A Flexible Relationship to the Truth

*The following additions come from a discussion I am having on a message board concerning the reliability of scripture in achieving absolute truth:

The purpose of this reponse is not to vilify faith, but actually to strengthen it. Truth is not so easily obtained, and the more difficult truth is to obtain, the more faith is required. The criticism I have of the biblical writers is not a criticism of their faith or belief, but a simple acknowledgement that truth is just as elusive within Scripture as it is within the secular world.

The term redaction criticism was coined by W. Marxen in his work, Mark the Evangelist, pg. 21. This type of textual criticism is useful during investigations of all types of historical literature, and is not only applied to the Bible. In What is Redaction Criticism, pg. 1, Perrin defines the practice of redaction criticism as the discovery of "the theological motivation of an author as this is revealed in the collection, arrangment, editing and modification of traditional material, and in the composition of new material or the creation of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity." Conservative, moderate, and liberal scholars all use redaction criticism to some extent in addressing biblical interpretation.

Marxen explains that there are three "settings in life" to consider when interpreting each of the gospels. The first setting is the authentic tradition deriving from the life of Christ; the second is the use to which the early Christian community put said tradition; and the third is the environmental situation of the author(s) of the gospel since they are not only collectors, but also writers. Unless one believes that God Himself wrote the words in stone, then all of this makes sense. Scholars do the same analysis with any historical document of study.

Now, on to some examples of biblical redaction. I should start by saying that just because material is redacted does not automatically mean you should not believe it - it simply means you should know it is redacted, and not part of the original story. Personally, I have faith in many redacted teachings. Of course, the most major doctrine in all of traditional Christendom is the divinity of Christ. As everyone knows, before movable type printing, volumes were copied by hand. In the case of Scripture, many thousands of scribes laboriously hand-copied sections of the Bible. At times, these copyists were tired; at times they were in a hurry; at times they were theologically motivated to make changes. Hence, "errors" entered into the biblical manuscripts, now accounting for tens of thousands of variations in readings, some minor, some not-so-minor.

One of the not-so-minor variations is found in the opening line of Mark's gospel, which reads, "This is the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God." The tiny, yet theologically powerful, "Son of God" is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It is a later scribal addition to bring Mark into line with later developments in Christology, and the other gospels (which almost all scholars acknowledge were written after Mark). What makes "the Son of God" so strange in the context of Mark's gospel is that, throughout the rest of his gospel, Mark takes the prophet Daniel's lead in referring to Christ as the "Son of Man(kind)."

Another vital Christian doctrine is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Along with a [now heretical] version of Christ's divinity, I also believe in the traditional version of Christ's resurrection. But again, Mark gives us redactionary issues on the resurrection. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end with the discovery of the empty tomb in 16:8. Later manuscripts add verses 9-20, which include post-resurrection appearances of Christ, and even some assumed words of Christ himself in verses 15-18. Of course, if the reader of Mark's gospel is already a committed believer in the resurrected Christ, then he will just fly through verses 9-20 like they are the most natural words in the world. However, if an unbeliever were to stop at verse 8, the empty tomb, then there are myriad explanations for the emptiness of the grave. The later verses were added to confirm an evolving belief in a resurrected Christ. Interestingly enough, the supposed words of Christ in verses 15-18 have led to a variety of fundamentalist Christianity in Appalachia known as "snake-handling." Scores of believers have died for words that most likely were never spoken by Jesus.

A third important doctrine of Christianity, and one which I do not personally hold, is the belief in the Trinity. This is actually one of the more interesting and obvious redactionary biblical doctrines. In Matthew 28:19, the writer states, "baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is not included in early manuscripts, and the Church did not officially assent to the Trinity doctrine until the fourth century, most of the churches having a doctrine of "the holy two" previous to this (see the Council at Nice). One would think that if pro-Trinity scriptures were in the text from the beginning, it would not have taken Church leaders four centuries to make a decision on the issue. Another example of trinitarian interpolation is found in 1 John 5:8, which reads, "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is an extremely late addition as well, and is not found in early manuscripts. The 1 John passage has actually been removed in most modern translations, but is still included in some traditional translations.

Though the next two examples are not necessarily doctrinal, they are very interesting to me in the sense that one shows how the Matthean author(s) and redactors struggled with their contemporary religious environment (i.e. the debate concerning allowing Gentiles into the Christian movement), and the second gives an example of an obvious historical inconsistency. The redactors were not always on the ball.

In much of Matthew's gospel, gentiles are referred to as dogs, or they are normally ignored. However, portions of Matthew, such as the parable of the Roman centurion, exhibit gentile healings. Other portions of Matthew claim that gentiles from east and west will sit down together in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that the Jewish people will be thrown out. Most scholars believe that the pro-gentile material is original material, but that anti-gentile additions were added later when the Jewish Christian community received the gospel. Old traditions die hard I suppose.

