No Room in the Inn?

During the bulk of my 15 years of preaching, I have not given the due diligence to my sermon preparation.  Content that my seminary preparation had given me enough when interpreting the biblical text, I would read over the text, pick out a topic that the text seemed to address, and then put together a short, sweet sermon that ensured that everyone would reach their favorite restaurant before other congregations finished their worship.

I realize no how not only was I giving my congregation the short end of the stick, I was also neglecting my own personal growth in understanding this marvelous story of God's love.  I was also allowing the biases of what I had been taught throughout the years dominate instead of truly digging in to what the Scriptures really said.  And I have found that in some cases, the translation of one, single word can make a huge difference.

I have seen several links in my Facebook feed from fellow clergy and others this week about Mary and Joseph being turned away from the inn.  Some have tied this event to the current refugee crisis even proclaiming that we are all "innkeepers."  While there is indeed a tie between how we treat refugees and our Christian faith, using the story of Mary and Joseph's travels to Bethlehem to make this point isn't necessarily the best thing to do.

Why?

What if I told you Mary and Joseph weren't turned away from an inn?

Maybe that strikes you as odd considering everything you have ever been taught.  Maybe that strikes you as sacrilegious.  Maybe I am ruining the Christmas story for you.  

I would apologize, but there is something even more significant going on.  I never realized it until this week when I actually picked up my commentaries and read through what they said about this text.  

Let me walk you through what they say:

John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary: κατάλυμα (kataluma) is a flexible word and can denote any kind of place where one might stay, from a primitive inn to a guest-room of a house to a totally unspecified place where one might stay...On this reading it is best to think of an overcrowded Palestinian peasant home: a single-roomed home with an animal stall under the same roof (frequently to be distinguished from the family living quarters only by the raised platform floor of the latter)...κατάλυμα will, then refer to the living quarters provided by a single-roomed Palestinian home in which hospitality has been extended to Mary and Joseph.

Walter L. Liefeld, New Expositor's Bible Commentary: The word katalyma, usually translated "inn" may mean a room (e.g. the "guest room" used for the Last Supper [Luke 22:11], referred to as an "upper room" in [Luke 22:12], a billet for soldiers, or any place of lodging, which would include inns.  It is not, however, the usual Greek word for an inn--pandocheion, to which the Good Samaritain took the robbery victim (10:34).

Joel B. Green, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The term Luke employs here for "guest room" is often translated in English as "inn."  However, the same term appears in 22;11 with the meaning "guest room," and the verbal form occurs in 9:12 and 19:7 with the sense of "finding lodging" or "be a guest."  Moreover in 10:34, where a commercial inn is clearly demanded by the text, Luke draws on different vocabulary.  It is doubtful whether a commercial inn actually existed in Bethlehem, which stood on no major roads...That "guest room" is the more plausible meaning here is urged by the realization that in peasant homes in the ancient Near East family and animals slept in one enclosed space with the animals located on the lower level.  Mary and Joseph, then, would have been the guests of family or friends, but their home would have been so overcrowded that the baby was placed in a feeding trough.

According to the Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: κατάλυμα: guest room, dining room, Mk 14:14; Lk 22:11.  Since Lk 10:34 uses the more specific term for inn, πανδοχειον, the term κ in 2:7 is best understood as guest room.

There are a couple of possibilities on this: one, the house was so crowded that Mary and Joseph had no place to set down the baby Jesus, and so they headed downstairs to lay him down in the manger. That's the nice reading.

The second is one my wife had insight into when I was telling her about the appropriate translation.  Mary and Joseph were no married when Mary became pregnant.  Despite what I am sure Joseph said, his willingness to stay with Mary undoubtedly brought shame to Joseph's family.  Joseph and Mary would have been seen as outsiders; breakers of God's Law.  Mary should have been stoned to death.  The fact that Joseph didn't have this done or dismiss Mary from betrothal would have been seen as an absolute blemish.  The couple would not have been welcome into the midst of their very own family, and they were relegated to staying with the animals as no room was made to accommodate them in the guest room--even though Mary was in advanced pregnancy.  This means that even at His birth, those who should have been making room for Him were rejecting Him.  This adds more emphasis to what the Gospel writer John says in chapter one, "He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him."

In my estimation, the proper translation of κατάλυμα sends the reading into a deeper pain of rejection: the closest family to Jesus--his earthly father's--should have welcomed Him, made space for Him, and made sure He did not rest in a cattle stall.  Yet, foreshadowing His ultimate rejection, even at an infant, they turned their backs on Him when He was in need--all because of their perceived shame.  

Seeing Before Receiving Sight

How do you know someone is telling the truth?

We live in an age of spin.  You’ve all seen it take place.  The President of the U.S. gives a speech, and less than a minute later, the media pundits start in, “Well, what the President REALLY just said was...”fill in the blank.  And if the President said something that was actually good, those on the opposing side of the fence will spin the words into something horrible.  If the President said something controversial, those who are on the same side of the fence offer any interpretation which will soften the words.  The speeches and spin leave your head reeling wondering if anyone heard the same thing you heard to begin with.

But this is not simply relegated to politics.  The quest for truth goes even further.  You are gathered here this morning listening to my sermon.  You will hear me interpret scripture in just a few moments.  There may be a few things that I say that will leave you scratching your head, so you may wonder where I am getting these things.  You could go home and do a search on Youtube for pastors who have preached on this same text.  You will find them saying some quite different things.  Which of us is right?  Which of us is telling the truth?  How can you judge?  Are we all right?  Are we all wrong?  Just for your information, as part of my sermon preparation, I will generally listen to around 10 sermons per week on a given biblical text.  I know how different these interpretations can be.  I know how well meaning most of us pastors are.  How do I discern what is true and what is not?  We’ll get there in a little while because I want to continue down this rabbit hole a little more.

