Introduction
Whenever we get together to worship as Christians we use a portion of Scripture to inform and guide our worship. Whenever we discuss any social, ethical or theological issue as Christians we use the Bible as a starting point. But we all use the Bible in different ways - sometimes in different ways to each other and sometimes in different ways in different circumstances ourselves. Philip's sermon last week about the death of the first born asked some powerful and searching questions about the nature of Biblical Authority. Philip suggested that the God he knows would not condemn innocent people to death - as evidently happened in the last plague - the death of the first-born. Instead Philip felt that the various writers and editors of that narrative were shaped by their own preconceptions of God and God's saving action in history and wrote from their own, much later perspective.
Many of us enjoyed Philip's sermon and thanked him for stretching us. Others were rather disturbed by it and wondered if he was a dangerous liberal. (I never think Philip is dangerous……) However, the reaction to the sermon got me thinking a little about how we, as individuals and as a body of people, deal with Scripture.
Differing Views
" The journey through the Red Sea happened exactly as the Book of Exodus described it. The people of Israel got through without getting wet, the Egyptians were not so lucky and got drowned!
" The story of the parting of the Red Sea cannot have happened in the way the book of Exodus describes it as seas do not behave like that. Some experience of liberation and escape over the water happened and it was written up in this form later on by editors several hundred years after the event.
" The issue at the heart of this passage is the saving work of God who liberated His people from slavery and led them to freedom through the waters of the Sea. In the same way as Christians we are liberated from slavery to sin through the waters of Baptism.
Which of these three do you think is the earliest view?
(Answer - the last.) In the Early Church, and in the Jewish community - stress was not put on the historicity of a piece of Scripture, stress was put on the saving work of God in this narrative and how that saving work is relevant for us now.
The classic liberal view, the second mentioned, comes from the 18th Century when people started for the first time to ask the same questions about Scripture as they did about other ancient writings.
The conservative, or fundamentalist view, which was the first to be presented is, in fact, the most modern view. It stems from a group of American writers in the early years of the 20th Century.
How Did We View the Bible?
To some Christian churches, the Bible is considered to be the sole basis of belief; the Bible is considered to be the Word of God. One of the slogans of the Protestant Reformation was "Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum (Latin for: "What is not biblical is not theological.")
The Roman Catholic Church and some other denominations consider the Bible to be a main source, supplemented by Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church stated at the Council of Trent that the Church is "...the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition." This means that the Bible is to be interpreted by the Church - a position many Protestants found difficult. Other Christian traditions, notably the Anglicans and Methodists, base their beliefs on some combination of the text of the Bible, church tradition, reason, the scientific method, and personal experience.
Depending upon the particular denomination or background we came from we will have different starting places on how we view Scripture. Of course, we may have moved on from our starting places. These different assumptions about where we get Authority from will effect how we view Scripture. If we believe that the Bible is the Word of God this will lead us to different conclusions to those who believe that God also speaks through tradition, reason and personal experience.
One of the problems is that even with a conservative view of either the whole Bible, or individual passages we can end up disagreeing. There have been major human rights conflicts throughout history in which both or all sides quoted extensively from the Bible to support their positions. This has happened over human slavery, women's suffrage, the use of contraceptives, the roles and status of women, female ordination, how to discipline children, racial segregation, inter-racial marriage, abortion access, religious tolerance, equal rights for gays and lesbians, same-sex marriage, etc.
One of the reasons why emotions currently run particularly high in the Anglican Church on topics like homosexuality is that many Christians on all sides of the issues sincerely believe that the Bible supports their viewpoint. They believe that they have interpreted the Bible correctly and have assessed the will of God on the matter. Many feel assured that God agrees with their beliefs, and that they are acting as a type of agent for God on earth.
This lack of consensus is so extreme that sincerely and devoutly held beliefs by very liberal Christians may well be considered blasphemy by very conservative Christians, and vice-versa. The end result is that, from the outside, Christianity can be more accurately viewed as a collection of religions, not as a single religion.
Recognising that there are at least four different ways of interpreting a text, I want to look at the passage we heard read today and see how each of the four methods would interpret it. I will let you decide which interpretation is most helpful to you in your Christian life - you can take a guess at what is my favoured interpretation later!
Method 1. Interpreting the Bible Literally
Christians
taking this conservative approach say that, with some allowance for literary
style, parables and metaphors, the Biblical passages should be taken literally.
