I  think you have so hit the nail on the head, GR.Are most afraid to discuss the scriptures from this point of view - by this, I mean calling a spade - a spade. That is why I asked the question way back - are we hypocrites? Do we believe one thing but preach from a very different perspective.?

Hi Goldenrule,

Could you say that again?

Only this time more sensibly.  

Grace and peace to you.

John

Well that term shure beats "sock puppets" LOL

Dave that is a great expression of thought there buddy.

Bolt

GoldenRule,

oh, I could write on this at extreme length, because it brings forth many different areas of interest for me.

I'll just write what it reminds me of right away. To give context, I live in a pretty hooge multicultural multicity place. And I've noticed (which I'm in conflict with, because I still try to be agnostic aboot this experience) that people on public transit generally keep to themselves and don't smile.

So, yesterday, when I was going back home from school on public transit, I had a little moment. This guy was fiddling around with some game on his blackberry, so I decided to ask him what it was. And he got talking aboot his interesting game (it was like tetris, but included poker--to clear a space, one had to beat the dealer's hand).

Then an older woman entered the conversation, saying that she was from Port Alberni, and that there she had been happy, on the ferry she had been happy, and that she is now happy again. I found out that, without prompting from me, that she finds people here to be keeping to themselves and when she tries to get into a conversation, they are 'just the facts, ma'am'.

So, that is what your post, GR, reminded me of right off the top of my head. People get into 'ruts', they can get lost in the technical meaning of things, losing out on the Spirit of Life (which is the deep, mythic meaning). Rides on public transit become just a way to get home, instead of also a chance to really connect with others, English becomes only a means to get something done, instead of a living, changable collection of poetry, etc etc.

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

There are a number of ways of understanding Scripture which often come into conflict with each other.  First, some folks read it as a description of an objective reality.  They see it as accurate history and the literal word of God.  Second, others see it as largely symbolic, wtih some parts historically accurate. They see the interpretation of scripture and religious experience as almost entirely subjective.

The confrontation here is over what is historically accurate and objective and what isn't.  However, I think there is another way to understand Scripture which is closer to how Christians did in the distant past.  The debate over historical accuracy, while interesting up to a point, is beside the point. 

This is really hard to explain, so bear with me.  Scripture is beyond metaphor and symbol, both of which are literary devices which refer to "something else."  But scripture is a realm of its own into which one enters freely in order to understand God more deeply.  We can allow the story - and we are people of The Story - to transform us as people without getting stuck on the historical facts or lack thereof.  It is its own reality.  We need to immerse ourselves in the mystery of that reality, walk through it, and let it work upon us.

Here is an example.  When I first came back to the church, about 10 years ago, I went to my first Christmas Eve service in many, many years.  I had read a lot of the historical Jesus research and knew that Jesus was likely not born in Bethlehem, and that much of the story was story.  But as I meditated on this story, it came over me that such a dichotomy is not only irrelevant to a deeper understanding of God, it gets in the way of such an understanding.   That evening, in the soft candlelight, among fellow Christians, I was walking through the story of the birth of Joyous Hope in a darkened world;  God as a child, born among animals, to poor people, ordinary people; God as a helpless infant who needed protection and nurturing.  It was a profoundly moving and beautiful experience.

This is only one part of the Christian Story and there are many more parts that have such an effect, bringing people into realms of thought and being which are not possible via a more "rational" or objective discussion.  I love to use the Christian language and do so now without reluctance when I am among fellow Christians.

Sorry I missed the hypocrite thread CrazyH. I don't think it's so much that those who preach do this intentionally as it is from a misplaced sense that it's too hard to explain, or too uncomfortable for people to hear.

I honestly don't think that most realize that they're reinforcing the perspective that they themselves long ago abandoned (if they ever held it).

ummmmm .... what part did you have trouble with?

Can you explain it to John then?  hee hee (sticks tongue out in John's direction)

Whew Inna, thanks so much for that. I'm forced by time to offer only a poor short comment in reply.  I think you're absolutely right about "ruts". And from each, even if we're perfectly visible, we can't seem to see each other. It seems to me that one of the reasons that's the case is that we seem to think that it's too complicated or abstract an exercise to present our perspectives to each other.  Like your bus ride though, I don't think it needs to be that complicated at all.

