Where are the ox and lamb? Where’s the stable? What ELSE is not in the Bible?

Some of the familiar stories we hear, tell, and sing about Jesus’ birth aren't necessarily in the Bible. Joseph and Mary arrive at night after a long journey to Bethlehem, only to find all the inns are full (there’s a census going on). One innkeeper gives them a place in the stable because Mary is not only very pregnant, but about to give birth. Jesus’ birth is witnessed only by the parents and the animals in the stable. Shepherds, tending sheep on a cold winter’s night, rush to find them after hearing a choir of angels singing. Three kings from the east arrive with presents and they all gather around the manger to worship the baby king. The little drummer boy plays and they all sing pa-rum-pa-pum-pum. 

In a recent book on the early life of Jesus, Pope Benedict XVI wrote that there’s no evidence in the Gospels that animals were present around the manger. There’s also no evidence that angels actually sang at Jesus’ birth. 

Frank Viola touches on several other myths that have built up around the Nativity, including the inn:

Luke’s phrase “there was no room at the inn” is often taken to mean that Mary and Joseph couldn't find a local Hilton in town. But this is highly doubtful. Bethlehem was a very small village with no major roads. So a traveler’s inn would have been extremely unlikely. In addition, Luke doesn't use the common word for hotel inn (pandeion) that he uses other places. Instead, he uses a word that means guest room (kataluma). It’s the same word that he used to describe the place where Jesus took the last supper.  

It’s far more likely that since Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestoral home, he had relatives there. And because of the census taking place at the time, none of his relatives had any room in their guest quarters. Guest rooms were typically in the front of houses and the animal shelters were in the back of the house or the lower level (in a cave). In the family shelter, the family animals were fed and protected at night from the cold, thieves, and predators. So Joseph and Mary were lodged on the lower level or in the back of the house—the animal shelter. Most likely, the animals were removed while the couple lodged there. (There is no mention of animals in Luke’s or Matthew’s account. St. Francis is credited with building the first manger scene complete with live animals.)

Take a moment to relax from the hustle and bustle of the season and read the accounts of Jesus’ birth. It’s not long – only 20 verses in Luke and 12 in Matthew. Here are some of the things that are not in those narratives:

• Mary giving birth on the very night they arrive in Bethlehem (Luke 2:6 says Jesus was born “while they were there…”, not on the night they arrived)
• The stable or the animals in the stable (Luke 2:7 says the baby was laid in a manger, but doesn't say anything about animals being present)
• An innkeeper 
• Angels singing to the shepherds (Luke 2:13 writes of “angels praising God and saying”, not singing)
• Three kings arriving at the stable (Matthew doesn't say how many wise men came; they visited Jesus at a house)
• A cold winter night (no date or time of year is mentioned)
• A little drummer boy (sorry, but that’s just the song)

So, how did all that stuff get into the birth narrative? Perhaps it’s a very human attempt at filling in holes with what made the most sense. For instance, we assume there has to be a stable and animals in the stable because that’s where we’d expect to find the feeding trough/ manger. We also assume there was an innkeeper who directed them to a stable because his inn was full. And we moved the birth to the time of arrival because it makes sense that, if they had been in town for a while, then certainly they would have found a more comfortable place for Mary to be when it was time to give birth.

Years ago, Grace offered an Advent series called A Clear View of Jesus’ Birth using a video series by Kenneth Bailey (it may still be in the church library). That was the first time I heard that “inn” may have been a “guest chamber” and that Jesus may have been born in a crowded house of relatives rather than in a stable filled with animals. You can read about his explanation by clicking here.  

So, what’s the point? When I first heard the possibility of an alternative account, it spoiled my idealized view of the birth of Jesus, but it also made me re-examine whether my core beliefs are based on what the Bible says or on what we've filled in for ourselves. Whether Jesus was born in a stable or in a house really doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. What is important is making sure our faith isn't so wrapped up in extra-Biblical traditions that it would crumble in the face of challenges or alternative perspectives.

Does it bother you to hear that Jesus’ birth may not have occurred like we've heard in the Christmas carols? Does it make a difference?

I wish you peace, joy, love, and understanding that came down on earth on what we now celebrate as Christmas!

An Advent Gift: Marveling at the Hubble Advent Calendar

I love this kind of stuff. As a kid, I used to lay on the ground at night, look up at the stars in the sky (back in the dark ages when I was growing up in West Virginia, light pollution wasn't the problem it is around the DC metro area and we could see so many more stars), and wonder what God had going on out there. And that was before the Hubble Telescope started bringing us images like this:

That's the Carina Nebula. You can find more pictures of it by clicking here.

The Atlantic is offering 25 of these images in it's 2012 Hubble Advent Calendar (<-- this link takes you to the Atlantic article announcing the calendar for this year). You can find all of the daily pictures by checking them out on Tumblr or liking their Facebook page. 

I look at these images and a host of childhood memories and questions flood in. Are we the only ones created in God's image in this universe? If we one day find other life forms in distant galaxies, what will they tell us about God? What else is God doing in this universe?

Look at these images and consider this: Why would the creator of all of these amazing things choose to come to this tiny planet and walk among us? Isn't it amazing that the one who set all of this into motion loves us? To me, it's a question that calls for humility, not pride or arrogance. 

Blessings to all of us!

What if being created in God’s image is a vocation rather than a description? A sort-of Advent reflection.

I planned on moving to questions related to the Advent season, but one question kept popping up as I re-read the creation story: What does it mean that we've been created in God’s image? 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. [Genesis 1:27]

There’s nothing in the Bible to suggest a flesh-and-blood image. God is a spiritual entity, despite the very human-looking images we see depicted by everyone from Michelangelo to Monty Python. Does it mean that we are spiritual beings as God is spiritual, or is there something else to it? 

The comments to the post Do we have a purpose? sent me searching. In seeking, I found an interesting blog called Musings on Science and Theology and a post Love Is the Name of the Game, which included the video below from N.T. Wright. It’s over 11 minutes long, but well worth the listen (okay, at least it was for me… I’ll let you decide on your own). 

In the first 3 minutes or so, Wright talks about Jesus invoking the “ancient human vocation” of being image bearers:  

“God calls human beings to be his image bearers. … People sometimes think an image is like a mirror reflecting God back to God, but that’s not how it’s supposed to work. It’s supposed to be an angled mirror reflecting God out into the world and reflecting the praises of the world back to God. That’s what it means to be image bearers. That’s right there in Genesis 1 and 2…. The priesthood of believers is an Old Testament idea that all God’s people are supposed to be the ones who gather up the praises of the whole world and present them to God and who act as God’s stewards and agents to bring his love and his light into the world.” 

