My friend Erika Spaet made this eye-opening video about the B-I-B-L-E.
I laughed. I cringed. I was challenged. It is a wonderful 6 minute video.
I hope that you find it as helpful and inspiring as I did.
Word of God from Erika Spaet on Vimeo.
On the eve of tomorrow’s first Progressive Bible Study (Galatians 1) here are some items you might be interested in.
The first is a series of short podcast by some friends who will be helping with PBS
Katie North is up first, then Charlie Jesch is second and finally Brett Stuvland joins Katie and me at the table.
The second is a short post to clarify the ‘I’ words of inerrant, infallible, and inspired
art by Jesse Turri
There is something uniquely intense about words that start with the letter ‘I’ when it comes to the study of religion and scripture. It is an unfortunate quirk in the English language that leads negatives – or negations – to begin with the letter ‘I’.
We are talking about infallible, inerrant, and inspired.
The important thing to know right off the bat is that:
- Those words are not interchangeable
- Those words are vastly different in intensity
These three ‘I’ words exhibit the most intense aspect of the difficulties when delving into matters of faith. Many people point to words like these as an example of exactly why they are not interested in studying the Bible. It can be both intimidating and infuriating to caught up in these contentious issues.
This is the sort of stuff that keeps some people away all together. For our purposes here, we will be as generous as possible but we will also be clear in our commitment as progressive christians.
We live in a unique time of history where those who claim to believe the Bible the most attempt to place two words not found in scripture upon the Bible:
Inerrancy: The idea that Scripture is completely free from error. It is generally agreed by all who use the term that inerrancy at least refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of Scripture as God’s Word, which informs humankind of the need for and the way to *salvation. Some, however, have gone further and try to affirm that the Bible is also completely accurate in whatever it teaches about other subjects, such as science and history.
This is admittedly a tough line to hold. The more that one learns about Biblical scholarship or historical criticism the tougher it gets. Inerrancy is an outside idea imposed upon the Bible that the Bible itself and thus has a tough time living up to its claim. It does not, however, mean that the Bible is not trustworthy!! One can trust the Biblical narrative without having to elevate it to the level of inerrant.
Infallibility: This concept is a little simpler says that, “the scripture will accomplish that purpose for which God gave it”.
The characteristic of being incapable of failing to accomplish a predetermined purpose. In Protestant theology infallibility is usually associated with Scripture. The Bible will not fail in its ultimate purpose of revealing God and the way of *salvation to humans. In Roman Catholic theology infallibility is also extended to the teaching of the church (“*magisterium” or “*dogma”) under the authority of the pope as the chief teacher and earthly head of the body of Christ.
Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Kindle Locations 726-731).
Infallibility is better than inerrancy. Infallible can simply mean that the Bible will accomplish that which it is meant to accomplish. That seems fair enough on the surface.
Here is my contention: Why do we need to assert that it is guaranteed to accomplish the task? Where does that need for certainty come from?
Why isn’t it enough to say that the Bible is ‘inspired’ and leave it at that?
Inspiration: “A term used to designate the work of the Holy Spirit in enabling the human authors of the Bible to record what God desired to have written in the Scriptures. Theories explaining how God “superintended” the process of Scripture formation vary from dictation (the human authors wrote as secretaries, recording word for word what God said) to ecstatic writing (the human authors wrote at the peak of their human creativity). Most *evangelical theories of inspiration maintain that the Holy Spirit divinely guided the writing of Scripture, while at the same time allowing elements of the authors’ culture and historical context to come through, at least in matters of style, grammar and choice of words.”
– Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Kindle Locations 731-736). Kindle Edition.
2 Timothy 3:16 talks about scripture being ‘god breathed’ . It should probably suffice for believers to say that we recognize the work (activity) of God in the scriptures and by that same Spirit we come to read, interpret, and apply those lessons to our lives.
I would love if Christians would simply be satisfied with believing that the Bible is inspired by God’s Spirit and not attempt to make a claim on it that it can not sustain.
I have read and learned a lot about the Bible.
Now I want to read the Bible again.
This has been a long time coming.
For the past 10-15 years I have been growing increasingly unsatisfied with the either/or options that were being presented.