You're right of course. But for (most) mainline preachers, I think the argument is long since resolved, They exist on a spectrum, but none (few) would deny the mythic aspect of Scripture.

Thanks for this excellent example. It illustrates my point. I do the same thing. I "live in the story" as if it were indeed history. But never do I make the mistake of thinking it is history, and when I speak to people I try to ensure that I frame it as "not history". This is where, in my opinion, much of the mainline church fails.

Its what leads to charges of "not being biblical", when in fact they're more biblical than any literalist could ever hope to be. And its what leads the people in their pews to be reluctant to share their faith perspective.

AAAAAHHHHHHhhhahahahahahaaahahaha,,,cough cough sputter snort !

ahhh, the scotch burns when it goes up through ones nose,LOL!!!

Bolt

You know I was thinking the same thing this week after a weekend conference at our church , we had guest speakers all weekend long with the guest speaker being John Bevere, who is a author of many books , his best sellers are titles like “Driven by Eternity “ and the Bait of satan “

For me he was an ok speaker, but I find that the word has been so dissected , applied, translated , added too and what ever else over the yrs , that the simplest messages are forgotten.

What ever happened to, God is love, God loves you, God died for you . Sometimes the most powerful message is the simplest .

bolt

Just out of courtesy for Tom you should have added a dozen or so lols.

Shalom

Mate

I am in agreement with most of what has been said.  The Christmas story fits one of the definitions of midrash;  an earlier important story is used in defining a newer event.  Most of the Christmas story comes from the OT.

Likewise the Easter story though that is not to deny the death and resurrection of our Lord.

I believe it was Robert Daum that said to me that most of the OT past the Torah is midrash including parts of the Torah.

Shalom

Mate

lol   lol   lol   LOL   LOL

Hi David,

Not only have you hit crazyheart's "nail on the head" here, but mine also.

Every week in church we have the literal readings from the Bible, yet we say we are a progressive congregation. Often when our minister gives the sermon, based on the readings, he confesses he had to think long and hard to come up with something plausible.

Has anyone attempted a "progressive" Bible interpretation, that could be quoted from?

Maybe we progressives are just too lazy. 

Amen to that.

Sometimes the most powerful message is the simplest .

Well, I don't think it's so much a matter of a new interpretation as it is making clear the interpretation that we understand.

For example, when I speak on a particular story, the calming of the waters let's say, or jonah in the whales belly, I generally start out with something like "This story isn't history, but its true."

Then we're free to talk about what's "true" about it without being having to suspend their common sense.

Actually, it must depend on which  United Church you attend.  I attended on Christmas Eve Day with my foster children because the manger scene was described as a myth/story... or to be more clear never happened.  The children were coloring and not paying attention  and when I quizzed them about the sermon they did not remember (which is what I suspected they have poor memories) 

That is not actually something I wanted to hear right at Christmas or actually at any time.

PP asked "Has anyone attempted a "progressive" Bible interpretation, that could be quoted from?"
 

Chalice Press is the publishing arm of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) USA. They have produced a series of commentaries on the books of the Bible from a process/progressive point of view. Some of their titles include:

Romans - by John Cobb & David Lull

Revelation- by Ronald Farmer

First Corinthians- by William Beardslee

The Old Testament and Process Theology- by Robert Gnuse

I own all 4, and am currently using the Romans book as I lead my Sunday Bible Study group. I'll be using Revelation starting next week for a 4part study with my Church Women. An excellent resource which takes the text seriously, and looks at it from a process/relational  point of view.

I would also recommend "Who wrote the New Testament" by Burton Mack as a basic text for introducing the NT.

Rev James Murray,

Thanks for the recommendations. I doubt I'll be able to get them here though.......bring them with you if you ever preach in Sydney.

So, are you suggesting that we uncover the essence or message of the story?

I would like to see this done, as it's often not easy to determine the essence as a lot of the stories in literal form don't make a lot of sense.

Also, I would like to see the essence explained in a modern example of life as it's lived today.

First the essence, followed by a modern example - I think that's the way to go all you preachers out there.

The books I mentioned are all available online form the publisher chalicepress.com or can be ordered through Chapters & their website Chapters.ca

Hi GR,

I too haven't had much time to hang out here, but it's always good to run into you...

Jonah spent three days in the belly of a great fish.

