As I have mentioned in a previous post, I am not a biblical
literalist. I think that many of our
stories are mythic or are mythic remembering of events. Trying to convince people that there was an
ark with two of every creature is both
an exercise in futility (this written as the son of an entomologist, whose
father studied wasps that were too small to be easily seen without a
microscope) and a stumbling block to the life of faith to which Jesus has
called us.
There
is, of course, a danger in not being a literalist, which is that the line
between myth and history becomes quite blurry.
If one doesn’t think the Garden of Eden represents a real location or
the Noah story an historical account, what about the miracle stories of Jesus
or the resurrection itself? Part of the
reason that literalism breeds apologists, folks writing in an attempt to prove
the historical accuracy of the text, is the fear that if one part is
questionable, the whole package is suspect.
I don’t
have a simple answer to the issue. It is
one with which I wrestle regularly.
Thankfully Jesus never requires us to believe in a text. He never makes salvation dependent on our
belief in crossing the Red Sea on dry land or walking on water. The church is not called to prove the stories
nor can it prove the stories. We have no
photographs of aqueous strolls or empty tombs.
Instead we are called to live in the light of the stories. We do not have to prove the
resurrection. Instead we are called to live
in the light of that resurrection. We
are called to live in love.
Fundamentally,
this is where our scriptural stories point us.
Now you may argue that stories of Israel conquering the promised land,
divinely instructed to wipe out the Canaanites are not stories of love. You may argue that the story in Acts of Ananias
and Sapphira (Acts 5) who are struck dead for failing an apostolic financial
audit does not foster a community centered on love. In fact it is a fairly simple exercise to
cherry-pick the scriptures and create a vision that celebrates intolerance, obsessive
purity, separation or personal growth and success as the fundamental value and
goal of faith.
I would
argue that, for Christianity, the primary voice we need to hear is that of
Jesus. It is Jesus, who when confronted
with questions of the law declared that the greatest commandment is the love of
God and the love of neighbor (Mark
12:28-31). It is Jesus who, when
given the choice between ritual purity and compassion, chose compassion (Mark 3:1-6). It is Jesus who, when given the choice
between judgement and acceptance chose acceptance. (Luke 7:36-50) It is Jesus
who, on the cross, given the choice between condemnation and forgiveness chose
forgiveness (Luke 23:34). It is Jesus who shows that love is the
direction of the path of discipleship.
What
the church has discovered and continues to struggle with is that the path is
not as simple as it sounds. As mainline
traditions struggle with issues of sexuality, we are questioning the limits of
love. Can the direction of love move us
beyond the bounds of scripture and tradition and how far? As Christians in the United States consider
illegal immigration, we are really continuing the discussion of what it means
to love our neighbor. As Christians
deal with issues around addiction, we may struggle with the question of just
how far love should lead us. When does
love become enabling? When does enabling
stop being love?
Thank
God that we are dependent not on our getting it right, but on God’s love for
us. God sets us in a universe formed in
love. God shows us in Jesus as example
of life shaped by love. God invites us
to be loving, knowing well that we will fail despite our best efforts. The good news is that our failures do not
permanently break the relationship. God
who is love invites to love again, knowing that we will not be perfect, but
hoping that we will grow. May gift of
God’s love shape our faith, our community and our conversation. May the task of loving help us grow in love
for God and one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment