A few months ago, I wrote a foreword for the book Torah Wrestling by Rabbi Roy Furman. I was honored to be asked and very interested in how the rabbi would engage with the scriptures. In the introduction, Rabbi Furman makes his approach clear: “I do not, however, embrace the typical Jewish religious view that privileges Torah as divine in origin and wonderfully encoded with a revelatory underpinning. I see it, rather, as humanly authored and constructed within a particular historical and cultural context.”
As a result, the rabbi approaches the Bible without typical constraints, which leads to fresh and sometimes surprising insights. Here’s one example: he refuses to blame Eve for the existence of evil in the world. He believes Genesis opens with men and women created as equals, but that equality is undercut in chapter 2. When Eve bites the forbidden fruit, it is an act of resistance, a “beneficial and perhaps necessary act given the narrative in Torah that followed.”
You don’t have to give up on the idea of divine inspiration not to demonize Eve, but it’s clear from the beginning that the rabbi’s take on things is much different than both how I was brought up and how I was instructed in seminary. (Torah Wrestling is available for pre-order from online booksellers.)
I sympathize with a lot of what Rabbi Furman lists as his interpretative guidelines. The Bible was written by men in a particular historical and cultural context. However, the imprint of my upbringing and education is still deep upon me and I I’m not willing to set aside divine inspiration.
If we put Rabbi Furman on one end of the interpretive spectrum, the other end of the spectrum might be characterized as “the Bible says it so that settles it.” We see that view sometimes in the comments on our RJ articles. I imagine there might be comments from that point of view on this article. I’m someplace between those commenters and Rabbi Furman. But I’m not in the middle. This may surprise you: I lean towards “the Bible says it and that settles it.” My view of scripture is quite conservative.
I believe in inspiration as a matter of faith but also because of personal experience: I have had several experiences with inspiration as a writer that convince me of its mystery. Could this sometimes be the work of the Holy Spirit? I think so. Look at the etymology of “inspiration” – it means “to breathe into.” The Greek word is theopneustos, “God-breathed.” Try as I might (and I have tried), I can’t let go of the idea of divine inspiration. Because I believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, I believe we should take the Bible as literally as possible.
“As possible” is an important qualifier. Without it, I have no idea what to do with lots of the Bible. Allow me to cite a few examples:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12: “If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand, show no pity.”
Exodus 21:7: “When a man sells his daughter as a slave . . ..” (There is more to this verse, but I can’t get over those opening nine words. By the way, this is followed by very detailed instructions for piercing the ears of slaves.)
Leviticus 19:19: You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seeds; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.” (Oops—I’m writing this wearing a tee shirt that is 60% cotton and 40% polyester.)
Leviticus particularly has a lot of interesting laws. Chapter 18 includes commands about uncovering the nakedness of your aunts and uncles. I can say with confidence that although I have been tempted in many ways throughout my life, this has never tempted me.
Before you say, “Jesus ushered in a new covenant and we are not bound by the laws of Moses,” let me remind you that Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.” If we toss Leviticus, we throw out lots of commandments about caring for the poor and the sojourners among us. The Bible literalists who are applauding the heartless (and without due process) deportations of the current Presidential administration ought to pay attention.
Furthermore, there is plenty in the New Testament almost every literalist ignores. I’m old enough to remember when women wore hats to church. These days the only hats I see in church are on those making a fashion statement. That’s not the only example. No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested we take Jesus’ words about gouging out eyeballs or cutting off hands literally.
Hermeneutics, the science and art of biblical interpretation, is just that, a science and art. It requires deep thought, and there is a lot of complexity, subtly, and nuance. Because it’s difficult, people of sincere faith reach different conclusions. Engaging in hermeneutics is not for those who want simple answers or desire certainty. If you want those things, you’ve come to the wrong book.
Inerrancy is a hermeneutical approach that trades the uncertainty of the Bible with certainty. It makes claims for the Bible that the Bible doesn’t make for itself and has its roots in 19th century rationalism rather than the historic faith of the church. When rationalism-inspired atheists began tearing the Bible apart, inerrancy arose as fundamentalism’s answer. (Perhaps inerrancy’s saddest fruit is seen not in the world of biblical studies but in the “originalist” interpreters of the U.S. Constitution.) And although I am not a member of the Christian Reformed Church, it strikes me that “confessional status” is another way to impose certainty.