In politics; in religion there is quite a bit of spin and difference given, but surely this doesn’t apply to real life.  Surely, the facts are the facts and there is no spinning them.  Right?  Wrong.  We just witnessed another horrendous shooting in California this past week.  Facts are being gathered.  Motives are being examined.  We know that one of the shooters spent a month in Syria, came back changed, and began growing his beard out.  We know he and his wife were Muslim.  Terrorist attack?  Workplace violence?  We’ve heard both–again depending upon how one wants to spin the event. Who is telling the truth?

I want to walk through this short text today from the book of Mark which recounts the healing of Bartamaeus, but I want to begin by putting it into the larger context of the book of Mark.  We have been walking through this book for some time now, and we’ve still got a ways to go.  We are actually completing a section on Mark that has focused on discipleship, and this section began with the healing of another blind person.  Several months ago, I preached a sermon about a blind man that Jesus had to “heal” twice.  This story began in Mark chapter 8, verse 22.  The first time Jesus touched him, the man responded that he could see people, but they looked like trees.  When Jesus looked at him intently and spoke, then the man was completely healed.

I talked about how this healing was not only historical, but it was also metaphorical.  It was also to help us see how oftentimes the disciples–and we–understand Jesus to be the Messiah, but we don’t see Him clearly.  Then, from Mark chapter 8:22 until today, we have seen example after example of disciples who understand that Jesus is the Messiah, that He is from God, that He is of great power and might, but they don’t understand ultimately what Jesus is all about.  The disciples and others around get caught up in power struggles; in hunger for prestige; in thinking that Jesus is too important for children; in their love of wealth; in a desire for status and privilege when Jesus comes into power.  Time and again, the disciples don’t see clearly, but today, we see someone who does.  Today we see someone who comes to a knowledge of the Truth.  Perhaps what Bartimaeus sees will help us see and come to know who speaks the Truth.

Jesus and his disciples are on the way to Jerusalem, and as they travel, they go by the city of Jericho.  Outside this city, on the side of the road is a man by the name of Bartimaeus.  He is blind, and he is begging.  If we take a moment to remember how this story is playing out, we know that the Jewish holiday of Passover is only days away.  Pilgrims from throughout Israel would travel to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, and many would pass by Jericho.  Bartimaeus knew this, so he situated himself where there would be deeply religious people passing him by–deeply religious
people who hopefully would have compassion on him.  But, as we see, there are many who don’t.

Bartimaeus hears that Jesus is passing by, and without hesitation or thought for embarrassment, Bartimaeus cries out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”  Now, what Bartimaeus says is important.  He does not simply cry out, Jesus, have mercy on me.  No.  He says, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”  You see, Son of David was a Messianic title.  Bartimaeus has no doubt heard about the things that Jesus has said and done.  Bartimaeus has come to realize something as he reflected on what Jesus had accomplished.  One of the best lines I heard this past week was this: what Bartimaeus lacked in eyesight, he made up for in insight.  He knew that Jesus was the Messiah.  He knew that Jesus was God’s anointed, and Bartimaeus addressed Jesus with this title; loudly; unabashedly; without reservation.

And the crowd tried to shut him up.  Now, granted, we don’t exactly know why the crowd tried to shut Bartimaeus up.  There could be several reasons.  The crowd could have been scared.  After all, if someone was addressing Jesus as, “Son of Man” or “Messiah” this could have been seen as seditious.  The Roman guards would have been extra cautious during Passover fearing an uprising with the gathering of so many Jews.  They would have been on alert for those who might be trying to start a revolt.  If someone was using Messianic language in such a case, the Roman guard could start arresting people just on pretense.  This is actually a pretty positive spin on why the crowd would have tried to silence Bartimaeus, but there is a negative possibility as well.

You see, as I have said before, in that day and age, there was a strong belief that if you had a physical ailment, then God had wrought that ailment upon you.  If you were blind, God was punishing you for your sin or your parents’ sin.  You were generally held in contempt by others.  You were seen as lower than low.  So, it is also a possibility that those in the crowd would have thought, “This blind, begging, sinner has no right to call upon Jesus in such a fashion.  He is being punished by God and should not be trying to get the attention of a holy man.”  Given what Mark has shown us in the previous two chapters, I think the odds are better that the crowd was not being kind to Bartimaeus.  My guess is they thought he had no business calling out to Jesus.  They tried to shut him up.

But Bartimaeus was undaunted.  Bartimaeus did not give in to the crowd’s attempts to shut him up.  This was too important.  The Son of David was at hand.  The Messiah was here.  And if Bartimaeus knew anything of Scripture, he knew that the Messiah had promised to bring about healing and restoration.  In the words of the prophet Isaiah, the Messiah “bring good news to the poor...to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”  To bring recovery of sight to the blind.  Bartimaeus knew this, and he believed it.  Is it any wonder he was clamoring for Jesus’ attention?  Is it any wonder he was raising his voice when others tried to shout him down?  Bartimaeus trusted the promise!  Bartimaeus trusted that Jesus was the promised Messiah who would do what Isaiah said.  “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me.”

And Jesus stood still.  Mark Edwards, in his commentary says this, “How remarkable that the Son of Man allows the cries of a poor and powerless person to stop him in his tracks.”  Some people have said to me and asked me whether or not God cares about ones as insignificant as us.  Why would God hear our cries and our prayers when we are so small and insignificant compared to Him.  And yet, the Son of David, God incarnate, stops in His tracks because of the cries of a poor and powerless man.  This is the God revealed to us here–a God who deeply cares about the least and the lost.  Jesus says, “Call him here.”

How quickly the crowd changes its tune.  How quickly they discard their cries for quiet.  How quickly they suddenly accept Bartimaeus when Jesus shows him compassion.  Think this is just limited to them?  I remember once attending the ordination of a colleague.  My wife and I sat at the back of the church.  As is custom for me, I was not wearing my clerical collar.  I did not robe up.  I simply attended–a stranger in the midst of this congregation.  My wife and I were heartily ignored by all around us–until it came time for the laying on of hands.  All clergy were invited to come forward, so I whiffed out my clerical collar, put it on, and laid hands on the man being ordained.  When I returned to the pew with my wife, the reception we received was markedly different.  Because of a collar?  How quickly things change.

