The Bible: A Book for Religious Liberals
Sermon by Stephen D. Edington
February 27, 2000
The format of our services in Stony Brook was fairly similar to what we do here on a Sunday morning, but their worship space is very different from ours. Their meeting room also serves as an all purpose social activity room that gets set up for Sunday services with folding chairs and a podium on a raised platform. Unlike the layout here, I was much closer to the front row while leading the service. On this particular Sunday this gentleman and his wife sat in the second row, giving me a very clear view of them. The woman had brought her Bible with her, which she kept firmly clasped with both hands.
I don't remember my sermon topic for that day. I do recall that it contained a few references to Thomas Jefferson, his deistic sentiments and his largely humanistic--moreso than theistic--interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus. It was, in other words, pretty basic UU stuff which I delivered in my pretty basic, non-threatening UU way. As I moved through the sermon, however, I couldn't help but notice how the woman's grip on her Bible kept getting tighter and tighter. Without my presuming to read her mind, she appeared to feel under siege, or under attack, and was clinging to her Bible for safety in the manner that someone might cling to a life preserver while adrift on the ocean. I remember thinking to myself that before I'm done up here she is either going to break a couple of bones in her hand or break her Bible in half.
Neither of those things happened, I am glad to report. We exchanged a few pleasantries during coffee hour and the couple went on their way. Since, as I said, this happened in the waning weeks of my ministry in Stony Brook I don't know how this couple resolved their dilemma, or if they did, or if gentleman continued his liberal religious explorations or not. Since a dozen years have now gone by, so I guess I'll never know.
I tell this story not to belittle or ridicule the woman in question, or others like her whose feelings about the Bible are similar to hers. That would be a very illiberal thing to do. Having been raised in a religious community similar to the one she represented, I had a good sense of where she was coming from. I didn't really even need to read her mind; I just needed to recall where my own mind had been at a much earlier point in my life. But that one brief Sunday morning episode served to me as a reminder of the power the Bible has in many persons lives, or the power that many people ascribe to it I should say. In a number of respects the symbolic, or iconic, value of the Bible actually supercedes it words and its written contents. In the hands of the woman at that Sunday service it was much more than a collection of religious writings that form the core teachings and doctrines of the Christian and Judaic faiths. It was a shield, a bulwark, an icon one could hold up against both the corruptions of the secular world and the enemies of the faith--the latter being what I probably represented in this particular case.
The Bible is a little hard to ignore, both as book and icon--and I'll say more about that distinction later. Its been the yearly "best seller" in America for as long as best sellers have been calculated. In the early days of our country before the production and purchase of books reached the levels we now know, most homes in this country had no more than one or two boks in them, and one of those books was nearly always the Bible. While we have a secular form of government, every President of the United States we have elected in the course of our history--Jefferson included--has taken the oath of office with his hand on an open Bible. This is strictly a matter of tradition; our Constitution does not require it, but it has never not been done.
In our own Unitarian and Universalist histories the Bible was once the central document in each faith tradition. When our liberal religious forerunners, the early Unitarians and Universalists in this country, first broke with the more orthodox Christians of their day on issues of faith and practice, it wasn't because of their rejection of the Bible, but rather over differences in the interpretation of the text. Thomas Jefferson, to cite him again, essentially edited the New Testament gospels to bring the figure of Jesus more in line with his deistic theology, and to place the emphasis upon the humanity, rather than the divinity, of Jesus. The thing that strikes me the most about Jefferson's undertaking, however, is that he felt enough of a personal, religious, spiritual, and intellectual investment in the New Testament that he still wanted it to somehow "work" for him. He still wanted and needed a way of meaningfully relating to the Bible.
But this is not, by and large, the case with Unitarian Universalism today. Taking into account, and honoring the presence of, the liberal Christians in our wider UU family for whom the Bible, with an enlightened interpretation, does remain a focal point of their faith, this is a text that has become largely marginalized for most UUs. I confess to mixed feelings about this. Very few of my sermons, as those of you who've been around for awhile now know, are Biblically based; although some of them will contain an occasional Biblical reference, allusion, or story. My own journey with the Bible has gone from a home and church setting where it was embraced and revered much in the same way that the woman who attended my service in Stony Brook embraced and revered it; to taking a more critical and analytical approach in to it in my college and seminary days; to moving to an essentially humanistic understanding of it when I was in the liberal Protestant Christian ministry; to a gradual replacing of the Bible with numerous other texts that have come to guide me in my spiritual explorations, and that inform my understanding and my experiences of the holy and the sacred in my life.
So even though I must confess to being something of a marginalizer myself, I also think its a mistake on the part of religious liberals to give the Bible away. By "give it away" I mean its a mistake to give the Bible away to the fundamentalists and the orthodox, especially since it still remains one of the central, and most recognized, documents of our culture; and since it continues to carry a significant degree of authority and respect across a very broad swath of our society. To give the Bible away in such a fashion is to allow this very complex and multifaceted collection of writings to be co-opted by a particular religious and political element within our society.
