-Rev Melissa Fain- This is the last in a series that is best experienced in order. If you are jumping in at this point, here are all the previous meditations. Please check them out: Bible 101: An Introduction Bible 101: Finding God Bible 101: The Three Hebrew Bibles Bible 101: Language Changes Bible 101: Take a Breath Bible 101: Voice Bible 101: Jumbled Voices Bible: 101: Q Bible 101: Canon Here's where you learn how far I'm willing to go and no further. We all have our limits, and I'm sure I've surpassed other's limits in this series. They are probably ones who are not even reading this post, and just waiting for the next series to start. I get it. There's nothing comforting in the information shared. So lets talk about something else: Bart Ehrman.
Bart Ehrman is an interesting person for two very important reasons: He is a New Testament professor, and he is a known atheist. Well, agnostic. Atheist sounds more radical on paper, so the atheist tag is often the one tied to him. There was deep discussion when I entered Candler about Atheist Divinity Professors. Can an atheist take on a class focused towards many who are on the path to ministry? The most thoughtful answer came from my Hebrew Bible professor, Rev. Dr. Peterson. I'm paraphrasing, but here is generally what he told us. We want to believe the person who is teaching us the Bible shares the same faith values we share. In fact, a Biblical scholar is not a Biblical scholar because of their faith tradition. For example, while Peterson was a Presbyterian minister, he was not out to paint over the Hebrew Bible with Christian subtext. He wanted us to understand the Hebrew Bible the way it was written, for the Hebrew people. (I cannot express enough how important those two semesters were to my theological development.) When it comes to New Testament, we are probably better served hearing the cold hard facts from an atheist voice. (Here's my illustration to go with his thoughts.) We learn about the body from looking at a non-living corpse. To see the story without faith helps us understands the mechanics of the Body of Christ once the life blood of faith is flowing through it. This is all well and good. We were taught to dissect the pieces with scalpel like accuracy. I know what the dead nature of the atheist view looks like. More than that, I'm not apologetic with that phrase, and atheists should not be offended by it. A religious point of view says faith is living and alive. An atheist point of view says faith is static and dead. One cannot be a minister and an atheist because one would treat the Body of Christ as something deceased. An atheist would make cuts to the Body not considering the fact that there's a life blood flowing through it. The Spirit is what draws the parts together, and what would be exploratory on a corpse, would would be lethal to a living Body. This is why I, a Christian and a believer in Christ, can have Bart Ehrman books on my shelf. I know he's talking about faith from a dead perspective. There is no life in his critique, The Spirit cannot flow through his words. I'm okay with that, because I need to see the pieces divorced to understand them as they are. This is also why Ehrman became a media darling. They don't want to talk about the Spirit of God. They want someone to point to the cold dead truth and name it as cold and dead. The media also wants to find those who are all Spirit with no Body. Why? Because it's the Spirit out of context. It makes us look foolish. These past few months were cold and dead on purpose. I was showing you the flesh and bones. We should know that flesh and bones are not the parts that make up life until God breathes life into it. I have been witness to multiple uses of Spiritual death by Bible. Scripture that is used as a gotcha, or taken out of context, are unknowingly deadly. You may want your simple Bible back, but a kitchen knife is simple too, and look what damage it could do in the wrong or untrained hand? So Atheists cut deep because they can't see the life in the Word, and fellow Christians cut deep out of protection or lack of understanding. What's one to do? What is our closing thought? I believe, just like Jesus Christ, the Bible is the living Word of God: fully Divine, and fully human. We must see the humanity in those onion skin words. Last week I wrote this: "We have to understand all that happened before we can even look at the phrase, "The Bible is the perfect and literal Word of God." The Bible is not the perfect and literal Word of God. Jesus is the perfect and literal Word of God, and that's where we need to move our sights. Once again, when you put the power on the book, you forget that the book exists because an event was big enough for that book to be written. There is something bigger than our Bible, and it's what happened to cause that book to be written in the first place. Canon are what is considered the most important and authentic parts as understood by Church leaders in the late 4th century." There are three descriptors: Living-Literal-Perfect. The Bible is Living. The words themselves are not meant to be literal or perfect. We are Christians. We believe in a Risen Christ. Christ is also alive. We can seek a literal and perfect relationship with Christ, knowing we are coming to that relationship as imperfect and broken individuals. Which brings me back to my initial questions: What's one to do? What is our closing thought? Act as followers of Christ who read the Bible, not as followers of the Bible who read about Christ. We are not called to prove the Bible, we are out to prove the reality of Jesus Christ. That is a deep statement, and one that is believed on multiple levels by multiple Christian traditions. It is our bonding agent when we disagree on lesser things. -Rev Melissa Fain- This series is best experienced in order. If you are jumping in at this point, here are all the previous meditations. Please check them out: Bible 101: An Introduction Bible 101: Finding God Bible 101: The Three Hebrew Bibles Bible 101: Language Changes Bible 101: Take a Breath Bible 101: Voice Bible 101: Jumbled Voices Bible: 101: Q This isn't cannon. I'm not on the hull of a ship about to shoot a giant metal projectile towards your cute little dinghy. Canon, without that extra 'n' is not only a collection, but a very official collection. The Bible is canonized.