- Creation or Evolution
- Catholic or Protestant
- Democrat or Republican
- Gay or Straight
- Married or Single
- Conservative or Liberal
- Public or Private
- Think or Do
- Talk or Act
- Faith or Reason
I have come to see that these binaries are not only unsatisfying and impotent but are in reality inaccurate and often deceptive. If nothing else, they result in a round-and-round series of dead-end debates that lead nowhere and only serve to produce cul-de-sac brands of christianity that where folks in one camp don’t trust and don’t even know how to talk to folks from the ‘other’ camp.
When it comes to reading the Bible, the either/or options seemed to be:
- one-dimensional black & white literalism
- reductive dismissal and criticism
Both of those are unsatisfying and impotent.
So over the past 4 years I have been comparing notes with trusted friends and trading ideas with respected thinkers and practitioners. I have tried some new stuff out on Sundays in the pulpit and I have read lots of books about the Bible.
About a year and a half ago I have got to the point where I was tired of reading and talking about the Bible … and I want to actually read the Bible.
I know better than to do that alone … so I went on a journey and I found some fellow travelers. We come from all over the country but we have crossed paths in Portland.
We want to take a classic and give it a twist:
Starting Wednesday September 6th at 7pm we are going to meet in a church basement with Bibles open and read the scriptures together through a progressive lens.
So it begins …
____________
This is one of the blogs & articles that we have been preparing over at ProgressiveBibleStudy.com
I have asked a few close friends to take a look at it and now I am wondering if you will take a minute to help me out before we go public with this thing!
If you get a chance to look at it or to share it with someone who might be interested in the topic, that would mean a lot to us. You can post comments here, on that site, or email us at ProgressiveBible@gmail.com
Thank you ahead of time!
Part 4 in a series of 4. In part 1 I asked if our focus on blood and violence has caused us to miss something vital in the Easter story. Part 2 asked if we have mistakenly celebrated the very thing that Christ came to destroy? Part 3 asked if have heard the new word that God spoke in Christ or are we repeating the old word over and over?
Do we need the cross?
Had Jesus died some other way would we still be saved?
This thought experiment appeals to me for two reasons:
- Modern Protestants have overdone it on the cross.
- The incarnation and resurrection hold far more interest and power.
My assertion that over 90% of Christianity remains without the cross.
Jesus’ jewishness, the incarnation, resurrection, and Pentecost are the 4 things that still anchor the Christian church.
Keep in mind what I’m saying and what I am not saying:
- Just because Jesus’ story went the way it did doesn’t mean that it had to go that way.
- Just because things are the way they are doesn’t mean that God wants them that way.
- Jesus’ resurrection could have followed any death – not just the cross.
- The incarnation is where the old formulations of divine/human or transcendent/imminent are breached or fused.
- The Christianity that we have was formed in the aftermath of the cross and resurrection … that is not evidence of the cross’ necessity.
- Had Jesus died some other way, he still would have died once for all.
- The satisfaction, propitiation, expiation and reconciliation that so many focus on in atonement theories are still there without the cross.
- The Christianity that would have emerged would have been slightly different but still largely the same.
- Jesus’ jewishness, the incarnation, resurrection and Pentecost are the 4 things that still anchor the Christian church.
- The cross really doesn’t play that important of a role – not like the previous 4 – Jesus could have been beheaded or stabbed to death and reception would still have taken place. We would still have the gospel.
- The cross is a migrating signifier [like palm branches] and now its main purpose is decoration on our buildings, necklaces, and t-shirts.
Once the Roman Empire co-opted christianity (the Constantinian Compromise) the cross has mostly been a hood-ornament on the machine of empire. Except for a few places on the periphery and during a few periods of severe oppression and domination … the more powerful church has been better historically, the more evident that is.
This point does not prove the thought-experiment, so I don’t want it to distract the conversation, but in the end … I’m not sure how much the cross really does for us.
This is one of the many reasons that I promote being an Incarnational Christian. That is where the power is – incarnation and resurrection!
- Jesus could have died of sudden-infant-death-syndrome or of old age and still died once for all – the sinless one for sinful humanity.
- Jesus could have been stabbed or beaten to death and it is still the resurrection where God vindicates the victim.
Part 3 in a series of 4. In part 1 I asked if our focus on blood and violence has caused us to miss something vital in the Easter story. Part 2 asked if we have mistakenly celebrated the very thing that Christ came to destroy? In part 4 I will ask if we even need a cross (technically).
