a collection of some thoughts about the bible

some thoughts about the bible


my own personal view point
 

i'm coming at "the bible" from a new point of view for me. i've read it believed it and acted on it for years. but it's been turned upside down, put back to front. this period of my life if feel i've been experiencing things and am now finding them in "the bible".
i'm coming at "the bible" from the perspective of having spent nearly a decade 1996 to 2006, not being able to read it much. i was too poorly. but during those years someone walked very close with me and gave me an utter conviction of his presence with me. despite old fashioned loneliness amongst other things he was always there and while everything i have done and am has been called into question in one way or another he was a simple accepting reassuring strengthening presence. i was very socially isolated in practice nursing my sick kids and bipolar husband, trying to keep up work and church membership. and a lot of misunderstandings made me even more lonely. but i remember him feeling so close that i could almost touch him. i could barely formulate "prayers". in fact i felt God told me to stop trying to.
i've only been to church a few times since 2003 cos i cant get our much and i did manage to get thrown out of 2 churches and a mission agency cos of the misunderstandings. but tho i am grateful for all the years i had of fellowship and teaching i'm also enjoying the opportunity to come at things afresh. my view of God has got bigger not smaller. i'm enjoying asking questions and exploring ideas. in this context looking at the bible from new is proving a fascinating experience. i cant see it as chapter and verses any more either. for the moment i cant handle words that have had religious ideas strapped on to them either.
i've been gripped by the people in it. i've been moved by the vivid accounts of clinical depression of naomi, chronic illness of job. i've been touched by a law system that repeats so often that it is available for the foreigner, the weak, the poor, the fatherless, and woe betide those who oppress them. letter after letter that emphasise, even more than theology, the practical outworking of loving God and loving loving others. generosity. and honesty. my giddy aunt we dont know the half of it. i've been moved by my own understanding of myself as a sinner based not on doing bad things but my concept of God's holiness being ever less like a sterilised hospital and more like freshly driven snow. sparkling, light, luminous, exciting, inviting, with a hint of danger. despite me basically being a "nice" person, and liking "niceness" it seems empty compared with that dazzling life giving power. the dynamic of the holy spirit. the God who "talks". who" talks" through his writings too, and "talks" in person. it comes to me over and over as i'm reading it in hungry gulps - if ever anyone was so in earnest to try to communicate, if ever his hearers so thick ....
and through it all the person of Jesus walks through the page and i recognise that presence with me. the one who touched people and noticed them and accepted meal invitations where no "decent christian" would be at ease is the one who i have had walk by my side, whispering in my weary heart and clumsy mind - "do not fear for i am with you". that same word over and again, along with a conviction of being held like a baby bird in the palm of a large workman's hand. i've been moved by the utter dedication of Jesus to people, not in a dry "ought to" sort of way but in the way of someone who has genuine care and genuine authority. i'm not discouraged by my pathetic little efforts, everyone has to start somewhere, but inspired by the profoundness of his understanding of how we tick and what we are really.
i'm such a beginnner. i feel i've got everything to learn.
i feel i've been pretty ham fisted in learning to express myself but i hope i'm learning. i hope my clumsiness hasn't put you off. it's mainly over excitedness. i'll calm down eventually. or maybe i wont. i'm an enthusiast.

i find it very hard to think about "the bible" as just one concept these days. it isn't a book, its such a hodge podge of a collection of documents that i think each needs looking at in it's own right, or at least within it's grouping. i don't know why the letter of james wasn't included. i don't have a problem when people see Jesus from a variety of perspectives.
i think some of the critics of "the bible" have a point because we've made claims that "the bible" cant realistically live up to. i think some find that christians stick in their craw for other reasons, and knocking the bible is a good way to upset them and put them on the defensive.
i do have a big problem with the more dogmatic churches that say you have to interpret this, this way, especially those with fundamentalist tendancies. i have problems with how they speak to those who dont agree with them too. thats why the creation evolution debate sends me batty. i think the science fundamentalists are just as rude and patronising as the so called creationists. i freely admit i have personal issues with fundamentalists whose negativity and rigidity and emphasis on the trivial while missing out on the the essentials did a lot of damage in my family (tho wonderfully there is a thread of faith that continues like a river that's gone underground). i have issues with people having to be proved right and having to put others down in order to do so. i've had to back off some words that are trigger words - like "evangelical" "bible" "gospel" - not that i don't believe them but they have come to have such negative connotations.
here in france the way many people talk on the radio they really believe that if you believe any of the bible you have to be a cretin. they get really angry about creation of any sort being taught in schools in the us. the concepts of bible have got caught up with images of george w bush and his gung-ho attitude to war and god, and his resemblance to a monkey when he smiles. and with black gospel music. many catholics, even nominal ones still wouldn't touch the bible with a barge pole - they've been taught it's too dangerous and only a priest should look at it. they really believe it. people in the 21st century still believe that.
as usual i want the best of both worlds. i think the polarisation of these debates make for stupidity. i think the documents of the bible, as originally written, are probably a pretty accurate account of what they are an account of but they don't claim to be a world history and i don't think they are.

i read the daily bible notes by jeff lucas, lucas on life every day and he's said more than once that there are bits of the bible he has problems with, not cos he doesnt believe that they're true, more cos he's worried they might be. and he freely admits that there are also large bits he doesnt begin to understand. his main point is to apply what we can believe and trust which comes back to other issues like how you see God etc i think that's the nearest i can get to where i'm at. pressure to believe and act on things you're not sure about can be very damaging long term even if it ensures a bit of short term orthodoxy. believing things that are wrong can also be very damaging.

we need to be consistent and scientific about these things - what sort of source documents etc are we willing to accept to make them "authentic" history ? which news paper account would we accept as valid of current news ? if we're going to accept for example that homer's accounts of the trojan wars are accurate with no other corroboration, or the earliest reports on the sayings of confuscious which date a good 500 years after he died, or the accounts of the life and battles of julius ceasar written by julius ceasar starring julius ceasar ... ? in comparison the sayings of socrates written down by plato who modified them to fit with his own teachings is pretty good evidence cos at least we know the author's motives and we know there was a direct link with the original person.

