Biblical Hermeneutics 4 Essays on general Biblical Hermeneutics |
Essay # 1, by Rev. Stephen A. Springer
Essay #2, by Rev. Ken Ahlstrand
Essay #3, by Rev. Duane Lokken
Essay #4, by Rev. Ron Rude
The general Biblical hermeneutic we are articulating doesn’t fit into a neat formula. There are nuances and variations even among us within this ‘contextual’ approach. Therefore, we include 4 rough draft essays from 4 different pastors. We welcome other essays that say it better. Please email your essay to: excell-way@excell-way.com
Essay # 1, by Rev. Stephen A. Springer : The Bible and Its Application in the Matter of Homosexuality
There is no simple way to describe the authority of scripture. The Bible is interpreted in the community, by individual conscience, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the Cross of Christ, in the company of creeds and confessions. No one can adequately address this matter in a few hundred words.
Even so, I am convinced that anyone who wishes to invoke the Bible in the matter of homosexuality must have a consistent method for interpretation. Our society has the highest rate of divorce in the history of human civilization, and quite possibly, the highest rate of premarital sexual activity. Any serious interpretation of the Bible on the subject of sex and marriage must address these matters. They dominate our culture. It is wrong in principle and absurd in practice to focus exclusively on homosexual relationships, which constitute only a small fraction of our society’s households.
The subject of divorce is of particular concern, because Lutherans are Christ-centered in our biblical interpretation. Jesus took a harsh stand against divorce. Jesus overruled the Law given to Moses (Matthew 19:7-8), he perplexed his disciples (Mark 10:10), and the stringency of Jesus’ veto on divorce sent Paul scurrying to find allowable exceptions (1 Corinthians 7:10-12). It is wrong for a Christ-centered church (the ELCA) to ignore the “hard sayings” of Jesus about divorce– which is clearly a social, economic, and family crisis in contemporary America– and to spend so much time obsessing on Leviticus and the obscure references of Paul to homosexuality.
Why, indeed, has our denomination not debated the meaning of 1 Timothy 3:2, which makes it clear that clergy cannot be divorced? Why does “Visions and Expectations” allow exceptions to this verse of the Bible, but not to others? We are a lazy and cowardly church. We spare no resource in debating homosexuality, because gays and lesbians are disenfranchised. We do not discuss divorce or other matters of marriage and sexuality, because these matters are too difficult and too much a part of the church already. We “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel,” as one of our provocative spiritual leaders once said.
Therefore, I am eager to hear or read any Lutheran’s consistent biblical interpretation, if their interpretation encompasses all of the issues– divorce, polygamy, premarital sex, procreation, etc. My own approach, flawed and limited though it surely is, can be consistently applied.
First, Christians are free from the Law of the Bible and subject to the law of love. This is a cardinal Lutheran principle, based primarily in Paul’s writings, and eloquently elaborated by Martin Luther in The Freedom of a Christian ( LW 31). “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.” (Romans 7:6) Is this not the heart of Luther’s Reformation? When did Lutherans abandon grace and return to legalism? “You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.” (Galatians 5:7-8)
In the exercise of our Christian freedom, we must take care that we do not scandalize or harm others (Romans 14:15, 1 Corinthians 8:9). Spiderman says “With great power comes great responsibility,” and even our children understand this! But Lutherans are afraid to proclaim our core message of ethics, that “With great freedom comes great responsibility.” Surely this is the core message for gays, lesbians, those who are co-habitating, and those who divorce. In fact it is also the message for those who choose marriage and those who choose celibacy. Each path offers its own promises and its own temptations. The kind of marriage that we think of today as conventional– i.e., heterosexual, monogamous, and grounded in romantic love and attraction– is alien to the Bible. Each of us in our own situation must struggle with the Bible. Each of us must hear both “Law” and “Gospel.” Not just GLBT people.