Back when the church was newish, and things like denominations were not even sparkles in the church leader's eyes, there wasn't a Bible like we know it today. A community might have one of the Gospels, and a couple of Paul's letters. I'm going to be honest with you: I discovered that little truth from a seminary professor. It angered me knowing something so simplistic was never openly shared. It completely changed my view of the events surrounding Acts onward. The story of Jesus wasn't like spreading ink. There wasn't this moment where the story happened, and it covered over everything. The story of Jesus was like an exploding star. Time to go science? Yeah, time to go science. When a star is ready to explode a few things happen. Over the life of star, it slowly grows over way more years than we can possible understand in our tiny brains. Then, it collapses in on itself, becoming much smaller than it was. Finally, it explodes all over the place. This pull in and push back is how I want us to see the spread of the story of Jesus. From the moment Jesus began his ministry that was the beginning of the spread of the story. It was a slow spread that continued after the resurrection until around 170 AD. That's when the conversation about a very official collection first really happened. Once you could say, "Hey, Matthew is a good understanding of what really happened, but that Gospel of Thomas needs to go away," those different letters and Gospels could be brought together. After canonizing different communities would have the same books, and conversation could begin between the communities. This, with Rome finally accepting Christianity as a viable religion, the story of Christ exploded all over the known world. I'm sure we're all okay right now. No high blood pressure, no need to get a paper bag and breath into it. Here's the part that will make you a little uneasy. That first canon, the one in 170 AD. It did not include Hebrews, James and 3 John. The next canon in 363 would include all of those books, but not Revelation. (Revelation almost didn't make the cut into our final Canonized Bible. Christianity would be drastically different if things had gone just a little bit differently.) It wasn't until the Council of Carthage in 397 that the Bible as we generally know it today was officially canonized. This does not mean that every Bible is the same. The Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic Church each have Bible slightly different from the general Protestant Church. We call these added pieces "Apocrypha," or not genuine to the official canon. The Catholic Church considers some of these pieces "deuterocanonical" or forming a secondary canon. This might leave you staring at your own Bible wondering what's the point. We have to understand all that happened before we can even look at the phrase, "The Bible is the perfect and literal Word of God." The Bible is not the perfect and literal Word of God. Jesus is the perfect and literal Word of God, and that's where we need to move our sights. Once again, when you put the power on the book, you forget that the book exists because an event was big enough for that book to be written. There is something bigger than our Bible, and it's what happened to cause that book to be written in the first place. Canon are what is considered the most important and authentic parts as understood by Church leaders in the late 4th century. Next week I want to wrap this series on Bart Ehrman. He is an atheist who is also a professor of the New Testament. What can he teach those who are Christian? Show up next week and find out. -Rev Melissa Fain- This series is best experienced in order. If you are jumping in at this point, here are all the previous meditations. Please check them out: Bible 101: An Introduction Bible 101: Finding God Bible 101: The Three Hebrew Bibles Bible 101: Language Changes Bible 101: Take a Breath Bible 101: Voice Bible 101: Jumbled Voices No, Q is not a Star Trek reference, but imagining the futuristic trickster has taken over the website to write this specific meditation helps, pretend away.
