First Blessings

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

I START TODAY BY REMINDING YOU OF, or perhaps introducing you to, a five dollar theological term: not because it is fancy, and certainly not so you can impress people by using it, but because it is important and because you will often hear it in theological discussions or stumble across it in biblical literature and commentaries. The word is eschatological. You might encounter it in other grammatical forms — eschaton or eschatology — but they all denote the same thing: last things or final things.

I mention it today because our epistle text, 2 Timothy 3 — perhaps among the last canonical texts that St. Paul wrote — is an eschatological text. Its theme is last things/final things, two last things in particular: the last days and the last/final word.

St. Paul introduces his eschatological theme with these words:

2 Timothy 3:1 (ESV): 3 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty.

In the last days. I don’t know what you hear when you hear that phrase. For some it may conjure images of Left Behind theology with Rapture and Tribulation and Armageddon. For others it may invoke a distant and hazy future, something always “out there” and beyond us. In Western Christianity, the last days is an ambiguous phrase, ill-defined, subject to private interpretations of Scripture and the daily news. But, Paul was a Jew in the Second Temple period. For Paul and his Jewish compatriots — especially Pharisees like himself — the last days had a well-defined meaning. All of history — by which they meant past, present, and future — all of history could be divided into just two ages: the present age and the age to come, i.e., the last days. The demarcation between the two, the point of boundary and transition, was the appearance of the Messiah. The last days were the Messianic age in which all the trials of the present age would be resolved, all the wrongs of the present age put to rights. In the last days the Kingdom of God would be established: an age of God’s righteous rule mediated through the Messiah; an age in which Israel would be purified, elevated, and delivered from exile; an age in which the knowledge of the glory of God would fill the whole world as the waters cover the sea; an age in which the righteous — including the resurrected righteous dead — would be rewarded and the unrighteous punished or destroyed. The last days would be a golden age, a Jewish utopia. This was Paul’s basic understanding of the last day, but he had re-centered this understanding on Christ. And that required some revision to the standard notions.

Paul agreed that the transition point between the ages was the appearance of the Messiah; for Paul, Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah. So, perhaps at Jesus’ birth, but certainly from the time of his resurrection and ascension, the last days had dawned. That means that Paul and Timothy were, and that we are, living in the last days: not awaiting it in some dim and distant future, but living in it right now. But that raises an important question: if the last days are to be a utopian era of the righteous rule of God when all things wrong are put to rights, then how can Paul say, “In the last days there will come times of difficulty”? If the Messiah has taken his rule and the Kingdom of God is now on earth as it is in heaven, why is the world in such a sad state? It is precisely at this point that Paul re-envisions the last days in a uniquely Christian manner. Paul makes the theological move from eschatology to inaugurated eschatology. In and through Jesus Christ the last days have been inaugurated — they have begun — but they have not yet been completed. You have likely heard of the New Testament tension between the already and the not yet; this is a perfect case in point. We already live in the last days, but they are not yet complete. A simple way to say it is that we live at the beginning of the end, at the first of the last days. All shall be well because we are in the last days. All is not yet well because we are only in the first of the last days. So, we should expect difficulty in the meantime, in the midst of the last days.

Now, while this goes beyond the scope of the text, I need to address some last days, Kingdom of God issues. We do not build the Kingdom of God by our own efforts throughout these last days; Kingdom building is God’s work. Our calling, our work, is to live as citizens of the Kingdom of God in the midst of the kingdoms of the world and to bear witness to God and his Kingdom. We are to do justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. We are to love the Lord our God will all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are to proclaim the good news that God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son that whoever believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. We are to be a holy people as God is a holy God. We are to be the prophets, priests, and kings of new creation: proclaiming the Gospel, representing God to the people and the people to God, ruling over — bringing Godly order to — our vocational areas of expertise and influence. God will take all that, bless it, break and multiply it, and give it away for the reconciliation of the world to Him. It will be some of the “raw materials” through which He builds the Kingdom. But, it will not happen as straightforward, unimpeded human progress toward utopia. That was the false hope of the enlightenment and of modernity. No; instead Paul says, “In the last days will come times of difficulty.”

2 Timothy 3:2–5 (ESV): 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

Paul goes on to say:

2 Timothy 3:12–13 (ESV): 12 Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Does St. Paul’s description of humanity in the last days, humanity apart from Jesus Christ, ring true to your experience: selfish, greedy, proud, violent, heartless, slanderous, reckless, sensual, spiritual-but-not-religious? This is to be expected throughout the last days; this is the fallen world in opposition to Christ. This is the diminished image bearers of God enslaved by the passions. It must not be so among us. But, tragically, it too often is. We have purveyors of the prosperity gospel, a false gospel which is a thinly veiled appeal to greed, pride, and sensuality. Let’s get this straight: all who promise health, wealth, and prosperity as expressions of God’s will and pleasure in these last days are false prophets, having only the appearance of godliness. We have sexual predators, narcissists, and power mongers wearing robes and collars and suits and ties, leading churches while grooming their victims of sexual, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Let’s get this straight: they are wolves and not shepherds, feeding on the flock instead of tending it. We have those who are advocates for the current disorder and delusions of our culture, particularly gender issues, divisive approaches to race, support for abortion. Let’s get this straight: they are blind guides leading the blind, and both will fall into the ditch.

Frankly, it is easy to be lured into following these false gospels. How do we become aware of these problems among us? How to we come to understand them for what they are and know from whom they come? How do we take proper action to reject and oppose them? For all that we need the last word, the final word, the authoritative word. Paul writes:

2 Timothy 3:14–4:5 (ESV): 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

4:1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 5 As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

In the beginning was the Word, the logos, the divine Son and second person of the Trinity. Strictly speaking, Jesus — the incarnate logos — is himself the final word, the perfect self-expression of God which no other word needs to clarify or correct. But, Paul insists that Scripture is also a final word — derivative of the divine logos, yes, but a final word nonetheless; Scripture is the written word that mediates to us the living Word, Jesus Christ. It shares the truth and authority of Christ because it is breathed out by God. And that is evocative language. Adam was given life in the Garden through the breath of God which made him a living soul and an image-bearer of God. Jesus breathed on the disciples gathered in the upper room and in doing so bestowed on them the indwelling Holy Spirit. Paul wants us to understand that we find life in the Scriptures, that we are re-formed into the image of God through the Scriptures, that the Scriptures are the work and tool of the Holy Spirit. Strictly speaking, the Scripture is not authoritative in and of itself. Jesus says that all authority in heaven and on earth is given to him. But, he delegates authority: to Scripture, to the Church which is his body, and to his faithful ones. It is this secondary, delegated authority of Scripture to which Paul appeals. It is this delegated authority that makes Scripture profitable/useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, for equipping the saints for service. It is this delegated authority of Scripture which makes one wise for salvation through Jesus Christ.

So, Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the word in season and out of season; to reprove, rebuke, and exhort, and always with complete patience. It falls to some of us to exercise this pastoral ministry; it falls to all of us to receive this pastoral ministry. In these last days, more perhaps than ever, we need the final Word — Jesus Christ — mediated to us through the final word of Scripture.

But Paul’s exhortation doesn’t stand alone, no text of Scripture does. We also need to hear Peter say:

2 Peter 1:19–21 (ESV): 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The Reformation rightly emphasized the delegated authority of Scripture and rightly insisted that every Christian must have access to Scripture in his/her native tongue. But, too many sons and daughters of the Reformation have wrongly assumed this emphasis to mean that Scripture is a matter of private interpretation, that truth may be reliably discerned by the individual pouring over the Scriptures alone. In dethroning one Pope, the Reformation inadvertently enthroned countless others. Scripture did not originate with the will of man, and no prophecy (no telling forth) of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. Rather, we read Scripture in company with the Church, with the Great Tradition that spans time and space. We seek in Scripture that truth which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. The final word is the consistent word spoken by the consensus of the faithful.

So, let me give a final word in summary. In these last day in which we find ourselves, difficult times will come. This is simply the beginning of the end which will not be realized until Jesus returns to make all things new. In these last days, we need a final word to re-orient us, to re-make us. That final word is Jesus, the perfect icon of God. But that living final Word is mediated to us in Scripture, the living and active word written, interpreted, and applied by the Holy Spirit. So, as good Anglicans, we pray:

Blessed Lord, who caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and the comfort of your Holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

A sense of embattlement can make for some strange alliances. Some good and faithful Christians, feeling pressed by “woke” culture, CRT, social justice movements, gender and transgender legislation, are willing to make pacts with nearly anyone who shares their traditional, conservative values. And that concerns me.

Jordan Peterson is a case in point, and the quote presented shows the problem. The first and most obvious concern is that Dr. Peterson is, at best, an agnostic with an affinity for the Christian story; but he is not a Christian. That the Church should take its mandate, its marching orders from him, is prima facie questionable if not disloyal to the true head of the Church. It smacks of hubris for someone outside the Church to declare the nature of the Church’s mission and how that mission is to be accomplished — particularly when he/she does not understand that mission.

“Quit fighting for social justice,” Peterson demands. With what as the Christian alternative, I wonder: being content with social injustice, being unconcerned about and indifferent to social justice, abandoning the body politic to its own baser instincts with no prophetic voice calling it to repentance and pointing toward a better way? The consistent witness of Scripture is that God cares deeply for the poor, the widows, the orphans, the strangers — those most at risk and on the margins of society. God himself is their defender, not least through the Law he gave to Israel, a law that mandated social justice — adequate care — for these and other imperiled groups. The prophets consistently called God’s people in both Israel and Judah to repentance for two major transgressions: idolatry and social injustice. My strong suspicion is that the two sins are inextricably linked one to another. “Quit fighting for social justice?” Hardly, if the Church wants to be faithful to God. What we cannot do, though, is to embrace our culture’s definition of social justice nor its means for giving it birth. It is God’s definition of social justice to which the Church must be committed, and it is by means of the Gospel — God’s people living and proclaiming the Gospel — that justice will spring forth here and there, now and then.

