I've been reading a lot of angry posts from my Christian friends regarding a former pastor's recent statements about homosexuality and the bible. I have an opinion on the subject that I don't feel is often or adequately presented to many Christians around me. I hear people who disagree, but those voices often seem loud, angry, and extreme. I want to do my part to state a different opinion. To add an unfamiliar voice to this conversation. Unfortunately, I'm sure I won't adequately state the idea as clearly and artfully as many others, but hey, that's what blogs are for, right? Plus, if you're reading this, you're probably one of around 8, so I don't think I have much to lose. Now, for the sake of keeping this post universal and avoid calling out the particular controversy, I want to keep this pastor anonymous, however, if you are nerdy about religion like me and you're into this sort of conversation, you probably know who I'm talking about anyway. So that said, from henceforth I will call this pastor
Bob.
Bob Rell.
Everyone interprets the Bible. It is impossible to read anything without interpreting it, and the bible is no exception. If someone reads it as a literal constitution of guidelines from God, that in and of itself is a presupposition they are bringing to the text, just as much as any other historical, theological, or literary interpretation. That said, I want to diverge for a moment and say that I've never met anyone who reads the bible as a literal constitution from God. I've heard people say that they do, but I don't believe they actually do. For example, when Paul says that slaves should obey their masters in Ephesians 6:5, I never hear people say, "Well the bible says it, so that's what slaves should do. So, the underground railroad? Heresy." Instead, they put it into a cultural and historical context. Now just imagine if one was an expert on ancient near eastern culture. I bet when they filtered Paul's words through their interpretive lens, they would have much more to say on the subject, and yet, even then there is only so much a person can know about ancient near eastern culture, so even then their best well educated and heart felt attempt to understand the scripture in context would be to some degree misinformed.
Even the smartest interpreters of the bible can only see the tip of the iceberg at best.
The same could be said about Paul's words concerning women speaking in the church. Or wearing fancy jewelry. And yet, people don't get upset when someone has an explanation for these passages other than universal commands. When someone says, "No, Paul was talking specifically to the Corinthian church about that, so it doesn't apply to Suzy's bible study," no one is up in arms. Why not? Why not say, "No, Paul said it so that's that." Why don't we hear arguments on slaves, silent women, braided hair or expensive clothes anymore? Because those are no longer counter-cultural issues. This anger arising in the church, at its roots, has nothing to do with how people approach our sacred texts and attempt to understand God's mysterious word. It has to do with what we believe making us feel right, and defending that comforting feeling. We believe it because it seems right to us, and we use our sacred text to justify it, and because we use our sacred text to justify it, our interpretation must come from God. As someone once said, "everyone is conservative about something."
Now, about Bob Rell.
I have my own presuppositions and interpretive lens when I read and attempt to understand a passage of scripture, but so do you, and so does Bob Rell. I also know that I will spend my whole life attempting to grasp a clearer picture of God's word. But the truth is, I don't know. I don't know what the real truth is. I'm trying, but as I learn more, more often than not my biggest lesson is that I know less than I ever thought I did. I get why people are upset. "Bob Rell said the bible is a bunch of 2000 year old letters!" Here's the thing, they are! Please hear me out, I understand that they are more than that to Christians, but they are more than that to Bob too. If we don't have a reason for what we believe other than, "Cuz the bible says so," then we are denying the existence of our very own, very human interpretive lens. If this is how we respond to other opinions and questions, than irrelevant is a nice way to put it. I would say arrogant and illogical, but that's why I'm not a pastor. We are pretending that how we read the bible is automatically from God simply because we believe it, and that's way too much credit to give to our tiny minds. That doesn't mean everything we think is wrong, necessarily. But it also doesn't mean that Jesus sat with us in Sunday School and taught us how to read the bible.
I'm not too sure of my self on most things, but one thing I can say with absolute certainty is refusing to admit I could be wrong about anything is choosing to close my mind to potential truth. The absolute worst thing I could do in trying to understand the Bible better is to insult other Christians when they interpret a text different than me. The word I hear used most often to do this is heresy. Heresy was a word invented by people who were afraid to admit they could be wrong. Afraid to admit their own frailty and humanity, because if it turns out that they didn't have it figured out, it would undermine their righteousness and power over "the other." As my wife's family member once said,
"We don't even understand how a cow's digestive system is different than ours. We don't know bullshit."
But that's a pretty big pill to swallow, isn't it?
Religion is what happens when the sacred is filtered through feeble human understanding. It's not wrong, but the second we try to stick God in it, we are worshiping a golden calf, and everyone knows one of the easiest things for us humans to do is to worship golden calves. And all in the name of Jesus? The one who fulfilled God's law by deconstructing it? Please go read John 8:1-11, when Jesus blatantly disagrees with the law of Moses. There's a reason he stirred up trouble with religious authorities. Jesus was a heretic. Why? Because to grow closer to a real, mysterious God of the entire freakin' universe, you have to be.
