A Teaching Opportunity on Biblical Interpretation

by

Perspectives

A UM Insight Exclusive

Underlying the controversy over homosexuality and the United Methodist Church is a debate over biblical interpretation.  I wish that our bishops and other leaders would use this as a teaching opportunity to enhance our understanding rather than sniping at one another.

As an octogenarian layman, I would like to share my own understanding.  I grew up being taught that the Bible is the Word of God although without heavy emphasis on literalism.  As I went through Sunday school and the Methodist Youth Fellowship and read the Bible on my own, I noticed contradictions in stories of major events that were hard to explain.  There are two stories of creation which could not both be true.  In one passage Noah is told to put a male and female pair of every animal and bird into the ark, in another passage seven pairs of all clean animals and one pair of all unclean animals. 

There are two birth stories of Jesus with inconsistencies.  In Matthew Mary and Joseph flee from Bethlehem with baby Jesus to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod.  In Luke they take baby Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem to present to the Lord.  In Luke and Acts Jesus’ disciples remain in Jerusalem after his resurrection while in Matthew and John they go to Galilee.

When I got to college, I learned more about the work of biblical scholars.  For instance, the first chapter of Genesis speaks of Elohim in Hebrew, translated as God.  The second chapter uses the term Elohim Yahweh, translated as Lord God.  Scholars figured out that the chapters came from two separate traditions with a third tradition represented in other passages of Genesis, all intertwined in single book.  Analysis revealed that Matthew and Luke had available Mark’s gospel to draw upon as well as another common source, but each had unique material including different versions of the birth story.

All of this adds up to realization that the Bible is a book of books, written separately over centuries and combined into a single volume.  Although the various authors were inspired by God, they were men who were influenced by the customs of their time.  That’s why some biblical passages justify slavery and Paul wrote that women should not speak in church.

For me this makes the Bible a source of inspiration and knowledge.  I can see how human understanding of God grew over the centuries. For example, while the conquest of Canaan and slaughter of all its inhabitants is said to follow God’s commands, Isaiah and Micah tell the people to turn their swords into plowshares, and Jesus tells us to love our enemies and forgive those who harass us.  Stephen, the first Christian martyr, did this.  Rather than proof-texting I can behold the majesty of God in the total sweep of the Bible and be grateful for all that it teaches.

Now what I am saying is not new to our bishops and our pastors.  They have learned this in seminary.  I imagine that most, if not all, of the bishops accept this broader interpretation of the Bible.  But they are reluctant to speak out because they don’t want to tangle with persons taking a more literal interpretation of the Bible or risk losing members.  Instead of being silent they should use this moment as a teaching opportunity to increase our depth of understanding. 

In doing so they can realize that most Christians already accept exceptions to Old Testament restrictions.  For example, I haven’t heard of anyone who cites four biblical passages to claim that homosexuality is a sin who also calls for the execution of generals, governors, senators, movie stars, evangelists, and members of their own congregation who have committed adultery as required by Leviticus 20:10.  Nor do I know of any effort to ban ham and shellfish from church dinners in spite Old Testament prohibition.  So it becomes a judgment call on which adjustments to make.

And we should remember that six times in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus stated, “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, but I say to you….” and then enunciated a new interpretation of the law.  He ignored the strictures against working on the Sabbath to heal the sick. He stopped the stoning of a woman taken in adultery, but told her to sin no more.  He quarreled with Pharisees who had strict legal demands but ignored justice and mercy.  He taught that the essence of religion is found in the Two Great Commandments – love of God and love of neighbor.

This a message that our bishops and pastors can give us: love is more important than law.

Howard W. Hallman is chair of Methodists United for Peace with Justice.  His vita is found at http://www.mupwj.org/howardhallman.htm.