Sacred Cynicism

     Last week we talked about the different worldviews that are prevalent today, and what it means to be “true.” In some ways it is a good introduction to another topic which bedevils any dialogue between people of faith, and those who are on the outside looking in. This topic is the nature of the Bible. This is a very important topic, and if we do not understand the issues, I think we will be forever destined to talk past each other, without ever understanding why we cannot dialogue with those outside of the faith. Sometimes, an issue will arise and when those who are Christian give their reasons for believing a certain issue, they respond “the Bible says….” Those who do not share our convictions are not impressed with the argument, “the Bible says” partially because we do not agree on the value of this piece of literature. So what value does the Bible have, and what type of literature is it? This is the question we need to examine before we engage those outside of the faith.

First, let us at least describe where the different positions are regarding the Bible. To many, the Bible is simply another book, no different from any of the classics and should have about the same importance as the Iliad or Beowulf. Still others have a basic antipathy towards the Bible borne from a personal history where some have perhaps used the Bible to exercise power over another. With that history some harbor a natural bitterness toward the alleged source of their past hurt. For many in the church we take another position altogether. We generally believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority in life and practice, and some go further to say that it must be read and understood literally. To these that take this further step, any deviation from a literal reading tears down the foundation on which the Bible stands. Thus the battle lines are drawn, and the artillery fire between these positions can get quite intense. Are these the only choices that I have, or is there perhaps a better way to understand this book called the Bible? Is there ground between these two positions that helps me understand its words, or is it merely a no man’s land that exposes me to fire from both positions? This is our question.

When many people speak of the Bible, they almost imagine a book bathed in glory. Somehow it descended to Earth floating on a light-filled cloud, and came to rest amidst a chorus of angelic voices. Nice picture, but not quite reflective of reality. The Bible was written over a period of roughly 1,000 years, and reflects a number of authors from diverse settings. They wrote in language and symbols that were familiar to them, and their words reflect their culture, time, and limitations. So in order for us to really understand what they are saying, we need to take into account their time and setting. If this seems strange to anyone, we do it all the time without ever thinking about it. If I told you the Cubs won last night when they sacrificed to get a runner home, all of you would know what I meant – no one would imagine a bloody scene in the ballpark. The same sort of thing is common in Scripture. Language that would have been easily understood at that time is used. It is up to us to take that into account when we read the Bible.

If we just say that the Bible has to be read literally, then we are going to miss the message the Bible is trying to tell us. If our demand is that it must be understood literally then we need to be ready for the people who are going to willingly ignore the whole Bible when they encounter a problem or a passage where things just don’t add up. We may be quick to condemn them, but the problem lies with the church for pushing an idea like literalism as a matter of faith, when we should not have. In short, the Bible is literal when it wants to be, and it is figurative or symbolic when it wants to be. How do we know one from the other? Well it is not always easy. If you want easy stick to those drug store romance novels, valuable things sometimes take time, reflection and energy.

Let me give you an example that should help us understand how the Bible operates. Let me ask an imaginary reader a simple question, “how did Jesus get the cross from Jerusalem to Calvary?” My imaginary reader, like most people, would respond that a guy, named Simon, was pulled from the crowd and ordered to carry Jesus’ cross for him (Matt. 27:32, Mk. 15:21, and Luke 23:26). This is a simple answer that is attested by three gospels in a plain, straight-forward style. Here is the problem. The Gospel of John has a completely different account. In 19:17 John makes a special point to say that Jesus carried His own cross all the way to Calvary. For those that demand the Bible be read literally, well they have a huge problem here. Which literal account do you wish to believe? The answer cannot be both. Some have fallen on the rocks of literalism when they have been confronted by simple evidence like this. Yet what is the answer? Why are these accounts so different?

We must remember that the gospels were written in the first century, and reflect a certain Jewish viewpoint of the world. To the Jews the heroes of the faith were Abraham – the father of Judaism, Isaac – the son who willingly sacrificed himself, and Jacob – the patriarch of the 12 sons. And when one reads the stories from Genesis, one cannot help but be mesmerized by the story in Gen. 22, where Abraham takes his son Isaac to Moriah to sacrifice. To the Jews the role of Isaac in this episode is paramount. He willingly went with his father, he let himself be bound on the altar, and he even carried the wood for the sacrifice alone. Because of this act of heroism, his sacrifice brought redemption for the whole nation of Israel. Now when we read John 19:17, perhaps this verse takes on a whole new meaning. The text is not literally telling us how Jesus carried the cross, it is deliberately linking Jesus with Isaac. Perhaps John is trying to tell us who Jesus was as he died, and what role He was doing. If Isaac brought redemption to Israel, Jesus is doing so much more, and like Isaac, Jesus carries the wood alone to His mountain.

In a literal sense, the text in John might lose its intended meaning. Yet if we allow this text to conflict with the other gospels, and dig a little deeper, these words take on a whole new meaning. So perhaps the Bible is not just about a literal reading, but strives to tell us who we are, and how we relate to the God who created us. Is this a little tougher, and does it ask us to dig a little deeper and think a little more – you bet it does. Yet if we do the rewards just might be a little greater, and give us a better window into our experience.