To sum up what I'm trying to say, Bob Rell may be wrong about how to understand the Bible's verses on homosexuality. But so may we. So let's stop pretending that OUR interpretations of God's word is in fact God's word.
Bob.
Bob Rell.
Everyone interprets the Bible. It is impossible to read anything without interpreting it, and the bible is no exception. If someone reads it as a literal constitution of guidelines from God, that in and of itself is a presupposition they are bringing to the text, just as much as any other historical, theological, or literary interpretation. That said, I want to diverge for a moment and say that I've never met anyone who reads the bible as a literal constitution from God. I've heard people say that they do, but I don't believe they actually do. For example, when Paul says that slaves should obey their masters in Ephesians 6:5, I never hear people say, "Well the bible says it, so that's what slaves should do. So, the underground railroad? Heresy." Instead, they put it into a cultural and historical context. Now just imagine if one was an expert on ancient near eastern culture. I bet when they filtered Paul's words through their interpretive lens, they would have much more to say on the subject, and yet, even then there is only so much a person can know about ancient near eastern culture, so even then their best well educated and heart felt attempt to understand the scripture in context would be to some degree misinformed.
Even the smartest interpreters of the bible can only see the tip of the iceberg at best.
The same could be said about Paul's words concerning women speaking in the church. Or wearing fancy jewelry. And yet, people don't get upset when someone has an explanation for these passages other than universal commands. When someone says, "No, Paul was talking specifically to the Corinthian church about that, so it doesn't apply to Suzy's bible study," no one is up in arms. Why not? Why not say, "No, Paul said it so that's that." Why don't we hear arguments on slaves, silent women, braided hair or expensive clothes anymore? Because those are no longer counter-cultural issues. This anger arising in the church, at its roots, has nothing to do with how people approach our sacred texts and attempt to understand God's mysterious word. It has to do with what we believe making us feel right, and defending that comforting feeling. We believe it because it seems right to us, and we use our sacred text to justify it, and because we use our sacred text to justify it, our interpretation must come from God. As someone once said, "everyone is conservative about something."
Now, about Bob Rell.
I have my own presuppositions and interpretive lens when I read and attempt to understand a passage of scripture, but so do you, and so does Bob Rell. I also know that I will spend my whole life attempting to grasp a clearer picture of God's word. But the truth is, I don't know. I don't know what the real truth is. I'm trying, but as I learn more, more often than not my biggest lesson is that I know less than I ever thought I did. I get why people are upset. "Bob Rell said the bible is a bunch of 2000 year old letters!" Here's the thing, they are! Please hear me out, I understand that they are more than that to Christians, but they are more than that to Bob too. If we don't have a reason for what we believe other than, "Cuz the bible says so," then we are denying the existence of our very own, very human interpretive lens. If this is how we respond to other opinions and questions, than irrelevant is a nice way to put it. I would say arrogant and illogical, but that's why I'm not a pastor. We are pretending that how we read the bible is automatically from God simply because we believe it, and that's way too much credit to give to our tiny minds. That doesn't mean everything we think is wrong, necessarily. But it also doesn't mean that Jesus sat with us in Sunday School and taught us how to read the bible.
I'm not too sure of my self on most things, but one thing I can say with absolute certainty is refusing to admit I could be wrong about anything is choosing to close my mind to potential truth. The absolute worst thing I could do in trying to understand the Bible better is to insult other Christians when they interpret a text different than me. The word I hear used most often to do this is heresy. Heresy was a word invented by people who were afraid to admit they could be wrong. Afraid to admit their own frailty and humanity, because if it turns out that they didn't have it figured out, it would undermine their righteousness and power over "the other." As my wife's family member once said,
"We don't even understand how a cow's digestive system is different than ours. We don't know bullshit."
But that's a pretty big pill to swallow, isn't it?
Religion is what happens when the sacred is filtered through feeble human understanding. It's not wrong, but the second we try to stick God in it, we are worshiping a golden calf, and everyone knows one of the easiest things for us humans to do is to worship golden calves. And all in the name of Jesus? The one who fulfilled God's law by deconstructing it? Please go read John 8:1-11, when Jesus blatantly disagrees with the law of Moses. There's a reason he stirred up trouble with religious authorities. Jesus was a heretic. Why? Because to grow closer to a real, mysterious God of the entire freakin' universe, you have to be.
To sum up what I'm trying to say, Bob Rell may be wrong about how to understand the Bible's verses on homosexuality. But so may we. So let's stop pretending that OUR interpretations of God's word is in fact God's word.
Well spoken, man. =)
ReplyDeleteThanks dude! Next time I'm in Somerset we should hit up Ugly Mugz. We need to hang!
Delete