I saw an example of this several weeks ago during our UU ministers' mid-winter conference in Burlington, Vermont. One of the evenings of our three day gathering happened to coincide with a hearing taking place at the statehouse in Montpelier on a bill to legalize same-sex marriages. The bill had been introduced following a ruling by the Vermont State Supreme Court that could pave the way for such legalization in that state. Most of the Vermont UU ministers drove down for the hearing and some got a chance to testify. Knowing it would be a packed house with limited seating, we New Hampshire UUs stayed behind in Burlington, so as not to take up space by out-of-staters. We listened to the proceedings on the radio. To the credit of the legislators who were conducting the hearing it came off in a very civil and respectful way in a setting where opinions, and feelings, were running very high on both sides of the issue.
Many of those who testified in favor of the legislation were persons who had been in long time committed relationships and who were seeking the same legal protections and privileges that those of us in heterosexual marriages enjoy and take for granted. Many of them spoke quite openly about the spiritual bond between themselves and their partners. As I listened to those opposing the bill I became aware that every single one of them was using a religiously based, and usually Biblically based, rationale for their opposition. I kept waiting to hear from someone who was opposed to same-sex marriages, or domestic partner legislation, to offer a philosophical or psychological or sociological, or any kind of secular based argument, for their position. I was genuinely curious as to what a secular based rationale against same-sex marriage would be. Well, unless I missed one when I took a bathroom break, none were forthcoming. Everyone whom I heard testify in opposition to the bill either cited a Bible verse or two that they felt confirmed their position; or made a somewhat broader statement that homosexuality was contrary to the law of God--the God whose will and law they consider to be revealed in the Bible.
I don't begrudge any of those who took such a stance the right to their opinion, and the speaking time was divided evenly between supporters and opponents of the bill. But what bothered me was the impression being given that opposition to homosexual unions and respect for the Bible were one and the same; or that to support same-sex marriages was to somehow demean the Bible. To their credit there were a few liberal clergy--and not all of them UUs--who stressed the idea of a loving God who would not condemn the behavior of two persons in love who happened to be of the same gender, and who did offer an understandable historical context for the suppposedly anti-gay verses that were cited. But the larger, overwhelming message was that if you are going to be on the side of the Bible then you have to oppose this bill. In a society where, as I said, the Bible remains one of its more central and revered documents, that is not a message that legislators, even when they are bound by a secular constitution, are going to take lightly.
So when I say it is a mistake for religious liberals to give away the Bible, what I mean is we ignore it at our peril. With that in mind I would like to offer some of my thoughts as to the ways in which the Bible merits our respect and attention. I use the terms "respect and attention" purposefully. I think we need to distinguish between the Bible as a book to be respected and reasonably well versed in (no pun intended); and an idol, or icon, that is uncritically worshipped. Bible worship, which is essentially a form of idolatry, involves extracting a few verses here and there, irrespective of their historical context, and proclaiming them to represent God's universally binding law. In recent weeks we've been exposed to one of the more extreme examples of this "Bibliolatry," as I would call it, in the case of Bob Jones University, where students are taught the Bible in such a way as to hold that interracial dating, and acceptance of homosexuality in any fashion, are anathema to God; that Jews are in a fallen state; and that the Catholic Church represents the forces of the anti-Christ. That latter assertion would certainly be shocking news to my many fine Catholic in-laws.
You don't really have to go that far out on the fringe, however, to see this phenomenon. To uncritically declare the Bible to be the "Word of God," and to subscribe to its inerrancy, is to make of this book an idol. To blandly proclaim that the "Bible says" you must do this and so, or believe in such and such a way, without really exploring all the possible meanings, and the origins, of the passage itself; and without placing it within the near 1000 year panorama within which the Bible was actually written, is an idolatrous use of the text. There is a part of me than can understand, and can even empathize (up to a point) with people who feel that unwavering fidelity to the Bible is the only thing that will protect them from the evils of a fallen and corrupt world. This is also the kind of thinking that holds that "boy, if we'd just post those Ten Commandments on the walls of our schools we wouldn't be having all this trouble in them right now." But to use the Bible in such a way is to treat it as some kind of magical icon that we can hold up as a curative for the ills of our society, real as many of them indeed are.
So much for the icon part, what do I mean by religious liberals being respectful and attentive to the Bible? First I mean that we approach it as a human document, to be sure, but a very important human document nonetheless. For better, and admittedly sometimes for worse, it is one of the seminal documents of western civilization. Much of western art, literature, and music draw from its rich imagery and its many metaphors. Its a little hard to read Shakespeare, or (from this country) Faulkner or Hemingway, without encountering various Biblical allusions and references. If a reader has limited, or no, knowledge of the Bible, s/he is not going to "get it." So, some reasonable understanding of the Bible is necessary, I would say, simply for the sake of cultural literacy. In addition, much of the codes of western law and morality are deritaive of some of the moral themes and ideals expressed in the Bible--themes and ideals that transcend the actual wording of particular verses.