There are two versions of what happened to Judas after he supposedly betrayed Christ: Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:16-18. The Matthew version tells us that Judas, full of guilt, threw his thirty pieces of silver on the floor and immediately went to hang himself. The Acts version (traditionally attributed to Luke) tells us that Judas purchased some land with the money, and one day while walking through his fields, he tripped and fell, his guts spilling out on the ground. The stories could not be more different.

Peace & Blessings.

(Re)Defining Sin

Ok - I can imagine that the title alone has already raised some red flags for some readers, and rightly so. It's one thing to talk about re-interpreting scripture, re-structuring the Church, etc. But don't mess with sin! I agree. Sin is a serious topic. Hang in a while, and I think you'll see that I treat it just as seriously as any evangelical would. My purpose here is not to reason away the seriousness of sin, but to do it more justice than is traditionally done.

One thing that all Christians should be able to agree on is the centrality of Christ and his teachings. In regards to spiritual law, Christ gave assent to two commands that sum up his view on how sin should be judged: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27). So often, Christians bring to the "sin discussion" various do's and dont's from throughout scripture. Christ simplified it for us. He gave us a love command to measure what is sinful and what is not. In Mark 12:31, Christ tells us there is no other command that supercedes these two love commands. So how should these words of Christ help us to redefine sin?

1. Sin is the absence of loving relationship with God and people. Sin is not first and foremost an act of commission, but an act of omission. Sin can be decided based on the lack of presence of love.
2. Sin is failing to love God, neighbor, and self. Loving God is basically living in the presence of God, or having our being in His Spirit. Loving our neighbor, at least in Luke's gospel, is loving the other (i.e. those we would traditionally have nothing to do with). A lover of neighbors is one who has mercy on the outcast/other (v.37). Loving ourself is first self-identifying with the other, then loving the self. In other words, loving the self is recognizing that we have as much standing in the experience of grace as the person we consider most different from ourself, and that we love ourselves as much as we love the other person. Most Christians get the "love your neighbor as yourself" command backwards, because they start with only loving what is easy to love about themselves. Starting the neighborly love process from the foundation of the other stretches the command to a new, and more difficult level.

Sin, therefore, is not about a list of do's and dont's, but about acts of love toward God, others, and self. Therefore, rather than the person who follows the most rules, the most sanctified Christian is the one who loves the most.

Peace & Blessings.

Called to Inclusiveness

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Acts 10: 9-16

This wonderful story of inclusion has been interpretatively reduced as an inclusion of Gentiles into the family God. This, of course, is a comfortable interpretation because most believers are Gentiles. Few people, however, go beyond their own characteristics (i.e. being Gentile, being straight, being doctrinally correct, etc.) when it comes to inclusion in the Church. This vision of Peter's prompts me to ask some questions of myself, which, in answering, lead to fuller inclusion within the Community of God:

Q: What can God NOT make clean?
A: Nothing.

Thank God we are not the gatekeepers. The visible fellowship of believers would be so tiny if we had control of who's in and who's out. The grace of God is sovereign, and whoever (that a powerful word) comes to Him is accepted by Him. Human standards of "cleanliness" notwithstanding, God arms are open wide enough for full inclusion of all who come to Him.

Q: How do the animals shown by God in the vision equate to humanity?
A: Levitical laws of purity are done away with.

Legalists love to quote the verse, "I (Christ) did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." For some reason, they think this quote of Christ re-inforces a system of rules and regulations within the Church. Whether the law is destroyed or fulfilled, the point is that it doesn't exist anymore. By encouraging Peter to eat formerly unclean animals, God is giving the Church a new spirit of openness and acceptance. In effect, God is saying He accepts more people in His family than we'd ever consider accepting into ours.

Q: Why did Peter have to be told three times to accept the vision?
A: Conversation is everything to God.

The more I read scripture, the more I see how much God values conversation with His creatures. Even though Peter's exclusivism initially bothered me, it also taught me something: God withdrew the vision before Peter gave agreement. Peter was left to formulate his own decision on the matter of inclusion, and ultimately came over to God's side of the argument. This wasn't a necessary conclusion though. Peter just as well could have disagreed and continued being exclusive. God values freedom and conversation over acceptance and rote obedience.

Peace & Blessings.

Approaching the Bible as a Conversation

With all the examples of great fathers and mothers of the faith conversing, arguing, and fighting with God, I've always thought it strange that some people approach scripture as if God is finished speaking. What kind of relationship is so one-sided that for nearly two thousand years, only one side gets to speak, and the other must simply listen? The Bible is littered with examples of faithful people in real conversation with God. However, most modern Christians only address God in prayer, and then mostly with petitions.

If the Bible is a significant part of God's word to us, then why shouldn't we address it as we would a real conversation with any other of our friends? In real conversations, one participant doesn't just sit back and agree with everything being said. There are tensions and resolutions, and some questions are simply left unanswered. I know many people are uncomfortable with unanswered questions, but I cannot think of any real relationship in my life in which there is not a certain amount of ambiguity.

