The main thought I had in response to the assigned Scripture readings for my sermon was that the judgments made by the early Christians regarding Judas seemed to be a bit harsh and final, knowing that Jesus taught plainly not to judge. This is problematic for some Christians (many with whom I am in life-long association and friendship) who believe that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible, being given to us by God, is for them free from any kind of 'error' and is internally consistent in all things. So, because it wrestles with an inconsistency in Scripture, for many people, this sermon raises an important issue.
For me, the issue is the way we perceive the message of Scripture. One way says that the Bible must be completely without error and internally consistent in order to validate that its message is from God. The assumption here is that God would not allow the human authorship of the Bible to interfere with the exact words that God wanted us to hear. Another way says that the diverse Christian community as a whole must be trusted to discern (by the Spirit) the overarching and unifying message of the Bible, considering both its divine inspiration and its human authorship. The assumption here is that the divine message itself comes to us only through various embodied and written human expressions of that message.
The Bible naturally contains a diversity of perspectives. The weight of any one theological statement in the Bible must therefore be tempered with other statements found therein. To be too dogmatic about any one particular viewpoint offered in the Bible is both hasty and unwise, because it may ignore other views that should help temper its weight. Raymond Brown, a Catholic biblical scholar, in his book called The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, says,
"All answers to a theological problem, of necessity being partial and time-conditioned, involve paying a price. One emphasis, no matter how necessary at a particular time, will inevitably lead to a neglect of truth found in another answer or emphasis."
Brown sees the diversity of Christian emphases and perspectives, even within Scripture, as a natural consequence of the different contextual circumstances involved in each case. This is not to say that everything in Scripture should be doubted but that there is a built-in system of checks and balances (my phrase) that keeps us from being too narrowly focused on any one part of Scripture.
C.S. Lewis described something like this natural system of checks and balances regarding the diversity of perspectives represented by different historical periods. He says that
Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction... Each age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes... The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries [i.e., varying perspectives] blowing through our minds.Lewis is talking about historical periods, but the main idea here is about ideological diversity that is a natural occurrence because of contextual circumstances, whether historical, geographical or cultural. In applying this to Scripture, we are not talking simply about mistakes found in the Bible but about the natural diversity among its authors that needs to be recognized rather than explained away.
Raymond Brown says,
"Hearing the difficult passages of the Bible and wrestling with them honestly (rather than explaining them away) will strengthen the realization that every word spoken about God on this earth, including the biblical word, which is uniquely "of God," is a partial and limited witness to the truth. To accept the Bible in that sense leads to a faith that is not credulous."
2 comments:
Paul said...
I think it all goes back to presuppositons. Let's concede that inerrancy is up for debate (autographs?, technical accuracy?, yadda, yadda). I think we can all agree that the central message of the Bible is clear: The Gospel. The secondary and tertiary messages are not so clear: Cultural, even moral issues are up for debate and interpretation. Nevertheless, these issues are important for the practice of the Christian life. How we view the Bible (authority and inspiration, more than inerrancy) is crucial.
The question of Judas? From your excellently presented sermon, was he judged to harshly? According to what we have of the Bible, Jesus himself seemed to judge him as deserving of eternal punishment. "It would have been better had he never been born." In this I read (ahh the trump card of "my perception") Jesus both sanctioned Judas' death and demonstrates compassion. Judgement fits the crime, while the executioner demonstates pity (but not remorse).
Let's recall also that Jesus also taught us to judge, after we removed the plank from our own eye first. Loving judgement, but judgement nonetheless. Or "I judge, because I love."
Or as you said, this dialogue can be a "built-in system of checks and balances." Preach on, sir.
1:16 PM
Alternative said...
thank you, Paul. the question of judas seems to go quickly to the heart of the issue concerning scripture that we are discussing.
i think that the early Christians who passed down the tradition were inconsistent in their application of the gospel message in their judgments about judas, and by this i am assuming that even the biblical writers are subject to our discernment as to whether they were consistent in their application of the message of salvation history. therefore i am saying that the bible must be seen as inspired and authoritative in a more limited sense than the most conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians claim it to be. they seem to say that each text has a kind of authority that, being verbally inspired by god, is infallible in its representation of god's mind. and i seriously have to question that, when i read certain passages, especially.
i do believe in judgment. i just believe that ultimately only god can judge. all other judgment is mere speculation based on limited information, and it must be seen as such. only god can utter the final word and pronounce final judgment on anyone, and i don't think that what we have in scripture concerning judas is god's final judgment on him. that's just not the kind of thing that is revealed in scripture...
the kind of thing that is revealed in scripture is the story of Christ and his early followers. the scriptures are inspired and authoritative because they bear faithful witness to Christ historically. no other text is inspired or authoritative in that sense. early Christians discerned this to be true, and they have to be trusted to have chosen the right texts. they discerned that certain texts best represent the message and the story of Christ, who is god's final revelation, god's final word, god's final judgment on the world.
and Christian ethics is always derivative of that claim. Stanley Hauerwas says you can't get your ethics from the bible, and i think he's right. ethics are always discerned by the broader community that claims allegiance to Christ, who is god's final word to humanity, who will also come again in final judgment of us all.
5:18 PM
paul said...
Please clarify: 1) In reference to Mark 14:20 and Acts 1:18, do you believe that these texts do not clearly express Christ's judgment to Judas, or that they should be viewed as a misrepresentation by the human author? 2) What would be so wrong if these texts were clear and definitive? Does it reduce or demean Christ or how we should perceive Him? What do you mean its "just not the sort of thing that is revealed in Scripture?" Either it is, and you don't agree, or it isn't, and I don't agree.
I suppose we would do well to more clearly define judgment. Eternally, (and I suppose temporally) God is the ultimate judge. Heaven or hell, up to God.
Here on earth, though, what do we have? Because the Bible is suspect to interpretion (agreed point), we must rely on educated folks (or perhaps enlightened uneducated folks) to aid us in this journey. Or not at all. We can learn how to read the Bible and make our own conclusions as to Christian ethics. Regardless, assuming Pro 27:17 holds some wisdom, should we not "judge" one another to build one another up? Surely no one has a corner on truth, but we all have our soapboxes.
If we follow the examples within the Bible, does Christ not spend a good portion of His ministry opening up a can with the entire religious establishment? What confrontational example the Bible story portays for us! Correcting both theological and ehtical errors wherever He goes, begrudgingly handing grace to the gentiles while anticipating the duplicity of the Jewish crowds, and ridiculing the religious Jews.
In the "cast the first stone" parable, surely he is not giving sexual license but reminding us that we must first correct our own errors, before helping a fellow Christian with theirs? What of Paul the Apostle, and the majority of the OT prophets? Their testimonies are of heated, painful, and yes loving judgment.
I suppose we truly cannot leave the question of insiration, can we? I'll leave the techinical aspects to those who care, but the practical issues we cannot avoid.
How indeed, can we trust the Bible to be faithful to Christ's story? Inspired and authoritative to what end? What good is a biography if its written inaccurately? If there are seriously questionable passages (praytell which?) how can we trust that the majority are not also questionable? If we do not agree with a passage, perhaps it could be that we are not in conformity with God, not that His Word has been misrepresented to us.
Or is it better stated that Bible sufficiently relates Christ's story, from which we can derive God's ethical intentions for us today, perhaps changing with the cultural context? I might actually be able to agree with that.
12:54 PM
Alternative said...
Thanks, Paul. Interesting. The Mark text ('it would be better had he not been born') does place judgment upon Judas from the mouth of Jesus. And I cannot simply say that it was a misrepresentation by a human author, but human authorship most assuredly plays into this. And Jesus' humanity plays into it, too.
My question to you is this, does this pronouncement necessarily equal eternal damnation? Or, could Jesus be speaking in hyperbole about actions and consequences. See, we can tend to take his words and use them technically in application to questions of ethics, afterlife or whatever, but in reality Jesus was a radical man speaking in the specific context of Jewish apocolyptic thought. Let's not bind him too closely to the literal meaning of his every word. (He spoke about Hell, too. Literal, or not? A question for later perhaps.)
Jesus assumed the authority to forgive sins and to judge. He was clearly a representative of God in his own mind, at least. But remember that Jesus didn't write anything down. Isn't that an interesting point? The man originally claiming to be speaking for God didn't write anything down. Go figure that one.