“Quit saving the bloody planet,” Peterson says. Does he mean the planet that God created and called good, the planet over which he gave Adam and Eve stewardship, the planet whose rocks and streams, whose mountains and valleys, whose trees and stones God created to praise Him? That planet? And, what is the Christian alternative: to pollute without concern, to mine and drill and harvest with no care for future generations, to make pristine water undrinkable and air in cities unbreathable? We Anglicans — and others — regularly say or sing one the great canticles of the Church, “Benedicite, Omnia Opera Domini (A Song of Creation).” One of the stanzas makes the point eloquently:

Let the earth glorify the Lord,
praise him and highly exalt him for ever.
Glorify the Lord, O mountains and hills,
and all that grows upon the earth,
praise him and highly exalt him for ever.
Glorify the Lord, O springs of water, seas, and streams,
O whales and all that move in the water.
All birds of the air, glorify the Lord,
praise him and highly exalt him for ever.
Glorify the Lord, O beasts of the wild,
and all you flocks and herds.
O men and women everywhere, glorify the Lord,
praise him and highly exalt him for ever.

“Quit saving the bloody planet?” Then what will glorify the Lord with us? The Church must take up once again the human mandate given to Adam and Eve to steward creation, to rule over it — not in a domineering and usurious manner, but as God’s viceroys — so that at least outposts of Eden may be seen.

“Attend to some souls,” Peterson directs our attention. Yes and no. As it stands, the whole of Peterson’s exhortation is a Platonic or neo-Gnostic misunderstanding of the Gospel focused on disembodied souls. But, that is not the Gospel. The Gospel is the proclamation that, in and through the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated on earth as in heaven, the proclamation that all the powers of death and hell have been defeated, that God will finally put to rights all that is wrong with the cosmos, and that all people are invited to become part of new creation — the union of heaven and earth when New Jerusalem descends from heaven to earth. This is not about disembodied souls being fitted for and one day snatched off to heaven, but rather about the bodily resurrection of the righteous to the life of the ages in a redeemed and new creation. “Attend to some souls?” Not quite. Attend to flesh and blood image bearers of God. Proclaim the full Gospel of Jesus Christ who took on flesh and blood to redeem flesh and blood and who even now bears our humanity eternally before the Father.

Peterson seems concerned — whether his concern is real or not I cannot say — that the Church and its mission will be co-opted and compromised by what he deems to be the worst elements of “woke” culture. But his remedy would simply co-opt and compromise the Church in his own image. Better simply to proclaim the full Gospel that certainly includes Godly social justice, Godly stewardship of creation, and the salvation of our souls and bodies through Jesus Christ our Lord.

“And why does it [the Bible] include stoning, torture, murder, burning, slavery, homophobia, bigotry, and chauvinism?”

I don’t remember how old she was, but I distinctly remember telling my daughter that she was now old enough to create problems that I couldn’t solve for her. No more easy daddy-to-the-rescue: she would henceforth have to bear the consequences of her own actions. I hoped it would be a sobering warning — not that my daughter was a hellion! — and one that would forestall potentially careless behavior and ill-considered choices. That is one of the very difficult coming-of-age lessons that many of us learn the hard way.

Something akin to that scenario plays out in the opening chapters of Genesis:

Genesis 2:15–17 (ESV): 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

The Lord God has placed Adam in Paradise with a single proscription and a warning; if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will bear the consequence — and the consequence is death. Of course, you know how the story goes. First Eve and then Adam ate, and God confirmed the consequences:

Genesis 3:16–19 (ESV): 16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”

17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

That Adam’s actions not only had consequences for himself but for all his offspring is painfully evident in the following chapters of Genesis and in the whole of human history. None of us is immune to those consequences. The theological term for this is original sin or ancestral sin. We are born oriented away from God and our own actions take us farther in the wrong direction. And we suffer grave consequences as a result. We do terrible things to one another. Stoning, torture, murder, burning, slavery, bigotry, and chauvinism the meme mentions, but there are so many more evils we inflict upon one another: deceit, slander, sexual and emotional abuse, war, genocide — the list is endless. My interlocutor wants to know why the Bible includes these things? Because they are the leitmotif of human history. The Bible is full of sin and misery because it is telling the human story and because humans are full of sin and misery.

The problem is actually far worse than the meme reckons. The Bible is also full of fire and flood, drought and famine, storm and plague — a host of what we call “natural disasters.” But, they are far from natural, far from how God designed nature to function for the benefit and blessing of man. No, these too are consequences of our actions; our sin threw nature out of joint, subjected it to randomness, entropy, chaos, and vanity. Our sins still do. The Bible reflects the brutal reality we created and are still creating.

The singer Michael Card summarized the situation painfully well: “We were intended to wake up in a garden; instead we find ourselves in a sin-impregnated world.”

Is this what the meme had in mind? Probably not. Given its overall tone, I suspect the real question lies more nearly along these lines: Why does God allow — and sometimes even mandate — stoning, torture, murder, burning, slavery, homophobia, bigotry, and chauvinism? If so, the meme attempts unfairly and unreasonable to shift the blame from man to God. None of these evils existed in Paradise; all of them resulted from human sin.

While it is a fool’s errand to attempt to justify the ways of God to man, I would like to address of few of these “charges” against the Bible and ultimately against God.

Our legal system — indeed I suspect every legal system — mandates punishment for crimes against persons and property. The most basic mandates of any social hierarchy are to maintain order and to protect the members of the group, and these punishments are intended to deter infractions. Some cultures employ mediation and reconciliation; others opt for fines, incarceration, and, in extreme cases, capital punishment. In these capital cases, various societies have devised clever means for dispatching the offender: the gallows, the guillotine, the firing squad, the electric chair, the lethal injection. Likewise, the Law of Moses mandated punishment for sin; all crimes were also considered sins against God. The worst of these punishments was stoning. While it may seem particularly brutal to us, it differs only in kind but not in degree from more modern methods: dead is dead. On rare occasions, after an offender was stoned, the body was also burned. This was probably a symbolic cleansing by fire of the residue/taint of sin left behind by the offense committed. As to torture, there simply was no explicit torture mandated in or allowed by the Law unless one considers lex talionis (eye for eye and tooth for tooth) torture. I do not. Lex talionis was given not primarily for retributive purposes but rather for protective purposes. It limited the revenge that one could exact for a wrong done. A man blinded in one eye could not by way of retribution kill his offender. Far from sanctioning torture, lex talionis was a major step toward loving your neighbor as yourself.

It is true that slavery was allowed under the Mosaic Law. But again, the Law regulated the practice in ways unknown in surrounding cultures and limited the power of the slave owner over the slave. This is true certainly because God cared for enslaved peoples, but also certainly because the Hebrews had themselves been enslaved. That memory is a constant drumbeat throughout the Law and the Prophets. Consequently, when, because of poverty, a Hebrew sold himself into servitude to another Hebrew, the slave was never considered as property; he was permitted the option of going free after a maximum of six years of servitude. Nor was he to be freed empty handed. The former master was required to provide sufficient material resources for the slave to establish himself as a free man. So yes, slavery was a historical reality, even in Israel. But, if you were forced into slavery by war or poverty, best to be a slave in Israel where God had mandated protections for slaves. Those interested can read more about the slave code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. A final word about slavery is in order. Slavery was also part of New Testament culture. Neither Jesus nor his disciples directly condemned it. But, Jesus planted the seeds, and Paul watered them, that led to the abolition of slavery among Christians and largely throughout the Western world. They created a though world in which Christian slavery was no longer tenable.

I have not yet addressed the issue of homophobia for this simple reason: I reject the charge. The word as most frequently used connotes hatred or animosity toward homosexuals, and I do not find that in Scripture. The Bible does proscribe homosexual relationships — both gay and lesbian — in no uncertain terms. But the Bible also proscribes a variety of heterosexual behaviors as well: premarital sexual relationships, adultery, incest. God created and designed man — male and female — for human, sexual intimacy, but intimacy within certain bounds that promote human flourishing — the bounds of life-long, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Christians have no phobia — what a stupid and ill-suited term! — toward those who violate those bounds and certainly no hatred. But, we cannot approve, accept, or promote the behavior as something that promotes human flourishing. I am not dieselphobic. I do not hate someone who puts diesel fuel in a car with a gasoline engine. But I could not promote the practice as appropriate for the design of the vehicle; it will not promote automotive flourishing, and will, in fact, lead to destruction. This is not, as it may appear to be, a foolish analogy. The Creator alone has the knowledge and right to specify the parameters of human flourishing. He has made explicit that homosexual relations fall outside those parameters. You may choose to put diesel in your Honda Civic, but it will not run well or run long. To tell you that is not an act of hatred, but of concern.