Life is not easy, and the choices are not easy. To choose a life partner is a serious matter; to try to live life without a partner is also a serious matter. “Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” (Romans 14:5) “All must test their own work.” (Galatians 6:4) Recent American films such as Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Far From Heaven (2002) poignantly illustrate the tragedies that can occur when GLBT individuals are pressured by church, family, and state to enter into conventional marriages. The proper work of the Church is to use the Gospel to set people free to make the best ethical choices. The Church does not fulfill its calling when it coerces individuals into making destructive choices. And when the Church applies its coercive power to only the disenfranchised, blithely tolerating every kind of excess in the ethics of the enfranchised majority, then the Church has betrayed its Founder, and the continental Reformation has been eviscerated.
Second, the Bible provides no Christian model for modern marriage. The major male figures of the Old Testament have multiple wives. The major male figures of the New Testament are celibate. Luther himself wrote quite succinctly:
“Since marriage has existed from the beginning of the world and is still found among unbelievers, there is no reason why it should be called a sacrament of the New Law and of the church alone. The marriages of the ancients were no less sacred than are ours, nor are those of unbelievers less true marriages than those of believers, and yet they are not regarded as sacraments. Besides, even among believers there are married folk who are wicked and worse than any heathen; why should marriage be called a sacrament in their case and not among the heathen?” (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, LW vol 36, p. 92)
Perhaps I am too enthralled by Luther, but I find his perspective very compelling in the present case as well.
No matter what fans of The DaVinci Code may think, Jesus did not marry. His apostles did not marry. Jesus counseled celibacy (Matthew 19:12), and Paul also counseled celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7). These are fairly serious teachings, which Christians skip over too quickly. Without any firm New Testament foundation for the kind of heterosexual marital arrangements our culture accepts, some Christians desperately try to stitch together a Christian theology of marriage based on the scriptures about Adam and Eve. Their argument is that Adam and Eve, as male and female, are a decisive image God’s intentions for humankind. This argument ignores the theological point of the narrative, which is that Adam and Eve– fully heterosexual and fully monogamous– transgressed against God’s intentions, and brought a curse upon all of their descendants. If we accept the narrative at face value, as I believe we must, then we accept that we now live in a post-lapsarian cosmos outside the walls of Eden. And here again is the problem of consistency. Are we going to hold GLBT people to the ante-lapsarian ideal, why allowing everyone else to live according to post-lapsarian compromise and accommodation?
We ignore Jesus. We ignore Paul. We ignore the real meaning of Genesis. Our Bible has some unusual and shocking ways of addressing marriage and sexual relationships. Do we really accept the authority of scripture? It seems evident to me that this church is willing to “tithe mint, dill, and cummin,” and neglect “the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.”
Finally, there is realism and truth in 1 Corinthians 7. In chapter seven of the first letter to the Corinthian congregation, Paul commends celibacy and places many restrictions upon marriage and divorce. Today’s churches find these words repellant and outdated. I again point out the inconsistency. We are willing to spend endless hours debating Leviticus 18:22 as though it carries great authority, but we quickly dismiss and trivialize 1 Corinthians 7. Where homosexuals are concerned, we are staunchly biblical; where heterosexuals are concerned, we dismiss inconvenient texts. Where is justice in this?
Yet, 1 Corinthians 7 holds a great deal of wisdom for all of us. It is Paul’s noble attempt to come to terms with the harsher sayings of Jesus (which forbid divorce and which recommend celibacy). It is Paul’s loving attempt to balance pastoral concern with spiritual ideals. It is Paul’s thoughtful attempt to reconcile his urgent eschatology with the mundane necessities of daily living.
“Each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.” (1 Cor. 7:7) Paul’s immediate reference is to the distinction between celibacy and marriage. He prefers celibacy, but does not condemn the married life. Surely this same principle applies in our current situation. Paul idealized celibacy, but found it wise to recognize a different “gift”. We idealize heterosexual marriage, can’t we wisely recognize another “gift?”
“It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (1 Cor. 7:9) Paul favored celibacy, but did not prohibit marriage. He understood that a regulated sexuality was preferable to a dangerously repressed sexuality. Why does this not apply in our present case? Surely it is better to explicitly encourage a responsible, committed homosexual relationship than to implicitly tolerate the adultery, promiscuity, pornography, and licentiousness that result from being “aflame with passion.”
“Let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches.” (1 Cor. 7:17) This is a good rule! Why have we abandoned it? We have tried to enter into the hearts of human beings, and into the mind of God. These are labyrinths without exits.
“In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God.” (1 Cor. 7:24) When we put too much emphasis on the “condition” (“lifestyle”), we lose sight of the higher purpose.
“I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:35) Why can we not encourage GLBT individuals in a way that promotes “good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord”? Why are we pushing GLBT people into lives that are experientially disordered and which hinder a true love of Christ? There is an urgency in this matter that does not come from the culture, or from the witness of GLBT Christians.
Concluding Example: Luther and Philip of Hesse. Martin Luther infamously advised Landgrave Philip of Hesse to practice bigamy, to avoid divorce, and to tell no one about it. We know that in this controversial matter, Luther struggled both with scriptures and pastoral concern, with common sense and social acceptability. Of paramount concern for Luther was the fact that Philip had stayed away from the Lord’s Supper for fifteen years because of his adulterous relationship with Margarethe von der Sale.
Anyone who enters seriously into such matters will face the perplexing views of ancient scripture, the scorn of modern social convention, and the dilemma of balancing Edenic ideals with practical, pastoral caritas for real people. For those who are serious about these things, Martin Luther is clearly a comrade and a fellow pilgrim. Luther scholar Heiko Oberman has provided an excellent analysis of Luther’s approach to this peculiar case of Philip of Hesse. I will close my brief analysis by citing Professor Oberman’s conclusion in its entirety. These words speak eloquently to me, and I hope they will speak to others. For me, the banner of the Reformation still flaps in the wind above my head.
Wherever blame is placed, the fact remains that Luther came to a decision which, contrary to his own opinion, is genuinely exemplary. There is a Christian counsel which bursts the seams of moral convention, whether unwritten or codified in law. Luther himself insists that the Gospel teaches of a higher law, the Law of Love– however dangerous in practice– which is to be directed to the unique needs of the “neighbor,” who may well encounter dilemmas which no law can foresee. Luther gave his advice unwillingly and hesitantly, but he did not shirk his pastoral responsibility, for example, by referring Philip to experts in civil law.
In this case as well, Luther had distinguished between the inflexible law and the Gospel of grace. Though public law is a precious gift, it is subject to the blind legal code of generalized regulations, which cannot differentiate between precedence and exceptions, between normal cases and emergencies. But the Gospel sees the individual and seeks his welfare in the maze of moral obligations. The law was not thereby abrogated, and that is why Luther’s ministerial advice was to remain secret. The Gospel risks unconditional love, and that is why such counsel could be given. Here Luther is so different from the Reformation in the cities, and from Calvin’s Reformation: biblical counsel is not to be confused with bourgeois morality. Not making this distinction means unmaking Luther’s Reformation. [Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart, Yale: 1989, pp. 287-289.]
Essay #2, by Rev. Ken Ahlstrand
Many people ask the question, “How can there be so many different interpretations of the scripture?”
Part of the reason is that many people look at the scripture through the eyes of Greek thought. On one side, fundamentalist Christians picture the Bible as being dictated by God and then through human reason being translated into truths for a correct way of life. On the other side, liberal Christians believe that human beings wrote the scripture and that through human reason they can help bring people to an understanding of new truths for today that are not tainted by the past. In between, are the vast majority of Christians who do not know which way to lean and finally ignore both fundamentalists and liberals.
