that others can see the scriptures portrayed in the way we live our
lives.” This is a very important insight
to remember.
As promised, I concluded by sharing how I interpret the
Bible in my own faith journey. What I
came to realize in preparing the sermon was that there are some parts of the
Bible that I interpret literally and other parts that I just cannot interpret
literally. If I take this position, then
it is important to articulate some guidelines or criteria, which guide my
thinking in discerning which parts of the Bible should be interpreted literally
and which parts should not be interpreted literally. So, I concluded my sermon by delineating four
points that guide my thinking:
1. The Bible is just one way in which God
is present and speaks to us. On
this point, I really appreciate Albert Outler’s proposal for a “Wesleyan
Quadrilateral,” which recognizes that God speaks to us in four broad
categories:
a.
Scripture
b. Tradition/History—including the
teachings of the Church Fathers and other historical figures, such as John Wesley.
c.
Experience—including
our personal experiences, such as God speaking to us through prayer or,
spiritually, through a beautiful sunset or by walking in a forest. Experience also includes the experiences of
other persons whom we know, as well as the experience of our community of
faith.
d.
Reason
I believe that scripture is our
principal means of learning about God and how God intends for us to live our
lives. However, I also believe that the
other forms of learning about God are also important and that there should be
some consonance between scripture, along with tradition, experience, and
reason.
Here’s an example of what I mean by
consonance: When I was in high school, I
questioned how I could objectively know that the Bible was really sacred
scripture. Afterall, I was growing up in
the southern United States, in the area frequently called the “Bible
Belt.” And, other religions have their
own sacred texts, such as the Torah in Judaism, the Qur’an in Islam, and the
Vedas in Hinduism. How could I know for
sure that out of all these sacred texts, the Bible was the divinely inspired
Word of God?
I struggled with this question for
years. Finally, I accepted the Bible as
the sacred text for me because there was a consonance between the Bible and my
experiences in life, as well as the experiences of my family and
community. In other words, my life
experiences confirmed that the Bible was my sacred text.
(Now, obviously, my Jewish friends
may claim that same consonance for the Torah; my Muslim friends may claim that
same consonance for the Qur’an, and Hindu friends for Vedas, and so on for
friends from other religious traditions.
Although I’ll speak in more depth on February 3rd, my basic position is
that that is to be expected because my Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and
other friends have all had different experiences than me.)
2. God loves each and every person,
including me. The only way to respond to
God’s love is with love. Love
and human dignity run like a red thread throughout the scriptures, from
beginning to end. We see this thread in
the very first chapter of the Bible: “So
God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male
and female he created them.” (Genesis
1:27)
If each human person possesses the
image of God, then we must treat each person with love and dignity. This red thread runs throughout all of the
scripture, until the end where we read:
“We love because he first loved us.
Those who say, ‘I love God,’ and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars;
for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love
God whom they have not seen.” (1 John 4:
19-20)
I believe that God intends for our
love to extend beyond human persons to include all of God’s Creation because
God saw that all Creation was “Very Good.” (Genesis 1: 31) Given
this red thread that runs throughout, I believe that in order to be consistent,
I must interpret scriptural passages about justice and environment stewardship
as literally true. Therefore, the Great
Judgment in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus tells us to care for those who
are hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison (Matthew 25:
31-46), I believe Jesus literally means that we are to do just that.
3. The Bible was not intended to be a
modern scientific textbook. I
really appreciate and agree with the point made in the “Exposition” of the 1978
“Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” when the conference writes that we
should treat the sections in the Bible as the type of literature which they
were intended to be. To quote the
document directly: “So history must be
treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and
metaphor…”.
The point where I part ways with
the Chicago Statement is that I do not see any portion of Scripture, which was
intended as a modern science textbook.
How could there have ever been this intention, since modern science, as
we know it, did not emerge until literally hundreds of years after the canon
was set? Therefore, it is inappropriate
to literally interpret the Creation Story in Genesis 1—as well as the Creation
Story in Genesis 2—as though they were intended to be a science textbook and
thus a literal account of Creation. This
does not mean that these Creation stories are unimportant. They are crucially important and they have
important things to tell us about humans’ relationship with nature and God’s
relationship with nature as well as with us.
A similar case could be made for all of the miracles in the Hebrew
Scriptures and the New Testament.
4. When God is Ready, God will create and
establish God’s Reign on a New Heaven and New Earth. The Staff-Parish Relations Committee
(Personnel Committee) at Meriden UMC has asked that I preach a whole sermon
series on this point as part of some continuing education that I have been
doing. So, there is a sermon series
planned, beginning on Easter Sunday. For
now, I will just say that I interpret the stories of Jesus’ Resurrection and
the promise of Heaven as being literally true.
Well, those are the four points that I made at the
conclusion of my sermon on interpreting the Bible literally. As I noted in the sermon, I may be
completely—or, perhaps partially—wrong on this topic. If you think that I’m wrong—or, even if you
think I am right—please feel free to post a comment on this blog and tell me
why you agree or disagree with me.
Also, please check this blog tomorrow for a preview of
Sunday’s sermon on evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment