I continue my current analysis (rant) about the split of The United Methodist Church by looking at the basic regard for Hebrew and Christian scripture by those leaving the denomination compared with those remaining United Methodist. Note that I do not use the terms biblical interpretation or the authority of scripture. Both of those terms have become battleground concepts that mask a deeper division: respect for scripture. Both sides interpret scripture. Despite the claim of many traditionalists, they do not just “read” scripture in a pure, unadulterated form. I got so tired of people telling me that more inclusive people “interpret” the Bible to suit themselves, while those promoting exclusion do so based upon a straightforward “receiving” of scripture by just reading what was written. I got equally annoyed by both sides claiming that they regarded the “authority of scripture” more than their opponents. I cry bullshit to both claims.

No one simply “reads” scripture. Everyone interprets. Bold claim? No, not really. Even those of us who work from the Greek and Hebrew languages are reading versions translated in different places and different times by scribes who often added their own “helpful” explanations into the texts. And in the whole discussion, most people claiming to only “read” scripture were reading from their favorite modern translation, or even worse, from their favorite paraphrase. Nothing frustrated me more than colleagues shouting, it’s right here in the Bible while holding a copy of Eugene Peterson’s highly biased paraphrase, The Message. Compounding this, newer released versions like the Common English Bible (CEB) and the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) sacrifice scholarship for ease of reading and simplicity/simplistic thinking. Any and every English language Bible is some version of a poor translation of Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, Latin translation of an oral tradition filled with interpretations and perspectives. Not to mention that each book was written by biased human beings, no matter how faithful and honest they might have been. A parallel reading of the four gospels clearly illustrates the importance of selective application of nearly identical stories. And the days are long gone when valid biblical scholars turn to Hebrew writings for accurate historical records. Most readers of the Bible today lack any clear understanding of the context of origin or the purpose of writing in the ancient Middle Eastern world.

I am a Greek geek. I love digging into the Greek New Testament. (My Hebrew skills are sadly and sorely lacking, so I must rely on the scholarship of others where the first testament is concerned.) I read scripture in Greek every week and am constantly surprised by what the texts say and what many modern translations change, leaving some concepts woefully underrepresented, while others are significantly altered. There is a richness and depth to New Testament Greek that most translations (oh, yes, even the still beloved King James Version) lack. When many of my more right-leaning colleagues want to discuss or debate scripture with me, we speak at cross purposes because they have absolutely no idea what the original texts actually say. Or they will try to argue words and concepts completely divorced from the context and intent of origin. A parallel would be discussing Tolstoy’s War and Peace with one side having read the original Russian text and the other drawing from the Cliff’s Notes. Anything but a level playing field. The disregard and, in way too many cases, utter contempt for Hebrew and Greek versions of scripture is stunning to me. People in key leadership roles (yes, I am looking at you bishops and agency leaders) regularly dismissed academic correctives with some version of, “I don’t care what the Greek/Hebrew says, my Bible says,” while waving their leather bound New International Version (or worse, The Message) in my face. The disrespect for good scholarship and study, rather than a superficial reading of a poor translation is extremely widespread among people claiming to love the Bible. In my forty years as a pastor, I have heard repeatedly that we are “tired of talking about…” racism, homosexuality, ordination of women, abortion, etc. And we have been talking “about” them, never truly addressing any of them from a truly biblical/theological position. I remember sitting with a well-educated (three doctorates – one from Columbia, one from Stanford) delegate to the 2012 General Conference from Siera Leone discussing the question of human sexuality and same-sex relationships. I expressed my frustration that we (the global United Methodist Church) argued about the issues using our Bible as a weapon rather than a tool, and that we could settle the matter for the majority by working across the theological spectrum to engage in some intentional and serious biblical study and theological exploration. My friend threw back his head and laughed, saying, “No, no, no. No theology. We in Africa will keep it about morality, for we need your support. Never theology, only morality. Morality we win; theology we lose.” This very intelligent man understood that if we did good exegetical research there would be no argument about LGBTQIA+ inclusion. He voted conservative even though he understood it was based on bad theology.

The contrived “deeper” dead end is around the “authority of scripture.” In discussion after discussion where human sexuality and God’s instruction and intention began to shift progressive, someone would invariably say, “Well, this isn’t really about our views of whether relationships are acceptable or not. It’s really about the authority of scripture.” In my mind, both sides of the arguments we have created from scripture believe in the authority of scripture. Both sides us scripture as a bludgeon, a knife, a sword, a net, a cudgel, a brick – weaponizing the good book for division and debate instead of as a tool for building the kingdom/kin*dom of God. The problem with the “authority” of scripture is that scripture says so many contradictory, irrational, and indefensible things. From a classic debate point of view, clever people can make our Bible say just about anything we want it to. The same God who IS love, sent hordes of soldiers to rape, pillage, and enslave innocent, peaceful people. Someone writing in Paul’s name restricted women’s roles in ministry, while Paul himself commended the powerful female leaders of the early faith. And where the authentic Paul did chime in on women, he was addressing a specific situation in a specific place and time, and those of poor understanding and interpretation have used it misogynistically ever since.

I have a hard time believing there are people who respect, revere, and regard scripture more than I do. I read biblical commentaries for leisure enjoyment. I read and reread the New Testament in Greek every year. I teach and preach from the Greek because there is SO much lost in translation, and way too much misrepresentation. I focus on historical context, because each of the writings of the Hebrew and Christian faith were created in a particular place, at a particular time, for a particular purpose. You cannot ignore context and defend the authority of scripture. The authority of scripture is not a shield we hide behind. The authority of scripture is that which we give our very best to in order to guard and protect the integrity of scripture. Anyone who is using the Bible today to judge, condemn, punish, and divide is dishonoring the holy writings and displaying an egregious and harmful ignorance. 

This is who we have become. A people of the book? Well, a people of poor paraphrases of questionable translations of ancient, premodern, primitive, and geographically foreign texts, passed through centuries at the mercy of mere human scribes capturing a variety of stories, events, and myths that helped specific groups of people to make sense of the world and understandings of their God. Jesus wept.

Next time: Kenosis Anyone?