Scripture - Is It True?

Below I have pasted part of Debby's comment from my June 4th post, "Let's Talk About Article of Faith #4":

"Until I hit about 37 years old I never really thought about whether God’s word was literally true or not. No one ever really talks about this in church circles, do they? So, I have had a child’s faith in believing all scripture was literally factual, which has always been very mind blowing; but I chalked it up to, 'With God anything is possible.'  So, I understand that the Bible is inspired by God and written by men and each person has their own style of writing; but how does one determine what is factual and what is for learning purposes? For example, is Jonah just a big fish tale or is it literally true?"

These are important questions.  Perhaps the one that stood out to me, most prominently, was, "No one ever really talks about this in church circles, do they?"  This stood out to me, first, because having been blessed to spend so much time in the world of academia, I am always talking about this!  Sometimes I forget that not everyone (or maybe not anyone) is having these kinds of conversations.  But second, it caused me to consider the reactions I have had from others when I begin to talk like this in non-academic circles.  No wonder people sometimes react so vehemently.  This is new material to them.  This requires change.  How did I miss that?

Before I even begin to dive in and answer some of the other questions, I think we have to agree to make a distinction between "literal" and "true", because (as I mentioned in the earlier post) these words are not synonymous.  I think Debby also added another layer of depth to this discussion by using the word "factual".  Interestingly enough, I would also not accept "factual" as a synonym for "literal" or "true".

Let me reiterate, I believe that all Scripture is true.  But I understand that you're asking, "What does that mean?"  Let me also make it clear that it's OK if this post is frustrating to you, and let me share a brief story about myself that might make you feel better about that...

I recently took an Old Testament Interpretation class.  As much as I love school... and theology... and philosophy... Can I admit to you that Bible classes scare me to death?  I'm not sure exactly why, but I think it has something to do with this vague notion in my head that if I mess up a philosophical principle the world will go on, but if I mess up Scripture it could be devastating to... well... someone...  At any rate, I am not especially conservative when it comes to Biblical Interpretation, and sometimes I probably even scare the people in my cohort a little bit, so I am sure it was super funny to them when we started discussing the patriarchs, and whether or not they were literal people who actually walked the earth and lived these particular stories, and apparently it was more of a deal breaker for me than I realized, because I was sitting in a synchronous chat and just about freaking out over the notion that the patriarchs might not be "real".  And, of course, I was also trying to defend myself, "I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not a literalist, really, I'm kind of liberal, even..."  Cue cohort members trying desperately not to laugh in my face, because they know all of these things about me, but something about needing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be very real raised some enormous red flags for me.  I say all of this, really, to say that it's OK if something here raises some red flags.  We can work through this. 

The question, "How does one determine what is factual and what is for learning purposes?" is valid.  I could go a lot of different ways with this.  There are several methods of biblical interpretation that could be employed here.  But before I give you a list of things to do in order to discern factual information from Scripture, I'd like to say that the more important issue is that Scripture is all for orthodoxy (right beliefs, perhaps "learning purposes")... and orthopraxy (right conduct)... and orthopathy (right heart).  At its core, Scripture should be transformative.

Are facts transformative?  Maybe some of them.  As an example, I think we have to accept the resurrection as fact.  Of course, the resurrection narrative is written in the gospels, two (maybe three) of which are widely accepted as firsthand accounts of the life of Christ.  I really can't find a compelling reason to question the historical authenticity of this event, which, let's face it, is central to our understanding of salvation. 

With that said, I think that a "plain reading" of Scripture is often the best place to start.  As we read Scripture, we should allow the Holy Spirit to work in and through us in such a way that we begin to think theologically, we begin to look for various meanings in the text, we allow Scripture to speak to us.  And, sometimes, I think we find that what is written is, simply, what is written.

However, it always serves us well to dig deep.  Exploring various translations of Scripture can be helpful to determining what particular passages mean.  If you are fluent in biblical languages, which I am not, it is certainly worthwhile to read the earliest possible translations.  Even if you are not fluent in biblical languages, a good lexicon can help to guide you through word studies and the understanding of specific terms.  It's worthwhile to grasp what was actually written in light of the polished versions we most commonly possess today.

