As I have pondered the best way to frame this conversation, I think it’s prudent to explore how one might read the bible since it’s usually at the heart of the argument of those who oppose same-sex relationships. How does one read their Bible? As with any issue there seems to be a range of approaches.
I begin with Barbara Brown Taylor. In her memoir Leaving Church she writes:
I do not pretend to read the bible any more objectively than those who wrote it for me. To read it literally strikes me as a terrible refusal of their literary gifts.
I will keep the Bible, which remains the Word of God for me, but always the Word as heard by generations of human beings as flawed as I. As beautifully as these witnesses write, their divine inspiration can never be separated from their ardent desires; their genuine wish to serve God cannot be divorced from their self-interest. That God should use such blemished creatures to communicate God’s reality so well makes the Bible its own kind of miracle, but I hope I never put the book ahead of the people whom the book calls me to love and serve.[1]
A step further would be to stand behind Gordan Kaufman’s theological statement that scripture is special because it “contains glorious literature, important historical documents, exalted ethical teachings.”[2] I’m anticipating that most evangelicals believe that Kaufman does not say enough, but on the other end of the spectrum we find an equally problematic approach. John R. Rice, a fundamentalist evangelist and publisher, argued for inspiration of the Bible as “dictation” and treated the human authors as mere penmen of the Holy Spirit.[3] Claims like this substantiate Emil Brunner’s criticism that Protestants are often guilty of creating a “paper pope.”
Those looking to mediate all the contours that have been explored might find a home in Karl Barth’s approach. Barth develops a threefold understanding of God’s Word:
1. Jesus Christ
2. Scripture
3. The churches’ proclamation of the gospel
Barth argues that God’s Word always has the character of event. Thus, we find the primary mode of God’s revelation in the second person of the Trinity … not on paper. Of the Bible itself Barth says, “[it] is God’s Word to the extent that God causes it to be His Word, to the extent that He speaks through it.”[4]
Barth’s contribution, which is bolstered even by John Calvin who acknowledged that apart from the Holy Spirit the Bible would be to a sinner a dead book, is important for this reason. As I progress in these posts, what will become evident is that finding a solution to this issue can be done by one of two ways. The first, exegetically and the second, hermeneutically.
Lest those words be unfamiliar, here are two quick definitions:
Exegesis: is simply analysis of the texts and
Hermeneutic: interpretation of the texts
Barth’s understanding offers us a little more wiggle room as we approach hermeneutical possibilities.
Lastly, one more specific word about this post in particular. It is interesting to think about how a culture or an organization that we identify with is perceived in the larger American or even global culture. I’m well aware that evangelicals very often elicit eye rolling and painful groans from frustrated onlookers who are baffled by their sometimes seemingly archaic obstinacy on progressive moral issues. Indeed, some of this eye rolling and groaning is a justifiable response from those outside of the evangelical culture given how evangelicals have chosen to participate in public discourse.
Having acknowledged that, I think it’s important for this larger observing culture to understand the reason for the obstinacy. Evangelicals know their Bible well. What they know from the Bible is that apart from God they are part of a fallen humanity (Genesis 3 & Romans 5), that their hearts are deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9), that they don’t know perfectly (1 Corinthians 13:12), etc. For this reason, evangelicals are skeptical even of their own ability to know. This is why they have such a deep commitment to scripture. They trust that the Bible will tell them the truth about the way the world is/and or should be even when they want to tell themselves something else.
So though science continues to confront the Christian tradition’s hermeneutic, as it did when Copernicus was right, and though reason is given a voice in the discussion, experience would have them believe otherwise, and tradition says something to the contrary, evangelicals maintain that the Bible is uniquely authoritative. I don’t say this is an apology of method to outsiders, but to deepen everyone sense of understanding so that as we examine these texts over the next couple posts we are mindful of why we are reading the Bible in the first place.
[1] Barbara Brown Taylor, Leaving Church: A Memoir of Faith, (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006), 216.
[2] Gordan Kaufman, “What Shall We Do with the Bible?” Interpretation 25 no. 1 (1971): 96.
[3] Donald K. McKim, What Christians Believe About the Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985) 57.
[4] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1 trans. G. W. Bromiley (Deinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 222.