And lastly, chauvinism. This non-specific term is difficult to address because I do not know precisely the charge being leveled against Scripture. My assumption is that the meme is deriding the Bible for male chauvinism — a typical charge — that is, for misogyny. I would ask my interlocutor to read the Bible again carefully to note the prominent role of women in both the Old and New Testaments, not least the fact that when God chose to unite his divinity with our humanity he did so by being born of a woman. It is beyond question that no human — other than our incarnate Lord Jesus — is as central to our faith as is the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is hardly chauvinistic. Further, it is simply a historical fact that Christianity grew so rapidly in the first few centuries of the common era in large part because it appealed to the poor, to slaves, and to women because of the high regard in which these normally disenfranchised groups was held in the Christian community. Far from oppressing women, the New Testament — and, yes, Paul — actually elevated the status of women in the church over their status in the surrounding cultures.

“And why does it [the Bible] include stoning, torture, murder, burning, slavery, homophobia, bigotry, and chauvinism?”

Well, we have made a mess of God’s good creation. God is in the process of redeeming man and restoring creation. But, it is a long game, not least because he desires to use fallen men and women — redeemed humans struggling toward holiness — as his agents of renewal. Our prayers, our work, our love can make and have made a difference in the world.

A final word as I bring the series to a close. I have found that many people reject the Bible and level these meme-like charges against it based upon a child’s level of familiarity and understanding. Perhaps they attended church in their youth, learned a few Bible stories, and then drifted away from the church in their adolescence or young adulthood. Then, without a serious, adult study of Scripture they attack it as something childish and even morally deficient. My challenge to them would be to put the memes away and engage in a serious, reflective, open minded, prolonged study of the Bible. I suspect that, at the end of such study, even if they have not embraced the faith, they would at least have developed a greater appreciation and respect for the Biblical perspective.

“And why is it [the Bible] open to so many interpretations?”

Recently, the United States Supreme Court threw a lighted match on the woodpile of established legal precedent and kindled a wildfire of public outrage on one hand and public celebration on the other. For fifty years the Roe v Wade decision had guaranteed the constitutional right of women to have access to legal abortion. The current Court (2021-2022 term) determined that it predecessor had decided the matter wrongly, that previous Justices had misinterpreted the United States Constitution. In 1973, seven Justices struck down a Texas law banning abortion; two Justices dissented. In 2022, that original ruling was overturned by a 6-3 majority. Not to bore you with math, but that means, taking the two decisions together, eight Justices determined that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion and ten determined that the Constitution does enshrine that right. The Justices are pretty even divided over contradictory interpretations of the Constitution.

My point here is not to debate abortion rights, but rather to raise this question: How can eighteen expert jurists, spread over fifty years, reach such contradictory interpretations of the same relatively brief and straightforward document? Does the explanation lie with the jurists, with the Constitution, or perhaps at the intersection of the two?

The meme to which this series of articles responds poses the question/challenge:

And why is it [the Bible] open to so many different interpretations?

Clearly, that question could be posed to the Constitution, to almost any set of statistical data, to modern song lyrics, to essentially any complex act of human communication. The Bible is far from unique in admitting of multiple and disparate interpretations. I suspect the real intent of the meme’s question is more along these lines: Why couldn’t God communicate more clearly? The simplest answer to that — and I don’t mean this flippantly — is that God is communicating with humans. And not just any humans, but fallen humans with diminished powers of perception, reason, and holiness. Shakespeare wrote, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Something very like that obtains here.

The Supreme Court Justices do not come tabula rasa to their deliberations, but rather as full human beings formed uniquely by life experiences, by education, by philosophical leanings, by faith convictions, and by a host of other known and hidden factors. Try as they might to lay these aside to make objective deliberations, it simply is not possible. They are subjects and not objects; hence their every decision is inherently subjective. That is not wrong; it is simply the reality we must face.

The same is true when we approach Scripture. We have been formed, and that formation becomes the lens through which we read the text. We are no more objective than are the Supreme Court Justices; we, too, interpret the text subjectively in multiple ways and reach split decisions.

So, the real question is not why the Bible is open to so many different interpretations. The more important issue is how better to read the Bible so that our interpretations converge toward a consensus of the faithful. Perhaps I can offer a few suggestions.

If you were to go to a university book store and peruse a graduate text on quantum mechanics, you likely wound not expect to understand it immediately and fully. The author is expert enough to have had a text published, and the author, editor, and reviewers certainly endeavored to make the text as clear as possible, and yet you still likely will not understand it. The problem lies not with the text but with the reader. You simply do not have the prerequisite knowledge to understand this complex topic. To those who do, I apologize; but surely you can image a topic in which this same analogy obtains. If you want to understand quantum mechanics generally and this text specifically, you must devote yourself to study, preferably with mentors, for years. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

And yet, with no prerequisite study, with no training, people pick up a Bible and expect/demand everything to be clear. Let’s get this straight: Scripture is not a simple text; to attempt to understand God and his ways is certainly as challenging as attempting to master quantum mechanics! It requires work and study. That should not come as a surprise, though it seems to scandalize many. The real surprise, the real “scandal” is the extent to which God has condescended to make himself and his word transparent to the simple, which is to say all of us. It actually is possible for the untrained, for unlearned, for the casual reader to garner much truth from the pages of Scripture. The Bible, at least much of it, presents as a story, and we are inherently story-making beings. In the story we see people as we are, people with the same hopes and fears and dreams and desires that we have, engaging with the divine. And we understand much of that deep in our bones. We hear Jesus’ parables and, even if we don’t perceive all the nuance there, we are amazed at the depth of love and forgiveness the father shows the prodigal son and we rightly intuit something of God’s love for us. We hear Jesus, unjustly crucified, say, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing,” and our amazement is a form of understanding. So, as Augustine heard the child singing, I too say, “Take and read.” Much will be clear.

But, if we want to follow the complex structure of say Romans — or most any of St. Paul’s epistles for that matter — we must study diligently both the Old and New Testaments, not just their content but their cultural contexts, as well. Some among us must study the original languages of the texts and bring that knowledge to bear on issues of translation. This does not mean that one must attend seminary to read the Bible. But it does mean that one must take the Bible seriously and devote time and attention to read it well. It means that one must utilize available resources, e.g., commentaries and educational programs at church. We are blessed to live in a period when so many of these resources are readily — and often freely — available.

Now, I certainly don’t want to discourage anyone from simply picking up the Bible; God forbid. Nor do I wish to imply that mental acuity and specialized learning are the non-negotiables required for proper Biblical interpretation. I am simply saying that a dilettante is less likely to read the Bible well than is a dedicated life-long student of Scripture. Oftentimes, the problem with interpretation lies not on the pages of Scripture, but on the far side of them with the reader.

But, another contrasting point must be made, as well. The purpose of reading Scripture is not primarily to “know” the Bible, but rather to know the Lord of the Bible: not primarily to understand Scripture, but to stand under the authority of the Lord mediated through Scripture. The expertly trained Biblical scholar in the academy who is not also a faithful disciple, has less understanding of Scripture than the humble, semi-literate saint who devotes himself/herself to faithful obedience. Jesus said that the pure in heart — not the elevated in mind — will be blessed to see the Lord. It is good to be a scholar; it is essential to be a saint. It is said of St. Francis that he viewed the Bible not as a book to be read, but as a script to be acted. In looking for right interpretations of Scripture, look to the saints; better still, dedicate yourself to becoming one.

Now, for a few brief practical guidelines.

Read the Bible with the Church: with your local parish/congregation, certainly, but also with the catholic (universal) Church spread across the world and extending across time. No Scripture is subject to private interpretation, Peter tells us. We must read, study, pray, and worship with the Church. May I be blunt? If your parish/congregation is not devoted to the consistent public reading and teaching of the whole of Scripture in conversation with all the generations of the faithful gone before, you need to find another church. Don’t settle for warmed-over, pseudo-Christian, pop-psychology, self-help lectures, no matter how charismatic the minister. Demand Scripture or leave.

And note that I said the whole of Scripture. The Bible is in conversation with itself, one part expounding another, one part providing essential background for another. Read the whole of Scripture in a regular, disciplined way. There are several lectionaries that make this possible. There are one-year and two year Bibles and chronological Bibles. A friend once told me that it is the verses that you haven’t underlined in your Bible that may be the most important. It may be the books you haven’t read that make all the difference.

Read Scripture through the lens of the Church’s rule of faith, the Nicene Creed. For some seventeen hundred years, this creed has been the non-negotiable summary of the essentials of the Christian faith used by the Church universal. If your private interpretation of Scripture contradicts this rule of faith, then your private interpretation of Scripture in in error, by which I mean it is heterodox and outside the boundaries of the consensus fidelium, the consensus of the faithful. Let the Creed guide your interpretation.

Along this same line, let the Vincentian Canon be a filter for your interpretations. St. Vincent of Lérin, a fifth century monk, was concerned about distinguishing between true and false teaching. He developed a threefold test; the truth is likeliest to be found in that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all: ubiquity, universality, and unanimity. If an interpretation is isolated to a particular geographical or cultural region, if it is novel, if it is greatly disputed, it is not likely to be correct. This is not a perfect tool, but it is a very good one.

There is so much more to be said, but I must stop somewhere. Still, I would be remiss if I failed to mention this: read Scripture on your knees. By that I mean “soak” your reading in prayer. Ask the Holy Spirit — the true Author and Interpreter of Scripture — to purify your heart, enlighten your mind, strengthen your resolve, and glory Christ in you. Also, read the Bible in conjunction with the Sacraments. From its earliest days, the worship of the Church included the reading, preaching, and teaching of Scripture and the celebration of Holy Eucharist (Communion, the Lord’s Supper, the Mass). These two necessarily belong together.

Why is the Bible open to so many different interpretations? Because it is a complex word delivered into the hands of fallen human beings. And yet, Scripture always has and always will transcend all our limitations to draw people beyond the written word to Jesus the living Word who is the source of life.