There is an important detail that happens next.  Bartimaeus throws off his cloak.  This might not seem like much to us, but remember that Bartimaeus is a blind, beggar.  What do you think his possessions consist of?  He has nothing–except his cloak.  The commentaries I consulted and sermons I heard made note that Bartimaeus would have spread his cloak on the ground to catch coins that people gave him.  He would have used it to wrap up in to keep warm as he had no place to go.  He would have used it to give him shade from the son.  It was the thing he used for protection; for earning a living; it was all that he had.  And he cast it off.  He comes before Jesus with nothing.  Remember the rich young man who could do no such thing?

Bartimaeus comes before Jesus, and Jesus asks him a pointed question, “What do you want me to do for you?”  I want you to remember last week when James and John sought out an audience with Jesus.  I want you to remember how these two disciples of the inner circle begged Jesus to give them whatever they asked.  I want you to remember how Jesus responded.  Do you remember?  It was with the same question, “What do you want me to do for you?”  James and John ask for power and prestige and status.  James and John don’t get the Kingdom of God.  Bartimaeus does.  “He has come to bring recovery of sight to the blind,” Isaiah says.  “Rabbouni,” Bartimaeus says, “Let me see.”

Again, let me quote Mark Edwards.  Your bulletin says, “Teacher, let me see, but the Greek word is Rabbouni which is significant.   Edwards says, “In extant Jewish literature, rabbouni is seldom used with reference to humanity, and practically never as a form of address.  It is frequently used as an address to God in prayer, however.  Its use here suggests Bartimaeus’s–and Mark’s–estimation of Jesus.”  Bartimaeus essentially offers a prayer, “Let me see.”

And Jesus says, “Go, your faith has saved you.”

What does Bartimaeus do?  He has been released from the captive of his blindness.  He now has the ability to go and work.  He now has the ability to earn a living.  He will now be seen by others to be blessed by God for he no longer carries the curse of blindness.  He can go anywhere and do anything, so what does he do?

He follows Jesus along the road.  Now, an interesting thing can be said right here because the Greek word for road is “hodos” which is also translated, “The Way.”  In the early Church, Christians were not initially called Christians.  Initially, they were called followers of “The Way.”  Bartimaeus follows Jesus along the Way.  Here is an example of discipleship at its finest.  When those closest to Jesus couldn’t see and had difficulty seeing, this once blind beggar trusts Jesus, throws off his cloak, is healed, and follows Jesus toward the cross.  He truly sees.  He has found the Truth.  How can we?

As you can see at this point, I am asking you to delve deeply into this question of truth.  I am asking you to look at Jesus to understand the Truth.  I am asking you to look to Jesus to give you the criteria in understanding how to discern the Truth.  I am asking you to see what Bartimaeus sees.

And what does Bartimaeus see?  He sees the Messiah–the one who brings about restoration.  But, as we have seen all along, the restoration Jesus brings is not by military might, but as the verse leading right into this story says, “He came to give His life as a ransom for many.”

Jesus came to be the suffering Messiah who dies on the cross to give His life for yours.  He does this because He loves you with a love beyond measure.  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him.”

Why is this so significant?  Why is this such an important thing in knowing the Truth?  Because of this: when you look at people who spin things today, they have an agenda.  They are trying to win you over to their position.  They are trying to further their own positions of power and prestige.  They are trying to get you to go along with them, and if you do not...guess what they think of you?  Guess how they treat you?  With contempt.  With scorn.  With anger.  Sometimes with hatred.  If you don’t agree with them, they want nothing to do with you.

But how does Jesus respond when you don’t agree with Him?  How does Jesus respond when you don’t like what He teaches?  How does Jesus respond when you inwardly and outwardly say to Him, “I won’t do what you say.”

Jesus stretches out His arms and dies for you.  Jesus loves you and is willing to die for you even when you don’t love Him.  How do you know if someone is telling the truth?  How do you know when someone is immersed in the truth?  When they are willing to die for you even though they know you hate them.  This is Jesus.  This is what Bartimaeus saw.  This is what I pray that we might see.  Amen.

The Conundrum of Our Day

For the past few weeks, I have thoroughly enjoyed teaching a class on Martin Luther and his vast influence upon Western history.  There have been more than a few moments of fantastic discussion which have triggered some deep contemplations on my part including the following:

This past Sunday, one of the folks attending class asked, "How was it that the popes of that time were able to get away with all the extravagance and abuse?"

The answers were quite simple:

1. Folks were biblically illiterate.  They had no access to the Scriptures in their own languages and had no way of seeing that such abuses were contrary to the commands of Jesus.

2. The Church at the time controlled most of the means of communication and could shut things down pretty quickly.  If someone started raising complaints of abuse, the Church could and would put folks to death to silence them.  There was no such thing as paparazzi to record everything that was going on and let the masses know.

3. There was a particular theology at play which said that such wealth and extravagance was a blessing of God.  If I have arisen to such a position, then I am entitled to such luxury.  Couple this theology with the fact that most Church positions were not given to those who exhibited great faithfulness or were steadfast in study and discipline but were rather awarded to the highest bidder, and you had a recipe for abuse.

Of course, this prompted comparisons to today where some "pastors" revel in such gross interpretations of theology.  I mean, what pastor in his right mind says that they need a $60 million dollar jet? 

However, this also points to a much larger problem in our society--one that I pointed out in class.

In Luther's day, people were highly, biblically illiterate because they did not have access to the Bible in their own language.  They couldn't call out such behavior because they were ignorant.  Today, people are highly, biblically illiterate even though they have unfettered access to the Bible, and even though there are those willing to call out such behavior, such calls fall upon deaf ears and make little difference.

Why?