Today is all about the Gospels, specifically Matthew Mark Luke and, yes, even John. Nothing outside Canon. Also, no Paul today. Whether we want to admit it or not, the written story is at least version 3.0. Version 1.0 was the literal event. We will never be able to capture that level of accuracy. The taste of the dust being kicked up. The faces of those reacting to the action. The tone of those speaking. All lost. Version 2.0 was the recollections of the event. Maybe that takes the form of quiet consideration. Maybe it's sharing with a friend or neighbor. The story behind the event holds a sort of power. There's the fear or excitement of sharing. Is sharing dangerous, or daring? The hushed whispers, or joyous shouting of the recollections are now forever lost. That's why by the time we get to a written account pieces have been forever lost, and there is not a single person who could convince me otherwise. The Ancient Near East writers were not concerned with the things we concern ourselves with today. We care in what way and how something is said. Ancient Near-East writers did not. We care how someone stands in the presence of others, because it shows power, respect, and a number of other things. Words like "cower" or "look-down" speak to how a group or a person would react to words. Instead we are often just left with the words, needing to pull from other places in the Bible to understand what happened. If we follow a three version theory (event, considering the event, and the writing of the event) we have a potential mess. Most of the Disciples were fishermen, which almost assuredly means they didn't know to write. The literacy of the people during Jesus' time is one of the big reasons many scholars don't believe Matthew and Mark the Apostles wrote the Gospels Matthew and Mark. The Gospel of Luke/Acts flat out tells the receiver of the text he is a collector, not someone who experienced the event. John is another story for another day. We also have to believe that multiple Disciples chose or were chosen to be scribes when only one was necessary, if any at all. There is an extremely popular theory I subscribe to: The two-source hypothesis. Matthew Mark and Luke are something we call, "synoptic." In this case the word means "taking the same point of view." There are pieces of these three Gospels that are so closely worded, it's believed they share original sources. The Gospel of Mark, in and of itself, is considered one of those sources. It is also considered the oldest of the four Gospels. It is believed Luke and Matthew pulled from Mark and a second text, one we call Q. Q is talking about text we've never seen, never been explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but still many Biblical scholars believe exist. We can look at Matthew and Luke and see pieces that appear to be pulled from Mark. Then there's this Q. The term for this mysterious text comes from the German word for source, "Quelle." It's thought there was a collection of sayings from Jesus. Apparently both Matthew and Luke pull from these sayings, while Mark does not. Because it appears Matthew was pulling from sources to craft the Gospel, it is another reason why it was more than likely not written by the Apostle Matthew. Yes, I know this is where we need to take another breath. I get it. I was there too. I wanted to believe everything happened, then Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Peter sat in front of a worn desk with ink and pinned the events. Truth is never that simple. There wasn't a point where "everything happened" for these Apostles. From the moment Jesus called them, to the moment of their death it was action. Either they were learning what Jesus wanted them to learn, or they were in hiding from a brutal government. Mark stands as a testament that was probably once removed. As in, a Disciple of an Apostle (possibly Mark, but maybe not) wrote the events down, and it was shared as a reliable source. Q, as well, seems like something that came from someone close to the event, directly or once removed. It is tradition that gives us the names of the Gospels. It also isn't false if the collectors of information were people by the name of Luke and Matthew. I often say the answers are found in the "why?" We need to constantly ask what is the method behind the action. The action itself is a reaction to something. That something, whatever it was can answers so many questions. When it comes to the Bible, I want us to also ask "how." There was a God moment, and it was so spectacular it was written down like shock waves. Not just once. Not just four times, but more than that. Then those events were collected and shared. Do not get caught up in the words. Be amazed at how spectacular the event was to have so many cataloging its existence. Next week we are going to talk about that word Canon I keep using, and early church communities. -Rev Melissa Fain- This is part of a series. Please visit them in order if you are jumping in during the middle of all this: Bible 101: An Introduction Bible 101: Finding God Bible 101: The Three Hebrew Bibles Bible 101: Language Changes Bible 101: Take a Breath Bible 101: Voice And for the adventurous side: Introduction to the Bible Using the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Correction: It is more important to me to get correct information rather than just looking correct. I had stated the order incorrectly on Genesis. The Priestly story is the first Creation story, while the J story is the second. I have already made this correction in last week's meditation. Now I remember why this project always grinds to a halt. I get to this point where I have to say things I'm never sure you are ready to hear. Instead of laying it out in a caring way, I leave it alone for those who are far less caring to rip it apart. It's like you have appendicitis. It will be destroyed eventually, but if I walk away it will kill you. I know how dire that sounds, but the information I'm trying to relay has been delivered bluntly, and without concern for the Spiritual system. I will take many pauses to make sure you are not drowning. Let's go. Last week we looked at two intact stories, telling the same story, side by side. The Bible isn't always that obvious. Time will erode and re-form what is left. That's what we have with Noah's Ark. Break time. We are only two sentences in, and I can feel your blood pressure rising from across the internet. I can chip away at the Creation. Sixth grade science class did more damage than anything else. Why do I need to do the same thing with Noah? Well, let