These
are the opening words of the Salvation Army's eleven doctrines. And it is here that
one must begin each theological discussion. But perhaps it is not enough to simply
have the Bible as a starting point- it may not quite suffice - so perhaps we must
first discuss, briefly, our
hermeneutics (the study of the
principles of interpretation) i.e. how we think and reason: what we believe in the Bible,
what we believe about the Bible, how were the Bible’s authors inspired and how do
these writings serve as our guide today.
The
point is that there is a big difference between claiming that the biblical words
were dictated to its authors and is therefore God's word that bridges cultural
and linguistic differences between the original authors and the original
recipient, and can without difficulty be read by a contemporary audience with
complete comprehension and understanding; it is a whole different thing to
claim that God spoke to Moses on Moses’ level and manner of expression, and
Isaiah on Isaiah's level of reasoning and comprehension. Consequently, we must
first understand what the Bible passage meant ‘then and there’, before we can
apply the words to the ‘here and now’. Hermeneutics
The
story of Philip in the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter Eight serves as an example. It is a rather
banal story about a disciple who follows God's guidance in order to seek out someone yearning to know God and to help him repent. With a comprehension of the historical
context and what a eunuch was (perceived to be) the story moves to a completely different depth and
therefore a multitude of different interpretation possibilities surface.
Prior to confronting the GLBT issues from a spiritual, Christian or biblical perspective, one must first clarify a few foundational worldview questions.
The
first bias that the author maintains in this blog series is that the literal
reading of the words of the Bible is not just a faulty approach (methodology) in
responding to a translation of an ancient document, but also an affront to both
writers, readers (ancient and contemporary) and lastly against God, as one
chooses (often unconsciously) not to take Scripture seriously, by reducing the
text to its simplest literal interpretation.
Each
reading of a biblical text is an interpretation of an interpretation, of an
interpretation. Simply through the reading of a (Biblical) text we interpret and add
meaning and emphasis due our body language, facial expressions, and choice
of pericope (extract
or selected text from the Bible)
and intonation. If one then adds to the complexity of the original documents
(are there any?) copying, language and culture shifts there remain a delicate
and difficult (interpretation and comprehension) process that cannot be simplified, ignored or dismissed.
Does
this mean that ordinary people should stop reading the Bible, that one cannot
understand the Bible's message without a theological higher education? No, of
course not. The Bible is God's inspired word and as such can be understood
through the Holy Spirit and through the fellowship’s application and lives lived
as instructed by the words of the Bible.
We have
to, in our Bible reading, consider and weigh in (in line with John Wesley's
model) our experience, church tradition and to the best of our ability, understand
and reason about the text provided (us).
In the Jewish tradition this process is called the Midrash (Wikipedia, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash) an ongoing dialogue between Jewish Rabbis through the centuries in which Scripture is interpreted, reinterpreted and applied to the shifting cultural currents of the community. Midrash is the Jewish tool to manage overwhelming signs (occurrences), event chronology, parallel narratives (parallelism), language difficulties and text anomalies in the Hebrew texts that make a literal interpretation difficult or impossible.
In the Jewish tradition this process is called the Midrash (Wikipedia, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash) an ongoing dialogue between Jewish Rabbis through the centuries in which Scripture is interpreted, reinterpreted and applied to the shifting cultural currents of the community. Midrash is the Jewish tool to manage overwhelming signs (occurrences), event chronology, parallel narratives (parallelism), language difficulties and text anomalies in the Hebrew texts that make a literal interpretation difficult or impossible.
Perhaps
it is from this viewpoint (vantage point) one ought to approach and read this
blog series: as a theological and philosophical discussion about interpreting
difficult biblical problems, i.e., What does the Bible say about homosexuality,
bisexuality, and transgender persons, albeit without having knowledge of what
was meant (intended) at the time when the biblical texts were written.
17 comments:
This is bang on. I have held the view that while taking the Bible seriously (and I do), that is not the same as taking the Bible literally (in all texts). All of us bring our own experiences, history, filters when we read, interpret and apply Scripture. The problem i have seen is that too often we are not so much championing the inerrancy of Scripture, as we are championing the inerrancy of our own personal interpretation of Scripture. Many blessings.
I am really looking forward to the whole series. Lots of food for thought.
Tina Paddock
Former
Canada and Bermuda
Hi Tina, I agree with you.
Unfortunately, what I feared was going to happen, started happening with one of the responses to the previous post by Australia Southern Territory.