This brings us to the conundrum:

In our technological age, everyone has a voice.  Everyone has the opportunity to expound upon and interpret whatever text they choose.  From Tolkein to Plato to the Bible, anyone can expound and give input to what is written and said. 

Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.  It is good to have free interchange of ideas.  We certainly do not want to return to the days when you could be killed for offering up an interpretation outside the mainstream.  Orthodoxy needs heresy to keep it on the right path, but heresy does not need to be met with destruction.

But neither does it need to be met with acceptance.  And we are far too accepting of heresy today.

How so?

In this manner: 

Someone decides they would like to learn more about Christianity and the person of Jesus.  They pick up a Bible and begin reading.  Before long, they stumble upon Jesus' teachings:

If you are angry with a brother, you are committing murder.

If you look at a woman with lust, you are committing adultery.

If you divorce and get remarried, you are committing adultery.

If you want to be a disciple, you have to hate family and life itself.

If you want to be a disciple, you must give up all possessions.

Many might quit right here.  They might see the impossibility of such actions and throw in the towel, but others might just want some clarification.  Others might want to understand why such teachings are given.  They seek out advice from a pastor or a learned individual.  They ask, "Did Jesus really mean what He said here?"

Of course, most pastors will try to soften Jesus' teachings.  "No, you don't have to give up your possessions or hate your family or life itself.  Jesus means, you must love Him more than you love your possessions and family and life.  You can have possessions and be a disciple.  No, you are not committing adultery if you look at a woman--that's a natural human instinct.  God created you that way, so it isn't sinful.  Getting angry is just a part of life.  As long as you don't act on it, you are fine."

Do you see how in each of these cases there is an actual departure from the teachings' of Jesus?  Do you see how in each of these cases, Jesus' actual words are disregarded and replaced with a different teaching?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his book The Cost of Discipleship, would have said, and it's a great quote, we are trying to justify the sin instead of proclaim the justification of the sinner.

And yet, Bonhoeffer, (and I) are simply regarded as one more voice out there; one more interpretation to consider; one more option to think about that may or may not work out for whoever is striving to understand.

With so many voices speaking and interpreting, it is nearly impossible to make any headway in discovering the Truth.  With the ability to go and find someone who gives me comfort and lets me continue on in my merry way with no change or transformation; with so many interpretations at the click of a mouse; I can weed out anything that challenges me or calls me to reevaluate my own worldview. 

How can the Gospel be proclaimed without sounding like simply "one more voice in a cacophony of voices?"  How can someone stand and say, "This is the Truth," when the prevailing view is "what is true for you is true for you, but it's not true for me."?  How can any true form of debate take place if that trump card is played?  There cannot be any striving for truth if truth is that relative.

Hence the conundrum.  Hence the struggle of the Christian Church. 

Is it possible for the Church to proclaim to others, "Listen for God's voice" when we are drowning in a cacophony of voices?

The Bible as God's Gift

"It is tempting in such a project to enter the conflict--long standing and now at the boiling point--about the accessibility of the "real" Jesus and his words to us now.  Because I do not do so, I will simply state my assumptions about the Bible: On its human side, I assume that it was produced and preserved by competent human beings who were at least as intelligent and devout as we are today.  I assume that they were quite capable of accurately interpreting their own experience and of objectively presenting what they heard and experienced in the language of their historical community, which we today can understand with due diligence.

On the divine side, I assume that God has been willing and competent to arrange the Bible, including its record of Jesus, to emerge and be preserved in ways that will secure his purposes for it among human beings worldwide.  Those who actually believe in God will be untroubled by this.  I assume that he did not and would not leave his message to humankind in a form that can only be understood by a handful of late- twentieth-century professional scholars, who cannot even agree among themselves on the theories they assume to determine what the message is.

The Bible is, after all, God's gift to the world through his Church, not to the scholars.  It comes through the life of his people and nourishes that life.  It's purpose is practical not academic.  An intelligent, careful, intensive--but straightforward reading--that is, one not governed by obscure or faddish theories or by a mindless orthodoxy--is what it requires to direct us into life in God's kingdom." 

--Dallas Willlard.  The Divine Conspiracy.  Kindle location 155-168

Clearly and Succintly

We also need to be prepared to distinguish between what Scripture actually says and what we think it means.  It is Scripture that has the final authority, not our understanding of it.  --John Lennox  Seven Days that Divide the World (Kindle location 315)

Faith and Evidence

I find it quite interesting that it is not enough for we as Christian believers to simply deal with those who do not believe in our faith and seek to articulate and defend our positions to them.  No.  For some reason, we also must deal with one another and oftentimes to seek to articulate and defend our positions to one another.  Oftentimes, when we engage in such debates, non-believers can simply sit on the sidelines and watch us go at one another all the while laughing at our inter-squad rivalries.

It would be nice if we did not have to have such inter-squad arguments.  It would be nice if we could have an agreed upon methodology of interpreting Scripture, formulating doctrine, and defining practice.  But, alas, Pandora's Box has been opened, and we cannot stuff all the entities back into it.  And so we must wade through the varying theologies and methodologies to seek the Truth and hopefully be grasped by it at some point.

One of the great struggles in the Christian faith has been the interpretation of Scripture and how we view the documents called the Old and New Testaments.  Much ink has been spilled in how to view these documents throughout the ages from the earliest decades of Christianity to the present, and, in some cases, the arguments of how to handle these documents has gotten rather heated.

In our own cultural situation (North America, U.S.A.) perhaps the most heated debates on how to deal with the biblical canon are between those holding to biblical inerrancy and those who embrace the historical/critical methods of interpreting scripture.

I am of the opinion that each side takes its particular position too far in its effort to prove its credibility oftentimes ending up with the following exchange:

"You historical/critical folks do not take the Bible seriously enough and you try to manipulate it to say what you want to say."

"Well, we believe and worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible itself!"

The accusations on both sides are flawed.  Each side takes the Bible very seriously--there is no doubt about that.  Yet, each side fails to recognize some very basic truth as well.  I believe some of these differences can be reconciled if we view the Bible in a particular manner--as evidence.

