Influence & Interpretation

            It has certainly been awhile since my last post. My apologies. There were many loose ends to tie up in the month of May, and since then I also have been traveling quite a bit on the road – never mind the fact that vacation time has made me lazy. I know: excuses, excuses. In truth, I began a post at the start of June, but I found myself dissatisfied with its content, so, like the potter of Jeremiah 18:1-4, I've started over... and over. After several attempts, I am desperate to post something (anything) on this blog, so I'm keeping today's post a little shorter. I can hear the sighs of relief already.

            The recent attack on our LGBT brothers and sisters in Orlando, as well as the general increase in mass shootings over the years, have weighed heavy on my mind. It has me pondering what sort of influential factors – aside from mental illness – feed the kinds of ideologies that lead to such tragedies. I'm well aware of the powerful role that religion and sacred literature play in our lives – largely for good, but sometimes for ill when they are misconstrued. So, as one who writes about Scripture, it concerns me that poor interpretations of sacred writings sometimes contribute to humanity's worst atrocities, from hate crimes to all out war. I'm not drawing a direct link between the Bible and hate crimes or terrorism, but I do think it is necessary to ask ourselves, Do the Scriptures draw me to love my neighbor? Why or why not? How does Scripture influence my image of God? What, then, does that image of God incite within me? Fear? Hate? Love? Peace?

            One of the reasons why the Bible is often grossly misunderstood is that many people, even very well-intentioned people, take a fundamentalist approach to Scripture. But the Pontifical Biblical Commission (i.e. the Catholic Church's committee to ensure proper interpretation of Scripture – let it never be said that the Catholic Church doesn't care about the Bible) has some interesting things to say about this sort of take on Sacred Scripture.

"Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the Word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by 'literal interpretation' it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development."[1]

But wait, it gets better. The Commission goes on to say,

"The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious and illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide" (emphasis mine).[2]

            The Bible is not a history book. It is not a science book. It isn't even a handbook of morality. True, the Scriptures can be a rich source of encouragement, consolation, moral exhortation or reprimand, and certainly of truths about who God is and our relationship with God. Indeed, short phrases and passages from the Bible are frequently quoted and read in everything from greeting cards to Sunday Mass readings so that the Word of God might touch us in these very ways. But, as we strive to understand what God is saying to us in these sacred texts, it is important to keep in mind that the human authors, through whom the Holy Spirit worked, wrote in a particular time and place in history. They had their own culture, their own language and literary styles, and their own limited understanding of the natural sciences. Therefore, as stated in Dei Verbum (the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation by Vatican II), "in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, [the interpreter] should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."[3]

            Okay, I've been on my soapbox long enough. (Actually it is the Church's soapbox, as I have spent most of my time quoting Church documents.) If the fundamentalist approach to Scripture is so abhorrent, if we want to avoid "intellectual suicide," what, then, are we to do with Scripture? Knowing that the Bible should not always be taken literally, a number of folks have asked me plainly, "How should we interpret the Bible?" A complex question, indeed, and I said I'd keep this post brief today.

            There is no short answer to this query. Theologians, biblical scholars, and even some of the authors of Scripture themselves have been wrestling with questions about biblical interpretation for millennia. I return to my Shrek-inspired assessment of Scripture: "The Bible is like an onion; it has layers." Layers of meaning, that is. My first inclination, as Dei Verbum suggests, is to explore the historical, cultural, and literary context, but that takes some research, and not everyone has the time or resources for that - though I'd like to draw your attention to some websites listed in the top right-hand corner, particularly "Bible Research" and "Bible Odyssey." But if your reading Scripture for your spiritual benefit, without tomes of biblical exegesis, and want to know how best to approach these texts, I would say look to Jesus, the very Word made flesh, and keep in mind the bigger picture.

            If we want to avoid the kinds of corrupt biblical misinterpretations that lead to prejudice, hate and violence, we should remember that the Word of God tells a story of a God who brings forth life, who wants to be in relationship with humanity, who calls his people to faithfulness, who loves his people, poor, lowly, and faltering though they are. It is a story about how God saves his people, sometimes from outside forces but often from the very calamities they incur from their own mistakes. And if you read the Gospels you find that this story reaches a climax in the person of Jesus. In him the saving God, who desires to be in relationship with his people, becomes flesh and dwells among us, ultimately laying down his own life that we may be saved.

            You also find that this story continues today beyond the pages of Scripture in the lives of those who have united themselves to Christ, who have died and risen in Christ. You see it in the lives of those who suffer, in the poor and those who radically depend on God, in those who long for justice, in those who heal and show mercy, in those who rise up from the ashes of destruction and usher in new life, and in those who love without counting the cost. This is the biblical story alive in our world today!

            If you want an interpretive lens for reading the Bible, examine the life of Christ, and remember that our saving God desires to be near to us, heal us, and make us whole. This is not an exhaustive account of biblical interpretation. Oh honey, there are many, many more layers left unpeeled. Yet if we read the Scriptures keeping these things in mind, perhaps we can curb the hate and violence that is born from ideologies based in literalist and corrupt interpretations of the Bible.