Interpretation 1:  This is physically impossible.  There is no way a human can survive for three days in the stomach or digestive system of a fish or large mammal like a whale.  Don't try to feed me fairy tales about something that could never ever be!

Interpretation 2:  God is the great creator and through him/her all things are possible.  Why do you place physical limitations on the one who flung the stars into the sky and the sub shops into the food courts?  Don't put your puny human concepts of reality on the Great Iam!

Lost in the wrangling between those two interpretations:  Jonah had decided to forget about listening to God and so God decided to give him a life changing wakeup call.

For me, the real truth of that story can get lost in wrangling over historicity. I'm guessing many preachers (myself included)  go for the meat of the nut - the real truth that lay within the shell - whatever form that shell takes.

I have preached on the loaves and the fishes.  Was it a true, died-in-the-wool physical miracle, or was it a miracle of inspirational, communal, culture shifting sharing amongst people who were often one meal from going hungry?

That's the shell  for me.   The nut of the story is when the disciples told Jesus to order the crowds to leave he turned to them and said, "They don't need to leave."  In other words, in Christ nobody has to go hungry - physically or spiritually. 

If there are 79 people sitting on their "pews" waiting to get their train of thought interrupted by a sermon, there's a good chance there will 77, 78 or maybe even 79 interpretations of the scripture in question.  Crack the shell and give them the nut says I!

God bless,

I agree that this inconsistancy is problematic for many people.  If my church did just that, I could not attend.  We look very carefully at all words used in the communal gathering (readings, songs, prayers, etc.) and ensure that if we are going to say it, that we can back it up with why we use the words we do...cms

That's not how it is in the Baptist denomination I belong to. The pastors I've talked with believe the Bible to be true, and although strictly not a scientific or historical book, accurate whenever it deals with science-and-history-things.

I have to agree with GR on this one.  To be true does not mean that a story has to be historically or scientifically accurate.  There are things written in the Bible that many take for historically true that are simply absurd.  It is a failure to understand metaphor, allegory, myth, midrash etc.

Shalom

Mate

Such as what??

Aquaman

The list could get long but I will mention a few:  Adam and Eve, the walls of Jericho falling down as Joshua walked around them, that Joshual crossed the Jordan on dry land, the Exodus as written,  that the sun stood still for a day.

To make a general statement the Bible is primarily a religious book that contains a few kernels of nhistory spread throughout.

Shalom

Mate

It is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, because I experience literalism/losing sight of the Spirit of things daily in my life.

Like when I find myself calling someone a "Street person" or "Homeless".

I've a suspicion that people in Canada, generally, aren't grokking their myths too deeply and are living other, corporate myths.

I'll add to this that "Truth" exists only AFTER we've had the experience.

(here I go. I've got a 'new' audience here)

Everything we call "thought" or "feelings" or "logic" and so forth are such things.

Even the word "is", by which we call something to Be something and Not something else is this as well...

Everything we can say aboot anything is a metaphor. Even when we see something (that is, I've registered that I am now looking at a screen) that is a bet as well. A perceptual best-guess.

So, tying that in with GR's topic, what we have are people who don't really grok their "Truth", but, really, are accepting someone else's "Truth", which is different than theirs merely by being created in a different body (so it has different associations with it).

This abstract "Truth" that exists in some Platonic space, independent of the person, means that that person doesn't get to fiddle with it, doesn't even get to know that they Create The Truth that speak through myths and allegories and stories and legends...

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

I will give an example of my skepticism of the "religious" doing reasearch and publishing.  I was on another forum where there was a university student who was an atheist.  Now I had no problem with that.  I didn't agree but we got along.

We were dicussing creationism and some of the published statements of men like Hovind.  They were quoting from the writings of evolutionists to prove their point.  This atheist gentleman had  no problem with emailing the evolutionist authors.  In fact he emailed several to question comments by these creationists.

It was very clear that they were quoting out of context thus making the message seem different, the were twisting what was said, they were quoting parts of sentences etc.  In short they were being academically dishonest and thus dishonest to the public.  Apparently they had no academic scrupples whatsoever.

I have noted the same thing in my own personal discussions with archaeologists who showed me very clearly why things being quoted were simply wrong.

The honest archaeologist and scientist has no need to change what he finds to support his particular position.  S/He simply wants the truth.