Professor John Lennox in one of his lectures found on Youtube said the following:

We have a job to do to explain what John does in his Gospel so brilliantly.  That faith is not something that just happens to people.  It’s a response to evidence–these things are written...in order that you might believe.  Here is the basis, and faith is based on evidence.  Otherwise, by definition, you wouldn’t need the New Testament.  If faith is believing where there is no evidence, then the greatest faith is shown by those people who never read the New Testament.  Because it is evidence, I am sorry to say, but I am not sorry to say. 

This is a very important statement in my estimation.  And as I have thought about it, it makes a lot of sense to me.  Here is why:

Evidence demands interpretation, and it does not tell the full story.  Those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture would do well to remember this.

Consider the analogy with dinosaur bones.  (I am sorry.  I cannot help but use this example as my son is a huge dinosaur fan.)  The bones tell us an awful lot about anatomy.  They give us a great glimpse of what the skeletal features of these creatures looked like.  But, we also know these are the basics.  There are much more to dinosaurs than just bones.  In a very real way, we have to fill in some blanks.  There is interpretation which must be done especially in regards to behavior.  How did the dinosaurs act?  Hunt?  Move in their environment?  How fast could they move?  Were they warm blooded or cold blooded or did different species have different blood types?  We can make some very good guesses based upon the bones, but the full truth actually escapes us.  There is no way to fully verify.

The God of the Bible can be viewed similarly (please allow that I realize no analogy is complete).  Scripture gives us the bones in a very real way.  We see God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We see God revealed in how He acted in the Old and New Testament.  We see God revealed in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, fully divine and fully human.  However, there is much which begs interpretation.  There is much which begs to be filled in.  There is much to God which we still do not know.  Given the tremendous advances in technology, how indeed does God view genetic engineering?  The use of fossil fuels?  The role sporting events now play in our nation?  The rise of science?  The fact that we interact so much over our computers and phones?

If we are true to ourselves, we will answer that we truly do not know for sure.  We can get a pretty good idea, but the full Truth is just beyond our grasp, and the best we can hope for is to be grabbed by it.

And just like a paleontologist has to put together a skeleton based upon his or her knowledge of anatomy, we too have to put together the pieces of God as revealed as the Trinity.  We know the fullest revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, and so we must look to Him as the example as we move forth in our talk about God.  So, as we look at Jesus, does the "bone" regarding the stoning of disobedient children in Deuteronomy 21 fit?  Obviously not.  Furthermore, Jesus Himself told us that some bones are not to be dealt with any longer (dietary laws).  Based upon the evidence of Jesus, we have a great guide to wade through some of the issues regarding inerrancy in the Bible.

However, there are a couple of things that we are not allowed to do.  We are simply not allowed to rearrange the skeleton in whatever fashion we desire.  I mean, when a paleontologist puts together a mess of dinosaur bones, he/she does not take a bone away just because it doesn't seem to fit his/her own imagination of what a dinosaur looked like.  If a full skeleton of a dinosaur is found, and the bones are arranged in a certain way in the ground, the paleontologist does his or her best to deal with the skeleton as it is and tries to work with the bones as they are presented.  One cannot manipulate the pieces and rearrange them to fit one's preconceived notions.

There are more than a few who involve themselves in the historical/critical methodology who do just this.  They take the evidence presented in the Bible and arrange it to fit their own ideas of what God is like.  They are more than comfortable saying, "Well, this bone/saying of Jesus doesn't fit what I think God/Jesus is really like, so this must be made up by a particular community; it must be legend; it must be an invention in the mind of a particular scribe who is trying to push his own agenda."

Evidence demands to be interpreted--not thrown out because one does not like it.  And too many scholars enjoy trampling on pieces of scripture because they do not like it and it does not fit their own ideas of what God/Jesus is/should be like.  Indeed, this is tampering with the evidence instead of truly wrestling with it.

And so, what do we have if we view the Bible as evidence?  Where do we arrive if we assume this book is God's people writing down how God has revealed Himself throughout history?

We have something we must take very seriously--but realize there are limitations.  We have something concrete and unchanging: beyond manipulation--but some blanks that beg to be filled in.  We have guidance in wresting with the tough issues of our day without having to come across as completely dogmatic and thinking we have it all figured out.  We also have the ability to invite other eyes to come and view the evidence--to see if they can uncover things as well.

It seems to me, that viewing scripture as evidence of God and His work gives us a path forward to navigate in the rough seas generated by two particular views of Christianity which are highly incompatible 

Interpreting the Bible Part 3

The Emergence of Another Way

Recently, I have come across in my reading another set of assumptions which I believe is more faithful as we deal with the interpretation of scripture.  It is what I call the hermeneutic of trust.  Much of my thinking has come as a result of reading Scottish scholar, Richard Bauckham’s book: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts.  Bauckham argues that the gospels are not to be seen as recorded ancient history.  They do not fall into that category of literature.  Instead, they are to be seen as ancient biographies.  The rules for writing such literature differed a bit from historical accounts, but there are some important things of note regarding the writing of such literature:

A.    The writers of such biographies believed in the importance of being as close to the subject of the biography as possible.  Fourth or fifth hand information was not considered acceptable.
B.    The Gospels were probably written 35-50 years after the death of Jesus.  Eyewitnesses would still have been alive.  The authors would have known this.  Luke admits so in his introduction.  He also admits to consulting with them.  The hermeneutic of suspicion relies on the assumption eyewitness testimonies were unimportant to the people writing the gospels–Bauckham, and others, argue vehemently otherwise.
C.    Bauckham believes the gospel writers–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–gave us clues as to who their main eyewitnesses were:

    Mark: the apostle Peter.
    Matthew: Mark’s account + the disciple Matthew
    Luke: Mark’s account + several women disciples

D.    Bauckham believes John was written by an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life, and the author is the beloved disciple as named in the work.