“And why does it [the Bible] have so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies?

I am not a rector, the priest-in-charge of a parish. But, throughout my life and in a few churches I have been in positions of spiritual leadership with a certain limited authority. It is not uncommon for such a figure to receive a complaint from a parishioner/congregant followed by this or similar statement of emphasis, “And you know, I’m not the only one who feels this way. There are several others, and I speak for them, too.” As far as I am concerned — God help me — there is only one proper response to such a thing: “Well, trot them out so I can deal with their specific complaints one-by-one and face to face.” There is no real place in the church for nameless others and generic complaints. It is impossible to effectively address either.

I feel that same way with the challenge before me in this post: “And why does it [the Bible] have so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies?” To this I want to respond, “Well, trot them out so I can deal with them one-by-one, specifically and not generically.” This complaint, as it stands, lacks the courage of its convictions. It is not possible to refute such a general and baseless charge. And yet, I must say something about it, I think.

I remember the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton and his infamous statement, “Well, it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.” Oh, Bill: if you have to parse the language that precisely, you might just as well admit that the charge against you is true. What I am about to do might seem similar, but I think it is not at all the same. The charge stands that the Bible contains “many inaccuracies and inconsistencies,” to which I’m afraid I must respond, “ Well, it depends on what you mean by inaccuracies and inconsistencies.”

Let me explain by way of example. The opening line of Charles Dickens’ great novel A Tale of Two Cities reads:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Life, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way — in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Well, Charles, which it it? Pick a side. Can you image a single sentence more crammed full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies? And yet, we do not count this as such because we recognize the form as a beautiful literary device used to great effect by the author to tell a single truth; it was an age of hyperbole, the best and worst of everything co-mingled and co-existing. Only an illiterate would accuse Dickens of authoring inaccuracies and inconsistencies. But, many Biblical critics fall into just this unfortunate habit. By failing to appreciate and understand the Biblical text for what it is — its various literary, theological, and historical forms — they find inaccuracies and inconsistencies where there are none, where, in fact, there is great truth.

Let’s consider the Gospels, for example. If you assume that these are documentary style historical records in the modern sense — what a reporter with camera and microphone would have seen and heard had one been present — then you will find inaccuracies and inconsistencies. But, history of that kind is a modern literary form unknown to the four evangelists and their historical contemporaries. For them, for much for much of human history, written and oral history was an agenda-driven recounting of events. Don’t misunderstand: the events were not fictitious, were not made up of whole cloth. But, neither were they simply reported “objectively.” They were edited, arranged, interconnected to achieve a purpose. St. John says as much; he lays his cards on the table near the end of his Gospel:

John 20:30–31 (ESV): 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John, probably an old man when he writes this, has reflected on the events surrounding Jesus for an entire lifetime, has woven them into worship and prayer and faithful service, has based his life on them. And now he tells them in a unique, theologically reflective way that he prays will conduce to faith in his readers. In doing so, he pens a narrative that looks very different from the other three Gospels, the Synoptics (same view). Careful readers will notice the differences. One, in particular, stands out to me. John seems to place the death of Jesus a full day before the authors of the Synoptics. Why? To make the death of Jesus coincide with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs at the Temple, to show the blood of Jesus as that which averts death, to show the death of Jesus as the beginning of God’s new exodus and liberation of his people. John is not making a chronological statement but rather a theological one. This is not an inconsistency or inaccuracy because John never intended to give his readers a precise timeline of events; he is giving his readers something much more important — the deeply theological meaning/truth of the events. Bible critics will point to this as a problem; Christians accept it as a gift.

There are other differences even amongst the Synoptic Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew becomes the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. And, the text of the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer differ in the two Gospels. If you are of a mind to, you can explain away these differences: surely, Jesus had a basic “stump speech,” a standard “ready-to-hand” sermon and prayer that he taught throughout Galilee, adapting them as necessary for the people and the places. But really, why try to account for the differences at all, as if they actually are inconsistencies and inaccuracies? That is is give far too much credence to a baseless, generic charge against Scripture. They are simply different tellings of a common, received tradition adapted to the purpose of the author and the needs of his readers: nothing more or less, and certainly nothing compromising or nefarious. The different accounts of the events of Resurrection (Easter) morning fall in this same category. It is difficult to reconstruct a specific timeline and dramatis personae — who was there, when and where. That is not the point of the story. Something so unexpected, so radical, frankly so unbelievable has occurred that you cannot image a polished, connect-the-dots recounting of it. Only a somewhat breathless, slightly askew narrative can even begin to do justice to the wonder of this inbreaking of the Kingdom of God. This is theological literature — by God! — and not some humdrum “just the facts, ma’am.” If you still want to insist that these differences constitute inconsistencies and inaccuracies, I can only suggest that you learn the art of story telling and then get back with me. Also, read some real theology while you’re at it.

Without the plaintiff coming forward to identify specific inconsistencies and inaccuracies, this is perhaps the best I can do by way of defense and rebuttal. Actually, I can think of several other examples of supposed contradictions that are usually hauled out to debunk the Bible. I could mention them and address them, but why should I do the plaintiff’s work for him? No, if he has specific charges to make, he must trot them out himself.

Now, I am going to say something that might shock some of you. Here I express my own opinion and you are free to disagree. I would not be bothered by minor, real, factual errors in the Bible. Suppose, for example, that a chronicler made a mistake in the order of succession of two Israelite kings. Would such a thing invalidate Scripture? I think not. Remember that, as with most everything God does in relation to the world, there is dual agency at play: God and man as co-workers to achieve God’s will. For some reason that I don’t fully understand, this is the way that God chooses to work. He condescends to unite us — our gifts and our flaws — to himself and to grant us the dignity of working with and for him. And — no surprise — humans are not perfect; we make mistakes. The human co-authors of Scripture were not exceptions. Please don’t let this scandalize you; I offer it as a personal conviction and you are free to reject it. But, I would ask you to consider this. Read the Gospels. Read the Acts of the Apostles. Read Galatians, especially chapter two. Ask yourself this: were the apostles inerrant? Peter, Paul, James, John were terribly flawed individuals. And yet they were faithful. And yet, God did not hesitate to put the Church into their hands. There is an old saying that God draws straight with crooked lines. The whole of Scripture shows that to be true. The apostles made some real blunders and were not thereby invalidated or cast aside as useless. Can we possibly grant the same grace to the authors of Scripture?

Well, whatever you think about that, here is what we can say with certainty about the Scriptures: it is the book that God has given us, the book that God wants us to have, the book through which the Holy Spirit works for us and for our salvation. Paul says it best, and we really need to say nothing beyond this:

2 Timothy 3:14–17 (ESV): 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

And that is why my faith would not be shaken if an interlocutor could produce a real, factual error in Scripture, a minor slip of the author’s pen. The sacred writings — as we have them and not in some imagined pristine form — are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. That is their purpose.

“And why are there so many versions of it (the Bible)?”

(Please refer to the previous post, https://firstblessings.blog/2022/07/08/questions-and-challenges-part-1/, for the origin and context of this “project.”)

If you want to read the Koran, you must learn Arabic, the language in which that sacred text was/is written. An English translation of the Koran is just that, a translation and not the Koran itself. For Islam, truth is language specific and translation inevitably entails diminishment and distortion.

Not so in Christianity, not since the first public Gospel proclamation on Pentecost. The scene is dramatic. The disciples of the Lord were all gathered in one place on that day when the Holy Spirit rushed upon them with the sound of a violent wind and appeared upon them in divided tongues like fire. And they began to speak in other languages. Divided tongues and other languages is suggestive and symbolic of what happens next. St. Luke continues the story:

Acts 2:5–12 (ESV): 5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”

Peter then explains what it means, and it means more than he explains. But one implication is clear: the Gospel is for all people in all languages. Unlike the Koran, the Gospel truth is not language specific. Translation is not only possible; it is God ordained. That conviction is a hallmark of the Reformation with its insistence that all people must have access to Holy Scripture in their own language and that public worship must be conducted in the common tongue.

And that brings us inevitably to the challenges of interpretation, the translation of a sacred text from the source language (the language in which it was written) into the target language (the language of the reader). I am no expert on this, but I can speak to it in general terms that should address the relevant challenge.

Those of you who are bilingual, or perhaps multilingual, will understand that each language has its own patterns and forms, that individual words have a fullness and richness in one tongue that are not perfectly conveyed in another. That doesn’t make accurate translation impossible; it makes it challenging. And it makes multiple good and accurate translations both possible and inevitable.

Perhaps a brief example will help. You may know that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not the Greek of the academy, but the common Greek of the marketplace. There are a few words of Aramaic in the New Testament, but the number is vanishingly small and need not concern us. Consider the first verse of the Gospel according to St. John:

En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos.

Suppose we attempt a word-for-word translation from Greek into English. We run into difficulties almost immediately:

In beginning…

In beginning. But, wait; that doesn’t sound right in English. We would say in the beginning. The Greek lacks the definite article the. Should the translator insert it or not? Let’s continue.

In (the) beginning was the logos…

Logos is a richly textured and philosophically complex term. It can mean something as straightforward as word. But it also contains connotations of character, order, pattern, even goal/purpose. So, how is the translator to choose?