God’s people struggled – and still struggle – with what it means to be a priesthood of believers  and to be God’s image bearers [I realize “image bearers” may not mean the same thing as being created in the image of God, but Wright doesn’t exclude the possibility]. Wright says that Jesus brought this calling into focus. Maybe the question should be: How do I live my life as the image of God?

Here’s something NT Wright says later in the video (beginning around the 8:50 mark):  

“Sometimes people are frightened of the things they enjoy because they think of it as self-indulgent…. Again and again, God gives you the gifts so that the stuff that you enjoy doing may well be the way in which he wants you glorify him in the world.” 

This is something I keep telling my sons and I hope that one day some of it sinks in: Think of the things you love doing as a gift from God. Then think of ways to do the things you love that turn it into your gift from God to the world. 

In Love Is the Name of the Game is this advice to the communities of believers:

“We will not make a difference by having a better Sunday morning service, by serving better coffee, by having a more extroverted and energetic staff, by avoiding the hard questions, by keeping things shallow and palatable. Nor will we make a difference by focusing on precision in theological expression or the glory and sovereignty of God. We will make a difference by being the people of God such that his love is evident in us and through us.”  

Is being that people of God what it means to be created in God’s image? Do you see that as your vocation? 

Do you agree with NT Wright’s concept of being an image bearer? What do you think it means to be created in God’s image?

Do we have a purpose?

Maybe I should have asked this instead of “Genesis or evolution – why do scripture and science seem to conflict with each other?” Unfortunately, this inspiration waited a few days to pop up. 

The Templeton Foundation asked a number of scientists and scholars “Does the universe have a purpose?”. Here’s what Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium, had to say:

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’s very passionate about science and space and works to make it interesting and accessible to the public. But his response – in effect, “I’m not sure but it’s unlikely and even if it does, it certainly doesn't involve us” – illustrates the limits of science in answering the question “Why?” While science does a good job of describing “what” and “how”, it just doesn't serve us well when we ask “Why are we here? Why is the universe here?” Philosophical questions don’t always lend themselves to empirical observation and testing. 

This is certainly an area where science and religion could work together. But sayings like this don’t help:

[source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2008/07/reason-is-the-greatest-enemy-that-faith-has/]

That’s not just a Baptist church speaking. They’re quoting Martin Luther. It hangs like a “you’re not welcome here” mat for anyone who is a scientist or a thinker. Faith calls on us to trust in something that exists beyond reason, but it doesn't mean we’re not supposed to think. Science and reason, instead of being the enemy, can be the launching point for a deeper conversation.

Why is the universe here? Does it have a purpose? Why are we here on this particular speck in the universe? What is our purpose?

Can science and religion exist together? Can they work together?

I hope this opens up more conversation. Please click on “comments” below and join the discussion!

Genesis or evolution? Why do scripture and science seem to conflict with each other?

I am a scientist… and a disciple of Christ. I believe that geology, biology, and other sciences provide compelling evidence on the origin of earth, life, and the universe. I also believe that God created the universe and all that is in it. And I don’t consider these to be in conflict with each other. Some say that makes me an oddity. 

I faced the conflict between creation and evolution early in high school. When we studied evolution in biology class, the girl behind me opened her Bible to Genesis. I looked at her, puzzled. She pointed to her Bible and said, “This is the only book that’s right.” I asked, “How do you know God didn't use evolution to create us?” She didn't actually say anything but her look said it all: “Heretic! How dare you say that!” That wasn't the last time I got that look... and sometimes it has come from scientists. 

Is the Bible so truly at odds with science (and visa versa) that we are forced to choose between the two? Or is it the way we choose to interpret the Bible? 

Some Christians take the creation account in Genesis as a literal explanation of how God created the world and refuse to believe the scientific body of evidence that suggests the earth took a little longer to form. In the worst instances, they have declared that Christian faith depends on believing the 7-day creation story and the concept of an earth that is no more than 6-10,000 years old. In their view, evolution is a threat to Christian faith. 

On the other end of the spectrum are those who say the Bible is filled with legends that are incompatible with scientific thought or reason. Both sides, interestingly, make their case using a literal translation of Genesis and other passages in the Bible. 

But others (including me) believe that science and religion are not at cross purposes and that creation vs. evolution and faith vs. science are false dichotomies. Science focuses on answering “How?” (How did life originate? How do things work?) while religion focuses on “Why?” (Why are we here? What is our purpose?). They’re not incompatible. 

Several years ago, Rev. Jay Click led a Bible study using the book The Mighty Acts of God (Arnold B. Rhodes, rev. by W. Eugene March). The authors describe the creation stories in Genesis as a statement of faith:

“When a person grasps the fact that this account of creation [Gen. 1:1-2:4a] is neither a fairy tale nor the kind of history that is literally viewed in process by human eye, but a theological confession placed in the literary framework of the Jewish week, many worries about the so-called conflict between science and religion will vanish into thin air…. The biblical writer used the worldview and thought-forms of the time to express faith in God as Creator for all days.” [p. 17]

God is not confined to a box, a book, or a set of observations and theories. God is bigger and more mysterious than all of that and we miss a lot when we begin to think that our narrow perspective is all we need to know God. We create trouble when we insist that our narrow perspective is all anybody else needs to know God. 

I put the book The Language Of Science and Faith on my reading list when I read a review [http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/book-review-the-language-of-science-and-faith] that included this quote from the book: 

“…all Christian positions on origins share a commitment to a mysterious and transcendent divine action, and we might as well acknowledge that we are all in that boat together. The conversation needs to be about what is revealed in the details of the creation, not who can explain exactly how God works (for nobody can). We should all start with the affirmation that the world is the product of a transcendent intelligence and then inspect that world to see what we can find out.”

More often, instead of a conversation we find a false dichotomy that is driving many young, intelligent people away from faith. I have friends who left church because they felt they were being pushed to choose between faith and science. I know people who felt betrayed when they discovered that the creation accounts in the Bible are not supported by science as we know it. If that’s not true, they argue, what else is not true? 

Is that what our faith is about? Where in the good news of God’s love and reconciliation for the world does Jesus say “You have to believe the earth was created in 7 24-hour days”? Are we losing the message by getting wrapped up over distractions? Does it really matter what you believe about how the earth was created? After all, what we believe doesn't actually change what God really did. 

Do you see a conflict between the creation accounts in the Bible and the scientific explanations of the origin of the universe and of life? Do you feel there’s a tension between science and faith? How do you think we could better open a dialogue between science and faith? Is it something you even care about?  I do because I work among scientists who feel the conflict and tension, some so much they no longer consider themselves part of a faith community, but it may not seem as big an issue for people who aren't scientists. 

