Warren McDougall

Richmond Hill United Church

January 13, 2013

The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture

Nehemiah 8:1-4a, 5-6, 8

Every organization has its “in” language – [acronyms, short-forms and “code words”] – that people within the organization usually understand, and people outside the organization often don’t.

Most people who have been around the United Church for at least 25 years will know what we mean when we talk about “The Issue” – [capital “T”, capital “I”] – and will nod knowingly when we talk about what happened in 1988. “The Issue in 1988” – those few words and numbers convey an awful lot of information and a lot of feeling!

For those of you who haven’t been around for that long, 1988 was the year when the General Council of the United Church addressed “the issue” of the ordination of self-declared gay and lesbian ministers, and approved the statement that “sexual orientation in and of itself would not be a barrier to ordination”.

Well, as you can imagine (if you were not around), and as you know (if you were around), all hell broke loose! Some Commissioners/Delegates to that General Council were nervous about returning to their congregations and communities, so great was the anger. Many people (I don’t know how many) left the United Church for other denominations, and whole congregations pulled out of the United Church to form “community churches”, sparking nasty conflicts over the ownership of church property. Congregations and communities were split. It wasn’t pretty! In fact, it got real ugly real fast!

But even out of such chaos, such conflict and pain, comes some good. It was kind of a “fork in the road” for the United Church, which chose at that time what kind of church we would be. While we’ve always tried to be a lot of different things to a lot of different people, we discovered in 1988 that what you cannot be is everything to everybody all the time! The Commissioners to that General Council were well aware of the conflict and division that would ensue, but chose the path that they felt was right for the United Church, come what may. To use a biblical image, it “separated the wheat from the chaff” – and I’m not saying which is which. Although I will say that I’ve been called a lot worse things than chaff!

Another good thing that happened was that we realized that we needed to be clearer about the place/role of the Bible in the United Church. Both sides in “The Issue” – [and, yes, there were “sides”!] – used the Bible to support their positions. The “anti-ordination” side could easily quote the 5 anti-homosexual passages of Scripture (and there are only 5) as proof that they were right. And the “pro-ordination” side could just as easily quote the prophets’ calls for justice and equality for all God’s people, and Jesus’ teaching and example of the inclusion of the “outsider”, the “marginalized” and “oppressed” to bolster their argument.

A study on “The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture” had been in the works for several years. In fact, Robert Wallace, writing in “Fire and Grace”, the book that was published to celebrate the United Church’s 75th Anniversary in 2000, wrote that “the differing attitudes to the authority of Scripture had been smouldering beneath the surface since Church Union in 1925”. Now – [post-1988] – it seemed urgent.

The study – “The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture” – was undertaken in the late 80’s/early 90’s. Every individual, every congregation, every Presbytery and Conference in the church was invited to participate. And many did. In fact, in terms of sheer numbers of people involved and responses received, it was “one of the most extensive church studies” ever undertaken.

You know the expression that “a camel is a horse created by a committee”? Well, the United Church is really good at creating camels out of horses – due in large part to our great diversity, and the desire to cover every possible angle of an issue. So the final report on “The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture” was kind of “a camel of a report”, containing 6 “Convictions” about the Bible (including the first one, which says that “God calls us to engage the Bible as foundational authority as we seek to live the Christian life”); as well as 5 “Insights and Implications” (including the first one which says that “engaging the Bible is not optional for the Christian community”). [I’ll have copies of the full document at the Talkback for those who would like to read the whole thing – all 41 pages of it!]

But today, I’d like to offer just a couple of suggestions to give us the language to talk about the place of the Bible in our lives as individual Christians and as a Christian community – especially as we go through the “Affirming Congregation” process and consider the inclusion of LGBT people within our congregation. The report helpfully divides the discussion into 2 areas – authority and interpretation. Let’s begin with “interpretation”.

Generally speaking (very generally speaking!) there are 2 ways of interpreting Scripture: 1) there are Biblical literalists, who interpret the Bible literally; and 2) there are those who interpret the Bible contextually, that is, taking into account the historical and cultural context in which it was written, and metaphorically, always looking for a “larger than literal” meaning.

(1) Marcus Borg, in his book “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time”, describes the view of the Biblical literalist in this way: to the Biblical literalist, the Bible is a divine product; the Bible is viewed as “the Word of God”, inspired by the Holy Spirit – or, as Gretta Vosper puts it “The Authoritative Word of God for All Time”! As a “divine product”, it is seen as the ultimate authority about what to believe and how to live. In terms of interpretation, the Bible is seen as historically and factually true; what the Bible says happened really happened.

For the Biblical literalist, what the Bible says about homosexuality – [that it is an “abomination”] – is literally true – as true in 2012 as the day it was written several thousand years ago. And what the Bible says about the place of women in society and their role in the church – [that they are to be silent, and submissive to their husbands] – is literally true – as true today as the day it was written.

Read literally, the Bible is also anti-Semitic, pro-slavery and pro-child abuse! Theologian Phyllis Trible refers to some of these parts of the Bible as “texts of terror”. John Spong calls them “the sins of scripture”.

Again, this is a huge generalization, but I don’t think that most United Church people (at least those who’ve thought about it) are Biblical literalists – your 2 ministers certainly aren’t!

(2) What I described as reading the Bible “contextually”, Borg refers to as the “historical-metaphorical” approach. (Same thing!)