On today's passage they will believe that the People of Israel walked through
the Sea dry shod, that God delivered them from the Egyptians who drowned as the
waters closed over them. It all happened exactly as the Bible describes. This
literal interpretation of the Bible is generally based on the following
foundational beliefs:
" The Bible is a unique document. It is different
from every other book in the world. Its authors were directly inspired by God at
the time that they were writing their book(s).
" The Bible is inerrant. That is, when its 66 books were originally written, God prevented the authors from making any errors. The biblical text is accurate, whether it is discussing science, history, theology, morality, or any other topic. Some minor copying errors may have occurred since those original autograph copies were written. However, they have had no significant impact on modern-day religious doctrines.
" The bible is infallible. That is, it is fully trustworthy. It does not deceive the reader.
" The Bible is correct when it identifies authors of its books. So, the Pentateuch -- the first five books in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) -- were written by Moses. All of the Epistles identified as having been written by Paul had him as their author.
" The official canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) was finalized by church leaders during the 4th century. Under God's inspiration, they separated the canonical books from the many heretical works which were then in circulation. For example, they chose exactly four Gospels from among the over 40 that were in use within the early Christian movement as God inspired, inerrant and infallible. They were led by God to reject the rest.
" All passages in the Bible are equally valid and are useful as a spiritual guide. As 2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
" The Bible is the "Word of God." It is internally absolutely consistent. It was as valid at the time of Moses as it is today, because God is unchangeable.
" Literally hundreds of apparent contradictions exist in the Bible. However, almost all can be harmonized with a little thought. A very few unimportant contradictions can be attributed to copyist errors. A few discrepancies cannot be harmonized with our currently available knowledge. However, an explanation does exist, and will be discovered some day.
" Many,
but not all, Christians who interpret the Bible literally also believe that an
unsaved individual cannot achieve a deep understanding of the Bible. However,
when the person repents of their sins and trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and
Saviour, the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within them and leads them properly
comprehend the text.
It must be said that the majority of Christians who
hold to this view of Scripture tend to be very Conservative when dealing with
people like us.
Method 2. Interpreting the Bible as a Historical Document:
Liberal Christians who use this approach to biblical interpretation view the Bible as having been written by very human, fallible authors. The writers were motivated by a desire to promote their own religious, spiritual, and political beliefs and/or those of their faith group.
Liberals would see today's passage as myth. They may concede that there was some natural disaster at the time which caused the waters of the sea to draw back - as what happens when a Tsunami gathers strength, and the waters were back long enough for the people to pass through. They would not, however, believe that God intervened in the nick of time, but would say that this natural phenomenon was interpreted by the people as God's saving action.
Thus,
the Bible reflects the evolution of religious and cultural thought over about a
ten century time span. Some beliefs which are common to those using this
interpretive technique include:
" The authors of the Bible were very
human and often made mistakes in their writing.
" Biblical writers attempted to explain their beliefs about God and his will for humanity. Being fallible, they sometimes wrote material that was contrary to the will of God.
" Some
parts of the Bible should be ignored and are not suitable as a guide to modern
living. Typical examples are: laws regulating slavery, restricting the roles of
women, ordering genocide, torturing prisoners, allowing the rape of female
prisoners of war, requiring the murder of religious and sexual minorities,
requiring the burning of some prostitutes alive, and many other activities
considered profoundly immoral by today's ethical standards.
" The authors
were limited by the tribal nature of their culture, their theocratic or
dictatorial political structure, their lack of scientific knowledge, etc. Human
rights were not highly valued in biblical times. With few exceptions, women
experienced a low status in the culture.
" Some passages have been added by unknown authors since the original texts were written.
" Accidental and intentional errors have occurred in copying.
" Entire books in the Bible have been written many decades or even centuries after the apparent author died. This particularly true of some of the Letters in the New Testament - 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus -- all state that they were written by Paul. However, they were actually composed 35 to 85 years after Paul's death.
" The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses circa 1450 BC. It was written by four anonymous authors or groups of authors generally referred to as J, E, P and D, and later edited by "R."
" The Bible contains much material copied from neighbouring Pagan cultures. Three examples are the pair of creation stories, the flood of Noah, and the tower of Babel.
" Some
biblical passages are religious propaganda, and not historically reliable. The
gospels' text which blamed "the Jews" for the execution of Jesus is one example.
Those passages in the Bible are much more closely linked to conflicts between
Jews and Christians some 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death, than to real
historical events at the time of Jesus' ministry.
" Jesus actually said
only a very few of the words attributed to him in the Gospels. Jesus spoke in
Aramaic. The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) were written in Greek. English
versions of the Bible are thus translations from Greek into English of words
which were earlier translated from Aramaic into Greek.
