**Note: In the following, when I refer to "Scripture," I am referring primarily to the New Testament since these are the "set of rules" that apply to Christians.
The church I attended while at Taylor, The Mercy House, was a wonderful group of people committed to dialogue and community. It was the first church I ever attended that encouraged congregational discussion after the pastor (or whomever the speaker was) finished their message. We were going through the books of the Bible one by one and we came to those infamous passages in 1 Timothy 2 about women being silent and being saved through childbearing and all of that. I mean, come on, those passages are awkward. It brings up a lot of questions about women who can't/don't want to have children, women involved in ministry, female pastors, etc.
In a church like The Mercy House, who has a "liberal" view on these things, it started a lively discussion during and after the message was delivered. Obviously, during this discussion, the idea of "taking the passage in context" came up a lot. After awhile, someone stood up and said something to the effect of, "Why do we only talk about taking passages we DON'T like in their original context? It seems that we should either take all passages in their context or take all of it literally. Who decides how we pick and choose what to take literally?"
Excellent point. This one statement has brought about a six-month period of searching for me (I want to go back to Indiana and shake that man's hand). It is doing a disservice to God, the Bible, and myself to only try to "explain away" passages that make me uncomfortable but never look at the contexts of the ones that jive with my existing beliefs. I basically set out to decide if Scripture, ALL of Scripture, is or isn't to be taken in context. I believe that it is, and that has changed a lot of things for me.
The New Testament is a bunch of observer's stories and letters. Aside from the actual words of Jesus, I'm doubtful that the words written in the books of the NT are to be taken as literally as it is assumed we should. It is undeniable that Paul, Peter, John, etc. were wise men who were seeking after God. But that's all they are: men who were seeking after God. Their letters were chosen out of countless more to be considered "Scripture" by a bunch of guys at a conference.
I guess what I'm saying is this: I think the books of the NT are wise words written by wise men. But I don't know that I want to take everything they say so literally. When you look at the historical context of the letters, it's quite clear that most of the things that were being addressed were not only for specific situations, but also for specific people. I doubt that the writers of the NT letters would have written the same things if they had known that their letters would be seen and taken literally by the majority of the world.
I haven't worked out exactly what this means for me. I do believe that there are overarching themes that build off the teachings of Jesus, like loving others, caring for the oppressed, and being a community of integrity. But things that are mentioned solely by these writers, specifically things that are wrong or sinful...I just don't know if I can commit to saying that these are things that apply to all Christians. The words of Jesus are an exception for obvious reasons. But what separates men like Paul and Peter from writers of our current generation who write books expounding on the teachings of Jesus? Is the only difference that the former had actually known Jesus while he was on earth?
I guess I want to open this up to all of you (all, like, three of you) that read this. I'm still figuring all this out. But at this point, in a nutshell, this is what I'm thinking: the epistles of the NT are a valuable resource to understanding the early church. I don't believe, however, that its specifics are prescriptive.
What do you think?
Kat, that was an excellent post, and this question you pose (But what separates men like Paul and Peter from writers of our current generation who write books expounding on the teachings of Jesus?) is one I have wondered about as well.
ReplyDeleteYou will have people point out where Paul says that "all scripture is God-breathed..." but when that was written, Scripture as we know it today did not exist. To Paul, the only Scripture was the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have found that the Bible comes alive so much more when we can learn the context of what we are reading. It's why I have a difficult time hearing a sermon that is based on one verse or is based on a particular topic and a variety of verses are pulled out to support it.
I think when we [try to] understand the context and see what the authors and recipients of the writings were struggling with, we can see parallels in our lives, and seeing how they were dealt with then can be helpful. And maybe we don't see any parallels either. Some things just aren't applicable to our lives today.