The calling of Jesus and his self-understanding to be the Messiah is itself a mystery and a revelation, even to him. The writings we have that preserve for us what he said and what he did, I think, have become over-exalted and over-scrutinized for technical use. In the modern age they are seen as bits of a puzzle that being put together make up right doctrine. That's part of what I mean by 'its just not the sort of thing that is revealed in Scripture'. Scripture, the whole of it being inspired, being discerned as such and deemed canonical by early Christians, reveals a mystery. That mystery is Christ. And it is Christ in you... Its not doctrine collected from tid-bits of holy writ. Its Christ in you. (That's a quote from St Paul.)
'Opening up a can with the entire religious establishment'... Yes, Jesus did his share of that. And that is a kind of judgment. 'Woe unto the Pharisees', he said. And we may need to follow suit sometimes. But he also said, 'Judge not lest ye be judged', and that should put some qualification on the idea that we should be "going around correcting theological and ethical errors". And the idea that we "must first correct our own errors, before helping a fellow Christian with theirs" doesn't mean that there is an order to it. It means that we are not to judge. Period. How involved whould it be to get a plank out of your own eye? Surely it means that each person has enough to attend of his own. 'Don't judge others' is one of the main ideas of his teaching.
I could be wrong, and the early Christians could have been right by making a judgment on Judas. Jesus did say that it would be better for Judas had he not been born. Judas, too, that next day wished that he hadn't been born, and so he did what he did. But does any of this mean that Christians ought to make judgements on other peoples' actions and explain them for posterity? Judas is a tragic figure. And a tragedy speaks with compassion and understanding. I say, tell the story as a tragedy and let it speak for itself. But the writer of Acts by quoting Psalm 109 indicates that Peter wished to exact revenge on Judas. I can't blame Peter for that, I probably would have, too. But Peter's judgment still seems wrongheaded to me.
Regarding Scripture, to sum it up, you said it well yourself: 'Or is it better stated that Bible sufficiently relates Christ's story, from which we can derive God's ethical intentions for us today, perhaps changing with the cultural context? I might actually be able to agree with that.'
4:19 PM
paul said...
Jesus, who claimed not just divine revelation but actual Godhood (shall we wrangle Christology, as well?), did not in fact write anything down for posterity. Having what we have, do we assume that He is in fact clearly represented? A mystery perhaps at points, but I believe the picture is more clear than dim.
Taking His represented story, Can we agree that He was in fact judgmental to the Jews (establishment), and noncommittal to the gentiles (as a whole)? Actions and beliefs were indeed important for those who claimed to be religious. "'And the idea that we "must first correct our own errors, before helping a fellow Christian with theirs" doesn't mean that there is an order to it. It means that we are not to judge. Period.'" Hmm. Provocative conclusion.
Perhaps the human author has misrepresented Him, but the passage in context goes on to say: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." There is indeed an "order to it." At the very least there is no "period," and it should be open for discussion what Jesus intended, unless you do indeed have a corner on the truth market.
Beyond Jesus, St Paul (and the majority of the NT epistles as well as the major and minor OT prophets) also is representative of some very "judgmental" people. How do we learn from their cantankerous examples? Do we take Paul at his word, or assume he was redacted? Even without redaction he has of course been criticized as a misguided misogynist. In words and actions of many characters would seem to imply that judgment (temporally) is much better than eternal judgment.
Oh hell. I mean, Oh, Hell. Is it literal? As in literally eternal punishment. . . perhaps we need to clarify other things first.
Let's see, can I summarize this before I wander irrevocable out of hand. . . Jesus' story represents historical, theological, and philosophical truths. Although the phrase connotes much that I don't want it to, "absolute truths" must exist, for Christ to be preeminent. What are those truths? Let us see if we can agree to that. What truths of Scripture and Christ do you hold to be irrevocable? What is the point of discussing "alternatives" if there is a "period" to any of this? Is there a creed or a confession that you can at least adhere to? I feel we desperately need some common ground to continue this intriguing conversation.
2:29 PM
I am creating a new post to address this further.
Post a Comment