Context certainly matters, as well.  A good question to ask might be, "Why was this originally written?"  Whether or not a portion of Scripture contains historical facts, it was certainly written at some historical time, so there are naturally going to be significant truths found in these words that were important enough to write down and pass on during an age when it wasn't nearly so easy to do so as it is now. 

You might ask, "Who wrote this?"  Often people become very distressed over things that are seemingly contradictory in Scripture, but we need to remember that differing narratives can often be accounted for by differing perspectives.  You and I could experience the same event, and our stories will be different based on all kinds of things.  Does this make one account true and the other false?  Absolutely not! 

This bleeds over into the interpretation process, itself.  It's a regular occurrence for multiple people to glean multiple meanings from the same passage of Scripture.  In fact, the same person might come away with something different when reading the same passage at various times.  To borrow from Richard Kearney, in his book, The God Who May Be, he talks about the potential for an unlimited number of interpretations of Scripture.  Are some interpretations more true than others?  Undoubtedly.  But that does not negate the truth of Scripture, itself.

To specifically answer the question about facts, I don't think it's really all that difficult to do some research that leads to the understanding that there are certainly people, events, and dates within Scripture that line up with what we might find in a history textbook.  A task such as this one is undoubtedly easier to undertake in regard to biblical literature that is historical in nature to begin with.  Many of the biblical texts are not.  What about poetry, metaphors, and parables?  Can't truth be found even in fiction?  These are difficult questions, because the natural tendency is to push back against this, but I might suggest that we stop doing that!

An example from my life that is quickly becoming a favorite is a conversation that my daughter, Grace, and I had on a long car ride a few months ago.  We were talking about how important (or not) it is for every word of Scripture to be literal, and I asked her, "Grace, is God a rock?" (see Psalm 18:2).  And then, we laughed and laughed.  Even the most literal of interpreters I have met don't actually hold to a completely literal view of Scripture.  I think this is evidenced by the fact that I know absolutely no one who has cut off a hand or gouged out an eye (see Matthew 5:29-30).  Perhaps we should start asking, "What is the best interpretation," because I'm pretty sure none of us are really literalists.

L.

What If Marriage Was A Sacrament?

Oh, wait...  How ironic is that?

Now, let me be clear, so as not to cause any confusion.  In the Church of the Nazarene, as an official position, we recognize two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist.  To be a Nazarene, you do not have to recognize marriage as a sacrament, but I'd like to make a case for why we should.

Let's take a look at Matthew 19:4-6.  These are the words of Jesus when asked specifically about divorce, and I don't want to take them out of context, but I think there are some relatively important points about marriage, in general, that can be discerned from these words:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (NIV).

I think, in our current culture, that a lot of people get really wrapped up in what people are doing in this passage, and, perhaps a lot of people get wrapped up in what people are doing something in this passage.  These are important details to work through, but I'm not sure they are nearly as important as what God is doing here, particularly if we actually believe that God does something when we practice the sacraments.

In marriage, God joins two people and makes them one.  And, come on, this is not even figurative language here, friends.  I'm pretty sure if you're old enough to be reading my blog, you know how this works.  Jesus uses the word  flesh, or the Greek, sarka, in this passage.  It is the same word used for flesh in John 6 when Jesus instructs the disciples that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, which, sounds somewhat like a foreshadowing of the first Eucharist, if you ask me.  It's the same word used for various negative references to living according to the flesh, living according to human nature or living according to what the body wants.  There are a lot of beautiful literary references in Scripture that walk us through metaphors and hyperbole and narrative, but any way I look at this one, it means flesh.  I can't seem to get around it.  With the consummation of marriage, God literally fuses the flesh of two people together.

