[Dialogue] Fundementalism Part 2 Bishop Spong

[KroegerD at aol.com]

April 4, 2007 
A Second Look at the First of  the Five Fundamentals: The Inerrant Bible  

I return this week for a second look at the first of the "Five Fundamentals," 
 that series of principles which in the early 1900's gave birth to the rise 
of  fundamentalism in America. In this second column I want to examine the 
claim  that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God" from a different angle. I do 
this  not only because that idea in and of itself is irrational, but because 
biblical  literalism has been the source of so much overt evil in human history. 
 Anti-Semitism, the conflict between science and religion, the debilitating  
prejudices of racism, sexism and homophobia are all rooted in the literal 
Bible.  Biblical inerrancy is not a benign pious claim of "conservative 
Christians," it  is an expression of ignorance, the evil of which should not be 
underestimated.  The stakes of this debate are, thus, very high.  
An inerrant Bible attributes to God behavior that by any contemporary  
standard is nothing other than immoral. It feeds the kind of religious bigotry  that 
lies behind religious wars, religious persecutions and even the  Inquisition. 
It encourages people in their tribal needs to rejoice in the  suffering of 
their enemies. It reveals a deep and radical inconsistency in the  way the Bible 
is understood. It is surprising, even discouraging, that  inconsistency never 
seems to be a problem for fundamentalists who employ the  most convoluted 
thinking imaginable to keep their minds from seeing what is  obvious to everyone 
else.  
This week I want to press biblical literalism to its strangest and most  
destructive boundaries. My purpose is not to ridicule the convictions of sincere  
but uninformed Christians. I do it because I can no longer stand by in silence 
 while watching this ancient book be misquoted, misapplied and misused in the 
 service of human prejudice. The current conflict in my own church in which  
homophobic bishops from the Third World quote the Bible to condemn  
homosexuality, about which they know less than nothing, is illustrative of the  problem. 
To this expression of ignorance weak-kneed prelates like the Archbishop  of 
Canterbury, wring their hands and accept this bigotry as a legitimate  
expression of Christianity, seeking to keep the Church unified in ignorance and  
prejudice. I presume that in another era this Archbishop of Canterbury would  have 
tried to build Church unity by coddling slave holders rather than forcing  
them to deal with their killing racism. The Bible cannot be used with  
credibility to support a life-destroying homophobia and I do not care how upset  that 
makes anyone. That attitude is completely at odds with the Jesus of John's  
gospel whose stated purpose was to bring abundant life to all, yes to "all," not  
to "some."  
The late Senator Daniel Moynihan of New York once said, "Everyone is entitled 
 to his or her own opinions. No one, however, is entitled to his or her own  
facts!" Here are some biblical facts that are rather inconvenient to those who 
 try to turn the Bible into being the literal and inerrant word of God.  
Fact number one: If Abraham lived at all, it was around the year 1850 BCE,  
while Moses lived around 1250 BCE. Yet the earliest part of the Old Testament  
was written in the middle of the 10th century BCE. This means that everything 
we  know about Abraham has come to us by way of 900 years of oral retelling 
and  everything we know about Moses passed through some 300 years of oral  
transmission before either of their stories was written down. The literalists  are 
thus forced to assume that, in those 900 years in Abraham's case or 300  years 
in the case of Moses, every detail was passed on accurately with no  
additions, deletions or exaggerations. Such an assumption is patently  ridiculous.  
Fact number two: The life of the Jesus of history was lived, according to our 
 best efforts at reconstruction, between 4 BCE and 30 CE. However, no gospel 
was  written earlier than 70 CE or later than 100 CE. So no gospel is an eye 
witness  account. Everything we know about Jesus was passed on orally for 40 to 
70 years  or through two to four generations before the gospels were written. 
When that  story did get written it was cast as an interpretation of Jesus, 
based on Jewish  messianic expectations. Narrative details were obviously 
lifted out of the  Jewish sacred story about such heroes as Moses and Elijah and 
then retold as if  they were events in Jesus' life. When we examine the most 
memorable parts of the  gospel tradition, such as the accounts of Jesus' birth 
and death, we discover  that both were crafted not from eyewitness memory but 
from older Hebrew  narratives. Matthew's story of the star in the east, and the 
wise men who  followed it, was built on Isaiah 60. The story of the 
crucifixion was organized  around Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Neither account makes any 
pretext of being  recorded history, but that is the way in which generations of 
biblically  illiterate people were destined to read them. Literalists are never 
quite able  to explain how the traumatic words from the cross: "My God, my 
God, why have you  forsaken me?" recorded in the first two gospels to be written, 
evolved over the  years into the peaceful: "Father into thy hands I commend 
my spirit" in Luke or  into the triumphal acclaim: "It is finished" in John. 