Lutheran thought, throughout the years, has contributed a powerful alternative that helps us to follow a Hebrew way of thinking. This way of thinking does not posit propositional truths that can be argued with, but instead pushes us to see scripture as the Living Word which addresses each one of us every time we hear it. This Living Word does not give us easy answers to the dilemmas in our lives, but instead promises to accompany us as we struggle, as disciples of Christ, to understand Jesus Christ as “the way, and the truth and the life” (John 14:6).
This Incarnate Word - this Living Word, that comes to us most fully in Jesus, causes us to look at life and our relations with each other and the world around us with new eyes and ears and minds. We are no longer satisfied to live in the fears and misunderstandings of the past and the destructive ways in which we have treated people. We instead move forward, as Jesus did, and challenge the fears, misunderstandings and destructive ways of our culture.
As Lutherans, we believe that God has not stopped revealing God’s self to us, but continues the revelation we have received in scripture. We are reminded by Jesus in John 16:12-13, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” We trust that God continues to speak to us, guide us and direct us in “the things that are to come”; as the Living Word addresses us and challenges us to change and live a life that is pleasing and life giving.
As Lutherans, we enter into the significant decisions that we face in today’s world, trusting the Living Word that God has and continues to share with us that brings hope and life to a despairing and disconsolate world.
Essay #3, by Rev. Duane Lokken
Before we can use scripture to inform us about God’s will on any issues of society and culture we must first have a consensus on what scripture is and where it came from. We speak of God’s Word as not being God’s words. Word for us is best understood as ‘message’ or ‘logos’ as opposed to the dictated words of God.
We also must agree on what the word ‘inspired’ means. Inspired is to know something in such a manner that we cannot wait to tell someone else either through word (written or spoken) or action. The authors of scripture are humans who have experienced God as a divine being or force in their life to the extent that they feel compelled to inform others of the Good News. People of the Old Testament were unique in that they had been exposed to cultures with many gods but understood this power in life to be one as opposed to many. They communicated the grace and power of this God through oral tradition and when the printed means of communication developed it was used to record the oral tradition. The time in history, practices of the people, cultures around them and their ability to express themselves influenced what they said.
With the advent of Jesus as The Christ numerous people wrote to explain what the teachings of Jesus as The Christ meant for daily life. All of these writings were influenced by the cultures around them, the audience they were writing to plus their personal knowledge of language and geography.
When we seek to use scripture to support a particular stance on an issue we must not simply take a position from a literal reading. We must recognize the historical context, the issues of the time, thought concepts of the time and the ability of the writer to express themselves. Certainly these writers were inspired by their own experience and wanted to give the message-Word to others but when they spoke to an issue it may not have been an issue equivalent in our day which a literal reading might lead us to believe.
It is near to pointless to discuss an issue such as homosexuality if the concept of scripture is not agreed upon. The fundamentalist or literal reader cannot understand the Bible as message as opposed to history. Nor do they recognize the importance of translation issues or the culture of the time.
The Bible speaks to many issues in society and when we recognize the ‘whole’ of the gospel message we will see a concern for all of humanity in its many problems of relating to God and one another. We proclaim God’s grace as being for all people without regard to race or situation. Any exclusion of any person is contrary to the gospel message.
We cherish Scripture. It is the written Word of God inspired by God’s Holy Spirit speaking through the en-fleshed and contextualized lives of its authors and tellers. Through these written Scriptures (in many cases growing out of prior and often fluid oral traditions) God speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for radical servant living in God’s world today and eternal life when we die.
However, we were taught in Seminary and believe today that there is an important distinction between ‘Scripture/Bible’ and ‘the Message (living Word)’ held within. While not to be separated, it is idolatry to make them one. Several images are helpful to consider:
Finally, in our post-modern culture saturated with a disturbing pop-religion ‘literalist/fundamentalist’ hermeneutic towards the Bible, we believe ELCA Lutheran Christians have a gift to give to the wider church and world. The distinction between ‘Scripture/Bible’ and the ‘message/living Word’ held within, is one vital part of that gift.