I do think a new perspective is needed because we are in a different time, culture, language etc. It is not arrogance to believe that we are more intelligent then they were 2000 year ago - it is fact. We know more about science etc than we did back then. That changes perspective, changes understanding, changes everything.
This does not mean that for 2000 years, people have been wrong. It just means that we are changing, our understanding is changing, and we are maturing. We are learning more and more about our infinite God.
As I said earlier, we need to apply the same rules to this debate as we do to other debates such as slavery, diet, clothing etc, or we accept the literal reading of those topics in the bible - something none of us would be prepared to do. We can't pick and choose which parts of the bible we want to interpret and which we take literally. We either take it all literally, or we interpret it all. That's where this debate comes in.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East now living in London
Graeme, thank you for following this condo so closely. I look forward to hearing your input on some of the more in depth sections. You will see that one of the issues that come into this is women in ministry and how the issues are interrelated once we go deeper.
I especially agree with "We either take it all literally, or we interpret it all." for me taking it all literally has become impossible i must walk down the second path.
Tina, thank you for your comment! This has been a scary series to write and an even scarier to publish!
Not all verses should be taken literally. There is a mixed bag and you can see that throughout Scripture.For instance "The finger of God". Does God (The Father) have a finger ? He has no body. Did Jesus really mean to "pluck out your eye" in His teaching. This is where I do agree about knowing the context of teaching(to who,when , where).I also do not believe that the Bible teaches against(science-knowledge)but individuals have and the early Roman Catholic Church did. Scripture states"My people perish for the lack of knowledge". That is OT teaching but we also must be VERY aware about OT teaching to the Hebrews or we will be stuck (literally) following the Levitical Law -dietary and ceremonial. We do not stone adulterers these days. The sad thing is that we "accomodate"sin in many ways by ignoring it or desiring to not interfere (warn of danger or consequences). I see this often in social service settings in the Army.
Interesting.
USA Former
patrik and others, i have a radical question to post, in the metropolitan community church, we are asked to consider the gender of god [or non gender] to be inclusive.
to use understanding that scripture was written in a patriarchal manner and all subsequent passages have a gender bias. Now tsa has become the forefront of womens lib and inclusive ministry, we have a female general and so on, we have a female priminister, we have a queen, there are female leaders around the world; this would not be thought of in biblical times save for queen ester. so apart from the catholic church that still has a patriarchal approach to scripture, can we look at scripture with inclusive eyes. read the bible as if written or given by a gender neutral god.
radical i know but with all else given why not consider it to include our female colleagues. and yes i am still having trouble coming to terms with some of the readings but i can understand the thinking.
max walters
former
australian eastern.
I have heard a couple different view points on the gender of God. One is that God is neuter and simply neither male nor female. Secondly that God is male. Not because of any interpretation as per se, but dealing with Jesus as male and being the EXACT representation of God in bodily form. We read of the Holy Spirit as He, not it or she. God is Who He is.He can understand (since He is the great Creator)about male and female feelings and situations.
Jesus called God the Father, Abba-daddy.Some think that God the Father may actually be neuter as well as the Holy Spirit since there is no need for a specific sex or gender.
Actually in Hebrew lineage the female line is as important as the male. Look at the lineage of Jesus-no earthly father.
As far as women Jesus puts them up above the Patriarchal system of the Old Testament.Let's face it. Without women their would be no men except for Adam. what a lonely world that would be.
USA Former
Always taught Holy Spirit was personal and referred to as "He". Of interest to me is that the greek (pneuma) is gender- neutral- as opposed to the latin and later English (which imply masculine gender). However, the original Hebrew (Ruach) is feminine, as is Shekinah which refers to the presence/glory of God. I don't think God is gender- neutral. I think back to Genesis 1:27- male and female-together- reflect the image of God. Which as a woman, makes my heart glad.
Tina Paddock
Former
Canada and Bermuda
One thing for sure. Jesus was a man.
Pneuma in Greek also means movement of air.
USA Former
there is no discrepancy there, Jesus was born human and god and as a male to endure the physical needs and temptations a human goes through.
remember as i said when quoting scripture that it was written by males with patriarchal thinking so having a feminine aspect would not be considered.
max walters
former
australian eastern
Max-Do you not think that there are other reasons why women did not write the Bible beside this patriarchal reasoning ?If God spoke to humans why did He not have women write ? That makes God sound like a strict Calvinist.That is some of the reasoning that Dr. John MacArthur uses,that God spoke to men ,and only men today can be Pastors and Preachers.He uses Pauls teaching to forbid a woman to speak in the assembly.