Shalom

Mate

Okay, this has been bugging me for a while now. Why do you say "aboot" instead of "about"? I have never heard this before, and my curiosity is getting the better of me.

good heavens. This is why I hesitate to start topics anymore. No time to give good repsonses to good ...uhhh... responses.

Hi Serena. I have yet to be in any church service where the children pay attention.

You're not alone in "not wanting to hear" the reality of the mythology of faith. Which is part of the conundrum for many preachers. They worry about upsetting the people in the pew so they couch much of what they say in terms that can be taken either way. The result, of course, is a mixed message.

Sorry, Mate, I don't find any of those to be absurd. Unusual, yes.

It is not primarily a history-book. Granted. However, I believe it to be accurate in the history it portrays.

=A=

Hi Aquaman. I wouldn't consider the Baptists "mainline" . It's generally a term used for United Methodist, Episcopal, UCCan, Presbyterian, etc.  Nevertheless, you might be surprised what some (not all of ocurse) of those pastors believe behind closed doors. When I was doing online workshops for clergy, I was floored by the percentage of conservative instructors who confided that they wouldn't dare tell a congregation the things they accepted as a matter of course in their studies.

Hi Dave, I'm going to use your comment to try to reinterate the point I was aiming for originally. For me, and for most "post-modern"/mainline/liberal/pick-your-label Christians, there is no wrangling.  None. Not an issue. No debate. Matter settled. The things that, for instance Mate quoted, the sun standing still, etc, are myth. Period.

Sermons are prepared and preached from that mythological understanding. (Perhaps there are some who still preach it as "real", but we're of necessity talking generalizations here)

What doesn't happen enough, in my opinion, is what Serena noted in her post - making it clear that this is the perspective. I think that when we neglect to do this, or when whoever is preaching sorta sidesteps the issue by "just" reading a passage as if its history, we do a grave disservice to the people we want to send a message to.

And remember, as I said to Aquaman, I'm talking about denominations/preachers/worship leaders who have given the literalist interpretation a pass.

The virgin birth.

I take the virgin birth as true as most christians I know also , its not absurd to believe in a God or the miraculous

To some it is though, unfortunately.

Bolt

LMAO

Sure, Aqua.

Many I know don't accept it as a literal event but as metaphor. This doesn't make it any less "true" in a sense but it isn't necessarily "fact". As for "absurd", well, that's a value judgement that I wouldn't use but if it was described as an event in a religious story outside of Christianity, it would quickly be dismissed as mythological and probably "absurd" by many.

Yes it's "absurd".  The story of the virgin birth requires the suspension of natural law in one case, which is an ability I admit you claim for your god.

Of course, the simpler answer is that Mary lied.

nope. but again, it has nothing to do with my observation . I could care less if someone believes that three rabbits and an ostrich delivered baby Jesus on a flying carpet pulled by seventeen orangutans and a dwarf. There is, no doubt, a church out there for them.

I simply say that there are whole denominations who do not hold the Bible as telling history but rather the Truth through myth/midrash/story.

And yet when someone who comes from that perspective stands up in the pulpit on Sunday, they still often read the Scripture as if they're recounting a "real" story.

And I find that unfortunate.

I would agre with you, it is a suspension of natural law, but then again , I also believe in a higher  suppernatural law

lol - hansen, you betray your own simplistic approach to the Bible. For Mary to have "lied" you have to first assume that there was ever a claim during her lifetime that she was a pregnant virgin.

Its so seductive to treat the thing as "history", in one way or another, isn't it? And that was really my point in starting the thread. We fall into this error over and over when we talk about things biblical. - or hindu or Islamic, or Jewish, or ........

You crack me up man!!  hanson? LOL!!!  I thought it was a typo untill I saw consistancy.

Bolt

I agree, GR. This is a struggle for many of us...both in the pews and in the pulpit (from what I hear, anyway).

Go back another step.  There is no evidence she or her son ever existed.  Everything in the bible about him was written decades after his supposed death.  What we have then is no Jesus, no Mary, and you're worried about my joke that Mary lied?

In fact if Jesus was crucified around 30-33AD and Paul began his writings around 45 that is definitely not decades after only one and a bit.  Mark being written about 65-70 is a few decades but not that many.  People's memories are short but that short???

Shalom

Mate