In trimming down the original draft of this post (yes, it was even longer), I managed to cut out all responses to the question How do we reconcile the two different creation stories presented in Genesis 1 and 2? in Banned Questions about the Bible[p. 68-72]. They touch on some of what's here.

I also cut out a lot of other material. If you’re interested in reading more, here are some background links I used:

A recent article summarized in Science Daily describes the origins of modern-day creationism and notes that faith and science haven’t always been at odds on the Earth’s age and origin.

The review for The Language Of Science and Faith can be found here on the Internet Monk. The authors of the book also run the BioLogos Forum, which promotes dialogue on faith and science. Among other things, I learned that the controversy between creation and evolution is largely an American issue that breaks along conservative and liberal ideologies.   

Peter Enns wrote a post on reading Genesis like an adult in which he say that some of the stories in Genesis are legends used to help explain the inexplicable. I was following that track until veering off, but may come back to it later this week. 

A Follow-up on Women in Church Leadership: N.T. Wright and the Church of England

A few weeks ago we explored questions on what the Bible actually says about the role of women in the church (see Why do women seem to be treated poorly in the Bible? and What exactly is Paul saying about women?). These questions and debates are not just theoretical. Most recently the Church of England failed to approve a change that would have allowed women to serve as bishops (Church of England Rejects Women Bishops In Vote). While the majority of the church apparently supports women as bishops, the vote fell short of a two-thirds majority it needed to approve the measure. 

N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop and writer, had an interesting response to arguments that it’s time for the Church of England to join the 21st century: “It’s about the Bible, not fake ideas of progress.” 

I’ll let you read the full article for yourself. Here are a couple of excerpts I found interesting: 

“The Church that forgets to say “we must obey God rather than human authorities” has forgotten what it means to be the Church. The spirit of the age is in any case notoriously fickle….“What is more, the Church’s foundation documents (to say nothing of its Founder himself) were notoriously on the wrong side of history. The Gospel was foolishness to the Greeks, said St Paul, and a scandal to Jews. The early Christians got a reputation for believing in all sorts of ridiculous things such as humility, chastity and resurrection, standing up for the poor and giving slaves equal status with the free. And for valuing women more highly than anyone else had ever done. People thought them crazy, but they stuck to their counter-cultural Gospel.”

The real argument for accepting women as leaders (in this case, as bishops) is not in the current thinking of society but in the promise of the gospel itself:

“All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene. Part of the point of the new creation launched at Easter was the transformation of roles and vocations: from Jews-only to worldwide, from monoglot to multilingual (think of Pentecost), and from male-only leadership to male and female together.”

Reactions? What do you think of N.T. Wright’s contention that the gospel itself, rather than advances in society, provide all the justification the church needs to accept women and men as equals in leadership?

Why Do We Have So Many Different Interpretations of the Same Passages in the Bible?

These questions from Banned Questions about the Bible are mentioned in the discussion:

• Why are there so many completely different interpretations of the same scripture passage? [p. 178-181]
• How can we begin to take the Bible literally when it seems to contradict itself so often? [p. 97-100]

Have you ever heard two people get into a debate over what a certain passage in the Bible means? They can be very passionate about what they believe that passage means and, sometimes, just as passionate in how they believe the other person is wrong. Add more people and some will take sides while others will argue for still another perspective. While you hope that a few aha moments (or, as some call it, the work of the Spirit) will lead to a consensus, more often than not, sharp divisions occur. We end up with dueling camps (or denominations, if you will), each convinced they’re right. People left on the outside either scratch their heads wondering what the big deal is or walk away altogether.

Here’s the secret: You can’t read the Bible without interpreting it. Even if you claim to take the Bible literally, you still have to interpret it. And it’s hard to interpret anything without bringing your particular world view into the mix. It’s not a new issue. For instance, the Bible has more than 600 laws for God’s people to follow. Some are very specific. Most require interpretation. How do you keep the Sabbath holy? What is an idol? Is it only a graven image or is it anything you pursue ahead of God? And how exactly do you put God first? In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus took on some of those interpretations, turning many world views upside down in the process. And he replaced the competing interpretations with two guiding lights: love God and love others. Everything comes from those commands.

Yet, we still argue. Kathy Escobar writes “interpretation of the Bible is varied” and “we need to be more honest about ‘literal interpretation’” of the Bible. In actuality, many churches that adhere to literal interpretation “are good at ‘selective literal interpretation,’ choosing to align with some passages and completely dismiss others.” [p. 99]

A good debate over the meaning of passages in the Bible can help us grow in our faith and become better followers of Jesus. As Craig Detweiler says in Banned Questions…, “engagement is preferable to indifference” [p. 179]. I love it when kids in our youth group question something we’ve said. It often leads to stronger insights for both them and me. The lack of questions doesn’t necessarily mean agreement. They may have disconnected with the topic (you can see it in their glassy eyes). It’s not that they agree but they’re not engaged enough to care. 

The problem, Detweiler notes, is “when the ethics of scripture are lost amid the argument about their meaning, we have all lost perspective. And, suddenly, we need a fresh interpreter to remind us who we are and whose we are” [p. 179]. Jim L. Robinson offered some suggestions for “reconciling the differences and moving from opinion to truth:” [p. 178]

• Put God first in the discussion [“Seek first the kingdom…”]
• Let the Bible speak for itself rather than use it merely to support what you want it to support.
• Build your faith on discipline and knowledge.
• Approach the issue in a sense of community, learning “to trust the collective wisdom of a community of disciplined brothers and sisters.”

Nadia Bolz-Weber says we should expect to see so many different interpretations because different communities are interpreting the Bible in different times and cultural contexts. She writes:

“The Bible is a living word that breathes meaning into every community that does the work of digging into it. To calcify the biblical text into one single meaning for all time and place is to suck the life out of it.” [p. 180]

Because the Bible is a LIVING word, Bolz-Weber writes, “the biblical text speaks truth into the community and context into which it is being interpreted” [p. 180]. There’s a part of me that says “Amen!” to that and a part of me that thinks about how the Bible, in the past, has been used to justify slavery and, now, is being used by some to justify a limited role for women in churches and hate towards gays. While I side with the idea that the Bible is a living word (“inspired by God” applies to the reader as well as the author), I also believe we need to be seeking that word in a faith community, open to the movement of God’s Spirit within that community. I’m not sure the tendency of some faith communities to huddle together in like-minded enclaves that block out dissenting opinions is doing that. We need to be open not only to a more diverse dialogue, but to the likelihood that none of us has the full picture. 

What do you think of Nadia Bolz-Weber’s comments? Can the Bible be a living word that offers different meanings in different contexts and still convey a universal truth? How do you deal with different interpretations of a passage? How do you know what to believe? I look forward to the discussion in the comments below!