“The Bible says it and that settles it” just won’t do because the Bible says so many things. In addition, there is an enormous gap between the world of the Bible and today’s world. None of us reads Shakespeare, who was writing less than 500 years ago, without attempting to understand the limits of his particular worldview. Why should we approach the Bible, which is far older, any differently?
All of which brings me to the Bible’s so-called “clobber texts” and the book The Widening of God’s Mercy by Richard and Christopher Hays. (Ryan Boes wrote a fine review of the Hays’s book last fall for the RJ, you can read it by clicking here.) The clobber texts are the six passages where the Bible specifically mentions homosexuality. I am used to progressive people taking one of two approaches to these texts. Either they take the approach of Rabbi Furman, denying that the Bible is divinely inspired and saying we’re free to choose what is helpful in the Bible and ignore the rest, or they perform what a disgruntled colleague once called “hermeneutical gymnastics” as they claim the text doesn’t really mean what it obviously says. I have never been comfortable with either approach.
The Hayses aren’t either. They hold a high view of scripture, believing it to be the inspired word of God. They don’t dispute the plain reading of the “clobber texts.” Those passages say what they say. Although the Hayses point out that none of those texts imagines loving and committed same-sex relationships as we know them today, that’s not what they base their argument for the full inclusion of same-sex oriented people in the church on. Instead of spilling yet more ink on those passages, the argument they make is that throughout history the scope of God’s mercy has expanded. Sometimes, that’s the result of either Israel or the church understanding more of the will of God. In other cases, scripture presents God changing God’s mind. Either way, the biblical witness is that God and the church are not static.
The Hayses assert that the time has come for the church to embrace the full inclusion of same-sex attracted people based not on a new interpretation of the disputed texts, but on a careful and compassionate understanding of the moment we’re in. Changes have occurred in the past several years that have led to their conclusion (which is newsworthy because it’s a new conclusion for Richard Hays from what he wrote in The Moral Vision of the New Testament). Now, the overwhelming consensus across multiple academic disciplines is that sexuality is not a choice people make. Sexuality is “hardwired” into people. As they put it, “We have seen over the past generation a cumulatively increasing body of evidence that sexual orientation is (in a way that remains mysterious) deeply ingrained in individuals and not subject to change.”
Some traditionalists concede this point, and maintain then that those who experience same-sex attraction must remain celibate. The Hayses say while celibacy may be a gift that God gives to some, it is not reasonable to impose celibacy on an entire class of human beings.
Another pillar of the Hayses argument is the recognition that the Holy Spirit has given some same-sex attracted people strong gifts for ministry. Why should the church shut those people out? As Peter says in Acts 11, “Who was I that I could hinder God?” In addition, why maintain a posture in the church that is cruel and causes much suffering in same-sex attracted individuals and their families? (I am reminded of when a wise friend said about 20 years ago, “We’re all one gay grandchild away from changing our minds.”)
As the Hayses say, “We advocate full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bible. Far from it: We have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible’s ongoing story of God’s mercy.”
I don’t expect the traditionalists leading the charge in either the Reformed Church in America or the Christian Reformed Church in North American to read the Hayses book and be converted. But I wonder if we can do something about the “jerk” factor. As a traditionalist friend asks, if you baptize an infant and that infant grows up to be same-sex attracted, how are you going to treat that child and their family? I might say it this way: how big a jerk is your reading of scripture going to allow you to be?
In other words, why wouldn’t you advocate for chopping off the hand of a woman who decided to help her husband in a fight by grabbing the genitals of his opponent? Because it is cruel and heartless and goes against the rest of the Bible. If that is the case, why is it okay to be cruel and heartless to sexual minorities?
A further question for traditionalists is this: Do you have space in your ecclesiology for faithful believers to read the Bible and reach a different conclusion? The answer to that question in the CRC and of those who have left the RCA seems to be no. Once again, I wonder how big a jerk you are willing to be. We are using the Bible to hurt instead of heal. May God have mercy on us all.
13 Responses
Wow! You have introduced me to two new books that I want to read. Thank you.
Have a blessed Holy Week.
Why is it so difficult to be kind?
Thank you for your words. And, yes, may God have mercy on us all.