By “historical” he means asking the question, “what did this text mean in the ancient historical/cultural context in which it was written?”, and takes seriously the vast distance between us and the biblical past. It understands the Bible as a human product – the product of 2 ancient communities: the ancient Jewish community, and the early Christian community, worlds very different from our own. What the Bible says are the words of those 2 communities, not God’s words!

When we say that we read the Bible “metaphorically”, we mean that we are able to see beyond the particularity of what the text meant in its ancient historical/cultural setting. Metaphorical language is intrinsically non-literal, and so it has more than one nuance or resonance of meaning. Linda’s sermon last Sunday provided a perfect example of this, when she was talking about the star which the Magi spotted in the sky and followed to Jesus. Many have speculated: Was it a conjunction of certain planets? Was it a comet? A supernova or hypernova? The answer? “Who cares?!” The real question, Linda suggested, was this one: “What wonders might we discover when we allow ourselves to gaze at something, the way the Magi gazed at that Star?”

Read literally, the story of the Magi following the star has meaning only for one group of people, living in one place, at one time in history. Read metaphorically, the story can have meaning for all of us – whenever and wherever we live.

“Interpretation” of Scripture is one issue; “Authority” of Scripture is another. When it comes to “authority” of Scripture, the United Church’s position is two-fold: 1) that the Bible has what it calls “foundational authority” for us in the United Church; but 2) that the Bible is not the only source of authority for us.

One of the most helpful tools that I’ve found for theological reflection – [and I’ve shared this with many of you in study groups and one-on-one conversations] – is something called “Wesley’s Quadrilateral” – “Wesley’s” because it originated with John Wesley, the father of Methodism and, therefore, of the United Church; and “Quadrilateral” because (logically) it has 4 parts.

“Wesley’s Quadrilateral” is basically a method for engaging in theological reflection, a way of “coming to understand issues and make decisions from a Christian point of view”. The 4 “quadrants” are: Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition. So “Scripture” is just one source of authority for Christians.

Of the others, “Reason” refers to what we think, what is logical, what is rational and reasonable. Science, research, study, intellectual discipline - all of these come under the heading of “reason”.

“Experience” refers to our own personal experience of life and faith, the way we make sense of life, seeing patterns and looking for meaning and purpose. The story of faith is the story of reflecting on our own experience, and valuing that experience as a legitimate source of authority for our lives.

The 4th quadrant is “Tradition”. “Tradition” is what reminds us of our roots in “the Church universal” – the “holy catholic church” as we say at Baptism. Even though the United Church is a very young church (just 88 years old), we are shaped by the past in ways that are subtle but powerful, and reflection on our “tradition” provides another source of authority for Christians.

Of course, a logical question to ask is: are these 4 sources of authority – [scripture, reason, experience and tradition] – are these equal in authority, or is one more important than the others?

Personally, I would answer that “it depends”. It depends on what the issue is; it depends on what the question is that I’m struggling with or reflecting on.

For example, if the question is: “how did the earth, as we know it, come into being?” – I mean literally, physically come into being? Well, I would not turn to the Bible for an answer to that question. I would turn to “Reason”, to science. Genesis may answer questions about “our place in the created order, about our relationship with God and the rest of creation, and about God’s hope and intention for human life”, but was never intended to be a “scientific account” of how the world came to be!

On the other hand, if I had suffered a terrible loss of some kind –[the death of a loved one or some other tragedy, and I was sad, and lonely and afraid – in need of comfort] – I would be very unlikely to appeal to science, but would immediately turn to “Scripture”: to the Psalms (“I will raise you up on eagle’s wings, bear you on the breath of dawn, make you to shine like the sun, and hold you in the palm of my hand”); or to Paul’s words to the Romans (“neither death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God”); or John’s vision of a new heaven and a new earth (“Death will be no more; neither will there be mourning and crying and pain…God will wipe away every tear from their eyes”).

Or…..if someone asked me, “Who is God, to you? What is God like?”, I’m pretty sure that I would not turn to “Tradition” – to the creeds and doctrines and dogmas and all the gobbley-gook that theologians and others have told me I should believe. I would be more likely, in that case, to appeal to “Experience” – to my own personal experience of who God is – the One who has accompanied me through all the ups and downs of a pretty ordinary life.

On the other hand, I think I would be likely to appeal to “Tradition” at a time when I needed the security and comfort of an ancient ritual or liturgy – or a grand old hymn, like “Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah”.

Toward the end of the Report, almost as an afterthought, is this statement: “Jesus Christ is the foundational authority for testing even our engagement with Scripture”. I think maybe that’s the most important thing in the whole report! In my reading of Scripture, when I come across something that puzzles me or confuses me, I always ask the question: “Is this consistent with the ministry, teaching and example of Jesus?” And if it’s not, I’ll go with Jesus every time!

Buddhists often speak of the Buddha as “a finger pointing to the moon”. The metaphor helps guard against the mistake of thinking that “being a Buddhist” means “believing in Buddhist teaching” – that is, believing in “the finger”. As the metaphor implies, one is to see – [and pay attention to] – that to which the finger points.

To apply the metaphor to the Bible, the Bible is like a finger pointing to the moon, a finger pointing to God. We sometimes make the mistake of thinking that “being a Christian” is about “believing in the Bible”, rather than seeing the Christian life as a relationship to that to which the Bible points, to God.

Thanks be to God.

1