The whole of John’s Prologue, John 1:1-18, is a clear allusion to the creation account in Genesis 1; John is providing a Christ-centered retelling of creation. How did God create? By speaking the word: let there be. Since the word was God’s “instrument” of creation and since John insists that all things were created through Christ the logos, translating logos as word makes the essential connection that John intended. So, a reasonable and faithful translation of John 1:1 begins:

In (the) beginning was the word…

We will stop our translation exercise here, but you see that it is a challenging process, that choices must be made, and that different choice are both possible and reasonable. Some translators adopt a philosophy known as formal equivalence, in which they attempt to retain as much of the structure of the source language as possible. These produce accurate and faithful translations, though they read a bit awkwardly and stilted in English. The New American Standard Bible is an example of this translation philosophy. Other translators opt for dynamic equivalence, a more thought-for-thought translation. In this method, the primary questions are (1) What did the author wish to communicate in the source language? and (2) How might that best be expressed in the target language? These also produce accurate and faithful translations with this “advantage”: they read well as an English text. The New Revised Standard Version is an example of this method, though some think it carries the philosophy a bit far. Again, though I am not an expert on this topic either, it seems to me that American Sign Language (ASL) provides a good example of dynamic equivalence. As I understand it, an ASL interpreter does not sign each word the speaker says, but rather communicates each thought in sign. And that means that two equally proficient sign language interpreters might well communicate oral speech differently, though each would communicate it well and accurately.

So, why are there (so many) different versions? The most basic answer is that Christians believe that Scripture must be translated into the languages of all the people. Since translation is a complex and challenging task requiring many choices, it is inevitable that slightly different versions result. It is worth noting that most translations — certainly those that are most widely used in the church and in the academy — are performed by committees of expert linguists and theologians who take the task most seriously. Frankly, most any of the modern translations so prepared are good and reliable. Better still, the serious reader will use multiple translations, ideally ones representing the best of each translation philosophy. And, if you can learn Hebrew and Greek, more’s the better.

There is another matter that contributes to the multiplicity of versions: study Bibles and “niche” Bibles. A study Bible contains explanatory notes, cross-references, maps, charts, etc., all designed to provide context and deeper understanding for the reader. There are Roman Catholic Study Bibles and Reformation Study Bibles. There are literary, theological, and chronological Study Bible. The list is almost endless. These versions do not change the Biblical text, but they do provide interpretations of it. And none of these interpretations is without theological bias. This presents a caveat emptor situation; let the buy beware. Simply be aware that the study notes are just that, notes and not inspired Scripture. Again, it is best to consult multiple Study Bibles and commentaries with different theological perspectives. “Niche” Bibles — and that is my term for them — are Bibles targeted for a particular demographic: women, men, police, military, nurses, teachers, etc. These Bible frequently have additional devotional reflections/materials geared toward the demographic. It is tempting to see this simply as a marketing strategy, but that is, perhaps, uncharitable. As long as the reader realizes that the devotional materials are not Scripture, there is little potential harm and perhaps significant possibility for good.

So, yes, there are several versions of the Bible available. Is this a challenge to the integrity of Scripture? I do not think so; rather, I think it is an indication of the seriousness with which translators take their vocation. It is, also, a benefit to the church in providing a richness and depth to the English biblical corpus that no single translation could provide.

Lastly, and very briefly, I should mention that the majority of English language translations are based on a mere handful of source language manuscripts which present an exceptional level of agreement among themselves. The most frequent variations in these manuscripts concern word order, e.g. Christ Jesus versus Jesus Christ, or alternate spellings of words on the order of colour versus color. Significant differences that impact theological interpretation are exceptionally rare. This means that we have a reliable source language texts from which to do the work of translation. Even though we have no original manuscripts, the copies evince a profound dedication of Christian scribes and scholars in preserving the accuracy of the original texts.

In summary, we should not be concerned about the availability of various translations; this is a strength and not a weakness.

In nearly three decades of teaching mathematics I found that the very best and the very worst students tended to ask the same question: When are we ever going to use this? From the best students this was an honest inquiry, a seeking to make connections with prior learning, to anticipate extensions to future learning, and to seek applications of principles and techniques. It was a joy to answer their question. From the worst students this was less an honest question and more a challenge: Why are you wasting our time with this totally useless nonsense? There was no joy in answering their challenge, nor was it really possible to do. It wasn’t a question and they weren’t looking for an answer. My default response was, I’m afraid, as unsatisfactory as their challenge: you probably won’t, but you never can tell.

Recently, on an Anglican Facebook page, a commenter posted this meme:

QUESTIONS FOR BIBLE BELIEVERS
If an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being is the mastermind behind the Bible, then why does the book reflect only the culture, science, history, literature, technology, morals, and values of the era in which it was written? And why are there so many versions of it? And why does it have so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies? And why is it open to so many different interpretations? And why does it include stoning, torture, murder, burning, slavery, homophobia, bigotry, and chauvinism? And why would anyone have to ask so many questions about the Bible if it’s supposed to be the go-to source for truth and the ultimate instruction book for morality? Anyone?

These are not questions; they are challenges. They are not intended to promote discussion or to seek reasonable answers; they are intended to mock and disrupt. I know this because I rather foolishly attempted to engage in discussion with the person who posted the meme. It was to no avail. I suspected it probably wouldn’t be, but you never can tell.

Still, behind some of those challenges lurk real and legitimate questions — questions that many honest searchers have and, if they will admit it, questions that trouble many faithful Christians. I would like to try to formulate some answers — not final ones, but steps pointing in the right direction which others may fruitfully explore further.

But, there is a preliminary matter to address. Every teacher has experienced this: a good student asks a genuine question, but one which is so confused as to be unanswerable. “Given that this square has a circular radius of 4, what color will next Tuesday be?” The presuppositions behind the question are so confused and the question is so poorly formulated that no answer is possible. Good teachers help students clarify their questions: “What you really mean to ask is…”. So, before attempting to answer some of the challenges in the meme, I will need to re-formulate them as clear, legitimate questions. Shall we begin?

CHALLENGE 1: If an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being is the mastermind behind the Bible, then why does the book reflect only the culture, science, history, literature, technology, morals, and values of the era in which it was written?

I propose that the heart of this challenge lies in the following question. In other words, What you really mean to ask…

QUESTION 1: Why is the Bible so particular to a people and its culture?

All human writers and all human readers are inescapably situated within a particular culture. There is no tale without a teller and no context for the tale without a culture. This is true even when science fiction authors create new worlds and new cultures. There must be sufficient intersection between our culture and the alien culture for us to identify, in at least some limited sense, with it. Otherwise the story lacks coherence and meaning. All communication is inescapably culturally conditioned; that cultural embeddedness is, indeed, essential to communication. There simply is no possible context-free, culturally unmoored way to communicate.

You may object that the Author of Scripture, not being human, is not so culturally bound. True enough, but we the readers are. So, for the sake of meaningful communication, the Author has condescended to communicate with us in a culturally specific manner that we can understand. So, it is perfectly reasonable that the Bible would reflect the culture of its human authors and its human readers; it simply could not be otherwise. Interestingly, NASA scientists confronted this same issue when they launched Voyager 1 and 2 satellites into interstellar space. The satellites carried golden records intended to communicate essentials of our world and species to whomever might encounter the probes in the future. The contents of those records are culturally particular, and the scientists are depending on there existing sufficient cultural overlap for “alien” cultures to make sense of the contents (see https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/golden-record/). There simply is no escaping the cultural nature of communication.

Culture provides a necessary context for communication, but that cultural context is not necessarily the content of the communication. Do we find “primitive” science and technology in the Bible? Yes. But that should concern us only if the Author’s purpose in the Bible were to teach science and technology. And that is simply not the case. These cultural matters form the context for the communication, but not the content of it. We understand this and accept it without question or concern in other great literature. Shakespeare presumes a certain scientific and technological worldview that differs from ours. And yet the meaning of his plays is not found there nor is it hampered by the presence of the cultural elements. Shakespeare is culturally particular in form, but his meaning transcends cultural boundaries to speak to the deepest part of the human spirit. All great literature does this; in fact, that is the definition of great literature. The Bible does this, as well. In speaking of the bronze sea, a large round basin in the temple where priests cleansed themselves for the sacrificial rituals, the Bible provides dimensions that approximate pi as 3. Well, we know today that pi is an irrational transcendental number and not an integer. “Ah, error in the Bible!” the skeptics cry. Well, not so unless God was trying to teach mathematics in the text. Yes, the first temple Jews thought pi was around 3. How does that impact the true meaning of the text — the necessity for symbolic spiritual cleansing before approaching a holy God? God was not giving us a mathematics lesson in the text. Good readers distinguish between context and content.

Let’s push this even a bit farther than did the original challenge. What about the creation story in Genesis? Isn’t it just a retelling of other ancient near eastern (ANE) creation myths. Hasn’t it been thoroughly debunked by Science? I capitalized Science because those who use it as a bludgeon against the Bible most often deify and worship it. So, as a matter or respect….

Yes, the Biblical creation story shares much in common with other ANE creation myths. Why would we think that strange or disqualifying? If I wish to communicate the meaning of creation to a people familiar with other creation stories, it seems to make sense to use a cultural form which they will immediately recognize. What is important is not the similarities of Genesis with other ANE creation myths but the differences. YHWH speaks creation into existence; it does not emerge spontaneously as the result of a cosmic battle. Biblical creation is ex nihilo; it comes from nothing but the will and word of God and not from the blood and carcass of a defeated god. God creates man from love and to love, not from a need for creatures to serve and feed him. So, yes, the Author of Scripture used and subverted a mythical form familiar to the readers to communicate these, and other, great and new truths.