In the coming weeks, we’ll see how this plays out with specific passages and topics in the Bible that have markedly different interpretations. We’ll start with the creation account in Genesis 1. If you have any passages you’d like to see us discuss, let me know in the comments. 

Before wrapping up, here are some things I noticed about those reading this blog: First, far fewer folks check out the blog on the weekends. Mondays and Tuesdays are usually the highest traffic days, even when I add a mid-week post. Second, this past week, with the Thanksgiving holiday, was the slowest viewing week yet, with even fewer hits than the week of hurricane Sandy (which took out the usual Monday-Tuesday volume). So, if you didn’t get a chance to check out last week’s post – If the Bible Has Mistakes and Contradictions, How Do I Know What to Believe? – I hope you’ll also take a look at it sometime this week. 

If the Bible Has Mistakes and Contradictions, How Do I Know What to Believe?

Here are the questions from Banned Questions about the Bible that are mentioned in the discussion:

• Can I be a Christian if I don’t believe the Bible is perfect, handed down directly from God to humanity without error? [p. 2-8]
• If I don’t believe every word of the Bible is literally true, how do I know what to consider in context and what to set aside? [p. 101-105]

There are several ways to jump into this question. Before we go to the responses in Banned Questions…, let’s consider the argument that it could be our interpretation or perspective that has mistakes or contradictions rather than the Bible. Dave Retherford mentioned a couple of folks who might argue for this in his comments to our previous question: Lee Strobel, who has written a number of books on the case for Christ/God/faith, and Timothy Keller, an author and pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City (see the comments in How Do Inerrancies, Mistakes, and Contradictions Co-exist in the Bible?). 

In a sermon Dave referenced, Timothy Keller suggests three things to consider when you come across a passage in the Bible that troubles you:

1. The passage doesn’t teach what you think it teaches.
2. You are misunderstanding what the Bible is teaching because of your own cultural blinders.
3. You are viewing the Biblical text with an unexamined superiority of your culture. If the Bible is the word from God and not from the culture in which it was written, then won’t it, at some time or another, offend every culture?

Keller contends that not only is it necessary to see the Bible as the all-authoritative word of God, but that the only way to read the Bible is to submit to it in order to have a personal relationship with God. There are some – and I’m not saying Keller falls into this camp – who take this a step further and insist that their particular interpretation of the Bible is authoritative and any questioning of that interpretation is denying God. I think they’re trying to shift the veil of “authoritative” from God to themselves and their particular interpretation of the Bible, but that’s a whole other discussion we’ll jump into next week. 

Can you wrestle with passages in the Bible without undermining its authority or threatening your relationship with God? If you have trouble with a particular passage, does faith come in brushing aside your questions and accepting the text as is or in laying out your questions and trusting that God will respond? Is every word or passage in the Bible literally true or are there passages that were never meant to be taken literally? 

Can you take the Bible – not to mention your faith and calling as a disciple of Christ – seriously if you don’t believe every word of the Bible is literally true? While some argue, “No, you can’t”, others would agree with Rebecca Bowman Woods’ comment:

“Reading the Bible critically – acknowledging your questions about the text – doesn’t mean you’re criticizing God. After all, God gave us the gift of intellect and the capacity to learn. Would God expect us to put these aside when approaching the Bible?” [p. 103]

In bringing our questions out into the open, we may find that we are indeed wrestling with dueling interpretations rather than with God. We may find that we need to refocus our interpretation more in line with God. Or we may find that we’re joining in a debate that has spanned time and cultures and we are drawn into the larger community of interpreters of the Bible. 

The danger in not accepting every passage in the Bible as true and authoritative is that we can fall into the trap of picking and choosing what we feel comfortable with or what we want to use to justify what we already believe or are doing. Of course, the same argument also applies to those who interpret the Bible literally because I haven’t encountered anyone who is successfully following every passage in the Bible literally.

How do we know what passages in the Bible need to be considered literally or in context and what passages have lesser weight? Gary Peluso-Verdend recommends having a “circle of interpreters” to help us wrestle with the Bible [p. 101]. I’ve certainly benefited from having a group of people at Grace willing to share thoughts and questions. 

Nadia Bolz-Weber sees Christ as the central message of the Bible and the lens through which we should read the Bible. Jose Morales adds the Exodus to the Bible's core message. Bolz-Weber writes that “the parts of the Bible that do not hold up against the gospel simply do not have the same authority.” [p. 102]

Whether “inspired by God” means that God dictated scripture without error or that God allowed humanity to enter into the scripture, we shouldn’t discount the inspiration of God in our encounters those passages today. God was active in the lives of those who related or wrote down the accounts of the Bible. That experience of God was very real in their lives. It can be just as real when we’re reading those accounts today. Joshua Toulouse writes:

“God is also inspiring those of us who hear or read scripture today. With this understanding, God is kept alive in scripture, in that scripture can speak to us in new ways and on different levels now as opposed to when it was written.” [p. 6]

That's a lot of questions to chew on. Do you think it’s possible to take the Bible seriously without accepting every passage as the literal truth? What passages do you wrestle with most? How do you go about interpreting the Bible? Who or what is in your circle of interpreters?

I look forward to the conversation in the comments below!

How Do Inerrancies, Mistakes, and Contradictions Co-exist in the Bible?

Reflections come from these questions in Banned Questions about the Bible:

• Are there any mistakes in the Bible? [p. 128-131]
• Did God write the Bible? If so, why didn’t God simply create it miraculously? [p. 48-51]
• How can we begin to take the Bible literally when it seems to contradict itself so often? [p. 97-100]

Some Christians argue that the Bible is infallible, with no contradictions or mistakes, because God wrote it, or at least dictated it to those who put it to parchment. They tend to emphasize a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. Many skeptics use that same strictly literal approach to highlight what they see as inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible (search for “mistakes [or inconsistencies] in the Bible” for examples). 

These arguments apply a modern view of truth-as-factual-accuracy to a text that was written by societies that had a different view of what constitutes truth and had a different understanding of the world around them. From a purely scientific perspective, there are things in the Bible that don’t hold up to scientific accuracy today. Some books in the Bible provide accounts that don’t line up with accounts in other books. These would be critical issues if the Bible was intended to be a science or history text or the Biblical accounts are being advanced as such. 

