More on the place of Scripture in HLC

I've been thinking some more about the importance of scripture (the word we tend to use as a synonym for “the Bible.”) I was taught that scripture was “inspired” – that is to say that the presence of the spirit of God in it endows it with divine authority. Like so much of what I learned in childhood, I simply accepted the centrality of the Bible (or Holy Scripture) as a given. As I matured in understanding and became more educated, I began to question this seemingly arbitrary elevation of the Bible above all other writings. My more conservative colleagues reminded me of this line in the New Testament (2 Timothy: 3: 16-17):

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” (NRSV)

For many people, that statement is reason enough to keep the Bible in its exalted position. When I studied New Testament Greek, however, I discovered that line to be ambiguous. It could mean either the above, or it could be translated as:

“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” (ASV)

Given this second translation, it is unclear what “scripture” (or writing) then does invoke, if anything. And that question, in turn, leads to some even thornier ones. Does a written work need to be endowed with divine authority to be useful in worship and religious education? Does there need to be an absolute reference point against which all other teaching must be measured? And, is there a value or a purpose in discerning the level of “inspiration” in any recorded idea?

These questions tend to boggle the religious mind, so it becomes tempting to answer them in the most superficial manner: from one side, that the Bible is God's authoritative word, or, from the other, that the Bible is an old, probably superstitious, and certainly outdated document.

Some modern writers are throwing the whole notion of God onto the refuse pile of outdated superstition. So, does Healthy Liberal Christianity have a useful perspective to add to the controversy? Is it possible to find spiritually nourishing values in the Bible without turning it into the manifesto for a repressive church or a repressive God?

I think such a Biblical view is not only possible but very useful for people of faith. Again even with a new perspective, we must take care not to oversimplify. If we think of the Bible as a kind of history, it does not work to see it merely as a history of events. Already, the archaeological record calls into serious question the historical accuracy of the events described there.

I submit to you, though, that the Bible has even greater value as a kind of spiritual history. This historical perspective allows us to see the spiritual development of human understanding and experience. The approach highlights the developing relationship between human consciousness and a spiritual/divine reality (sometimes called God) that is always more comprehensive than consciousness can embrace. Such an approach inoculates against both religious fundamentalism and scientism. It invites a broadening of approach that brings these historically inimical perspectives together. In this third way, scientific discovery and religious language and belief can continue to challenge and inform one another.

Of course, each perspective must make a sacrifice for this approach to be effective. Each must give up the campaign to prove that the “other side” is wrong. This is no small sacrifice. Still, the greatest value in any sacrifice is that it makes room, creates space, if you will, for new growth, new understanding, increased cooperation, improved relationship, and more. This describes Healthy Liberal Christianity at its best.

Liberal Theology and the Bible

Greetings,

I have recently had some enlightening and perhaps disturbing conversations about Park Church in particular and about Liberal Christianity in general. I have been asking people in this geographic area what they know about Park Church. "Very little," is the typical answer. When I go on to describe a bit about this congregation's history of social activism and advocacy for the disenfranchised, and when I briefly outline its liberal Christian theological stance and openness to such a diverse population, including our identity as an "Open and Affirming" congregation, people are intrigued. Whether they are horrified by these liberal positions or attracted by them, many have told me that they never knew that such a church even existed under the Christian umbrella.

Part of my motivation for writing this blog is to consider the legitimacy of this theological stance and to generate a broader awareness of the nature of Park Church and others like it. So let's talk about some fundamentals of the liberal Christian perspective. All theological positions deal with fundamentals. To oversimplify the issue a bit, I have come to believe that one of the main differences between religious conservatives and liberals is that conservatives identify fundamental answers while liberals struggle with fundamental questions. One of those fundamental questions involves the authority and use of the Bible.

Theology has traditionally assigned meaning to human experience by superimposing Biblical wisdom on it. This tradition is based in the notion that the Bible is primarily God's statement about creation and about the proper relationship of obedience between humans and God, and that God has made this document available for the teaching, guidance and correction of humans. Some who hold that position refer to the Bible as "The Owners Manual for Humans."

Liberal Christians tend to turn that dynamic on its head. Modern scholarship makes a very strong case that the Bible is more a human creation than a divine one. That is not to deny the deep wisdom (even perhaps divine wisdom) that comes through these accounts of human encounters with God. But from this radically different perspective, we learn more about how God has been seen and experienced than we learn about what God expects of humans. This position allows for plenty of room for human-divine dialogue, however.

In practice, all people who make reference to the Bible, in any way, tend to place more significance on some passages than on others. For the sake of making a point, I will overstate the case a bit. More conservative approaches tend to focus on parts of the Bible that demonstrate a standard of personal morality and a concrete process by which people can be saved from eternal ruin. In short, these passages are about required behavior.