Would you say that the words of Jesus contradict the rest of the Bible?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, first off, I operate under the assumption that none of the authors of the New Testament were eyewitnesses to the bodily-historic Jesus. (Which is to say, I'm not counting St. Paul as an "eyewitness" to Jesus despite Damascus.) All of the scholarship I trust (which ranges from secular to liberal Protestant to Roman Catholic sources) seems to agree on this point--which would leave the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible suspect as well.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't think that Scripture is the same in kind as the writings of wise people (male or female); the day when I find out that the Synod of Hippo included The Courage to Be in its canon is the day I'll give it equal standing with the Bible. There's only one set of works which the catholic Church has looked to across its history--and that's the Bible.
As I note in my post on Scripture in the Lent blog, when we turn to scripture we are walking in the footprints of the saints. The Bible is the set of works which we privilege in our capacity as Christians.
Another thing occurs to me. . . .
ReplyDeleteYou say, "It seems that we should either take all passages in their context or take all of it literally." I agree that whatever hermeneutic we apply to Scripture shouldn't be applied arbitrarily to some portions of Scripture but not others. But I disagree that our options are limited to a simple binary of either taking it in its original context (whatever that consists of) are reading it literally (whatever that means). I think there are other, more dynamic ways that God can use Scripture to speak to us in the present that are not encapsulated in that binary.
Hey Kat, great thought, great writing. I look forward to reading more of your blog. :)
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts: I really identify with your struggles here, which is why I don't believe in the doctrine of "sola scriptura" anymore. I believe that to be truly understood, the Scriptures aren't meant to stand on their own. They need the community of the Church - the whole Church - to interpret them. (That includes includes both "tradition" and "experience" - of men and women, clergy and lay, ancient and modern, Global North and Global South, etc. We all need each other!) And this interpretation happens through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So it's not about one person sitting around by him/herself and deciding what the Bible means, or even one congregation or denomination doing so. It's about what the Holy Spirit reveals through the Church's entire collective experience.
I do think there is something "special" about canonical Scripture over and above other writings, in that it is "God-breathed," and I do believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Church, over a long period of time, in establishing its canon. I don't understand all the reasons (trust me, those I Timothy passages sound as offensive to me as to you!), but I choose to accept that much on faith... though thankful that it leaves a LOT of room for interpretation!
All that said, I also believe that Jesus, as the Word, is the embodiment of the Scriptures. The Scriptures start and end with him; they are fulfilled and perfected in him. Not that Jesus' life and teachings contradict the rest of Scriptures, but that the rest of the Scriptures must be seen through the context of Christ.
Hope there's something helpful in all that. :)
Laura Finch - No, I don't believe that. But I do believe that the Bible is meant to be seen in the context in which he was teaching.
ReplyDeleteCole - I agree with you; these things aren't as black and white as I perhaps made them seem in this post. I think I oversimplify for the purpose of getting my point across, which is probably an error in my judgment. I believe that Scripture is a living, breathing thing that God can use in countless ways. I guess my point when I was writing those things was just as I (and you) said...who gets to choose what we think is supposed to be viewed in its context?
Kelly/Laura Eppler - I've often wondered about the implications of what I've written in light of Scripture being (self-proclaimedly) "God-breathed." Really, what does that mean? Because Paul wrote that Scripture was God-breathed, does that mean that it is? And what did he mean when he was referring to Scripture? Undoubtedly, as Kelly pointed out, he wouldn't have been referring to the New Testament as we know it. So the question then becomes, what does "Scripture" mean in that passage? I wish I could ask Paul...
I would assume for Paul, "scripture" meant the canonized Jewish scripture at that time--what we now call the "Old Testament". Having been a Pharisee, Paul would have accepted all of it as from God. Had he been a Sadducee, only the Torah (1st five books) would have been authoritative to him. Maybe it's somewhat comforting to know that we aren't the first people to wonder what makes something scripture, eh? I do like John Wesley's idea of using scripture, tradition, reason, and experience all together (after his time that was coined as "the Wesleyan quadrilateral").
ReplyDeleteDon't think I'm not here Kat, but I can't participate in this particular type of conversation through writing most of the time. But I'm still reading along and waiting for the next one - get on it!
ReplyDelete