We may have overdone it with the cross. It is out of proportion. I want to I hear more about the empty tomb (resurrection) and the coming of Holy Spirit (pentecost).
It can seem like , for Protestant Evangelicals, that it is ‘all atonement theory – all the time’.
I have a friend who said “Discipleship is photo-shopping the cross into every picture and angle of my life.” I asked him if the empty tomb wouldn’t be more appropriate. He said that you can’t have one without the other.
So is that what we are doing?
Is ‘the cross’ shorthand for the whole story?
Is it assumed that when we say ‘Cross’ we mean also Resurrection and Pentecost?
That would make me nervous.
Here is my concern: in the resurrection God spoke a new word over the world. I would like to live into that new word and participate with God’s Spirit who was given as a gift and a seal of the promise.
To obsess on the cross and related atonement theories is to live perpetually in the old word and to camp in the final thing that God said about the old situation.
It manifests in odd ways too. When my school, Claremont, was entering into a new venture of a Multi-Faith University, new logos were drawn up for each participating school. One symbol and one color for each represented religion or tradition. It is actually a cool branding that sends a message I can really get behind.
The problem is that we, as the Christian representative, got a red logo with the Cross as our symbol. We couldn’t have gone with the Flame or the Dove or the Bible or anything else? What is the deal with the Cross obsession? Is it really the best representative for what the whole religion is about?
It has also takes on weird colonial connotations which have compromised its essential message.
I’m just a little Crossed-out. It’s too much. It is out of proportion with the other elements of our faith and is used disproportionally to the other symbols we have.
I would like to see us move into God’s new word for the world – and move out of our perpetual lingering in God’s last word over the old world.
Part 2 in a series of 4. In part 1 I asked if our focus on blood and violence has caused us to miss something vital in the Easter story. In part 3 I will ask if we have overdone it with the cross and in part 4 I will ask if we even need a cross (technically).
Some one will object to my questions by asserting that “Jesus said to take up our crosses – we are a resurrection people and resurrection only happens after crucifixion.”
There are several problems here. 
First, there was more than one cross. There were three in our Easter story only (but not in most of our pictures – like the one to the right). So you can’t say ‘the’ cross. You can say ‘that’ cross. It is vital to get just how many crosses there were. Roman use of crosses was systemic. Jesus’ cross was not an exception in that way.
Second, you are using ‘the cross’ as a shorthand for the whole story. The incarnation, crucifixion, empty grave and pentecost provide a much better snapshot. To sum them up in ‘the cross’ is too limited.
Third, we are people of the resurrection. That does not mean that ‘the cross’ is a good thing. What happened there was unjust. That God redeemed it and brought something good out of it … does not change that it was tragic.
How do we engage the cross still as people who follow Jesus?
It seems like most of the things that we say about the cross are the first half of what should be a longer sentence.
“We preach the cross and Christ crucified” … yes but what do we preach about the cross? That is was unjust? That ‘it is finished’ (the sacrificial system)?
“Jesus died our sins” … yes but also because of our sin? And to what end? To move us away from the scapegoating impulse? To expose and unmask our unjust propensity toward violence?
Here is the problem: if we are not careful, we miss the radical reversal that Jesus’ cross is supposed to provide and we end up simply absorbing it into the system that it was meant to expose. This is a tragedy that ends up normalizing the violence Jesus unmasks and continues the cycle of victimization Jesus was trying to break.
Because of the way talk about the cross in half-sentences and short-hand phrases, we end up siding with the Romans’ use of power and violence and miss the fact that on Good Friday, God was not on the side of the Romans but that God was with Jesus on that cross.
- What do we do with the sacrificial lamb imagery?
We see a trajectory in our canon. God moves Abraham from human sacrifice to animal & grain … later God moves on from that system ( you see this in passages like Psalm 40:6 “sacrifice and offering you did not desire” and Hosea 6:6 “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice”)
People will often quote Hebrews 9:22 “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”. The half they leave out is that it actually says “under the law …” Continue reading “How Good Was Friday? part 2”
It is almost Easter – my most conflicted time of year as a pastor.