The Bible should be read as a collection of writings composed, as I said, over the course of nearly a thousand years by an unknown number of writers with varying theologies, opinions, and perspectives; and with varying religious and political agendas. Roughly the first third of the Old Testament, for example, comes from court documents written during the early years of the Israeli monarchy in order to give that small, near eastern country a theocentric history. The court scribes who were doing the composing didn't just make up their stories, but drew upon the tribal legends, stories, and myths that the tribal peoples who made up the nation of Israel had been telling for centuries. So, the Bible contains, among other things, mythology, legend, history, poetry, prophetic writings, letters, philosophical essays, court documents--as I said--of ancient Israel; and, in the case of the New Testament, the documents and letters of the first and second century Christian church.
But to say that the Bible was written by "mere" human beings within a certain span of human history, and in a particular geographical setting, is no more demeaning, in my mind, than saying that Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" was composed by a "mere" mortal--which it was. It is still a magnificent and inspired piece of music--just as some of the Biblical writings are also magnificent and inspired. Of course some musical works are more inspired than others, and some parts of the Bible are more magnificent and inspired than others. Some parts of it, in fact, are downright horrendous. There is the eloquent, and still very timely rhetoric of the Hebrew prophet Amos, where he characterizes the Hebrew God as saying, "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." There's Micah saying, "What does the Lord require of thee but to do justice, and love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God." Even if the theology work for you, what better guide for living is there than that--do justice, love mercy, walk humbly on this earth?
But even as the Old Testament gives us this majestic God of love, mercy and justice it also give us a mean and spiteful and vengeful God, especially in the book of Joshua, where He seems to delight in whole villages being destroyed and with men, women, and children being slaughtered in his name. Some of the Ten Commandments--which reflect some of the moral codes of the time in which they were written and which are ascribed to a legendary figure named Moses to give them their validity--contain very sound moral teachings: Don't lie, or cheat, or steal, or kill, or practice infidelity. You'll get no disagreement from me on any of those probibitions. They reflect sound human values. But the text in which they are contained is intermingled with calls to allegiance to a tribal deity, and with prescriptions for certain religious practices that are peculiar to a certain faith. This is why they are not suitable, in toto, to be displayed in a public school.
In the New Testament we find the humane teaching of Jesus in the beatitudes which he offered to the downtrodden of his day as a way of bringing hope into their lives, and his many acts of healing--however one wishes to interpret those accounts. But we also have the conquering Christ of the Book of Revelation who is out to destroy the alleged enemies of God and cast them into a Lake of Fire. We have the wisdom of St. Paul, along with his loathing of his own body, that has left a suspicion of, if not an aversion to, all things fleshy in the western world ever since. All of this to say that the Bible is to be read in a critical and discerning way in order to extract the gems of wisdom and inspiration that are indeed contained within it; and in order to separate its wheat from its chaff (to use a Biblical allusion myself).
To approach the Bible, then, in such a fashion wherein we seek to derive meaning from it while also giving it a critical examination and exploration is entirely consistent with the approach of our Unitarian and Universalist ancestors who called for a faith grounded in the Bible; but in the Bible read and understood in the light of human reason. For them reason was not viewed as an enemy of faith but as an enhancer of it. In the course of our UU history the Bible has moved off from center stage, but I do not feel it should be off the stage altogether. We have come to revere and respect a number of the world's sacred texts--as indeed we should--and we should not neglect the one that provided us with our beginning as a religious movement as well.
Contained within the Bible's stories, myths, legends, teachings, history, poetry, images, and metaphors are elements that can touch and deepen our lives, and enhance the common life we share on this planet. Perhaps some of its stories were even written just for Unitarian Universalists, if they are viewed in a certain light. If you carefully read the first chapters of the book of Genesis, for example, you will discover that Eve was not only the first woman, she was also the first Unitarian Universalist. This is because she chose knowledge rather then unquestioning obedience to God. Think about it--its there.
To wrap up now, when I look back upon my early inculcation, and yes, indoctrination in the Bible, I actually do so with very few negative feelings. I guess I was being force-fed the Bible as a child and teenager, but it didn't really feel that way at the time. It was more a matter of just soaking up the local culture, as it were, of my home and church. Well, there has been a lot of road since then, and I certainly do not read the Bible now in the way I did then. I'll admit I don't read it near as often either..But I do read it, with respect, and attention, and curiosity--and bring it into my sermons from time to time. I've come to see the Bible as a highly valuable and, in places, deeply flawed assemblage of writings.
I've also come to regard the Bible as one component or element in a much larger story, and that is the story of humanity's search for its highest purposes, values, and aspirations. Throughout human history, and through all of our terrible and inhumane misdeeds and failings, there is something keeps calling or urging us to become more than we are at any given moment in time. The poet William Channing Gannett called it an "eternal chime" that finds its expression in many different times, places, and cultures. It's a chime we can never quite fully and completely catch. As flawed human beings we can only create flawed renditions of this chime. But its still a chime that we at least try to hear in order that we may be called to what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature." Let's sing together Mr. Gannett's poem as we close our service. ["It Sounds Along the Ages"]
Copyright © 2000 by the Unitarian-Universalist Church of Nashua NH. All rights reserved.