The secret is that none of  the words from the cross are literal. All are 
interpretive creations.  
Fact number three: The gospels were originally written in Greek, not Aramaic  
the language, which Jesus spoke. So before the literalist reads the first 
word  attributed to Jesus in the first gospel to be written, it has already gone  
through a translation. Has there ever been a perfect translation? Of course 
not!  Linguistics is an inexact science. Two expert translators will never 
agree on  the exact meaning of even a single spoken or written line. When 
lecturing  through a translator in Finland I once referred to those who are "gay and  
straight." My translator rendered those two words "happy" and "a ruler."  
Translations are a risky business! Therefore, literalists must believe the  
unbelievable of a perfect translation to sustain their convictions. That is  simply 
not a possibility for those who understand the vagaries of human life.  
Fact number four: In the original texts of the gospels, there were no capital 
 letters, no paragraphs, no punctuation and no space between words. The 
gospels  were originally written in line after line of letters. The separations 
between  words, the forming of paragraphs and the application of punctuation in 
our  Bibles today were all imposed on the texts by later interpreters using 
their  tools of grammar. If the Bible is the inerrant "Word of God," all the  
interpreting grammarians had to be inerrant also. The credibility of literalism  
collapses at this realization.  
Fact number five: The gospels were hand-copied until the time of the  
development of the printing press in the 15th century. Thus inerrancy requires  the 
belief that no copier ever made a mistake in copying the text, ever inserted  a 
clarifying phrase or deleted something that cast doubt on another part of the 
 story. Today New Testament scholars debate the origins of some obvious later 
 additions to the gospels. For example, there are three different endings to  
Mark's gospel, two of which appear to be later additions. No one quite knows  
where the story of the woman taken in the act of adultery really belongs. 
John's  gospel seems to have an appendix that was added later. There is no way to 
check  these realities since the oldest copy of a complete gospel that we 
have dates  only from the 6th century. A scroll or codex of one of the gospels 
might last  10-15 years before a new hand written copy had to be made. A sixth 
century  manuscript would be something like the fortieth copy of the original 
texts. That  is as close as we can get to the originals. Those who believe the 
Bible to be  the inerrant word of God have also got to believe in the 
inerrancy of all the  scribes who copied each book by hand through at least forty 
versions.  
Add these facts up and the claims of biblical inerrancy become little more  
than claims for religious magic that somehow preserved inerrant oral  
transmissions, inerrant gospel writers, inerrant translators, inerrant  grammarians and 
inerrant copyists. Yet on these claims, which are nothing short  of absurd, 
the literal "Word of God" has been used to justify an anti-Semitism  that led 
to the Holocaust; the excommunication of some heretics and the burning  of 
others at the stake, religious torture and the Inquisition; the cruelty of  
slavery and segregation, the violation of the scientific enterprise whether it  was 
by condemning Galileo or compromising Darwin; and the diminishing of women  as 
less than human, which today leads to displays of rude behavior on the part  
of some bishops and archbishops who refuse to receive communion with another  
bishop, even a presiding bishop, who is a woman. Finally, there the continuing 
 virulent homophobia in our time that threatens to tear apart any church that 
 finally moves beyond this killing prejudice.  
If the claim of the inerrancy of scripture is the mark of those who call  
themselves fundamentalists, we should firmly say to these fearful, to the point  
of being pathetic, believers: "That attitude toward the Bible is not a viable  
possibility for the Christian Church in the 21st century and we will no 
longer  respect that claim as containing any truth." Fundamentalism has turned the 
Bible  into a "golden calf" and that idol has no more life in it than any 
other humanly  constructed idol, and like all idols is the source of great 
violence.  
The time has come to say, "Enough! In God's name, enough!" We will no longer  
be intimidated by pious but uninformed biblical claims. Fundamentalists, in 
both  their Catholic and Protestant forms, are not entitled to their own facts! 
Their  view of the Bible is not only dead, but it should be dead. It cannot 
ever be  revived. The future of Christianity does not lie in that direction. 
The  Christian Church must move out of bibliolatry and into a living faith. The 
first  of the five fundamentals is unworthy of the Christ we serve. I will in 
the  coming weeks continue this analysis until we have looked at all five of 
the  "classic fundamentals" upon which Christian fundamentalism rests today, so 
stay  tuned.  