In my training at Calvin Theological Seminary I was taught that a foundational principle for interpreting Scripture is that “the Bible is infallible in what it intends to treat,” meaning that it is not intended as a rule book which sets out praxis for every time, but rather a book that guides us in our relations with God and creation/creatures. It seems to me that Jesus emphasized the principle of love and never mentioned (or condemned) same sex relationships among all the things he saw as important to mention. These two principles ground me in these matters.
Someone should go back through the history books and discover when “confessional status” became a thing on par with Jesus. It has become a tool to restrict the mercy and grace of God, let alone widen it. Thanks for this blog and invitation to dialogue with those who hold different theological opinions in your final questions.
Diane,
Great question/point.
When I started teaching there was quite a divide between those who were taught that being reformed meant they held to the “three forms of unity,” and we younger folks who learned about being “a transformer of culture.” I needed to come to accept that the previous generation was never taught about being a transformer of culture. Recently while engaging a young pastor I asked when “we are a confessional church,” became accepted belief. He responded that everyone accepted it, it was taught in seminary. Not when I was there. As you point out, there is history here that we need to understand. The youngsters who are promoting “confessional church,” are just promoting what they were taught. So, I too would like someone to explain when and how this shift happened.
Here are a few more examples of the widening of God’s Mercy (from Bixby Knolls Christian church)
THE BIBLE IS CLEAR: Moabites are bad. They were not to be allowed to dwell among God’s people (Deut. 23:3-6). BUT THEN comes the story of “Ruth the Moabite,” which challenges their prejudice against the Moabites [and she becomes an ancestor of King David and Jesus].
THE BIBLE IS CLEAR: People from Uz are evil (Jer. 25). BUT THEN comes the story of Job, a man from Uz who is the “most blameless man on earth.” [who spoke what is right in Job 42:8]
THE BIBLE IS CLEAR: No foreigners or eunuchs are allowed (see Dt. 23:1, 3). BUT THEN comes the story of the African Ethiopian Eunuch who is welcomed into the Church (Acts 8).
THE BIBLE IS CLEAR: God’s people hated the Samaritans (John 4:9). BUT THEN Jesus tells a story that shows not all Samaritans are bad (Luke 15) [he also talked to Sam. woman in John 4].
The Story may begin with prejudice, discrimination, and animosity, but the Spirit moves God’s people toward openness, welcome, inclusion, acceptance, and affirmation. Amen.
This is an excellent essay regarding the importance of interpreting Scripture with God’s mercy in mind. Jeff captured it well in this statement: “We have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible’s ongoing story of God’s mercy.”
I have a running theory in my head that goes like this: “Most progressives were at one time conservatives who met one too many conservative jerks.” While I still hold to a conservative view on sexuality, I have sought God’s help in trying not to be that jerk.
It is a remarkable grace of God in Christ to risk giving his Words to people, which appear in various human forms, for us then to interpret. God seems so committed to being with us that he risks us misunderstanding and misrepresenting his purposes. Thank you very much for this essay.
I appreciate your mentioning my forthcoming book, “Torah Wrestling: Embracing the Marginalized in Jewish Sacred Scripture and Discovering Moral Wisdom for Today, in the current edition of the Reformed Journal. In the book’s Introduction, I do indeed acknowledge my perspective that the Bible was humanly authored and constructed within a particular historical and cultural context as opposed to the traditional Jewish view that it is divine in origin with a message that is eternally relevant. That is not to say that its authors were not divinely inspired, though the contemporary reader is challenged to separate the human from the divine in both Jewish and Christian sacred scripture. We could say that the human elements only reflect the Bible’s particular time and historical situation, while the divine elements would be of enduring value. In effect, this is what I try to do in my book by embracing with (divinely inspired?) empathy, compassion, justice and equality those men, women, and children who are (in the subjectivity of the human authors?) marginalized and victimized in the Bible’s reflection of its historical context. Discovering “the divine” aspects of Torah embedded in that which is all too human is the teaching that I offer in my work, and that which allows me to see Torah as a unique and sacred resource of moral wisdom in my life.
Thank you for this insight-filled post. In all of our interpretations of scripture it is the nature of God that we must remember as we seek to follow His leading.
Thanks for this Jeff, great thoughts as we navigate difficult topics. I once had a colleague who often confused “taking the Bible literally” with “taking the Bible seriously,” they are not at all the same thing.
On being a jerk with Scripture, it seems like those who are willing to “be jerks” do not show much evidence of having the fruit of the Spirit.
The Rev. Jerry Kirk needs this book.