[Note: This post is really long, so you may be tempted to skip it. Feel free to do so, but don't miss a shorter and probably more interesting post just before it. I posted it only a few hours earlier, so unless you read my blog via an RSS feed, you may not have seen it.]
On May 28, I preached a sermon at
Artisan Church. I actually don't prefer to use the terms "preach" and "sermon," because I think they hold too many negative connotations. I prefer to use the phrase "I gave a talk," because I think it's less intimidating and more accurate to my style anyway. The talk was part of a
series that explores the themes raised by
The Da Vinci Code, which is
not an attempt by our church to debunk the book/movie or to get into a defensive posture about its claims about the history of Christianity; rather, it is an attempt by our church to engage the themes the book and movie raise. Specifically, our series addresses the themes of who Jesus is, where the Bible came from, how women have at times been marginalized in the church, and what the nature of the church is.
My talk was the second in the series, and it dealt with the Bible. I don't speak from a manuscript, but I've adapted the talk to written form and posted it below. Meanwhile, if you'd like to listen to the audio of the talk, be warned that it is an uncharacteristically long 47 minutes long. If you're crazy enough to want to sit still for that long, you can hear it in mp3 format
here, or you can subscribe to the Artisan Church
podcast, which will give you access to tons of other great content and the freedom to sew a quilt or something while you listen. Also, I'll insert a few of the presentation slides into the text below, but if you just want to go straight to the picture book version, click
here. Before I go to the summary of the talk, here is that week's worship meditation, provided by my favorite dead saint, Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 389 A.D.):
"Lord, as I read the psalms, let me hear you singing.
As I read your words, let me hear you speaking.
As I reflect on each page, let me see your image.
And as I seek to put your precepts into practice, let my heart be filled with joy."
* * * * * * * * * *
I'd like to begin by posing a question: Of what use is the Bible? Literally, what is the Bible used for?
Is it a science textbook? One that tells us that the earth is not, in fact, 4.5 billion years old, but is in fact about 8,000 years old?
Is it a rulebook for life? One that is especially useful when evaluating
others who violate the rules, and not ourselves?
Is it a history textbook? One that specializes in ancient Middle Eastern history?
Is it a tool for propaganda and mind control? Something that the church devised as a way to control people's access to the " true" version of the story?
Or is it
something else altogether?
Careful readers will notice the bold on that last point and will assume correctly that it is the view
I hold, the angle I hope to take on this topic. I firmly believe that the Bible is an indispensable resource for spiritual formation and development that we have available to us, and it is important that we approach it and use it in an appropriate way. I will say more about that in the second half of this presentation, but first I would like to give a bit of history about where we got the Bible, and in the process discuss how accurate the claims of the
Da Vinci Code really are or are not. I'll begin by suggesting some factors we consider when we evaluate the Bible as a source.
First, it is good for us to remember that the majority of Christians throughout history never owned a printed Bible. The very earliest Christians, of course, received the story of Jesus as an oral tradition. Even though this oral tradition became a written record rather quickly, it was not until many centuries later that books became widely available at an affordable price. For a long time, the only copies of the sacred texts of Christianity were only available in libraries and scriptoriums, where only the privileged few had easy access to them. It was the 15th century before the invention of the printing press made mass production of printed materials affordable. Even today, Christians in certain parts of the world thrive in their faith without ever owning a physical copy of the Bible.
Second, we would do well to remember that this is a translated work. This is not as significant a factor as some people assume, because every new translation goes back to the original languages (Hebrew and Greek). There is a misconception that each new translation of the Bible is merely an update to contemporary parlance, based on the previous translation. This is false. Yet what we read in the Bible is a translation, so there are some challenges in interpretation that we must face.
Third, remember that the Bible contains numerous literary forms. Some of the Bible is meant to be taken as literal fact, and some of it relies on liberal use of figurative language to make its point. The Bible contains poetry, song, allegory, dreams, visions, histories, and more; it was written across a span of centuries by a number of authors. If we force ourselves to treat all these different works the same, we will miss the point in a big way.
Fourth, we should keep in mind that the 66 books of the Bible that Protestants recognize today was not assembled for the first time until 367 A.D., and even that was not an officially sanctioned list.
None of this is an attempt to shatter anyone's trust in the Bible. As I said at the outset,
I believe the Bible is an indispensable resource; in fact, I believe it is the most important tool we possess in understanding God's revelation to us. I do not believe that looking realistically at its history makes it any less valuable.
Let's take a moment and look at the claims Leigh Teabing makes about the Bible in
The Da Vinci Code. And please note that I used the name of the
character in the
novel, not the
author of the novel. That's what
DVC (let's just go with the abbreviation from here on out, shall we?) is, a novel. It is a work of fiction, and it should be treated as such. There is no need to march to Dan Brown's house with pitchforks because a few characters in his novel make wild assertions about the history of Christianity.
That said, the claims Sir Leigh makes in
DVC are pure crap. Complete, utter nonsense. More than 80 gospels written? Not even close. The earliest gospels (the ones that contain the "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene) were suppressed? Nope. The church got together at the Council of Nicea in 325 to blot out the Gospel of Thomas? Uh-uh. None of this even remotely bears out in the historical record. And the line that many Christians are offended by, that the four gospels in our Bible are full of "discrepancies and fabrications" is something worth talking about, but however fitting that accusation is when it comes to the canonical gospels, it is several times more appropriate with respect to the gospels Teabing advances as alternatives.