Apart from prayer, I see the Bible as God's biggest offering of conversation to us as His followers. It is so plain to me that scripture is simply a means to an end, that being a walk with God. Of course, I am not suggesting a biblical buffet, where each person just picks and chooses what they want to accept. This is an all-too-typical straw man argument against those who are really seeking to find truth through conversation. In fact, I believe conversing with the biblical witnesses treats scripture more highly than simply claming the Bible as petrified truth. It is so refreshing to start reading passages of scripture knowing that God wants a response, not just a nod in the affirmative.

Peace & Blessings.

Brian McLaren: Power, In Ways We Don't Understand

powered by ODEO

Sola Christos

The traditional mantra of evangelical Christianity since the Protestant Reformation has been sola scriptura, or scripture alone. Whether or not the original intention of this idea was to make an idol of the Bible, that has too often become the case in modern evangelicalism. Truth, as an objective reality, has been equated with the actual words of the Bible. Was this ever the intention of God, or has Christianity become a book-based spirituality rather than a person-based spirituality?

Whenever I think of Truth, I think of it in terms of relationship, not in terms of propositions and doctrines. To me, Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. Otherwise, how can we possibly understand the many verses of scripture referring to Jesus (a person) as the truth? Take a look at the following verses while trying to reconcile the modern idea of truth as right propositions.

"For me, to live is Christ."

"I am the way, the truth, and the life."

"I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

To live is Christ. How can this make sense in any other context than truth as relationship? It makes much less sense to say, "To live is the virgin birth." People do not live by propositions, but by relationships. Everything that is anything is bound up in a series of relationships, without which there really is no meaning. I ... am the truth. This is the most plain biblical statement of the person of Jesus being equated with actual truth. Christ does not precede "the truth" with statements of dogma - He begins the sentence with a proper noun, Himself. There is no full truth outside the person of Jesus. A book cannot be perfect truth. Only a Person can accomplish that. The third verse gives Christians a clear view of what the Bible is: a witness to the Truth. Jesus encoutnered the same problem in his day, with religious people wanting to make the scriptures the end all of truth. Life is found not in religious texts, but in a personal relationship with Christ.

Robert Webber asks a relevant question: "Do we believe in a book or a person?" It is an either/or question. Either there is one, perfect true direction of worship, or there is not. Only God can be perfect, and perfection deserves our worship. Leonard Sweet has written a wonderful book dealing in part with this subject:

http://www.randomhouse.com/waterbrook/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781578566471

Peace & Blessings.

Biblical Mantras

Sometimes, I think it would be good to borrow methods from other faith traditions in the ways of spiritual discipline. I live in Korea, and am surrounded by many Buddhist co-workers. On a recent visit to a Buddhist temple, I was drawn into the chants of the monks, though I had no idea what they were actually saying. What drew me were not the words, but the rhythm and level of concentration. From that experience, I have developed a method of scriptural meditation that works really well for me - I call it "Biblical Meditation." There are some methods, such as Lectio Divina, that implement certain scriptural meditation practices along with other personal or communal rituals. The type of biblical mantra ritual I have developed consists solely of breathing techniques for relaxation and repeating a certain scriptural passage out loud in a "Buddhist"-type tone.

As an example, today I took the biblical reference, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will receive the kingdom of God." I developed a personal sing-song tone and rhythm, and after practicing controlled breathing for about 5 minutes, I simply chanted that passage for about 15 minutes. Why do I practice this type of biblical meditation rather than simply reading the Bible as a daily routine?

There are two reasons I do this: (1) in my experience, repeating a scriptural passage over and over again allows the meaning of that passage to seep deep into my subconscious, so that I continually think about that meaning throughout the day without consciously calling it to remembrance; (2) concentrating on a single, simple passage of scripture instead of an entire chapter, allows a powerful point to make mental and spiritual impact on me, rather than trying to receive many useful points within a wider, longer passage.

If you are interested in trying this form of biblical meditation, here's how I do it. I hope you can get some ideas here and re-arrange them to your circumstances for maximum effect:

1. I always do the meditation at a particular time of the day at which I am most aware and awake.
2. The environment must be comfortable and quiet. No disturbances should interrupt this time of meditation.
3. I choose a short passage (no more than 15 words) concerning something I want to improve in my life, or something God has moved me to implement.
4. Before the meditation, I develop a chant rhythm and tone, so that I do not have to experiment with this during the actual meditation time.
5. After I am ready to begin, I take 5 minutes to breathe in and out deeply, calming the mind, and attempting to empty it as much as possible.
6. When I feel relaxed and receptive, I begin chanting the scripture I chose beforehand.
7. I stop chanting whenever the Spirit moves me, or lacking that feeling, whenever I feel the passage is sufficiently implanted into my subconscious mind.

I would encourage you to try this type of scriptural meditation. It may feel strange at first, as most of us are not used to treating scripture in this way. However, I assure you the effects from this spiritual exercise will bless and strengthen you.

Peace & Blessings.