me tell you. Kenneth Ham has made a career out of convincing the public that Genesis is a literal retelling of the first few thousand years of Earth. He has gone as far as to create a museum to the Genesis account(s) of creation. He also built a life sized ark. True, it was built by a team of builders, and would not float if Kentucky actually flooded, but that is truly beside the point. He is a real person who I have interacted with on Reddit, and who I have defended when users made fun of him personally. I respect him as a person while I deeply disagree with his theology. He recently sent a large contingent of churches his book, "Gospel Reset" for free. I have minister friends all over the United States, and we spent about two weeks posting when we received our personal copy. As I was reading there was a moment of agreement: It's all about foundations. Your foundation in faith sets the tone for everything you do within that faith. Now, his faith believes we must see Genesis as chapter one. If we don't understand Creation and everything in Genesis as literal, we will have a skewed view of everything else. I, on the other hand, flip a few words. If we don't understand what literally happened from history to the history of how those stories were kept, we will have a skewed view of everything else.Noah's Ark used to be my hill to die on. Probably because I spent my free time in college arguing with atheists. Their favorite past time, throwing out real issues with literal readings of the Bible and watching Christians squirm. Foundations crumble under those continuous attacks. Only, Genesis isn't my foundation, and neither is Biblical literalism. God incarnate- or God made human, is my foundation. As these boys tried to dismantle my faith, they did a better job to prepare me for seminary to enrich and deepen my faith. Remember your foundation, and let's jump into this. The Two Tales of One ArkHere is where we talk about set-up and pay-off. The Yehweh voice I mentioned last week set one view of creation, while the Priestly voice set up something very different. The Ark is a great place where we can see two very distinct versions of the stories being stitched together. A piece of J survived, and a piece of P survived. Some of those pieces are unique, but some of them repeat themselves in different ways. When pulled apart we have two complete stories, capable of being mostly solid tellings. What they say, and the name they use for God helps us point to where one story starts and the other begins. It's pretty obvious, like taking hot pink and black PlayDoh and smashing them together for about five seconds. If you realized what is happening, you should see how the two voices take turns telling the same story in different ways. There are two introductions. There are two set-ups. The flood is described twice. The resolution happens twice. Each time this happens each telling has a different name for God, and follows the set-up back when we were reading about Creation. If you would like to check out a decent separation, Religion at the Margins created a solid one. What's the Point?That's the question I eventually had to ask myself as I spent countless hours arguing with atheists in our small music hallway. What was the point, as least, for me? What are any of us accomplishing making Creation and Noah's Ark our hill to die on? First, I didn't trust God enough to be present outside the Bible. By fighting over stories that came before organized faith (before Abraham), I wasn't accepting those stories were humanity's toddler stage in faith. God is present now, and there are things to do now. I eventually took this statement to heart: "Does belief in a literal Creation and Noah's Ark get me into heaven?" No. When put against that specific test, the answer is an emphatic no. We are often called to trust by letting go. This is one of those moments. I had to trust God enough to let go of certain aspects of these stories. Second, "truth" does not mean "literal." Part of us already knows this, but it still confuses us anyway. Almost all of us believes the parables are just moral lessons Jesus used to make a bigger point. We already know there are things in the Bible we are not supposed to take literally. Noah's Ark and Creation can be the same way. As in, there was a guy who God saw as redeemable, inspired him to build a boat way before trouble came, and when trouble came his faith saved him. Everything I said in the last sentence preaches. Do I need to go beyond it? I know that's an extremely crude condensing, but it gets to a truth within Genesis. We don't need to physically set a canoe in a pool and reenact the flood to find the truth. In fact, you might lose the truth in the process. Finally, God is perfect; we are not. I can write that line every week and it will need to be said. If you put humans in charge of something, we are going to mess it up in some way. Guaranteed. Heck, I've been at Fig Tree for almost seven years and I still mess it up. People were tasked with transmitting the event of God to future generations. The event was perfect. The transmission of the event was not. Let me put it another way. The Bible is a heresy. Heresy is a fancy word for believing something that is at odds with our core belief. Right before Noah's Ark the Bible recounts this story where God had sons and those sons slept with the girls of Earth. They created giants. It doesn't say anywhere that they were fallen angels. In early Christendom the powers that be would get together and write rules of faith. They called them Creeds. One of those "rules" is that we believe in one Son. The fallen angels part was created to kinda tweak the scripture. If we took a true not literal approach to it, we would see how these "sons of God" is a continuation of Chaos and Creation. If we left the story alone we could simply see that Created Order hadn't stuck. Everything, including the Heavens were in chaos. Were there literal "son's of God?" Who cares? The truth is bigger than how that truth was transmitted. Now what?Well, friends, next week we jump into the New Testament. I started with the Hebrew Bible, because for many of us, we can pick apart those older books, without changing a single idea regarding Matthew to Revelation. Now it's time to dig into the very thing we are most afraid to dig into.
As I'm often to remind everyone. I believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and I accept Him as Lord and Savior of my life. I still believe, even with everything I'm telling you. You can still believe too. |
Categories
All
Archives
October 2023
|