There are issues with viewing the gospels as eyewitness accounts-namely, eyewitnesses don’t exactly get their stories completely straight at times.  Details vary.  Sometimes people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.  Other times, they interpret events instead of simply reporting them.  Yet, Bauckham actually deals with many such objections in his book, and I will not go into those now.

What I want to delve into is approaching the gospels as eyewitness testimony.  For testimony demands an element of trust as one approaches it.  For instance, if you sit down at the dinner table with your spouse and he/she tells you, “I had a good day at work.  I finished up a major project.”  And you respond, “Do you have any corroborating evidence?”  You will probably have a rough evening.

Testimony demands to be trusted unless a witness is shown to be untrustworthy.  The ultimate question one must ask in this vein of thought is whether or not the gospels as we have them are in fact, trustworthy.  Of course, I say they are.

If we take this track for interpretation, there then is little mystery as to why the early church accepted the four canonical gospels despite their varying claims.  As with eyewitness accounts of an event, some witnesses remember certain details while omitting others.  Some eyewitnesses add some interpretive thoughts (John is especially guilty of this).  Some say the red car ran the light while others say the blue one did–yet no one disputes the crash! 

The early church believed one could take the four gospels in their totality to understand and get a full picture of who Jesus was.  They did not make distinctions based upon “what Matthew’s Jesus said” or “what John’s Jesus said or what “the Lukan community said” or what the “Markan community said.”  They were comfortable with the differences and the interpretations of events trusting the testimony of the witnesses.  Should we be any different?  That is the important question governing each of these modes of interpretation.

Interpreting the Bible Part 2

Two Modes of Interpretation

As theology responded to the “Enlightenment threat” it generally chose one of two routes:

1. The hermeneutic of inerrancy: In some ways, the name says it all.  One direction theology chose was to view Scripture as completely inerrant.  The Bible was seen to be complete and perfect no matter what science or reason said.  This mentality was a sort of battening down the hatches approach or a “we refuse to be influenced by this science and reason stuff.” 

This school of thought basically settled on five fundamentals of the Christian faith–hence became known as the movement of fundamentalism.  Those fundamentals are:
•    The inerrancy of the Bible
•    The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
•    The Virgin Birth of Christ
•    The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
•    The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

In my estimation, this is an intellectually untenable position based on several reasons: translation errors, the lack of original manuscripts, manuscript variances, historical reality, conflicting texts/laws/teachings/statutes in the Bible itself.  However, many fundamentalists have been accused of being non-thinkers.  I think this assertion is equally absurd.  Many fundamentalists think and think deeply; however, I believe their thought is based upon faulty assumptions–the major one being the Bible is inerrant.

2. The hermeneutic of suspicion: This will require a little more depth to explain.  This theological train of thought took the tools of reason and science and began applying them to the Christian faith.  In a very real way, they accepted the authority of reason and science over theology and sought to make theology acceptable in the eyes of philosophers and scientists.

There are some valuable insights which have come from this group particularly seeking to understand the stories of the Bible as they were first understood in the historical context in which they were originally heard.  Some fascinating insights have been discovered by using such a method; however, as with many things, like fundamentalism, the hermeneutic of suspicion has been pushed too far.

Perhaps the most famous scholar to appear in this vein of thought is Rudolph Bultmann.  He was not the first to embrace some of the following ideas, but he has been very influential-especially in modern, liberal American Protestantism.  Bultmann raised much suspicion regarding anything and everything miraculous recorded in the Bible.  Such things were not compatible with reason and science, said he.  (He was wrong, but we do not need to debate such matters here.)  Therefore, we must take the stories about the miraculous and seek a different meaning using the story as an anecdote to portray a larger truth.  Skepticism of the historical accuracy and reliability of the biblical accounts became the rule.

Of course, if the accounts of the miracles were not necessarily reliable and accurate, how could we be sure about the accuracy of Jesus’ teachings?  This was another theme Bultmann picked up on–what was authentically, historically Jesus and what was not?  Following in the footsteps of Albert Schweitzer, Bultmann traveled further. 

Bultmann began with a very important assumption about how the Gospels were written, (please note, I am applying Bultmann’s thought only to the New Testament here.) asserting they were put together by communities of faith who were interested in conveying a particular portrait of Jesus.  Much like fables and fairytales were gathered by certain communities, so were the stories of Jesus.  Mark had a particular community he was trying to influence.  Matthew, Luke, and John likewise.  Various stories and traditions were used by differing authors to complete their picture of Jesus; some of that material was historical; some was not.  The quest for the historian was to wade through that which was added and by some sort of criteria distinguish what was really Jesus and what was constructed by the communities of faith and attributed to Jesus.

In the 1990's a Third Quest for the Historical Jesus used many of these same methods to push the envelope even further.  Perhaps some of you remember the Jesus Seminar?  I certainly do as I was in theological training during these years, and much of this was big news.

Unfortunately, like the hermeneutic of inerrancy, the hermeneutic of suspicion suffers from some devastating problems.  What criteria does one use to figure out what is real and historical versus what communities added?  Much of the criteria is actually pretty subjective.  Can we find corroborating evidence to verify the historicity of Jesus, much less any other particular figure from ancient history?  Is it possible to construct a Jesus with as much staying power as the Jesus portrayed by the Gospels–a Jesus worthy of having a global faith based upon?  Are the reconstructions presented by these Jesus scholars true pictures of Jesus or interpretations based upon these scholars’ biases?  Why shouldn’t we be just as suspicious of these reconstructions as we are of the biblical accounts?  These are just a few questions.  There are some even more devastating ones which I believe make the hermeneutic of suspicion an intellectually untenable position.  Again, as I said about fundamentalism, it’s not because people don’t think.  There are some tremendous thinkers in this vein of interpretation; however, the basic assumption, I believe is wrong.