What I say next will be controversial to many, but I do not shy from it, and, in fact, I insist on it. The creation account in Genesis makes no scientific claims. A scientific claim is one that can be repeatedly tested and verified/refuted using the scientific method, a method which developed only some four hundred years ago. To impose science on Genesis is destructively anachronistic. The purpose of Genesis is not to present or explicate a scientific understanding of God’s process of creation, but rather God’s purpose in creation. The Bible is a theological story, not a science text. There is a particular structure to the Biblical creation accounts that presents creation as the construction of a cosmic temple in which God would dwell with his people, a people who would be priests in the temple as well as prophets to and kings over creation. That is not science. That is a meaning and purpose which science cannot supply and cannot refute.

The original challenge found fault that the Bible presented only the morals and values of the culture from which it came. I can only surmise my interlocutor has never read the Bible or compared it with other ANE cultures. The Bible continually challenges the morals and values of the surrounding cultures by providing God’s people a blueprint for holiness, for being set apart by their worship and laws. Anyone who doesn’t recognize the superiority of the Mosaic Law over other ANE moral/ethical systems has failed to read ANE cultural history.

Lastly, the Bible is so culturally particular because it is the record of a particular people called and created by God to be his instrument through whom he would make himself known to the nations and ultimately redeem the world. The Bible is more than but not less than the story of a particular people and their experience with the God who called them into being and revealed Himself to them in a covenant relationship. God was not absent from other peoples and cultures, but he made himself particularly present to and known by the Jews. So, of course, the Bible would be specific to that culture while ultimately transcending it with a message for all peoples.

The fact that the Bible perdures, that its truth and influence have transcended its original culture to permeate many cultures, makes me think its Author chose wisely to present it in its particular cultural context.

This is not a complete answer to the challenge by any means. But, I hope it will show that one may indeed meet the challenge; there is no need to shrink from it. And I hope it will encourage you to take this farther than I have, to think it through more clearly than I have. I will address other challenges in future posts.

Following is the transcript of a video presentation on the “basics” of the Anglican Rite of Reconciliation prepared for Apostles Anglican Church.

Confession. What images, what thoughts, what concerns, what questions arise when you think about the Rite of Confession? Do you picture a dimly lit church with a confessional booth in which an old man in a black robe leans in and listens intently through a lattice screen separating him from the penitent? Do you think of arbitrary penances: say thirty Hail Marys or ten Our Fathers? Are you concerned that confession is a “Catholic thing” that heirs of the Reformation have no business fooling around with? Do you question the need for confession to a priest: can’t you just confess directly to God and be forgiven?

In the next few minutes I hope to deal with these matters and more by giving you the Anglican understanding and perspective on the nature and use of sacramental confession. By sacramental confession I mean the same as the older term auricular confession: personal confession spoken out loud in private to a priest or bishop. The Rite of Confession in the Prayer Book is the liturgy that provides structure and words to the penitent and to the priest.

Let’s begin with the two most fundamental questions. Why do I need to confess to a priest? Can’t I just confess directly to God and be forgiven? Let me answer simply and directly; then I want to backtrack and nuance those answers a bit. First, no one must confess to a priest, ever. Second, everyone may confess directly to God and be forgiven, provided the confession is made with sincere repentance and true faith.

Now, let me backtrack and nuance those answers with a Gospel story, the raising of Lazarus. I’ll pick up the story midway through, with Jesus, the sisters, and several friends and townsfolk standing at the sealed tomb.

John 11:38–44 (ESV): 38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

Likely from the beginning of Jesus’ prayer, but certainly from the moment Jesus called Lazarus out of the grave, death was defeated and Lazarus was alive. But notice how death and the grave still clung to Lazarus as he stumbled out of the cave: his hands and feet were still bound with the grave clothes and his face was still wrapped with a cloth — alive but still bearing the remnants of death, still hobbled by that which the Lord had already defeated. Have you ever noticed and thought about what happens next in the story? Jesus commanded those standing around — perhaps his sisters or friends — to unbind Lazarus and let him go. Jesus gave Lazarus life, but other human agents unbound him from the remnants of death.

This story is not just a declaration of Jesus’ power over death, particularly as he approaches his own death. It is also a potent image of sin and forgiveness. From the moment a penitent truly repents of sin and asks God for forgiveness, he/she is freed from sin. And yet, sometimes — often, my experience tells me — the remnants of sin cling to the person like grave clothes: doubts regarding the reality of forgiveness, shame, ongoing temptation. In such a case, Jesus calls other humans — priests — alongside the penitent to release him/her of these remnants of sin. It is about this that The Exhortation before Holy Communion speaks:

If you have come here today with a troubled conscience, and you need help and counsel, come to me, or to some other Priest, and confess your sins, that you may receive godly counsel, direction, and absolution. To do so will both satisfy your conscience and remove any scruples or doubt (BCP 2019, p. 148).

That priests are authorized by Christ to absolve a penitent is clear from Scripture (ref. Mt 16:17ff and John 20:21-23), from the Great Tradition of the Church, and from the Anglican Ordinal in which the Bishop prayers over the priest ordinand:

Receive the Holy Spirit for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed to you by the imposition of our hands. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven. If you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld (BCP 2019, p. 493).

So, to summarize, no one must confess to a priest to be forgiven, but many find the practice helpful. I suspect most would do, if they availed themselves of the rite.

But, let’s move beyond absolution, as important as it is. Confession is an opportunity for one to receive pastoral “counsel, direction, and comfort” (BCP 2019, p. 223). Suppose one is struggling regularly with a particular temptation. The wisdom of the Church tells us that temptation and sin breed in secrecy and in darkness, but wither in the open and in the light. It is helpful to confess temptation before it progresses to sin. This not only weakens the power of the temptation, but allows the priest to provide pastoral counsel and direction in overcoming the temptation going forward. That alone provides powerful justification for a regular practice of confession.

As to whether confession is a “catholic thing,” rest assured that it most certainly is! Catholic simply means “universal,” something that belongs to the whole Church throughout space and time. The most ancient and traditional expressions of the Church — Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican — all practice sacramental confession. Confession has been part of the Anglican Church from the very first Book of Common Prayer in 1549. It is a catholic thing in the true sense of the word.

Images of a dimply lit church and a confessional booth? Perhaps in some parishes, but certainly not here. If you come for confession it will likely be in the nave or in one of our prayer rooms, private but certainly not intimidating. You may sit or kneel and the priest will sit near you: no lattice screen, just two sinners sitting together in the presence of God to seek his mercy, one authorized to speaks words of absolution, but two sinners nonetheless. The rite itself is simple and straightforward. You can find it in the Book of Common Prayer 2019, pages 223-224, and it would be helpful to read through it before a first confession. If it is a first confession, the priest will likely talk you through the process before you begin so there are no surprises and no worries about “doing it right.” But, just so you will know, there are a few things actually required to “do it right,” to make a good confession:

• A spiritual inventory of sins based perhaps on the Ten Commandments, Jesus’ Summary of the Law, or a list of the Cardinal Sins. If you are unsure about how to conduct such a spiritual inventory, a priest can provide you some helpful resources before your first confession.

• Confession, i.e., a recognition and acknowledgment of sin without excuse or blame of others.

• Contrition/Repentance, i.e., true Godly sorrow.

• Restitution, as possible, i.e., making the injured party as whole as possible.

• Amendment of life, i.e, a plan and commitment to resist the sin going forward.

May I give an example? Suppose a penitent comes to me and confesses theft of some petty cash from his place of employment. Clearly, he is contrite. But, before pronouncing absolution, I would need to know if he has made restitution, if he has returned all the money he had stolen. If not, I could not pronounce absolution just yet; he must first make restitution and then return for absolution. And, I would want to know if this theft had been a one time lapse or a pattern of behavior. If a pattern, we would need to discuss steps to address amendment of life, i.e., means for conquering such temptation in the future. What that looks like differs from situation to situation, but amendment of life is an essential element of a good confession and of good pastoral care. Throughout all of this, it is important to bear in mind that the priest is never an accuser of the penitent, but always an advocate for the penitent before God. As for penance, my experience is that nothing arbitrary is imposed; rather, any suggested or required actions are directed toward liberating the penitent from further sin. For example, penance for someone addicted to pornography might well be joining a twelve-step or similar program to combat the addiction. The Rite of Confession is considered a Rite of Healing in the Anglican Church — not punitive, but liberating.

It is also important to know that the contents of a confession are confidential. Priests talk about the “seal of the confessional;” what is said in the confessional stays in the confessional. According to the Book of Common Prayer 2019, “The secrecy of a confession is morally binding for the confessor and is not to be broken” (BCP 2019, p. 222). A priest may not reveal the contents of a confession, period, no exceptions.

My own experience as both a penitent and a confessor agrees with what Frederica Mathews-Green writes about confession. Everyone going to confession — especially for the first time — says, “I hate confession.” Everyone coming out says, “I love confession.” Confession offers a tangible — incarnational — way of knowing beyond doubt that you have been forgiven and a way of receiving the wise counsel of the Church to grow in Christlikeness.

Anglicans are known to say about confession: “All may, none must, some should.” That is a cute, typically via media saying. But nearer the truth is this: many should. If you still have questions about confession, please see me or one of our other priests. Or, simply make an appointment for confession. You will be blessed by the experience.

Alleluia. Let us worship and adore the true and living God, who created all things.
O come, let us adore him. Alleluia.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Collect
Almighty God, by whose grace and power thy holy martyr Alban triumphed over suffering and was faithful even unto death: Grant to us, who now remember him with thanksgiving, to be so faithful in our witness to thee in this world, that we may receive with him the crown of life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

TODAY, I WANT TO READ YOU A STORY. It comes from The Ecclesiastical History of the English People by the Venerable Bede. Bede wrote in the eighth century, but the story itself harkens back to third century Britain. It is the story of St. Alban, the first British martyr who was executed for his faith sometime around 250. I’ll pause the story at a few points, to make some connections and comments that I hope will be relevant to us and to our lives.

