As a minister and teacher, I am often asked questions which begin, “What does the Bible say about...” There is an underlying assumption about such a question. That assumption is: the Bible is the final authority in spiritual and religious matters, so we need to know what it says about the matter in question. Knowing what it says should end the discussion--our authority has spoken.
There are a couple of big problems with this approach. First, on many things, the Bible is silent. In the English Reformation, one of the sticky issues during Elizabeth’s time (and afterwards) was whether clergy should wear vestments. The argument against it was that the Bible doesn’t mention vestments, therefore the custom of wearing them was clearly a human invention (and smacked of vanity). The argument for it was, since the Bible is silent, it’s a non-essential matter; plus, tradition speaks in favor of it--they’ve been worn for centuries with no apparent harm. Here we see a couple of important issues developing; exactly how is the Bible the authority on matters and what role does tradition play in things?
A second problem is how to understand what the Bible says. This is a problem because, it actually doesn’t say much of anything that doesn’t need to be interpreted in some way. By interpreted, I mean to try to grasp the meaning rather than what it says. In conversation our words and our meaning are not always congruent. You’ve had this happen: someone seems miffed at you and you ask them if they’re OK. “I’m fine,” they reply with anger dripping off their tone of voice. Their use of the word “fine” can’t reasonably be understood as, “Everything is OK; don’t worry.” What they meant and what they said are different. The same holds true in written communication--maybe even more so since we can’t hear tone, volume or inflection or see facial gestures or body language when we read.
An illustration for faith can be foundin the words in the Great Thanksgiving called the Words of Institution that are said over the bread and wine. We would like to know what Jesus said so we can incorporate those exact words in our ritual. Sadly, the synoptic Gospels that contain these words don’t agree--never mind the problems of translation I’ve spoken to in other posts. (See 9 May entry, “What Did Jesus Say?”) Even more important, we’d like to know what he meant. To solve the problem of uncertainty, we have interpreted the Gospels and arrived at what can be considered the essence of what Jesus was getting at. I could give hundreds of examples, but you’d be tired of reading them quickly.
A third problem is one of context. When we read something written 2000 years or so ago, we have to keep in mind that it was written to a particular audience, with a particular point of view, in a particular culture, the latter being dramatically different from our own. To address a question asked Sunday, what does the Bible say about women clergy? The answer is: nothing. It doesn’t say much about male clergy either. Bishops, for example, are mentioned, but their roles don’t seem to be anything like the roles present day Episcopal bishops fill. One Greek word used in the New Testament is “presbuteros” and means “elder” as in “older person” and it is from this word that we get our word “priest.” The word is used to describe those in authority in a local assembly of Christians. The Greek word “episkopos” means “overseer” or “ruler” and it is used in the NT four times refering to church leaders. It is from this word we get our word “bishop.” Both are used to describe some kind of leadership role in the early communities. Were they? We can’t be sure. Even so, there is no mention of bishops ordaining anybody or confirming anybody in the first 100 or so years. Yet today, those are two very important roles exclusive to bishops; nor is there any mention of the elders presiding at the Eucharist for the first 150 years. The context is different from ours and so, apparently, was the need. As time passed and the Christian community’s needs changed, so did the way in which these leaders’ roles were understood.
This problem of context is especially important when the Bible seems to offer contradictory teachings. What we know about women is, that very early on, they were active participants in the life of the scattered churches, (see Paul’s letters and Acts) and as time went by, some communities embraced that idea and some rejected it. Around the year 200, we know from a Christian writer that some communities had women prophets; exactly what that meant is unclear, but clearly some communities embraced the idea that women could speak for God. But this writer who told us about them didn’t like the idea of women speaking with God’s authority at all. Even before that, by the time I Timothy is written around 130 to 155 AD, the writer says that women are not to teach or have authority over men. This is a major text which has been used to subordinate women in the Church. However, I Timothy also says, “Use a little wine for the stomach’s sake.” Are we then to all be wine drinkers or to use only wine to settle our upset stomachs? The same letter also says that women will be saved by bearing children. Do we believe that today? Statements such as this have to be seen in context and the context was complex.
Now and then I’d really like it if we had a Bible that was like a rule book for football. It would all be simple and cut and dried, no need for interpretation. Yet, even the football rule book has been changed hundreds of times as the game evolved because the old rules didn’t fit anymore. However, the basics of the game have remained remarkably the same for all these years. On most days, I’m happy with the Book we have. Like football, things change and our Bible can still offer the guidance we need. As Episcopalians we make much of factoring in reason (which includes the total of our experience) and tradition along with Scripture to make sense of God’s will for the Church and those who are a part of this Kingdom. It’s harder work, but with God’s help, it will take care of us.
Peace, Jerry
No comments:
Post a Comment