But the Bible itself doesn't claim to be a science or history text, even though some people today treat it that way. It is an account of the relationship between God and humanity, written from the perspective of those who encountered God. I liked Jim L. Robinson’s response:

“The Bible is not a ‘fact sheet’ about God. It is a witness to human experiences of the presence and action of God. God interacts with people, those people recognize and understand (being inspired) the meaning or purpose of that presence and action, and then they record the experience…. Those kinds of experiences… continue today.” [p. 130]

While the Bible is divinely-inspired (the inspiration occurs not only in the writing but also in the reading), I don’t think that means it was dictated word-for-word by God, with every passage meant to be interpreted literally. Why not? Wouldn’t it be easier if God had just laid everything out in clear, unequivocal terms? But what kind of world would God have to create so that every text would be understood the same by everyone? Even though it opens up room for error, Kathy Escobar notes that “using a diverse mix of people from a wide variety of backgrounds over a long period of time seems to be more God’s style” [p. 50]. On top of that, “God can use the flawed to reveal the perfect.” [p. 49]

Jim Robinson summed up the challenge the Biblical writers had (and that we continue to have today):

“It is impossible to communicate the fullness of God in human language. God surpasses all attempts at human description. It often becomes necessary to use metaphor and hyperbole in communicating the understandings that God inspires.” [p. 51]

Can the Bible be a revelation if it has inaccuracies and contradictions? Do we run the risk of undermining Christianity if we believe that? Doesn’t this just make the Bible harder to follow because of the contradictions? Perhaps that depends on whether you see the Bible as a static record of God’s encounters with humanity or as a continuing conversation that spans communities and time. Here are some responses from Banned Questions… that struck me:

“Even though the biblical stories differ, what the tellers and authors had in common was the experience of God – through personal encounters and the sacred teachings, writings, and traditions of faith communities.” – Rebecca Bowman Woods [p. 97] 

“What we have in the Bible is a community of interpreters of the word of God. It is exciting and challenging, in our day as in any day, to join that community and to dare our interpretations.” – Gary Peluso-Verdend [p. 48]

 “It would be a mistake to stifle, repress, or resolve all of the debates and contradictions of contemporary Christianity…. God speaks with one voice but humankind listens with many ears!” – Gary Peluso-Verdend [p. 98]

Perhaps the mistake is in insisting on a single “correct” interpretation or doctrine when we have before us many perspectives of a God that surpasses any attempt we have of describing that God. 

In subsequent posts, we’ll look at deciding on what to believe when you encounter contradictions in the Bible and on how to interpret the Bible in light of this. For now, what do you think? Does it bother you when you hear someone say the Bible contains factual errors and inconsistencies? How do you wrestle with contradictions? What passages in the Bible do you find particularly hard to grasp because they appear to contradict other passages or go against what we understand about the world today?

I look forward to the discussion on the comments below!

Coming Attractions: Wrestling with Mistakes, Contradictions, and What it Means to Read the Bible

One of my favorite movies is Meet the Robinsons (yes, it’s animated, and you can take away from that what you will). There’s a great message in the movie about not only persisting and pushing forward in the face of mistakes and misfortunes, but celebrating them for moving you closer to your dreams. Edison said: “If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward.”

Here’s a clip from Meet the Robinsons:

I’m not claiming to be on par with Edison or with a Disney cartoon character. Instead, this is my roundabout way of offering a reason why the draft post I kept wrestling with last night never seemed to resolve itself into something coherent (and an excuse to see if I could embed a video into a post). Every time I thought the draft was getting close, some thought would pop up and scatter things about (imagine 52 card pick up with ideas). After several attempts, I saved the mess, shut off the computer, and fell into bed.

This morning the “aha!” moment came. That draft wasn't going to work because it had too many ideas competing for space. In breaking them into parts, several other jumbled ideas started falling into place. Another “aha!” moment came when I realized it might be helpful for you to follow the blog (especially as we enter the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons) if I lay out a preview of coming attractions. Here are the topics I’m going to make a sincere effort to focus on in the coming weeks:

First, we’ll look at what the Bible is and how we approach it:

• Inerrancies, Mistakes, and Contradictions in the Bible: Can they Co-exist?
• If the Bible Has Mistakes/Contradictions, How Do I Know what to Believe?
• What Does it Mean to Read the Bible? Who Interprets It?

Then we’ll take that and wrestle with some often controversial issues, such as what the Bible says about science and creation, sex, homosexuality, and hell. I expect some of those topics will span several posts worth of discussion.

Around Christmas time, I’m going to take a little turn to explore a couple of questions that are not in Banned Questions about the Bible:

• Was Mary really a virgin when Jesus was born?
• Where’s the stable and the animals in the birth narrative? How much of what we now accept as the account of Jesus’ birth comes from the Bible and how much have we filled in?

The post on inerrancies, mistakes, and contradictions should pop up on Friday or Saturday. Look forward to the conversation!

Was Hurricane Sandy part of God’s wrath? Why didn’t God intervene and redirect the hurricane away from the East Coast?

The damage from hurricane Sandy’s rampage up the Atlantic seaboard is still fresh and already some claim it’s part of God’s plan… or wrath… or vengeance against America [or insert a target group here] for its sins [or insert specific sin here]. Seriously. This post talks about those who claim that the storm (or other disaster) is a sign from God that we have strayed: Fake Picture, Real Prayer and God’s Wrath. 

From my perspective, claims that God is using such-and-such a disaster to punish us for such-and-such a sin say more about the persons making the claims than about God. The reasons are often more political or ideological than theological. But people looking in on Christianity from the outside may get a distorted view of God when they hear these pronouncements.

When someone says that a natural disaster is a sign or message from God, my usual reaction is: What kind of sign do you think we need? Wasn’t the cross enough? What message do we need that goes beyond “For God so loved the world that he gave his son… not to condemn the world but to save it”? Seems to me the world needs God’s message of love more than it needs our words of condemnation.

There are people who genuinely wrestle with these questions because it gets at the heart of how much God controls events in the world. If we pray for God to spare someone from harm or to heal someone who is sick or dying, will God respond? That’s a question I ask every time I pray for someone. Then, if God seemingly answers one prayer, why wouldn’t God answer others? Is there a reason why God seems to heal or spare some but not others? Why are some people subjected to senseless tragedy? Those are harder questions to answer (at least for me).

Many ask “Did God cause this?” because we’re trying to make sense of something that seems senseless to us. There are whole books written about how much control and intervention God exerts on the world and it’s likely that, if you look long enough and hard enough, you’ll find one that provides an explanation you’ll feel comfortable embracing. That doesn’t mean God is like that. The best I’ve been able to wrap my mind around is that, no matter what I believe about how much God is active or intervenes in the world, from the personal to the global, God is more complex than that. 

I opened Christian Piatt’s Banned Questions about the Bible, thinking surely there’s something on questions like this. Sure enough, there it is on p. 137: Is God in control? If so, does that mean God made (insert horrible thing here) happen to pull off a greater plan? Why doesn’t God intervene in a disaster? There are a number of thoughtful responses to that question in the book. I was particularly struck by Jim L. Robinson’s response:

“We can’t conceive of the totality of God’s universe. What we see and perceive is very limited, but we tend to universalize our own perceptions.
“…I believe God created the universe as a reality with which God could relate, not as a reality that God could control and toy around with like a child pulling the strings of a marionette.”

Robinson goes on to say that the thought of a universe in which God is not in control can be terrifying, but to say that God is in control can also be an excuse for us to deny our responsibility as free beings in God’s creation. What, then, is our responsibility? That’s probably a question all in itself. Robinson suggests that it is to seek God’s vision for creation:

“When we humans align ourselves with that vision we experience the consequences of living in synch with God. When we try to do it our own way, we experience the consequences of living out of our grossly limited perceptions.”

What do you think? How much do you think God exerts control over the events of the universe, the world, or our own lives? Do you agree with those who responded to the question in Banned Questions… who say God doesn’t create the catastrophic events but suffers along with us? 

Do you agree with Jim Robinson’s comments? In what ways have you experienced the consequences of living in synch with God? How about of living out of synch with God?

Click on the comments below, offer your views, and join in the conversation!

What exactly is Paul saying about women? What are we supposed to believe?

Read: Question #33, p. 132-136, in Banned Questions about the Bible by Christian Piatt.

It’s easier to make a case that women are considered as valuable and worthy as men in the New Testament if we stop with the Gospels. Jesus reached out to both men and women and included women in his ministry. Not only did women support Jesus’ ministry, but they were the first witnesses to the resurrection. Maybe that’s not as direct as declaring, “Women should be treated as equal to men,” but neither does Jesus say, “Women should remain silent in church” or “A woman’s place is in the kitchen” (see Jesus’ interaction with Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42). 

But then we come to Paul’s letters. On one hand, he commends a number of women for their roles in building up the church in Romans 16. He called Phoebe a deacon in the church (Rom. 16:1), worked with both Priscilla and her husband (Rom. 16:3; Acts 18), referred to Junia as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom. 16:7; there’s disagreement on whether the original text used Junia, the feminine form of the name, or Junias, the masculine form), and praised other women for their hard work in the church. Add to that this passage from Galatians, which makes the case that, in Jesus, the distinctions between men and women, Jew and Gentile, master and slave no longer matter:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)

On the other hand, there are these passages in Paul’s letters:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved…. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (1 Corinthians 11:5-9).

I won’t go into Paul’s writings on marriage (Ephesians 5:21-33; Colossians 3:18-25) here but you can find a good discussion on that in the previous post. Instead, let’s focus on the passages above.

What are we supposed to make of this? If Paul truly valued the contributions of women in his ministry, why would he write that they should not teach but remain silent and not assume authority over men? Was he trying to have it both ways? Did he change his mind over time? 

Some of the responses in Banned Questions… note that some things, such as his advice in 1 Corinthians 11, may have been focused on a particular circumstance that doesn’t lend itself to universal interpretation. Some of his advice may have been intended to keep the new church from standing out in a Roman society that was known to persecute them. 

Other responses suggest that some of the more controversial passages may have been written by someone other than Paul or may have been later additions inserted after Paul. A lot of people have studied Paul’s letters and had more than a little debate about what was authentic and what was not. I don’t pretend to be an expert on it, so I’m relying on what the responses say (and I’m sure that someone who wants to argue differently would be able to cite different experts). Several responses in Banned Questions… note that scholars believe that texts such as Galatians 3 and Romans 16 are authentic but other texts attributed to Paul may have been added later by others to tone down the message of equality. 

I tend to value actions over words, and find it hard to believe that Paul would commend so many women for their work in the early church if he didn’t want them to be in leadership roles. However, others point to the passages above to argue that it’s clear Paul meant that women have no role as leaders in the church. Why would these contradictions remain enshrined in the Bible? How do we sort this out?

Please click on “Comments” below to share your thoughts and to read what others are saying. Come back often to continue the conversation!

Why do women seem to be treated poorly in the Bible?

Read: Question #3, p. 12-15, in Banned Questions about the Bible by Christian Piatt.

Some read Genesis and blame Eve for our fall from grace. The Old Testament holds up few women as positive role models. In fact, we see far fewer women than men chronicled in the Bible. The OT laws often treat women as subordinates without a voice in a male-dominated society. Throughout its history, the Bible has often been used to justify keeping women in subservient roles in the church and in society. This particular passage from Paul is quoted often in support of keeping women out of leadership roles in the church:

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

As I write this, a controversy is bubbling up over Rachel Held Evans’ new book A Year in Biblical Womanhood. Lifeway Christian Stores, which is operated by the Southern Baptist Convention, announced it would not carry the book, presumably because of the inclusion of a certain word used to describe a particular part of female anatomy. Matthew Paul Turner argues that it’s not as simple as that in a recent blog post. You can read that for yourself, but the Baptists are not the only denomination that limits the role of women in its churches. We Presbyterians are considered heretics by some because we have female pastors. I’ve been told by some conservative evangelical Christian friends that it’s just not “biblical.”

The Banned Questions… responses to the question all emphasized the need to read the Bible in the context of the time and that, in that context, there’s plenty in the New Testament to support an “ethic of equality.” But the dissenting opinion – the view that women cannot serve as pastors or teachers in the church and that they should be subservient in marriage – is still alive and well today in some denominations. 

We’ll tackle Paul’s writings later in the week. Since everyone who responded to the question in Banned Questions… pointed to Jesus’ examples, let’s start there. In the midst of a patriarchal society, here are some of the things Jesus did:

• He healed women as well as men, at times going counter to OT laws on ritual purity (Matthew 9:18-26, Mark 5:25-34) and the Sabbath (Luke 13:10-17).
• One of his longest conversations was with a woman Jews were not supposed to associate with (John 4:1-42).
• Not only that, but he didn’t turn women away when they sat to hear him teach, even if the woman’s “role” was to serve in the background as hosts (Luke 10:38-42).
• In fact, women were part of his inner circle, to the extent of helping support his ministry (Luke 8:1-3).
• In the end, women remained with Jesus to the end, even as many of the male apostles had gone into hiding (Matthew 27:50-56).
• And, of course, women were the first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10).

There are other examples in which Jesus treated women “as valuable human beings, every bit as worthwhile as men” [Marcia Ford, p. 14 in Banned Questions…). Sometimes we read the gospel accounts and forget how much of what Jesus taught and did ran counter to religious and cultural norms of his day. Perhaps it doesn’t jump out as bold and revolutionary as we expect to see it today, but Jesus upset a lot of people who supported the status quo. Yet today, while some churches believe the New Testament supports women in ministry, others use the same Bible to deny women pastoral and leadership positions in the church and to contend that women are supposed to be subservient to their husbands in marriage.