CHAP. VII. — THE PASSION OF ST. ALBAN AND HIS COMPANIONS,
WHO AT THAT TIME SHED THEIR BLOOD FOR OUR LORD

At that time suffered St. Alban, of whom the priest Fortunatus, in the Praise of Virgins, where he makes mention of the blessed martyrs that came to the Lord from all parts of the world, says—

In Britain’s isle was holy Alban born.

This Alban being yet a pagan, at the time when the cruelties of wicked princes were raging against Christians, gave entertainment in his house to a certain clergyman, flying from the persecutors. This man he observed to be engaged in continual prayer and watching day and night; when on a sudden the Divine grace shining on him, he began to imitate the example of faith and piety which was set before him, and being gradually instructed by his wholesome admonitions, he cast off the darkness of idolatry, and became a Christian in all sincerity of heart.

Some five hundred years after Bede wrote this account, St. Francis is reported to have said, “Preach always. If necessary use words.” The first Gospel that Alban “heard,” the thing that convicted him and convinced him of the faith, was the holy example of the priest: not his preaching, not his words, but his visible life of prayer. The example of your life is often the fundamental first step of evangelism, and it may be the only one you will be able to offer. But, it is a powerful opening for the Spirit to work. The time may come when words are necessary, but they are often a secondary movement of evangelism. Do not neglect to do your good deeds before men that they may glorify your Father in heaven.

The aforesaid clergyman having been some days entertained by him, it came to the ears of the wicked prince, that this holy confessor of Christ, whose time of martyrdom had not yet come, was concealed at Alban’s house. Whereupon he sent some soldiers to make a strict search after him. When they came to the martyr’s house, St. Alban immediately presented himself to the soldiers, instead of his guest and master, in the habit or long coat which he wore, and was led bound before the judge.

We don’t know how long Alban was instructed by the priest nor the depth of his catechism, but he either learned or intuited this great Gospel truth of love: This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).

It happened that the judge, at the time when Alban was carried before him, was standing at the altar, and offering sacrifice to devils. When he saw Alban, being much enraged that he should thus, of his own accord, put himself into the hands of the soldiers, and incur such danger in behalf of his guest, he commanded him to be dragged up to the images of the devils, before which he stood, saying, “Because you have chosen to conceal a rebellious and sacrilegious person, rather than to deliver him up to the soldiers, that his contempt of the gods might meet with the penalty due to such blasphemy, you shall undergo all the punishment that was due to him, if you abandon the worship of our religion.” But St. Alban, who had voluntarily declared himself a Christian to the persecutors of the faith, was not at all daunted at the prince’s threats, but putting on the armour of spiritual warfare, publicly declared that he would not obey the commands. Then said the judge, “Of what family or race are you?”—“What does it concern you,” answered Alban, “of what stock I am? If you desire to hear the truth of my religion, be it known to you, that I am now a Christian, and bound by Christian duties.”—“I ask your name?” said the judge; “tell me it immediately.”—“I am called Alban by my parents,” replied he; “and I worship and adore the true and living God, who created all things.”

When Alban was asked his race, his ethnic identity, he did not answer. Instead, he moved directly to a proclamation of faith. Whatever he was or had been by blood, Alban knew that his Christian identity subsumed race or ethnic identity. The water of baptism is thicker than the blood of tribalism, race, ethnicity, nationality. And isn’t that a lesson we need to learn today — all of us? I am an American, southern white male, Anglican Christian. What is the most fundamental part of that statement, the truest part of my identity? Christian. For Alban, the only thing of note about himself was this: “I worship and adore the true and living God, who created all things.”

Then the judge, inflamed with anger, said, “If you will enjoy the happiness of eternal life, do not delay to offer sacrifice to the great gods.” Alban rejoined, “These sacrifices, which by you are offered to devils, neither can avail the subjects, nor answer the wishes or desires of those that offer up their supplications to them. On the contrary, whosoever shall offer sacrifice to these images, shall receive the everlasting pains of hell for his reward.”

The judge, hearing these words, and being much incensed, ordered this holy confessor of God to be scourged by the executioners, believing he might by stripes shake that constancy of heart, on which he could not prevail by words. He, being most cruelly tortured, bore the same patiently, or rather joyfully, for our Lord’s sake.

In Acts, when the Apostles were beaten by the Jewish authorities for preaching in the name of Jesus, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for his name. When Paul and Silas were beaten in Philippi, they prayed and sang hymns to God in their cell at midnight. And later, writing to the Christians in Philippi, among whom was his former jailer, Paul said, “Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say rejoice.” This stands out in many of the confessors and martyrs: that they endure their suffering with rejoicing, in part because suffering is a testimony to the sincerity, to the genuineness, of their faith. Going forward in our time, I think it will become impossible to be a Christian in the public sphere without a degree of ridicule and loss. How we handle that — with bitterness or else with joy — is important. Joy is the way of the martyrs.

When the judge perceived that he was not to be overcome by tortures, or withdrawn from the exercise of the Christian religion, he ordered him to be put to death. Being led to execution, he came to a river, which, with a most rapid course, ran between the wall of the town and the arena where he was to be executed. He there saw a multitude of persons of both sexes, and of several ages and conditions, which was doubtlessly assembled by Divine instinct, to attend the blessed confessor and martyr, and had so taken up the bridge on the river, that he could scarce pass over that evening. In short, almost all had gone out, so that the judge remained in the city without attendance. St. Alban, therefore, urged by an ardent and devout wish to arrive quickly at martyrdom, drew near to the stream, and on lifting up his eyes to heaven, the channel was immediately dried up, and he perceived that the water had departed and made way for him to pass. Among the rest, the executioner, who was to have put him to death, observed this, and moved by Divine inspiration, hastened to meet him at the place of execution, and casting down the sword which he had carried ready drawn, fell at his feet, praying that he might rather suffer with the martyr, whom he was ordered to execute, or, if possible, instead of him.

This parting, this drying up, of the stream is an allusion to several events in Scripture: Moses’ parting of the Red Sea, Joshua’s parting of the Jordan, and Elijah’s parting of the Jordan. Alban’s life is simply another chapter in the great book of God’s redemptive story, in continuity with all that has gone before. The same God who was at work in the lives of Moses and Joshua and Elijah was at work in Alban’s life. He is at work in our lives, too. The story goes on, and we have our part to play in it now, in continuity with what has gone before. God is always at work among and through his people, acting for the redemption of the world.

Whilst he thus from a persecutor was become a companion in the faith, and the other executioners hesitated to take up the sword which was lying on the ground, the reverend confessor, accompanied by the multitude, ascended a hill, about 500 paces from the place, adorned, or rather clothed with all kinds of flowers, having its sides neither perpendicular, nor even craggy, but sloping down into a most beautiful plain, worthy from its lovely appearance to be the scene of a martyr’s sufferings. On the top of this hill, St. Alban prayed that God would give him water, and immediately a living spring broke out before his feet, the course being confined, so that all men perceived that the river also had been dried up in consequence of the martyr’s presence. Nor was it likely that the martyr, who had left no water remaining in the river, should want some on the top of the hill, unless he thought it suitable to the occasion.

Notice the allusions to Jesus’ death in Alban’s story. Both have themselves in sacrifice for the sake of others. Both won a convert at their executions. Both were executed on a hill, and both were thirsty at the time of execution. This connects Alban’s suffering to Jesus’ suffering. All uniquely Christian suffering — that is, all suffering for the name of Christ — is a share in the suffering of Christ. I’m not speaking of the ordinary trials and tribulation of human existence, but rather the suffering that comes to us precisely for being Christian. That suffering is a participation in the suffering of Christ; it is the cross we bear. And that means that it has meaning. It means that it is, in a way words can’t express, redemptive, offered up and accepted for the salvation of the world in union with Christ’s own suffering.

The river, having performed the holy service, returned to its natural course, leaving a testimony of its obedience. Here, therefore, the head of our most courageous martyr was struck off, and here he received the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. But he who gave the wicked stroke, was not permitted to rejoice over the deceased; for his eyes dropped upon the ground together with the blessed martyr’s head.

At the same time was also beheaded the soldier, who before, through the Divine admonition, refused to give the stroke to the holy confessor. Of whom it is apparent, that though he was not regenerated by baptism, yet he was cleansed by the washing of his own blood, and rendered worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Church has long held that there are three equally valid types of baptism:

1. Water — the normative sacramental means

2. Intent/Desire — St. Dismas, the Good Thief: Remember me.

3. Blood/Martyrdom — Jesus’ pierced side brought forth water (baptism) and blood (baptism of martyrdom)

The executioner-turned-Christian had no opportunity for baptism in water, but submitted to baptism in his own blood, which became for him the cleansing blood of Jesus. The Church is bound to the sacramental means that God has instituted for us. God is not so bound.

Then the judge, astonished at the novelty of so many heavenly miracles, ordered the persecution to cease immediately, beginning to honour the death of the saints, by which he before thought they might have been diverted from the Christian faith. The blessed Alban suffered death on the twenty-second day of June, near the city of Verulam, which is now by the English nation called Verlamacestir, or Varlingacestir, where afterwards, when peaceable Christian times were restored, a church of wonderful workmanship, and suitable to his martyrdom, was erected. In which place, there ceases not to this day the cure of sick persons, and the frequent working of wonders.

