The Bible and Episcopalians

Have you ever noticed that Episcopalians often speak differently about Scripture? (There. I've already done it. I said, "Scripture" and not "Bible." Why is it we say "Scripture" as often as we say "Bible"?) In chance encounters in coffee shops or on the street, I've encountered people who are confused at the ways Episcopalians use the Bible.

How come we don't memorize more of the Bible?
                        Why don't we have more expository preaching?
                                       How can you believe such&such when it clearly says this&that right here!

Sometimes the confusion leads to good, open conversation. Sometimes I've been verbally slapped around and condemned because I'm not in agreement. So let's take a look at ways in which Episcopalians might be just a bit different from some others.

Holy Scripture vs. Holy Bible - One reason we use the term "Scripture" so often (we say "Bible" also) is because the Bible itself never refers to itself as "Bible". The term Bible came from the Greek ta biblia, meaning "the books". And Scripture means "writings". Today, many Christians perceive the Bible as one book with one single author, namely God. However, the sense in both terms, Bible and Scripture, is plural. That is to say, early Christians recognized that the Holy Scriptures were not a single work, but a collection, a literary body with many parts and voices written during differing time periods in different cultural contexts with varying values and priories.    

A Choir vs. A Single Author - The diversity contained in the Books of the Bible doesn't typically trouble Episcopalians. Why? For one it reflects our experience of reality. The world is diverse and God made it that way. Second, we don't believe God authored Scripture. No. Seriously. God didn't sit down and pick up a pen and write this stuff down for us. Instead we believe that God inspired human authors to write it. Now, whatever "inspired" means, it's not the same as "dictated to". The Scriptures tell us that God seems to desire human partnership, not automatons. God + Adam = Eve. God + Moses = Ten Commandments. God + Mary = the Messiah is born. Take a look. God isn't afraid to partner with us. 

As a result, we don't expect the Bible to read as though it had only one author. It's not a solo performance; it's more like a choir. And if you have ever listened to jazz or modern classical you know that unison, harmony, and dissonance all have there proper place. And that in their proper place, they make for a wonderful, very expressive whole. The Bible is enriched as much by it's apparent dissonances as by it's moments of harmony and unison.  

St. Paul says... vs. First Corinthians says... - Episcopalians will often say St. Paul says this or St. John says that instead of quoting the book, chapter and verse. Why? First because the authors of Scripture were real people and because those people aren't strangers to us. We remember them in the Tradition of the Church and we know them by their presence within the Body of Christ.

Second, its because we often group the books of the Bible by their authors, recognizing common themes within those bodies and contrasts between works of different authors. This helps us understand some of the unity of Scripture in the midst of its diversity.   

Stories vs. Conclusions -  Finally, Episcopalians are more likely to talk about one of the stories from Acts or the Gospels, or speak of a metaphor like Paul's "Armor of God" or the "Body of Christ", or refer to visual images like those contained in Revelation. This we tend to do more often than referring to verses of exhortation like, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" (Rom. 2:23) and "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). Instead, we tend to use Scripture to open us up to what God has to say to us rather than to arrive at a formulaic conclusions and pat answers. We like to open doors and search for Holy Spirit's leading and are dubious about short quotations that don't convey the full context. And besides... stories are easier to memorize!    

A Conclusion

St. John depicted writing on the Isle of Patmos

All this isn't to say that other ways of quoting or reading or using the Holy Scriptures are bad or wrong. It isn't to say every Episcopalian does any or all of these things. It's just to say we frequently have a distinct way of encountering God in the Holy Bible. Sometimes that makes us seem different.  Sometimes that difference feels threatening to others. Hold your ground. Know your stuff. Seek to learn and create openness. Don't attempt to win a debate. Most of all, engage the Holy Scriptures. They are a "sure and certain means" of encountering God and uncovering "all things necessary for salvation."

Why is there evil in the World? The Parable of "The Wheat and the Weeds"

When looking at the Parable of The Wheat and the Weeds (or traditionally "Tares") we could address many different topics, but lets talk about what this parable teaches about why evil, corruption, and sin are in the world.

First, notice that the owner of the field did not create the problem. Interestingly, neither is the problem attributed to angels or to the wheat. An "enemy" purposefully placed the seed. Thus, from the perspective of this parable, the existence of evil in our lives was originally intended, but intended by the "enemy", not by God.

Second, there is an option to remove evil from the world, but the result is catastrophic, though not complete, destruction of the world. Take a look at the story of Noah, his family, and the Flood, if you want to see what this might look like. Do notice in the story of the Flood that Noah's family returns to the old status-quo (imperfection) almost immediately after disembarking from the ark.

Getting back to the parable, removing the weeds from the wheat would require identifying them early before their roots are entangled, so as not to uproot both, but the challenge here is that early sprouts may look much the same. Errors in judgement would presumable be frequent.

Alternatively, reapers could wait for the plants to bear fruit, and identify each by its fruit. This would be best done at the harvest when all is ripe, because now the roots are entwined and pulling up one would mean pulling up the other. Problem is, the wheat and the weeds exist in conflict and competition.