John Shelby Spong  
_Note  from the Editor: Bishop Spong's new book is available now at 
bookstores  everywhere and by clicking here!_ 
(http://astore.amazon.com/bishopspong-20/detail/0060762071/104-6221748-5882304)   
Dear Friends,  
In place of the Question & Answer feature in my column this week, I want  to 
run comments made by an Episcopal priest named the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton. It  
is an insightful analysis of the current conflict in the Anglican Communion. 
If  you would like to react to this piece, I will consider running a sample of 
your  letters in a future column. Needless to say, I have great admiration for 
this  priest.  
– John Shelby Spong  
Primates who met at Windsor, Dromantine and Dar es Salaam continue to uphold  
the Lambeth resolution on human sexuality to be the "standard" of the church, 
 which conservatives want "enforced" so that all are in "compliance."  
They have apparently forgotten, these princes of the church and teachers and  
guardians of the faith, that words like "enforce" and "compliance" are  
absolutely antithetical to the long tradition of the gracious Anglican Spirit of  
Accommodation.  
In her conversation with the staff at the National Church Center, our new  
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schiori points out the incremental progress  
of some Global South primates who can no longer claim not to have met 
lesbian,  gay, bi-sexual and transgender people (LGBT).. She muses that it's simply a 
 "matter of time" before the rest of the communion allows "reason" to take 
its  place along side classical Anglicanism of scripture and tradition.  
So here are my questions. There are three:  
1. How long, exactly, does it take, for the church to correct its "standard"  
when the church's standard is at least significantly different from the  
experience of others in other parts of the world, not to mention that the  
scientific evidence in the West is significantly different from that of the  church?  
Stop me if you've heard this one before:  
For centuries, the church's teaching about the shape of the world was that it 
 was flat, in accordance with what was written in scripture, despite 
scientific  evidence that it was not. People were excommunicated - not to mention 
tortured  and tried and sent to jail and murdered for disagreeing with the 
official church  "standard" of teaching.  
For centuries, the church's teaching about seizure disorder was that it was  
demon possession, in accordance with what was written in scripture, despite  
scientific evidence that it was not. People were excommunicated – not to 
mention  tortured and locked in asylums because the outward manifestation of their 
lives  were contrary to the official church "standard" of teaching.  
For centuries, the church's teaching about left handedness was that it was a  
sign of evil, in accordance with what was written in scripture, despite  
scientific evidence that it was not. People were excommunicated – not to mention  
tortured and shunned and exiled because the outward manifestation of their 
lives  were contrary to the official church "standard" of teaching. (My beloved 
can  tell you stories that will raise the hair on the back of your necks about 
the  abuse she and others suffered in Roman Catholic elementary schools 
because of  their left handedness).  
2. If we agree that the colonialism and cultural imperialism perpetrated by  
the North and West on the global South were evils of which we repent, why are 
we  now allowing the attempted ecclesiastical colonialism and imperialism of 
the  Global South primates to be visited upon the churches of the North and the 
West?  I never remember Jesus teaching that "two wrongs make a right." Then 
again, I  don't have a King James Version of the Bible so I may be missing 
something.  
3. Who will take responsibility for the emotional, psychological and  
spiritual damage done to the church and her people for perpetuating the evils of  
this deficient standard of teaching? And, let's be clear: it's not simply LGBT  
people who will suffer. As we have learned from the evils of slavery, racism,  
sexism and the ignorance which once taught that the world is flat, people who  
have seizure disorders are possessed of demons and left handed people are the 
 scribes of Satan: when the dignity of any human being is compromised or  
insulted, a mortal wound is created in the Body of Christ.  
I think our Baptismal Covenant has something to say about "the dignity of  
every human being," as does the Outline of Faith (commonly called the  
Catechism).  
Who will take responsibility for the damage that is done while a deficient  
standard is upheld and promulgated in the church? Knowing what we know about 
the  irrationality of prejudice, who could claim innocence? Knowing what we know 
 about LGBT people and social sciences and lived experience, why isn't the  
church's "standard of teaching" being challenged – if not absolutely rejected?  
And, what price are we willing to pay for the damage done to the Sacred Body 
of  Christ while we wait?  
If nothing else, these questions underscore what I see as the need for a  
Season of Discernment, Study and Prayer so that we are very, very clear what it  
is we are being asked to do.  
(The Rev'd) Elizabeth Kaeton
The Episcopal Church of St. Paul's
200  Main Street
Chatham, NJ 07928



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070404/e401de76/attachment-0001.html