A more liberal perspective looks less at the absolutes and commands of God and more at the quality of relationship (of connection, if you will) between humans and the divine, among humans, and between humans and their own inner being.

Clearly, how people and churches answer this most fundamental question makes a world of difference.

Like any other religious person, I have my biases regarding which Biblical passages are most central. I consider myself a "gospel theologian." For me, radical inclusiveness is the essence of the gospel, and judgment, particularly about the superficial morality of others, is unacceptable. I begin with I John 4: 16b: "God is love." I then move to the practical description of love in I Corinthians 13, particularly verse 3-6:

"Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. (NRSV)

I try to imagine the "God Who is Love" behaving according to this description. We might say that love is radically relational and that the lover always tries to consider the healthy needs of the beloved. It is in that spirit that I welcome Jesus as a gift to humanity, given so that we might have life, and have it abundantly. (John 10: 10b)

If that isn't a functional definition of Healthy Liberal Christianity, then I don't know what is. By the way, in a loving relationship, there is always plenty of room for curiosity and questions, even fundamental ones.

May your loving relationship with a loving God enrich your life.

Wayne
"No matter who you are, or where you are in life's journey, you're welcome here."

Healthy Liberal Christianity

Greetings to The Park Church Members, Friends, and Seekers.

I have a deep interest in making and maintaining connections with the Park Church Community. Given how busy and mobile people are these days, I have decided to "stick a toe" into the world of blogging. I hope it will serve to enrich our understanding and our relationships.

This blog will provide a place where ideas can be expressed and where respectful dialogue can occur. You are invited to comment on anything written here and you are invited to post any questions that you would like us to explore.

I only ask you to be respectful of the ideas and people who post them. It is not necessary for us to agree, but I encourage all of us to attempt to bring more light, not more heat to the dialogue.

For myself, I will attempt to post something here at least once a week. I will include some thoughts on the church, the interim process at Park Church, and theological and social issues that I believe are relevant for us to consider. I may suggest books and other resources that I believe might be of value to you. I will attempt to learn to use this tool for our mutual benefit.

Healthy Liberal Christianity
Many people have resonated with the phrase "Healthy Liberal Christianity" as a welcome description of what happens at Park Church, so I have used it as the title of this blog. But "Healthy Liberal Christianity" is more of a direction than a destination. None of us presume that we have arrived at Healthy Liberal Christianity, but we desire to continue to grow in it.

Allow me to comment briefly on each of the words in the title.

Healthy
I have come to believe that a condition of health requires both individuals and communities to be healthy. Healthy individuals create healthy communities that promote the health and well being of even more individuals. By healthy, I mean appropriately nurturing/nourishing and functional. We might ask what we truly need as humans. One way to answer that question is to consider what healthy parents provide for their children: Nourishment, Rest, Protection, Love, and intellectual, physical, emotional, relational, and spiritual Stimulation and Challenge for growth. The ultimate goal of parenting is to foster the development of fully functional adults who are encouraged to grow into their fullness as individuals who are created in the image of God. (Perhaps we will consider what that phrase means at some other time.) A Healthy church creates healthy members and healthy members contribute to improving the health of the church and community.

Liberal
"Liberal" is one of those words that has been highjacked by the political and religious right wing. It has been redefined by them and handed back to us in truly unrecognizable form. "Liberal" has become a four-letter word. They have twisted the meaning so now it comes across as more like "License". You know, "If it feels good, do it!" Or, "I can believe whatever I want to believe!" Or, "Liberals have no standards for their behavior."

As I see it, those statements have nothing to do with liberality. To me, when I think about being a liberal in a religious context, I think of the directions that are found on a container of a healing balm. "Apply Liberally," it says. So, what is it that we Liberals might apply "liberally"? Love, respect for life and living beings, acceptance of diversity, and humility are the qualities that I would want to apply liberally. To the degree that we don't take responsibility for thinking deeply about our own behavior and beliefs, some of the criticism might be warranted. But at Park Church, we are trying very hard to find solid, even Biblical grounding for our liberal positions. It is not easy work, but, that's OK.

Christianity
I fear that Christianity today has become overly associated with mean-spirited, anti-intellectual, and judgmental people. As a consequence, there are those who will not go near any organization that calls itself Christian because they don't want to encounter those qualities. I know, however, that there are many churches, Park Church among them, that do not subscribe to such positions. What unites all Christians is a belief that the life, teachings, and witness of Jesus are central (though not always exclusively) to our spiritual well being. There exist a wide variety of ways that people understand the meaning of Jesus' life, teachings, and witness. Some believe that there is only one "correct" way to believe about Jesus, and there are others who recognize that our perspectives are always limited, though they can still be extremely valuable.

In short, our effort is to be healthy, to apply love liberally, and to make the best use we can of our Christian understanding and tradition.

I invite your participation and feedback.

Wayne
"Our Faith is 2000 years old, our thinking is not." United Church of Christ