What do you think?  Do you think the gospel accounts of Jesus provide clear support for treating women as equals or does the Bible as a whole still provide support for a male-dominated society? Why can some Christians read the Bible and find support for treating women as equals in church and society while others find support for keeping women out of leadership roles in the church? If God intended all people to be treated as equals, why isn’t the message in the Bible clearer?

Please click on “Comments” below to share your thoughts and to read what others are saying. Come back often to continue the conversation!

Coming Attractions and a Thursday Treat

Starting Saturday (10/20), we’ll examine the question “Aren’t women treated poorly in the Bible?” On Saturday, we’ll look at the patriarchal culture that dominated Biblical times and how Jesus treated women in the Gospels. Later in the week, we’ll take a look at Paul – did he support women in leadership in the church or did he really mean that women should remain silent?

In the meantime, I want to share a recent blog post from Rachel Held Evans. I started following her blog after coming across her book Evolving in Monkey Town, which looks at faith, doubt, and the challenge of asking tough questions about Christianity. Her newest book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood, which is due out soon, chronicles her attempt to follow the biblical instructions for women as closely as possible. 

This particular post is called I love the Bible. She talks about wrestling with the Bible and with differences in interpretation. Here’s a brief excerpt (actually, the entire post is not that long):

"Differences in interpretation should not lead us to question one another's passion or commitment to Scripture, but rather invite us into conversation with the shared assumption that we are all struggling toward truth, all trying to figure it out. 

"Those of us who have wrestled know that no one's interpretation is inerrant.  Those of us who have wrestled know we can be wrong.

"I love the Bible more now than ever before because I have finally surrendered to God’s stories."

In the meantime, we've had some interesting discussion on the post Is Church Still Relevant Today? so I hope you'll check that out if you haven't done so already.

Is Church Still Relevant Today?

Before you scream at me, I believe the church has a calling to be God's light for the world and I am part of a church because I believe it is relevant. But I don't think we always do it the way God intends. We had a discussion on this blog about whether people see hope for the world in the churches. I still wonder: If so, then why is attendance and church affiliation declining? Is it because the old paradigm of church membership is fading? Are more people finding fewer reasons to believe? Are more children growing up in families with no church affiliation? Or has the church itself strayed from being the light of the gospel for the world? 

This is not one of the questions in Banned Questions about the Bible. Nor is it what I planned for discussion this week. However, it is a question that I ask more and more. Call it “Banned Questions about Church,” if you will. I don’t want to dwell on “Why is it this way?” but on “What do we do about it?” We probably won’t fully answer that question here, but this isn't the last time we’ll visit it either. 

In his sermon on Sunday (10/4), Jay mentioned a recent survey in which one in five Americans reported no religious affiliation. You can read the report from The Pew Forum by clicking here. Some who chose “none” for their religious affiliation still believe in God (68% with varying degrees of certainty), consider themselves spiritual (55% described themselves as religious or spiritual but not religious), and pray (41% said they prayed daily, weekly, or monthly). Jay asked whether believing, praying, and practicing spiritual discipline away from a church community was enough, contrasting that with what Jesus considered true discipleship (Mark 8:34-37).It was a good sermon, but I want to look at the question from another perspective.

Two-thirds of the unaffiliated identified in the Pew poll said that religion was not important in their lives. And most said they were not searching for a spiritual home. Why? Here’s what the Pew report said:

“The unaffiliated also are not uniformly hostile toward religious institutions. They are much more likely than the public overall to say that churches and other religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules, and too involved in politics. But at the same time, a majority of the religiously unaffiliated clearly think that religion can be a force for good in society, with three-quarters saying religious organizations bring people together and help strengthen community bonds (78%) and a similar number saying religious organizations play an important role in helping the poor and needy (77%).”

I can't speak for everyone in the poll, but here are some things I hear from non-Christian friends:

• They hear way too much from the church about how they should be living their lives. The church isn't the only place that offers advice on how to live a good life. Besides, there are enough examples of Christians gone astray to suggest that the church's advice is no better than what anybody else is saying.
• They wonder why many Christians don't show the same level of outrage for greed and inequalities in the world as they do for things of a sexual nature. 
• Christians aren't the only ones trying to make the world a better place. In fact, many organizations are reaching out in areas that Christians have ignored. 
• Christians seem too obsessed with hell and Jesus seems little more than something they cling onto to save their own selves.
• Some friends think that being affiliated with the Democratic party or liberal causes or being a scientist precludes them from being a Christian.

These observations don't apply to all Christians (or even many Christians), but there is truth in them. And, in all that noise, the gospel message is missing. We can blame the media (a good villain for so many things), the actions of a few rogues, or the distractions of society. Or we can ask: What can we, as the body of Christ, do to change that perception? More importantly, how do we share the same good news that draws us to Jesus? 

Here are a few more questions to consider: If the church is losing its relevance in society, how do we adjust? How much of it is of our own making, of weighing the Gospel down with our own trappings? What is the good news of Jesus at its very essence? Is that a message that still offers hope in the world? If so, how does that message get heard?

You may not agree with me on this, and that's fine. Or you may have some ideas of your own. Either way, I look forward to hearing from you. Please click on “Comments” below to share your thoughts and to read what others are saying. Come back often to continue the conversation!

Wait, what?!? Was Jesus married?

I never seriously considered that Jesus may have been married because it’s not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. But some people argue that’s only because I’ve accepted the interpretations at face value. Besides, the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that Jesus was single. Could I be wrong?

A small scrap of papyrus that contained the phrase: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife …'" briefly caused a stir because it counters the prevailing view that Jesus was single and celibate. There have been alternate theories, popularized by Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code, that Jesus was married but gospel writers hid it for any number of reasons. Those theories haven’t gained much traction because there’s not much evidence to support them. 

Could this papyrus be that supporting evidence?  First, the scrap only holds eight incomplete sentence fragments. Jesus may go on to introduce his wife or launch into a parable, but we have no way of knowing the context without the rest of the writing. Additionally, the historian who analyzed the papyrus dates it at 300 years after Jesus was alive. The person who wrote it would be many generations removed from any eye witnesses to Jesus. As we noted in the previous post on what books were included in the Bible and why, direct connection to an apostle who was an eye witness to Jesus was an important factor in determining what books were considered reliable and authoritative. 

That doesn’t completely preclude the possibility that Jesus may have been married. For instance, the author of the papyrus may have been copying from an older document.  Is there any other evidence that Jesus may have been married? 