Interpreting the Bible Part 1

How does one Interpret the Bible?
Three Forms of Hermeneutics


Please don’t be frightened by the second line of the title.  Hermeneutics is simply a big word for interpretation, and it is my belief that much of the confusion and division we experience between Christian denominations and believers can be traced directly to how we interpret the Bible and the underlying assumptions governing our interpretation.

A Brief Traverse of History

There has never been a time when everyone who came into contact with Jesus’ teachings agreed wholeheartedly on their interpretation.  Yes, you heard that statement correctly.  Someone might try to argue that the early disciples were surely in agreement and that in the early church everyone was on the same page.  I would respond to such a statement with the following: How long has it been since you have read your Bible?

If you read through the book of Acts, which is Luke’s account of the beginnings of the church, you will see quite plainly, the early church was not always in harmony.  There were divisions and factions arising even then.  Couple the book of Acts with the letters of Paul, and you have further evidence the early church was not of one accord.  Throw in a couple of the early heresies, especially Gnosticism, represented by the Gospel of Thomas, and one quickly gets the picture of a church wrestling deeply with what it fundamentally meant to follow Jesus’ teachings.

In 325, Emperor Constantine convened a great council of the church to deal with such matters.  (Some folks call this the “First Great Council.”  I disagree.  I think the “First Great Council” was recorded in Acts 15.)  The council had many successful moments including the formulation of the Nicene Creed and the beginning of some canon law.  There was a sense of unity in the Church–for a time.

But scriptural interpretation still was not a settled matter, and as time progressed four main modes of interpretation emerged and were prevalent during the Middle Ages. They were:

    •    The literal meaning – which was the plain and evident meaning.
    •    The moral meaning – instructed people on how to behave.
    •    The allegorical meaning – this revealed the doctrinal content
    •    The anagogical meaning – this expressed a future hope.

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with these methods of interpretation–unless you have difficulty discerning which method should be primary.  Why does that make a difference?  Please see Worksheet 3A from Kerygma: Parables: Stories for Life in God’s World.*  Can you see the issues which can arise using such allegory to formulate the basis of doctrine?

Luther rebelled against the allegorical meaning as primary, and he argued the literal or plain reading of scripture–and as he translated the Bible into German–read in the language of the people should be the primary, authoritative reading of scripture.  We know some of the results of Luther’s stand–or theoretically, we should since we are Lutheran.

But this reading also posed a set of problems for language is a bit tricky.  Much of the language of scripture is metaphorical.  Some of it deals with visions which obviously draw heavily on analogies.  The most famous one is perhaps what began the divisions among Protestants: the definition of the word “is” as it pertains to Jesus’ words regarding the Lord’s Supper: “This is my body...This is my blood...”  Is the word “is” to be taken literally, metaphorically, or somehow a combination of both?

Interestingly enough, another phenomena entered the picture at almost the same time as the Reformation–the rise of reason and the modern Enlightenment movement.  Up until this moment in time, theology was considered the “Queen of the Sciences.”  It carried the most authority in universities.  In just a century or so, it was replaced by science and philosophy–the disciplines which were based in reason.  Theology had lost its status, and so it found itself in a bit of a quandary.  How should it respond?

*The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord's body, the pandochium (that is, the stable [inn]), which accepts all [pan-] who wish to enter, is the Church. And further, the two denarii mean the Father and the Son. The manager of the stable is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior's second coming.  (This is not the full text, but a portion copied from this website.)

Getting More Clarity

I am slowly (it takes me a while, alright!) getting more clarity as to what ails Christianity in these United States of America.  Thankfully, I am not the only one who sees this.  There are others, and their thoughts are informing mine.  So perhaps, this blogging is me just regurgitating what I have heard, but for me I think it is more than simple repetition, for when one regurgitates, one does not keep anything inside.  Much of what I am learning, I am retaining and making it my own.

It is becoming more and more apparent that one of the major things that ails U.S. Christianity is: bad theology leads to bad practice and bad practice leads to bad theology.

I'll begin with some thoughts on the former and then proceed to the latter of those two thoughts.

More often than not, we seek justification for our beliefs and actions.  When this occurs, our actions drive our theology.  One need not look too far in the present or in the past to see this happening.

• Slave owners justified slavery citing certain portions of scripture while ignoring others.
• Kings and popes justified the crusades by citing certain portions of scripture while ignoring Jesus' explicit commands.
• Christians continually lobby the government to instill policies and laws which uphold their ideals of what Christianity is about.

These are just a few examples.  I could get into the nitty-gritty details, but I will save that for another time and another place.  What I wish to do right now is delve into how this has affected certain theologians and scholars and how those theologians and scholars have thus affected my own denomination: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Some of my readers at this point might be thinking, "Oh great.  Time to stop reading.  I'm not interested in theological/scholarly battles.  I'd rather just practice my faith without worrying about such matters."

I understand such thoughts.  Believe me, I once held to such a line of thinking--content to do my own thing in my area of influence without regard to what was going on in the wider field of the church or society.  But I have a problem: I care very deeply about what happens to this faith that has claimed me.  I care very deeply for its public expression: the Church.  I care that the influence of the Church is currently in decline as is Church membership and attendance.  While I am loathe to say that I can have much of an impact on this decline as it is far beyond my power or scope to change anything, I also know that I cannot simply remain silent when I have discovered things which I believe are adding fuel to the fires of decline.  If you agree, then please read on.

Of Bultmann, Borg and Crossan

 In my recent reading, I have come to see just how much of an influence such scholars as Rudolf Bultmann, Marcus Borg, and John Dominic Crossan have had in my own denomination.  I believe each of these scholars' work was/is driven by a particular practice leading to bad theology.  That theology, in turn, has become very influential in its teaching which has led to bad practice.  We begin with Bultmann.

Bultmann worked in the early 1900's, and he was heavily influenced by Enlightenment thought and the rise of reason and science.  He found difficulty in reconciling reason and science's empirical nature with what he deemed the mythology found in Christianity.  How could one embrace the wonders of science and reason which seemed to eliminate the possibility of God acting in the world and breaking natural law with the miraculous deeds and wonders found in the Bible?  Bultmann's answer: demythologize the Bible.  Recognize the miraculous as stories and deeds meant to convey a point but lacking any historical reality.