            For this week I suggest reading Isaiah 54, but read it in light of the bigger picture of Scripture, of God's saving and loving relationship with humanity. Behind this portion of Isaiah we have God's chosen people, who have been in exile in Babylon for decades. Whether or not it was due to poor politics and inferior defenses, the people of Judah believed they were in exile because of their infidelity to God. But, at last, the Babylonian empire falls to Persia, and God's chosen are free to return to the Promised Land. Thus the prophet speaks tenderly to the people, revealing to them God's love, mercy, and desire to reunite himself to them despite the sins of their past. You can read innumerable passages in the Bible referring to God's blazing wrath – I won't deny that they're in there – but ultimately it all comes back to God's love for his people. So as you read this, ask yourself, How does this affect my image of God? Do I see myself in this passage? How? How might my relationship with my neighbor be affected by a message like this one? Meanwhile, let us pray and work for peace in our world, for mercy, and for the increase of tolerance. Until next time...

Peace and all good!

---

[1] Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teaching, ed. & trans. by Dean P. Béchard (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), 273.

[2] Ibid., 275.

[3] Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (1965), no. 12, accessed June 14, 2016, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.

Getting Our Act Together: A Review of The Acts of the Apostles

           Having just finished reading The Acts of the Apostles last week, I thought I'd have a little fun and write about it somewhat in the style of a book review.

            Luke does it again! Following his break-out success with arguably the most eloquent Gospel to have been written, Luke delights and edifies his readers with an adventurous sequel: The Acts of the Apostles. Admittedly, I was a little surprised by how much I actually enjoyed reading it, but, believe it or not, it's kind of a page-turner in some ways. As when reading an exciting novel, I found myself asking with anticipation, "What happens next?"

            Unlike the rest of the New Testament, which is pretty much made up of the four Gospels and letters to various Christian communities, Acts is kind of a unique book. Most of the NT is naturally centered on the person of Jesus Christ and what the Church believes about him. At other times, especially in the Epistles, the NT speaks more prescriptively about how the members of the Church should behave and function in the world. Acts is different, though. Like the Gospels, Acts is a narrative, but unlike the Gospels the central character is not Jesus of Nazareth. Like some Epistles, it is concerned with the actions of the Church, but it is not written as a letter or exhortation. It's a story, a narrative, about the Holy Spirit and the early Church.

            Here we have the sequel to Luke's Gospel, and, like many sequels, it doesn't match the fame and excellence as the original. But let's face it, what sequel is going to compare to a story about Jesus? Nevertheless, Luke packs in the action: miracles, visions, angelic rescues, shipwrecks, riots, life-or-death soliloquies, and murder! Oddly enough, I'm reminded of The Hunger Games in a way. For me, the sequels could never compare to the first book, where we're introduced to Katniss and the twisted dystopian reality the people of Panem find themselves in. It's mesmerizing, thought-provoking , and chilling. The sequel, Catching Fire, picks up where the former left off but never captivates in quite the same way as its predecessor. But, like Acts, it is full of even more action than the first and explodes the story onto a grander stage. No longer is Katniss' plight a personal matter of survival and protecting her family. It becomes much bigger than just her; it's about the whole nation of Panem and the liberation of all of its districts. Similarly, Luke's Gospel focuses on the character of Jesus. It's gripping, dramatic, and stirs the soul to see life with new eyes. And there is no shortage of astounding events either – not least of all the passion, death, and resurrection narratives. But what began in the Gospel as a local movement focused on an enigmatic figure now launches onto the world stage in Acts, as the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit and risking life and limb, take the Good News of Jesus Christ to ends of the world.

            It's a flimsy comparison, I know – the Hunger Games series and Luke/Acts – but in short, all I'm saying is that Acts has all the page-turning action of sequels, like Catching Fire, which take a compelling narrative and widen its scope to encompass an even greater mission. But The Acts of the Apostles is more than just Volume II of Luke's masterful work. It's a great story in its own right. What I like most about it is that it's both a narrative and a self-examination of what the Church is supposed to be. I wouldn't call it history, but rather Luke's idealized version of who the Church is and how it should live out its mission.

            Today, "church" is all too often confused for a place of worship and/or something one "does" once a week. Others think the "church" is really just made up of the priests and bishops who provide the necessary things for believers to worship and who act as guardians of some moral code. But Acts tells us a different story, a truer story. The Church (in Greek, ekklesía, which means assembly) is that community of believers who are empowered by the Holy Spirit through baptism and who profess that Jesus is the Messiah (a.k.a. Christ) who has died and been raised from the dead and has opened salvation to all. The Church, as the Greek term clearly indicates, is first of all a community. There was nothing individualistic about it. The phrase "I'm spiritual, just not religious" did not exist back then, because it would have denied that essential community component. Am I getting on a soapbox? Yes. Yes, I am. But my point is that Luke paints an idealized picture of what the Church was and is meant to be: a mutually supportive community of faith in Jesus Christ.