The Anglican Church has always disavowed the worshipping and adoration of saints relics (Article XXII) largely because of the Roman Catholic abuses of the practice. Still, the witness of the Church is strong and consistent: the holiness of the saints and martyrs does not die with them, but persists in life-changing and life-giving ways. That is one of the reasons we continue to tell their stories. So know this: the witness you bear, the good you do, will not die with you. It is a seed sown that will bear fruit in due season, and will produce thirty-fold, sixty-fold, a hundred-fold, in this age and in the age to come.

I close with Alban’s own words, words that ring out through the centuries and inspire us today: “If you desire to hear the truth of my religion, be it known to you, that I am now a Christian, and bound by Christian duties. …I worship and adore the true and living God, who created all things.”

Amen.

Introduction
With the rest of our country, I grieve the recent spate of mass shootings in our country. Regrettably, it is nothing new; we have a growing, bloody history of such tragic events, not to mention the “routine” killing of individuals by gun violence all across our country, especially in impoverished, inner city neighborhoods. There is a congeries of causes: mental health issues, drugs and crime, poverty, isolation and hopelessness. I do not have a definitive answer to these complex problems. To say that Jesus is the answer, or a change of the human heart, is, of course, true, but it doesn’t move us one inch toward actually minimizing the loss of life.

While I have no answer, that does not mean that I have no theological perspective on the issue. What I have, I offer here in a preliminary fashion: a template for self examination and a clearing away of some of the debris of sub-Christian thinking around the issue. I have brothers and sisters who own guns and value the right to do so. I have other brothers and sisters who eschew guns and wish all followed their lead. I do not entirely fault either position, nor do I uncritically support either position. To choose one side or the other is not my purpose; to help us think Christianly and critically about the issue of gun ownership and its social impact is my sole purpose. I suspect that I will alienate some on both sides of the issue, though that is not my intent. It is important to note — and I do — that there is a difference between guns and weapons. All guns may be weapons, but not all are intended for that purpose. I have friends who enjoy target shooting but who could not even imagine killing a living creature. I have other friends who are hunters. I have still other friends who own guns for protection and who would, with little compunction, kill another human being for self-defense or for the defense of loved ones. All of these are my Christian friends, and I write this for all of them.

I do not plan to respond to comments on this post; I have said my piece. I do ask that comments, if any, deal with the post itself and not with other agendas. And, as a matter of Christian integrity and truthfulness, please read the post thoroughly and respond to what I wrote and not to a caricature of it. Comments that follow these two guidelines will stand; those that do not will be deleted.

Idols

The human heart is a perpetual idol factory (Calvin, Institutes I.11.8).

I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands (National Rifle Association (NRA) slogan).

“Idol” may conjure images of temples and statues of Dagon or Artemis, or perhaps biblical stories of prophetic battles against Baal. But, we must think more broadly than this.

An idol is any material object, relationship, or ideal that is disproportionately constitutive of identity, demanding of loyalty, and deemed worthy of sacrifice.

The NRA slogan, above, is dangerously close to a doctrine of idols. To truly and thoughtfully endorse it is perilously near bowing the knee to guns. The implication of the slogan is simply that guns are so fundamental to the owner’s identity — so constitutive of it — that he/she would kill or be killed (human sacrifice) to retain possession of his/her weapons. That is the loyalty of martyrs, vested not in God, but in the metal and wood creation of human hands, and that would indeed be a form of idolatry.

Perhaps this is the starting point for a theologically sound Christian response to guns: a through and discerning self-examination of the idol factory of the human heart to discern if a devotion to guns has supplanted love for God.

But, as noted earlier, idols are not necessarily material objects; causes, too, can function as idols. It is possible for both ends of the ideological spectrum on this issue — those willing to defend to the death the right to own guns (NRA slogan) and those adamantly opposed to all gun ownership — to worship the cause for which they stand and to see any dissenters as enemies, even to see fellow Christians as enemies. The vitriol with which this debate is conducted is clear evidence of the idolatry of being on the right side of a cause. The proper place to begin this debate is with self-examination and repentance of all hints of idolatry.

Rights

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (United States Constitution, Second Amendment).

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (ESV): 23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

The proper context for any discussion of gun policy is not the Constitution, but rather Scripture. The proper theological basis is not rights, but responsibilities and care for the other. The proper Gospel proclamation is not freedom “to” but freedom “from:” not freedom to do as one pleases or even to do as the law allows, but freedom from the dark powers so that one may be obedient to Christ. So, the Christian must lay aside those rights that do not build up, that do not promote the good of his/her neighbor.

This principle is obvious, for example, in the case of abortion. Is a Christian “free” — does she have the right — under the Law operative for the past five decades to have an abortion? Yes, certainly. But the Church does not accept the exercise of that right. The consensus faith of the Great Tradition would not accept as valid an appeal to the Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Were the Congress to amend the Constitution to guarantee the rights of women to abortion, that would make no difference to churches with any claim to the orthodox faith.

Yet, when the issue is guns, there is a tendency among some Christians and Christian groups to lay Scripture aside and to stand instead on Second Amendment rights. That is a theological dead end. Any argument premised on the preeminent authority of the Constitution is a house constructed on a foundation of sand. The rains will come and the water will rise, and great will be the fall of that house. The proper basis for a Christian understanding and policy of guns in our society is Scripture. Building that foundation will take careful, deep, and lengthy immersion in the whole counsel of God’s word, not just individually, but also corporately in the context of prayer and worship.

Wisdom

Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.

Proverbs 1:22 (ESV): 22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?

The Christian faith embodies a great wisdom tradition in both the Old and New Testaments, a tradition which reasons from the Book of Nature, from the Book of the Law, from the Book of the Gospels. Such wisdom begins with fear of the Lord, and it depends on the work of the Holy Spirit. But it also requires Christians to exercise their minds: to think clearly, to reason soundly, to leave simple slogans behind. It requires the expertise of those trained in the faith and in secular professions/vocations. The “and” is essential in the previous sentence; “and” not “or.” The issue of the proper place of guns in society is a complex one, not amenable to simplistic ideas. It will require the best thinkers and pray-ers amongst us to resolve rightly. As a priest — as a representative of the Great Tradition — I have a certain theological perspective to bring to the table, but I have no political expertise, no sociological expertise, no psychological expertise, no legal expertise, no financial expertise. That is precisely why we need Christian politicians, Christian sociologists, Christian mental health professionals, Christian lawyers and judges, and Christian business people — and Christians in a host of other specialized disciplines — to engage this issue, not bracketing out their faith but engaging it fully to influence public policy.

Guns don’t kill people. That is true enough. But people with guns kill people. And people with assault style weapons and high capacity magazines kill many people, rapidly and efficiently. The problem is the false “or” in the simplistic argument: either guns “or” people, when “and” or “with” is the proper conjunction. People and/with guns kill people. The point is simply that a complex problem is not amenable to simplistic sloganeering on either side. The wisdom tradition of the Church demands more and better of Christians.

Thought World

America is a country founded on guns. It’s in our DNA. It’s very strange but I feel better having a gun. I really do. I don’t feel safe, I don’t feel the house is completely safe, if I don’t have one hidden somewhere. That’s my thinking, right or wrong (Brad Pitt).

Matthew 19:3–8 (ESV): 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Implicit in Brad Pitt’s statement is this: the United States without guns is simply unimaginable. And yet, it was not so in the beginning and will not be so in the end: not the beginning of our country, but the beginning of all things.

When Jesus was asked about divorce, he did not appeal to the Law, but rather to God’s intent in the beginning, at creation. Is it not sound Christian theology to do the same with guns as weapons? In Eden there were no guns, and I dare say no weapons. From the beginning it was not God’s intent that weapons — whether men’s hands or stones or crafted things — be used by one living creature against another. And that means that guns — which were almost certainly created to be weapons — are products of sin and the fall. Though we cannot conceive it now, there was a world before guns. Though we cannot conceive it now, there will be a world to come — when heaven and earth are joined in New Jerusalem — when guns are no more. The problem is simply that we live in the meantime, between those two thought worlds. And in this meantime, we cannot conceive a world without guns.

But, as Christians, we must begin to construct that thought world and even to make incremental steps toward it. Neither Peter nor Paul condemned the practice of slavery; generally speaking, Christian masters were not commanded to release their slaves, even their Christian slaves. The first century thought world could not have conceived of society without slavery; arguable the full, immediate release of all slaves would have been socially catastrophic, likely both for former slave owners and former slaves. Rather, Peter and Paul did something much more difficult and much more radical. They began to conceive and construct a thought world in which slavery — Christian slavery — was unimaginable. They did it by giving slaves dignity and agency. They did it by reminding Christians slave owners that they were in bondage to Christ and that their Christian slaves were free in Christ. They did it by inviting all — slave owners and their slave — to meet around the same Eucharist Table and to share the same bread and wine, the Body and Blood of the same Christ. And Paul took the further incremental step of appealing to Philemon to release his slave, Onesimus, now his Christian brother. We can only imagine the ripple effect throughout the Christian community of such a request.

The great Christian task vis-á-vis guns is to begin thinking through and moving toward a thought world in which guns as weapons play no part. This will be as complex for us as slavery was for the Apostles, but, like them, we have the Spirit of Wisdom to guide us, and we have various gifts in the Church to move us forward. God only knows if significant progress is possible caught as we are between Eden and New Jerusalem. But it is our Christian calling to pray our way forward, to think our way forward, to worship our way forward.