The parable says that God has chosen to allow the weeds for now to preserve the wheat. In a sense, God allows for evil and for pain, so as not to destroy what good there is. Difficult to accept? Yes. But then faith is trusting that God, who is omniscient (all-knowing), has a better perspective of this problem than we do. And this makes sense. After all, our perspective comes from maybe 80 years of personal experience and the perspective on one individual, namely "me". God's perspective, even if God weren't omniscient, comes with a great deal more knowledge and experience. So, personally, I think God might be the expert here.

That doesn't make evil any more tolerable. Nor does that make God's decision any easier to bear. Thus Christ says, "Take up your cross and follow me." Life is a mixed bag. And perhaps some fields will have more weeds that wheat or vice versa.

What does give us hope is the end of the parable. God collects all of the field, weeds and wheat, and separates the two. For those who are worried about that separation and its implications, keep in mind that the weeds want to dominate (choke out the wheat) and the wheat wants to grow in peace. No one, however, wishes to be thrown in the fire, but burning was a common method for containing that which is contagious or spreads unchecked.

The point here is that there is consequence and justice. Both what we do and who we are have meaning and purpose. And that is the Christian Hope, the aspiration of the Church - to be what God has intended and do what good and right and pure, as God intended. We want to see God's creation, including ourselves, made whole. We want to be wheat in God's fields, citizens of Heaven even while on earth.
 

Who wrote the Gospels?

A friend on facebook wrote, "James, ...I recently  learned that the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, respectively. Who did write them? And, also, if no one was actually at the Garden of Gesemity, then how do we really know what happened there? This is of high interest for me and your expertise would be invaluable.  -C."

Great question, C. 

Like so many important questions about the Bible and the Christian Faith, not everyone agrees. I'll try to break it down into three camps, conservative, moderate, and liberal views. Keep in mind that those distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, that there is a great diversity of opinion out there, and I'm using "broad brush strokes" to paint a big picture.

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: Scripture is written by those bearing the titles of the books. So, for instance, The Gospel of Matthew was written by St. Matthew, The Gospel of John was written by St. John, etc. This is especially true of books that say they are written by someone. The Gospel of Luke/The Acts of the Apostles, a 2 volume set, explicitley say that they are written by Luke.

THE LIBERAL VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: Scripture has been written by many authors, edited, amended, redacted, and changed over time by scribes, scholars, and the communities the read them. This view tends to challenge authorship the most. Ironically, this doesn't bothers liberal thinkers in the least. Rather, it points to how the Holy Spirit has been and continues to be active in the inspiration and formation of the Church.

A MODERATE or "VIA MEDIA" VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: This view holds that some of the books are written by their namesakes and some are not. Scholarship helps us figure it out. While authorship is important, Scripture is Scripture because God has made it so and the community has recognized God's continued action in and through it. This view tries to balance rigourous scrutiny and criticism (Liberal ideals) with the ultimate understanding that Scripture holds authority over our faith (Conservative ideals).

C., I hold the moderate view, myself. And so here are my opinions based on the scholarship I am aware of:

MARK: The first Gospel written was Mark. It is unlikely, yet still very possible, that it was written by John Mark who accompanied the apostle St. Peter on his missionary journeys and perhaps recorded Peter's thoughts. It was written around the time of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), while many of the Apostles (Peter, James, John, etc.) and their disciples (Mark, Luke, Timothy, etc.) were living and so has the greatest chance of being the work of one of 12 Apostles or their disciples. It is doubtful that it would have survived without having accurately exemplified the teachings of the 12 Disciples.

MATTHEW/LUKE: Matthew and Luke were probably written a little later by the disciples of the 12 Disciples (Barnabas, Clement, Mark, Luke, etc). They could very well be the collected teachings of their namesakes put into Gospel story form. It is also possible, though less likely, that they are the works or their namesakes. It is clear that both used Mark as a base and then made changes and additions as needed. The Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. The Gospel of Luke (with it's second volume, The Acts of the Apostles) was written for a Gentile audience. Luke purposefully speaks of researching and collecting data, and thus probably represents the teachings of many apostles and leaders. This fits with what we know of St. Luke's experience of traveling to the various Gentile churches with St. Paul.

JOHN: The Gospel of John was written very late, perhaps A.D. 90 - 120, when Christians were being alienated from mainstream Judaism and persecuted for their faith. Thus is takes a pretty harsh tone towards "The Jews". To modern understanding, it is probably more accurate to read "the Jews" as "the Judeans". Anyway, it was probably written by the disciples of John or the disciples of the disciples of John, and not John himself. St. John was the last of the 12 Disciples to die and the only one to die of old age. Thus the late date of the Gospel makes sense. At best it was dictated by St. John. Otherwise, it is St. John's teachings remembered and collected by his students and written down by one author.

One last thing to keep in mind: Our understanding of authorship is not the same as the ancient understanding. Many people did not write, some could read, but most were illiterate. When writing a letter or a book, a person hired a scribe who would take down what one dictated. Part of the job description of the scribe was to make the work clear to the reader and thus a scribe might put in phrases or words to further clarify what the speaker was trying to communicate. The final work was still considered authentically the work of the speaker so long as the ideas contained therein were preserved acurately. By those standards, any Gospel that preserves the acurate thoughts and message of its namesake can be considered to be authored by that person. 

I hope that helps!

Fr. James+ 

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people