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need (Acts 4:32-35).

            But this community also has a mission: to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ, to proclaim that salvation through Jesus is open to all. That mission naturally begins with the People of Israel, but, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it soon opens up to the Gentiles. Much of Acts grapples with the tension that is brought about by the inclusion of the Gentiles and whether or not the entirety of the Mosaic law should be an obligation upon them. Let's be real, folks; one of the more critical issues back then was circumcision. But Jesus didn't say anything about circumcision, so what was the community to do? Thus, a council in Jerusalem (often referred to as the first council of the Church) convened in order to discern with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit how the Church should proceed in this matter. Yes, that's right. The first Church council was about circumcision. This is what happens when most, if not all, of the leaders in a community are men.

            I won't spoil the outcome of that council – you can read it for yourself in Acts 15 – but the so-called Council of Jerusalem has more to say to us than whether one needs to follow Mosaic law to be a Christian. It is an illustration of how the Church makes decisions, especially about things not clearly dictated by Jesus... which is a lot. 1.) Decisions of the Church are always made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit – "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities..." (Acts 15:28). 2.) The Church comes together as a community with open discussion. And 3.) the decision is promulgated, or made known, through a written document to the wider Church everywhere. This is just one example of how The Acts of the Apostles is an excellent reflection of what the Church is and how it should act.

            Even if you're not too interested in trying to figure out the Church's self-understanding in Luke's narrative, Acts is a fun read just as it is. There were moments when I nearly laughed out loud. Like when Rhoda is so excited to see Peter at the door she leaves him standing outside to run and tell the others who it is (12:12-16). Or when Eutychus falls asleep, "as Paul talked on and on," and so falls out of a third story window (20:9-12). Even the time when the Lycaonians mistake Paul and Barnabas for gods is pretty laughable (14:8-18). As far as NT books goes, Acts is probably the most entertaining.

            So hit the road and sail the seas as you journey with old favorites, like Simon Peter, that impetuous fisherman from the Gospels, now an impressive – though still impetuous – leader of the disciples, who preaches fearlessly and heals great numbers of people in the name of Jesus Christ. Revisit other characters that are easily forgotten in the Gospels, like Philip, who draws an Ethiopian eunuch to belief in Jesus Christ by interpreting the Scriptures. Or James, who apparently holds a lot of sway in the Jerusalem Christian community at this point (15:13-21).

            Get to know new characters, like Stephen, the first man to give up his life for proclaiming Christ. Or Saul/Paul, an extrovert and insufferable know-it-all whom God uses to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ even to the Gentiles. Follow his adventures from when we're first introduced to him as a vehement persecutor of the Way, to his blindingly radiant encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus. Then journey with him across the Mediterranean up to his mildly anti-climactic testimony before the Jews in Rome. Watch as Christianity's most spiteful adversary develops into one of its most prolific advocates – despite breaking up with his mission partners and boring a young man out of a third story window. Let's just say, it takes all kinds of people in the Church to build up the Kingdom of God, and that should be rather comforting to us all.

            For this week, I recommend reading just about any part of Acts – or even the whole thing if you have the time. But I would especially suggest reading either chapter 7 (Stephen's discourses and martyrdom, which gives a good summary of Old Testament essentials and salvation history) or chapter 15 (the council in Jerusalem). Whatever you read from Acts, just keep in mind that this is your story too. It's a story about us, the Church, so ask yourself how the apostles' experience of living as active, Spirit-led members of that community affects your own experience of being a member of Christ's Body. Do you see your role as a member of the Church differently? How might the Spirit be leading you now in your life?

            To close, I just want to say thank you for all your support in reading and participating with this blog! Last week I turned in my final report for this project, and, barring any unforeseen issues, I will graduate in May. My final project and M.A. degree would not have been possible without your readership. I greatly appreciate all of your help! As always, feel free to post questions or comments via e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, or the comment box below. Until next time...

Peace and all good![1]

---

[1] This post would not have been possible without

Harrington, Daniel J. The Church According to the New Testament: What the Wisdom and the Witness of Early Christianity Teach Us Today. Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2001.

            By the way, I just want to add one more thing. I kind of like to stress The Acts of the Apostles, especially chapter 15, because it helps to answer a question a family member once posed to me: How can the books of the Bible be called the "word of God" if human beings were the ones who decided which books went in? My response would be yes, human beings made those decisions, but it was as a community – as the Body of Christ – and it was through much discernment of the Holy Spirit. The early Christians recognized with earnest that through their baptism they were filled with the Holy Spirit and that the Church was led by the Spirit. The Church is still human, of course, and makes mistakes – boy, does it make mistakes – but we cannot deny the power of the Holy Spirit in any of the good that the Church does. And I would affirm that the books within the Bible were canonized through the guidance of that same Spirit.