But here's where it gets a little bit dicey.  This is not temporary!  Scripture doesn't say, "So they are no longer two, but one flesh, and then a little while later they're two again, and it's kind of a cycle that you just have to get used to."  No, Scripture says that once these two people become one flesh, joined by God, no one is supposed to mess with that.  There is no going back.  This is a permanent deal.

But, oh my goodness, have we ever messed it up!

Homosexuality is a hot button issue right now, and in a comment from my May 28th post entitled, "With Much Wisdom," Bryan said, "The Church of Jesus Christ has shunned and condemned the gay community for far too long. All sexual sin needs to be addressed, not just homosexuality. How many divorces are happening in the church because of a variety of sexual sins by those sitting in the pews every week?"  (Bryan also asked some more excellent, specific questions, but in order to give them all ample thought and time I am breaking it down a little bit.) 

Wow.  This is a comment that needs to be addressed.  Let me share something personal, because people like stories, right?

My family is pretty special.  I used to be more legalistically leaning, though, and my definition of special has changed over the years.  Let me explain what I mean.  I used to think that one of the defining things that made us special was our family make-up.  Phil and I were both virgins on our wedding night.  For crying out loud, I was 17!  Is it really that hard to get to 17?  But I digress...  We have been married for almost 18 years, and we have five children.  All of our children are ours, together.  There are no step children.  There are no previous spouses.  There are no children born outside of marriage.  Neither of us has ever had sex with anyone else, ever.  Aren't we awesome?  By pretty much everyone's standards of sexual purity, we're it! 

Let's say I found myself in a room filled with a randomly selected cross section of adults.  As sexual sins were listed, people were asked to sit down if they had ever participated in these sins that are destroying the "institution of marriage" (I'm sorry, but I hate that.  Institution?  Really?).  You could run down a pretty good sized list.  Homosexual acts, premarital sex, extra marital sex.  I just shared my story!  You know I'm going to be the last one standing!          

But then, here comes Jesus, again, turning the whole thing on its head.

Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman (or man) lustfully has already committed adultery with her (or him) in his heart" (NIV, parenthesis mine).

Oh, crap.  I just sat down.

How perfect can we get it, friends?  Who gets to make the judgment call?  For a long time I thought it was me, but as you can see that's not the case, and I think, maybe, we've got the whole issue wrong.

Bryan also asked, "How should the Church respond to the impending ruling from the Supreme Court on gay 'marriage'?"

Marriage is a covenant relationship, but as a church we have given it to the government and connected it with civil rights.  I'm not sure marriage has anything, at all, to do with civil rights, but I am sure that we, as the church, have absolutely no business taking civil rights away from anyone.

I'm all about semantics, and so I'd like to suggest that maybe we need a new word.

If marriage is a legally binding piece of paper that says that two people have decided to love each other for as long as it is convenient, and most ideally forever, and that they can share benefits, raise their kids together, have full privacy and visitation rights in the case of illness, file taxes jointly, and have a wedding, and a reception, with a cake, then I can't really find a reason to stand vehemently in the way of anyone looking for this kind of contract.  People are looking for equal rights (which we have established in this country on a political, not religious, basis, which is not really a good topic of conversation for this particular blog, because I'm not a very good patriot).

If the church would like to reclaim marriage as a sacramental covenant, then I think we have to recognize that we will have to change our language.  Think this through, please.  When does the government ever get involved in the administration of baptism or the Eucharist?  If the church wants to adhere to Scriptural requirements for the sacramental covenant of marriage, we can do that, and no one is going to get upset over it any more than I get upset when I can't partake in the Eucharist at a local Catholic church, because I'm not a member (OK, this kind of makes me upset, but I'm not going to create a scene or anything). 

But let's still be careful...  Returning to my earlier words, who really has it all together?  Can any of us create the perfect scenario in which our own marriages are safeguarded from every potential evil?  I don't know.  Maybe those of you reading this are actually much better people than I am.  That is certainly well within the realm of possibility.  But I can't do it on my own.  I need God to do something in marriage.  I need marriage to be sacramental, and I need it to be ongoing, too.  Let's not confuse marriage with the wedding.

L.