So how did we come to have the Bible as it now exists? Why were certain texts rejected and others embraced? The process looked something like this:
The early Christians, nearly all of them devout Jews, began with the Hebrew Bible. The books of what we now call the "Old Testament" were the ones these early believers used as scripture. As the story of Jesus was given by word of mouth, this oral tradition came to be a sacred part of the story of salvation. And as the Christian apostles and teachers began writing about the faith, the church added certain texts to the canon according to a few simple guidelines.
1. Apostolicity. In addition to being a cool-sounding word, apostolicity is an easy litmus test. If a text was written by an apostle or someone directly connected to an apostle, it passed. Gospel of John? Check. Paul's letters to his churches? Check. Gospel of Mark? Check, because Mark traveled with Paul.
2. Widespread Liturgical Use. In order to pass this test, a text must have been regularly used during public worship. It was important not only that the text had been read in worship, but that it had been read in churches in every region of the church. This prevented the inclusion of documents that supported someone's "pet" doctrine because only texts that were universally accepted made it into the canon.
3. Conformity to the "Rule of Faith." Here is where the intersection of oral tradition and written records is found. By the time of the formulation of the canon, the Christians had already established a standard for orthodoxy. Only texts that conformed to this already accepted rule would make it into the Bible. This is in contrast to the view from within
DVC and from some other skeptical voices is that the opposite was true, that orthodoxy was determined by the books the church selected. Not so.
Paul's second letter to the church in Thessalonica contains a concise sentence that reveals some of these guidelines: He writes, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
At this point in the sermon, I spoke for a few minutes about the reliability of the New Testament documents as compared to other ancient texts, such as the writings of Plato, Caesar's histories, and Homer's
Iliad. I even had a fancy little chart titled "Grading the Text." I won't spend any space recapping this section here, except to say that the New Testament documents are remarkably reliable sources when it comes to the likelihood of the accuracy of the copies we have when compared to the original document. If you want to look at the chart, it's linked
here.
* * * * * * * *
In a sense, all of this heady stuff was just background for the "real sermon," which was yet to come. I wanted to lay the groundwork for looking at the Bible as a good source for spiritual formation and growth. As I have mentioned, I believe the Bible is the single most important source we have, and it is helpful to know where it came from if we are expected to trust it.
Lately, I have been watching
Mister Rogers' Neighborhood a lot. My son Abel happens to love it, but I have to admit I still like it too. I really like watching it with him. Our favorite part is always "Picture-Picture," where Mr. McFeely brings by a videocassette (or film reel, if it's a very old episode) and they watch it together. It's usually something about how toys are made, or where we get apple juice from. Ever since I was a kid, this kind of thing has interested me. I mention this in order to introduce the central idea of my sermon on scripture. It's a bit of a play on words, because I want to show you two pictures side by side and have you think about the ways we can approach scripture, using each image as a guide.
Here are the pictures:
On the left is a coal mine, and on the right is a cornfield. Stay with me, now; I know this is a little weird. I find it very helpful to play with metaphors, so let's think about the differences between mining coal and growing corn. Some of this may have no bearing on the topic whatsoever. That's okay. I still think it is worth trying to extend these metaphors.
Clothing: A coal miner wears goggles, a mask, a hardhat, a leather apron. A farmer wears a flannel shirt, blue jeans, and work gloves.
Goal: When mining coal, the goal is to remove something for our use. When growing corn, the goal is to tend a living plant and make it grow.
Product: In coal mining, the product is energy, power. In agriculture, the product is nourishing food and perhaps even beautiful flowers.
Resource consumption: Coal is non-renewable; crops are renewable.
X-Factor: We know that coal mining produces toxic fumes that can damage the ecosystem and do serious harm to the miner.
So the question is this: When you approach scripture, are you more like a coal miner or a farmer?Do you want to remove some nugget of truth for your own use? Do you hope to gain some special knowledge that will give you power? Perhaps you seek power to win a theological debate, or perhaps you hope to find a verse that will support your desire to suppress a person or people group.
Or do you approach scripture in the hope that God will plant a seed in your heart, a seed that can grow and provide nourishment for a healthy spiritual life?
I worry that many times, we come to the Bible wearing our goggles and mask, and we want to dominate it, strip it of its power. I present these two images as a way to demonstrate that problem and in order to present an alternative. I believe the Bible is God's word, as trite as that phrase may have become to many ears. I do not believe it is a dead, finite source for power and domination. Instead, I believe it is an organic, renewable resource for spiritual nutrition. But we must be willing to treat it properly. One who tries to mine corn as if it were coal will kill the corn and be left with useless dead matter.
In closing, I quote the words of Moses as he ushered the Israelite people into the promised land. In Deuteronomy 11:18-21, he advises the people in the way they should treat the word of God:
"You shall put these words of mine in your heart and soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and fix them as an emblem on your forehead. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied in the land that the Lord swore to your ancestors to give them, as long as the heavens are above the earth."
Update: I found this quotation today over at
Thinklings, and I thought it fit this theme nicely, so I'm repeating it here:
"When I got my first taste of significance and acceptance through spiritual knowledge, the desperate need for alcohol and clothes receded...a little. I cut a whole week of classes at UNC to underline my New Testament so as to be even more familiar and impressive with my new drug of choice....After becoming a Christian, I became a forgiven idolater, and then added biblical and theological knowledge to my list of substances to abuse....It’s amazing what one can do with a wounded and deceitful heart, a stockpile of theological knowledge, and a rather quick mind. It proved to be the most effective and deadly idol structure of any I had created. I succeeded--until recent years--to get comfort, significance, acceptance, a painless heart, and control through what I know rather than a shalom that passes all understanding through whom I know. The saddest part is, many times I didn’t know the difference."
– Scotty Smith,
The Reign of Grace