I am smitten with the empty grave and with Pentecost. In fact, I am equally as excited about the Easter imagery as I am horrified by North American protestant’s fascination with the cross.
Initially this was a gut reaction. Then I went looking for resources I found these two books : Saved From Sacrifice by Mark Heim , The Non-Violent Atonement by Michael Hardin.
Two things seem to provide the ditch on either side of the road:
1 – Our most well attended services with the most visitors are our bloodiest in imagery.
2 – H. Richard Niebuhr’s famous jab at ‘liberal’ christianity:
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without
judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
This quote has bite for 3 reasons:
1) It is so true. My migration from a charismatic/evangelical context to a more mainline one revealed to me just how many people would be covered by Niehbuhr’s concern. If your don’t hang out with mainline liberal folks, you might not realize how pervasive this allergy to blood is.
2) We live in a sanitized and sterilized culture (to paraphrase Cornell West) where most people have no connection to the meat on their table. They pick it up at the grocery store in plastic wrapped styrofoam containers. Only a small percentage of the population are farmers or hunters.
Meanwhile, we live in a horrifically violent culture (both domestic and military) but so few of us are familiar with blood. We outsource our violence.
This is why a penal substitutionary view of the cross is so attractive /acceptable for so many. The vicarious nature of god pouring out ‘his’ wrath on Jesus results in a pornographic delight that can be seen in depictions like that famous scene in our movies [The Passion] and in many of our contemporary worship songs.
3) That Niehbuhr quote is thrown around too easily whenever someone wants to reexamine or revisit underlying assumptions about how we understand Easter.
Let me be clear about what I am saying and what I am not saying:
- I am not saying that there was no cross and that there was no blood. I get both, I accept both and I proclaim both.
- I am saying that something perverse has seeped into our understanding and our imagery.
- What happened on that cross was real.
- What happened on that cross mattered.
- What happened on that cross was unjust.
- What happened on that cross changed humanity’s relationship to God.
My concern is that we have misunderstood both how it changed and why it changed.
Let me wrap up with a constructive proposal.
When Jesus takes the bread and cup and forever changes their meaning he is saying “what they will do to me – don’t you, as my followers, do to anyone else”.
When Jesus says “forgive them, they know not what they do”, he is saying that they think they know what (and why) they are doing, but they are wrong.
When Jesus says “it is finished”, he is proclaiming the end of this type of scapegoating and violence by those who think they are doing it on God’s behalf.
2 Corinthians 5:18-21, “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. [The one] who had no sin [was made] to be sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
We are to be about peace. We are to be a people of reconciliation. In Christ, God absorbed the hatred and violence of the world. The one who knew no sin – an innocent man – was proclaimed guilty and God responds by proclaiming that we who are guilty of doing that are now innocent and our sins are forgiven.
This is the good news of gospel! This is the hope for human-kind. No one needs to be sacrificed any more. No one needs to die because God is angry – Christ’s unjust death is to be the last. In the empty grave we see the vindication of the victim. God took humanity’s wrong judgement of Jesus and now judges us right with God. We who are guilty are proclaimed innocent because the innocent one was found guilty.
Easter is the great reversal and the vindication of the victimized. It is finished. We can’t afford to keep missing this and repeating the mistake. We who follow Jesus must be about peace and reconciliation. Too many have been scapegoated, placed on crosses and victimized by violence … in Jesus’ name.
God forgive us – we know not what we are doing.
Let it be finished.
In Jesus’ name.
A friend reminded me this week that I used to write about Easter frequently. Then in theology class this week several topics came up that related to Lent and Easter subjects. SO I thought it might be fun to rework some archived material and post it on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. I would love to hear your thoughts.
When I was a children’s and family minister, Palm Sunday was fun. At our stained-glass and organ church did it up big. We got lots and lots of palm branches for folks to wave during the singing of the hymns and we had the kids process down the aisle and march around the sides of the pews. It is quite a visual.
That is the modern version of Palm Sunday. It is kids choirs and photo-ops and party-like atmosphere.
The original Palm Sunday was little bit different. It was not so cutesy and hallmark holiday. It was aggressive and it was deeply political.
The politics of Palm Sunday:
The Jewish people were under occupation. Roman occupation was especially repressive and brutal.