" Very few of the words or acts by Jesus in the Gospel of John refer to real events.
" Bible passages have to be interpreted according to the beliefs of the writers and the culture in which they lived. They may or may not be valid today.
" The early Christian church was divided into many differing traditions: (e.g. Jewish, Pauline, and Gnostic Christianity). The books of the Bible were chosen in the fourth century CE from among about 50 gospels, hundreds of epistles, many infancy stories, many books of revelation etc. They were mainly chosen on the basis of their conformity with orthodox Christian beliefs as they existed at the time. Another consideration was whether the book was written by an Apostle or by someone closely associated with an Apostle. The church leaders who selected books for the official canon were often mistaken in their understanding of exactly who had written the books. Non-conforming books were suppressed, and sometimes lost forever. Yet they contained much valuable material about the primitive Christian movement. Some of the books purportedly written by Paul were written by unknown authors many decades after Paul's death.
" It is helpful to study the books of the Christian Scriptures in chronological order. One can detect how particular beliefs -- e.g. the virgin birth -- apparently developed through time.
" Modern versions of the Bible are reasonably accurate translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts from which they came, but still reflect the prejudices of the translators, and the belief systems of the religious institutions which sponsored them. Older translations, like the KJV, are less reliable because their translators had less complete knowledge of Hebrew, and had access to fewer ancient manuscripts.
" Recent findings of the physical, social and medical sciences have shown that some parts of the Bible cannot be considered accurate. (e.g. the creation stories, mental illness caused by demon infestation, concepts of the structure of the universe, origin of various languages, etc).
Method 3. Interpreting the Bible as Midrash:
This is a method of looking at the Bible from a totally different perspective. I think it moves us away from an increasingly sterile debate between the liberals who struggle to find any spiritual meaning in the text and the fundamentalists whose spiritual meanings seem strange and difficult for many modern readers.
This approach looks at how the passage in question connects us with the past. So in today's reading the Hebrew people were trapped between the Red or Reed Sea and the approaching Egyptian army. Moses cried out to God who parted the sea so that the Israelites could pass in safety. The purpose of the story was to show the people of Israel that God was on their side and that Moses could call on Him for protection. It is set in a series of events where God shows great care for the Chosen People. It is not useful to ask whether the partings of the waters actually occurred. A more fruitful question is "what was the experience that led, or even compelled, the compilers of this sacred tradition to include this moment, this life or this event in the Scriptures?
This is perhaps the earliest Jewish and Christian way of interpreting Scripture. It moves us away from whether some events actually happened in the way described and debates about the bias of the editors. It moves us towards the God who is at the heart of the experiences. The experience of liberation was so profound that it had to be included. This story was used by Early Church as a pre-cursor of Baptism - through the waters people are freed. If you attend the Easter Vigil which St Chrysostom's hold on Easter Saturday you will hear a lot of readings and prayers around the parting of the Sea and its links with Christian baptism. The experience of liberation then was profound and it reflects on the experience of liberation that Christians have being baptised. In modern times these stories of freedom inspired Christians in Latin America to work for political freedom from oppressive regimes - in the same way that Moses and his people found political freedom. Just as in the Eucharist the saving events of Calvary are made present for us now, so the liberating power of God which set the Jewish people free, set free Latin Americans from political oppression.
MCC - A Community of Difference
In the recent membership classes I said that one of the great strengths of MCC is that it is diverse. As an international denomination and as a local church we have great diversity. It is also our greatest weakness. We can easily become distracted by political, theological, ethical and moral differences. Yet the Christian Church has always had to deal with difference; our challenge is to show that there is a new way of being church, a place where conservative, catholic, liberal and "don't care" can work and worship together. A church where our preaching and teaching can stretch and comfort us, can inspire and infuriate us and where our Good News is not simply the lowest common denominator. Little did the editors of the Book of Exodus know that some 3,500 years later their work would still be read, debated, debunked and used to inspire liberation movements.
For me the story of the Jewish people leaving Egypt and finding their promised land is about a spiritual journey that many of us have been on. We have lived in places of oppression; for many of us these places of oppression were in the Christian Church. Yet God has led us out of oppression, sometimes in quite dramatic ways. We have been led out into the Wilderness to find new ways of loving, new ways of being Church and for many of us to find new ways of dealing with Scripture. Just as God was with those freed slaves many years ago, so God is with us as we journey towards not a promised land, but a promised Church where all shall be free.
Amen.
This sermon was first preached in the Metropolitan Community Church
of Manchester. Click here for further
information.