Zach Hunt goes into more depth about whether the authoritativeness of the scrap of papyrus and whether it was likely that Jesus was married in his post Jesus Had a Wife? at The American Jesus. He cites two reasons why it’s likely that Jesus was not married:

1. The lack of mention of Jesus’ wife in the gospel accounts: If Jesus had been married, they likely would have been mentioned it in the gospels and, if they had omitted such an important detail, we would have heard about it from others who knew Jesus or knew someone who knew Jesus. After all, the gospels don’t hide Peter’s mother-in-law or marriage.
2. Paul’s advice on remaining single: According to Hunt, it’s likely that Paul’s choice to be single and his advice to others to remain unmarried reflected his desire “to live a life as closely resembling Jesus’ life as possible,” including marital status.

Christian Piatt asked “Did Jesus get married and have children?” in a second book in his Banned Questions series – Banned Questions About Jesus. He reprinted the responses on his blog shortly after news of the papyrus fragment came out. You can read them by clicking here. The consensus is that, while it’s hard to make absolute statements about someone who lived 2,000 years ago, there’s little evidence that Jesus ever married or had children. Not only that, but the gospel writers would almost assuredly have included something as important as that in their writings. 

Pastor and author John Ortberg, writing last week in the Huffington Post, said that, despite popular conspiracy theories and contentions that the gospel writers tried to cover up Jesus’ marriage to make him appear more divine than human, “the New Testament doesn't present Jesus as a single man to cover up his humanity. It presents him as a single man because ... he was a single man.”

Is this is enough to change the mind of someone who wants to believe Jesus was married and the church is only trying to cover it up? I guess I’ve bought into it. Maybe the bigger question is: Does it really matter whether Jesus was married? 

It may have mattered to Paul, who chose a single life and encouraged others to do the same. It may matter to Catholic priests and others who similarly choose a single life to be more like Jesus. But, would it change the foundation of our faith if Jesus was married? 

Zach Hunt believes it probably matters little. Indeed, if Jesus had been married, it might have provided an ideal example of marriage. John Ortberg writes “perhaps what matters most in this discussion is the impact Jesus had -- not on one woman -- but on the status of women as a whole.” And that’s the subject of our next post, so stay tuned.

In the meantime, what do you think? Was Jesus married? Does it matter to you? Why or why not? Please click on “Comments” below to share your thoughts and to read what others are saying. Come back often to continue the conversation!

Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? Who decided what books made up the Bible and how did they decide?

Background: Questions # 7 (p. 29-31), 10 (p. 40-45), and 28 (p. 113-117) in Banned Questions about the Bible by Christian Piatt.

Scripture: John 21:24-25

A recently discovered scrap of papyrus believed to have been written some 300 years after Jesus was alive includes the phrase: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife …'" Although it’s not a complete sentence and there’s no way of knowing the full context of the eight fragments of text on that papyrus, the historian who translated the writing has called it “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” 

Was Jesus married and, if he was, why would the Bible hide it and what does it mean for us? We’ll explore that later this week. First let's look at another set of questions that come out of this: If this was part of a larger gospel account of Jesus (it’s hard to tell from a small scrap), why wasn't it included in the Bible? In the last century, a number of documents dating back to the early church have been found, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and a collection of Gnostic gospels. Why weren't they included in the Bible we have today?  Who decided what would be included and why? Why haven’t we added any of these later documents to the Bible?

Banned Questions About the Bible includes three questions related to this subject: 

• Why are the Apocrypha, Gnostic Gospels, and Dead Sea Scrolls considered sacred to some but not to others? (p. 29-32)
• Who got to decide which books would be included in the Bible, and what rules did they use to decide? (p. 113-117)
• Is there a chance any new books will ever be added to the Bible? (p. 40-45)

How some books were included in the Bible while others were excluded has been fertile ground for discussion, debate, conspiracy theories and fiction (see The Da Vinci Code). The responses to the questions above give a brief overview of the creation of the New Testament canon (the standard on which our faith is based). While the New Testament was not finalized until the late fourth century, that doesn't mean it was created from scratch some 400 years after Jesus was on earth. The texts in our Bible today had been in common use since the first century. 

Marcia Ford described the process as a “grassroots effort” rising up from the individual churches that had pretty much settled on a collection of books they considered to be authentic (p. 114). The early church leaders who established the canon used several guidelines to determine whether a book was authentic. The book had to be:

• written by one of Jesus’ apostles or by someone associated with an apostle
• accepted, used, and relevant by the larger Christian community
• reflective of “a view consistent with accepted doctrine and moral value” of the larger Christian community [p. 114]

But if there was universal acceptance of these books as central to Christian faith, why formalize a canon? Unless you believe the Bible was handed down by God dictated, bound, and translated for all to understand unambiguously, then the possibility of conflicting interpretation and viewpoints exist. The more time that passed, the more removed people were from the perspectives of those who were alive with Jesus. We certainly don’t have the same perspectives as those of the early church. 

Gnostics held to a viewpoint that ran counter to accepted doctrine. I’m not an expert, so I’m deferring to responses in Banned Questions… Gnostics “tend to question Jesus’ humanity, suggesting that he was a divine or spiritual being who only seemed to be human” (Marcia Ford, p. 29). That conflicts with our belief that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. The Gnostics also believed we could reach a more fulfilling existence “through the attainment of secret knowledge (gnosis)” (Brandon Gilvin, p. 30). Contrast that with our understanding that grace is a gift given to us by God through Jesus and not some secret we have to discover.

However, some argue that the male leaders of the early churches also rejected the gnostic gospels' “more powerful portrayal of women” (Marcia Ford, p. 29) and that the net effect of focusing on what the “mainstream” church considered correct doctrine was to marginalize “sincere Christians (e.g., the Gnostics) who disagreed with them” (Jose Morales, Jr, p. 115). 

Do you believe that, in the existing Bible, “God has provided all that we need to know to believe in God and to guide our lives” [p. 43]? Or do you believe that, in excluding books that ran counter to the mainstream church’s view of correct doctrine, the early church leaders have left us with an incomplete picture of God?

Do you believe there’s something to be learned in the Gnostic gospels that have not been included in the Bible? Have you read any of them? Examples include the gospels of Thomas, Mary, and Judas. 

Today we have some denominations claiming that anything that deviates from their church doctrine or understanding of the Bible is heresy. How do we know that something is “heretical” to our understanding of God? Do we (or should we) accept that a book or a thought is heresy because a church leader says so or should we decide for ourselves? How do we keep this from turning into a chaos in which anything goes depending on our perspective? 

On Wednesday, we’ll explore the second part of the question: Was Jesus married? In the meantime, please click on “Comments” below to share your thoughts and to read what others are saying. Come back often to continue the conversation!