The last time that the Jewish people had been free and self-governed also meant that they had their own currency. On their big coin, a palm branch was prominently displayed.
Laying down palm branches ahead of a man riding a colt/donkey was an act of defiance and an aggressive political statement.
We want to be free. This guy is going to change things and restore what was lost.
Having children wave palm branches in the equivalent to teaching a child to stick up her middle finger in anger… only more political. 
I am troubled by the lack of context regarding the palms of Palm Sunday. It reeks of both willful ignorance and religious disconnect.
I’m afraid the palms are just one more migrating signifier that no longer re-presents that which is supposed to signify.
In so many ways we have sanitized, sterilized and compartmentalized the teaching of scriptures. We proudly and loudly defend the Bible – all the while neglecting the actual reality talked about in that Bible. Continue reading “Palms Are Political”
I am so grateful for the work of Paul Ricoeur. It helped sustain my faith during my PhD at Claremont and now it helps me translate what I learned at Claremont back into an evangelical context.
Ricoeur, for me, is like the 2×4 in the wall. His work frames so much of what I do but it wouldn’t be helpful for most people to see it. In fact, he is one of those big thinkers that I recommend reading about rather than actually reading directly. For instance, Stiver’s book is on google books.
Here are the 2 concepts that I use often:
- Surplus of Meaning
In any symbol as rich and full as the ones found in the Christian faith, there is bound to be an overflow of meanings and interpretations. Think of communion or even the three little letters g-o-d. The symbolism of the communion table and the symbol g-o-d have not just one meaning but have a surplus of meaning!
We have inherited a terrible tradition in Western thought of reducing something down to its ‘essence’ or even its lowest common denominator. We boil things down to their most rudimentary form and simplify them. This leads us to argue about which denomination, what translation of the bible, or what baptism formulation is right.
This reductive move strips symbols of their richness and fullness. It makes things one-dimensional and linear. In trying to boil things down they end up being lifeless and bland.In fact, when this doesn’t work, we often get flustered and say “well then none of the interpretations can be right”. People use this ‘logic’ to complain about the number of views of God, churches, denominations, and translations of the bible. With so many views, how can any one of them be right?
Surplus of meaning recognizes the multiple, the plural, and the overflowing nature of possibilities.
Think of all of the different names for God in the Hebrew Bible. Think about all of the sermons you have heard on ‘the prodigal son’ parable. Think of all the worship songs that have written about the crucifixion. Symbols are rich and overflowing with meaning!
I use the surplus of meaning for everything from Christmas festivities to new church plants. I don’t want to reduce things down – I want to expand them and breath life into them. Christmas isn’t just one thing. In fact, I am under the conviction that we have under-done Christmas and have barely begun to explore and express how amazing the incarnation was and is.
Any symbol as rich as the cross, the communion table, and even the 3 letters g-o-d are going to be overflowing with meaning. It would be impossible to exhaust the possibilities or to reduce it to one thing.
- Second Naivete
Ricoeur encourages us to pass through desert of criticism to come back to our faith (or reading the text) again … but differently. I like the saying:
‘Jesus wants us to have the faith of a child but not a childish faith’.
Ricoeur knows that we have to grow out of our childish naivete about God and the bible but that many of us never round the corner into a mature and developed faith.
Faith is a journey. The dangerous gutters to be avoided on either side of the path are cynicism on the one side and certainty on the other. It is difficult to pass through the desert of criticism. A lot of people lose their faith along the way and give up. We live in an age of cynicism and it can be tempting to give into calloused, jaded, and bitter doubts.
Second naivete is a grown up faith that comes back into community, the worship service, and to the Bible … this time with eyes wide open. It is a beautiful place of wonder (at the surplus of meaning) which allows us to embrace humility and mystery again.
This is my prayer for you today. That you would be encouraged in your spirit about the fullness and goodness of life and love and faith. This world can be a harsh place and we live in the age of the cynic. May see you see the overflowing possibilities in the world and may your faith round the corner into a place of honest appreciation for all that it means to so many people. May God’s spirit encourage your spirit as you navigate the tricky road between certainty and doubt.
You will never have the faith that you used to, but let’s be honest – it wasn’t working that well for you anyway. Go ahead and let it go and may you come into a place of beauty and plenty, overflowing with meaning.
Bo Sanders: Public Theology 