Of course, this meant that one had to approach the Bible in a certain fashion.  One could no longer rely on Scriptures to convey the historical truth of things--one had to dig deep within the Bible to figure out what was "really" factual and what was myth.  Scripture must now be approached with a hermeneutic of suspicion instead of a hermeneutic of trust.  One cannot underestimate the pull that Bultmann had with his theology.  It's still around today and has been pushed to some rather unfortunate conclusions.

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan both embrace this hermeneutic of suspicion in their works, and they continue to have tremendous influence in my denomination despite being taken to task by more than a few other scholars.  Some outside the ELCA might scoff at this suggestion, but I can assure you, it is no mere flight of fancy of this writer's mind.  In the last issue of L Magazine two of the prominent "Resource Picks" are none other than these two scholars.

Each of these men has delved into seeking the "historical" Jesus--again, reading the Gospel narratives with the idea of suspicion instead of trust in an attempt to distinguish what is "really" Jesus from that which is more a community/early Church construct of Jesus.

Yesterday, as I re-read through Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (A head's up to my New Testament prof in Seminary Dr. Ray Pickett.  He actually had the guts to suggest this book to his class and say that it was far and away the best of the books to read in the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus.  I think Johnson has been surpassed by Richard Bauckham personally, but there are still great and timely thoughts by Johnson even though his book is dated by scholarly standards.), I was struck by Johnson's thorough critique of Borg and Crossan.

 Against Borg:

It does not take an exceptionally discerning eye to detect more than a little of the "dominant consciousness" of yet another sort at work in this [Borg's] analysis, namely, the cultural assumptions of the contemporary American academy.  Jesus' "relevance" turns out to be the way in which he can function as the prototype of the sort of "cultural critique" that many academics think the rest of the world needs: the "politics of holiness" that is overly concerned with rules and status and exclusion should be replaced by a "politics of compassion" that is committed to freedom and equality and inclusion.  (page 43)

Johnson's critique goes further and deeper, but it is of note that Jesus, for Borg, becomes like Borg--a cultural critic who embraces academia's concerns.  As I have noted before, Borg makes Jesus look just like Borg.  This is not good theology, historical study, or scholarship.

Against Crossan:

For all their self-conscious methodology and social-scientific sophistication, Crossan's efforts reveal themselves as an only slightly camouflaged exercise in theologial revisionism rather than genuine historiography...To construct his portrayal of Jesus, he will draw on any apocryphal writing in preference to any canonical writing.  The criteria that matter for determining authenticity are those that make up the predetermined portrait that Crossan wishes to emerge.  His use of cross-cultural patterns reduces Jesus to a stereotypical cultural category, that of a member of "peasant culture."  Into this historical cipher Crossan can pour his own vision of what "Christianity" ought to be: not a church with leaders and cult and creeds, but a loose association of Cynic philosophers who broker their own access to the kingdom of self-esteem and mutual acceptance.  (page 50)

Again, we see Crossan constructing his own Jesus to suit his own desires of what Christianity should be.  This is not good theology, historical study, or scholarship.

So, how is it that L Magazine holds up Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan as important resources for leaders in the ELCA?  How is it that Marcus Borg is invited to a theological conference to speak to pastors and others leaders of the three Texas/Louisiana synods of the ELCA?  How is it that these scholars continue to have such an influence in my denomination?

One of the Major Problems with U.S. Christianity

I think Borg, Crossan, and Bultmann give theologial underpinning and theological blessing to the particular agenda embraced by the leadership of the ELCA.  These scholars provide a methodology of allowing Scripture to be read with suspicion so that scripture must prove itself.  When one approaches scripture in such a fashion, one can easily say, "Well, sure, that's what the Bible says on the surface, but what does it "really" mean?"

With this methodology, one can easily and purposely alter scripture to fit one's personal or social agenda.  Certain texts and passages can be disregarded at one's leisure and can be changed to fit the particular historical/social context.  In effect, we can change Jesus/we can change the teachings of the Bible instead of Jesus and the teachings of the Bible changing us.  Well, that's not entirely true because OUR reading of the Bible has made us pretty comfortable, but it is everyone else who doesn't read the Bible like us who needs to change.

This is a major problem because it leads us straight to idolatry.  We construct our own God.  We construct our own Jesus.  We construct our own faith.  We are not held accountable by a faith that is outside of ourselves--it is others who have to change, not us.  God has blessed us and our doings, but not those others who disagree with us.

I want to take a small tangent here because one might get the idea that it is only liberal Christianity that I am critiquing.  One would be wrong.  The Christian right is just as guilty as the Christian left of participating in such matters.  While they might deny it vehemently, it is not that difficult to see they too construct their own personal Jesuses.  Case in point: I have never met a conservative Christian who says that they take the Bible literally actually take Luke 14:33 literally.  ("So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.")

It has become clear to me that in the U.S. in this postmodern age, we live in an age of idolatry.  We construct our own personal Jesus based upon our own ideology and actions.  We then seek out congregations and denominations and scholars which embrace our portrait of Jesus or paint one very similar to our own.  We justify such actions with bad theology which begins with the assumption that the source and norm of our faith--the Bible--be held in skepticism instead of trust.

And voices which call us back to the historic/orthodox faith are all but drowned out and muted.  They are not controversial enough.  They don't generate headlines.  They make us uncomfortable because they do not allow us to be complacent.  They call us to transformation, and we are content to be like we are feeling we have no need to change ourselves or our worldviews. 

What is the answer?  I think I've managed to get some clarity on part of the problem, but it is not enough to simply articulate the problem.  Solutions are also demanded.  A critic comes down off the mountain after the battle is done and shoots the wounded.  A doctor heals them.

What does the orthodox faith teach us?  What does the Great Physician say?  More to come...