I personally believe that many men have missed their calling(and responsibility as spiritual leaders)but also believe that in the last days sons and daughters will prophesy( foretell and forthtell).
Blessings,
USA Former
Personally I think that we must concede that God is neither male nor female or both.
Throughout the scriptures there is a strong presence of the sacred feminine, as well as sacred masculinity. Although sometimes I wonder if those categories are even helpful for us when reflecting upon God.
What I am certain of is that suppressing the sacred feminine has cost us dearly in our understanding of whom God is and is the bggest reason for the Judge/Lawgiver image of God.
In our corps we try to use "God" instead of He and Him to avoid ascribing gender to God. Sometimes we sneak in a she or mother to remind ourselves and maybe balance out all the masculine language.
A few comments; In the book of Wisdom Solomon speaks of God as She. However, it's my view that the God of creation, when designing and crafting the first man and woman gifted each with both HIS anima and animus characteristics.
Patrik, with reference to the civility observed by those in our fellowship (formers) they have all completed training as officers in various corners of the world, served an average of 14 years as SA officers, attained the rank of Major or higher prior tp resignation, and most have at least one degree from a higher education institution. And, many now serve in the ministry in other denominations (learned and intellectually charged) Persons leaving a comment without the status 'former' are most likely not former officers.
Further, we have a private chat site for formers only, where we do get a bit more rambunctious and where more than 125 comments were shared stemming from an intro to your article.
Visitors to the blog may be interested to know that I, like Patrik, served as the CO in Malmo, this just prior to being appointed to the pioneer team to re-open fire in Russia.
blessings, sven
God the Father is difficult to explain because He is a Spirit. However Jesus the Son as God is a Jewish male. He is God in bodily form. He is the exact representation of God. That should help us understand. we look at issues from what we know. He is God and we are not. We have our limitations including our limited understanding.We look into eternity from earthly bodies that are from respective genders. We must remember that there is no mariage or sex in eternity (as far as we Know)and the reason for that on earth is to reproduce among other reasons.
Interesting.
USA Former
I personally have no problem with using inclusive language in reference to God the Creator. Bring it on the same as the Bible does: Masculine, Feminine (the mother hen who gathered her chicks under her wings) and even neutered where appropriate. (God as a Rock.)
Where I have had a problem in the past is that I once attended a church that believed in inclusive language to the point that it became ridiculous! There was an element of people in the church (mainly men who had seminary training)who thought ALL references to God as masculine were evil and might offend some women. (Most of the women could care less though some did.) Yet ALL references to God as female (or even as IT as if God were a collection of virtues to the NTH degree)were O.K! Words to hymns and Biblical passages were often changed to where they made no sense!
I also noticed that those who were into inclusive language to the point of eliminating all masculine words and using only feminine words had a proclivity toward what could only be described as modern day witchcraft and magic. When one thinks about it that's sort of what happened in the polytheistic religions of the ancient world such as the fertility cults of Canaan, wasn't it? It was within that cultural milieu that the Hebrews came on the scene with the worship of Yahweh.
I think the answer is to teach people from a young age that God is neither male nor female and yet exhibits the qualities of both and that when He (or she) is used to decribe God it is merely human language being used to describe the personhood of God not the gender of God. Since persons in this time and space dimension we live in only come in male and female He(and she)are the only human words we really have to describe God's personhood.
Daryl Lach
USA Central
"You Must Go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand With Jesus in the Morning!"
daryl i must confirm your comments on some inclusive churches; where they have negated almost entirely the maleness of God. and i have such a hard time comming to terms with the saying of the lords prayer in its various forms so as to render it unconnected to the original. but i am trying to read and study scripture as if written gender equal.
i do question how many women writers were considered when the bible was compiled and how many women were on the deciding panel!!! if any :)
max walters
former
australian eastern
Many years ago while at Training College(1981), we were required to visit churches of our choice and report what we learned in doctrine class. One Cadet asked how the Episcopal Pastor would explain God. "Well, I think that there is a possibility that God may be a black female". I thought about that and would share (the best human explanation I could share from what I understood from Scripture) was that God became a man and His Name is Jesus and He is Jewish , born in the flesh in Israel.He always existed but humbled Himself and became a man. To be God and become a man is a lot of humility ! Also it took a lot of love to die for the likes of me !
USA Former
Black female...anyone read The Shack?
Post a Comment