 

 why i accept the bible as evidence about itself.

 

* as far as i can tell even opponents will now admit that they are def the best historical records around as historical records go, by historians standards, according to my sister who worked in an archeology  lab for a while. even if you don't want to live your life by what's in them it seems likely that they do say what they say and a lot of what they say may well have happened, or the way the story is told is an accurate representation of the point of view of the particular people group who is telling the story.

* 4 accounts, written within the life time of many of the first hand witnesses is a pretty strong hand. one of those accounts seems to be written by an independent researcher, sponsored by a non-jew, who interviewed eyewitnesses himself, even the socially outcast, even women, beggars, prostitutes, collaborators with enemy powers, is really quite a coup. the descriptions of the romans for example are consistent with all the other things we know about the romans. all the other writers knew each other. they were related or had been disciples together. as far as i know only luke set out to write the complete biography or Jesus and the early "church". all the other documents and letters fill in each other, fill in for where there are gaps in teaching. james is not going to double up the teachings of paul or peter. they worked together, stayed accountable to each other.

 
* the alternative is believing popes ect i'm sorry i don't trust a pope as far as i could throw one, however much i might admire individual ones.
* i think the archeology backs up a lot of the bible not the popes. where there is no archelology - (and that is a good bit of the early part of the bible), this is typical of many nomadic, low ecological foot print people groups. much of what we know about groups like tuaregs and bushmen etc is based on their own memories and that is not called into question. in order to make a lasting impact on the land scape you either have to do the same thing in the same place for a very long time leaving field, road, dwelling, cultural patterns etc that we can guess from OR you have to have a lot of power and money to be able to build a monument. stonehenge couldn't have been built by a nice little village community sharing and being kind to each other any more than the pyramids were.
* i think if a theology still has to be expressed in latin it's probably dodgy.
* i think some "fundamentalist" teachings are as arrogant and pompous and erroneous as the popes. based on out of date translations of the bible and applied with ignorant and bigoted blinkered rigidity. so called "literal" application appalls me cos it's not what it claims to be. they apply one interpretation of one "verse" as it suits them without even looking at it's own context let alone its historical context. how could the teachings about race have become so prevalent amongst those groups based on a very vague misinterpretation of one verse in genesis when the whole law reiterates over and again that foreigners are to have more or less the same legal rights and obligations as natives, let alone all the teaching about equality in the NT.
* the evangelicals didn't actually break away from this rot till in the 40s and it took much longer to root it out of groups that call themselves evangelical or pentecostal. i'm an evangelical in the sense that luther invented the word - someone who has responded to the good news off my own bat not cos a church has told me i've got to go via it as an intermediary.
* what does the bible actually claim about itself ? - nothing like what the people who try to use it as incantations and spells claim. nor what some groups who use bits of it to justify their own politics. as far as i can see "word of God" is an expression that means several things not just the written collection of documents. for goodness sake why do have to use the words in latin. scripture just means written down. ok, lets say writings so it doesn't have religious overtones. bible - greek for collection or library. why are we so superstitious about it ?
* it claims to be a true account of what happened. as it was originally written that seems quite likely. where there's a difference there's often the alternative present too - eg the "chronicles" are the account of national events kept by the priests, an expurgated version of history. but the two volumes referred to as "kings" are a much fuller version, no holds barred, no taboos account of all the kings' faults as well as their strengths. as it is, it's all a much more coherent account of a nation's history than anything we have in britain so far back, so who do we think we are to pull it to pieces ? some of it is written down from an older oral record , that's no guess work, it actually says when things start to be from a written record in genesis . (it also mentions when the bronze age arrived to their peoples.)
words used in the bible to describe itself : 



1)  "the scriptures" - always referring to the old testament. they didn't even necessarily see the OT as a whole - sometimes the prophetic books are referred to separately from the historical and devotional documents : the law, and the prophets.
2) "the good news of Jesus" . gospel, ev-angel - latin and greek for good news - a common expression at the time - lots of wars - people would wait for an angel - messenger , to announce the progress in the latest international conflict. if the news was good he was called a herald of good news : angel + ev . which would be announced or proclaimed - the word we translate by preach, in a public place. this tradition was carried on in britain with the town cryer and we now call it a news bulletin, still communicated by an announcer (who wasn't present) or a reporter (who was).
3) "the teaching of the apostles". which is what it says.

how we use the bible, and what it is not.

* it's not a book of sayings. There's only 2 documents in the whole  bible collection that are - proverbs and ecclesiastes. anywhere else we can't expect to just dip in and make full sense of any extract without bothering to read the rest. things are written in the context of a family saga, or a biography, a royal dynasty, a national crisis, a personal letter, a systematic explanation, a letter resolving a dispute or correcting error. so we can't use quoting a bible verse like a magic spell in a situation. we have to quote it intelligently

* not expecting everything in our current translation to make complete sense. The bible should, in my opinion be treated with the same circumspect respect as any historical documents.  I would not like to lay odds as to whether the word translated "day" in my Bible means 24 hours, or general time period in the original ? it changes nothing about the fact that comes up all through the Bible - that God created the heavens and the earth, so why get our knickers in a twist about it ? did they thread camel thread (like threading the silk, or cotton into your needle) with difficulty or was it an actual camel through a small gate ?. these are things that are not central to salvation and i can hold on an open hand.

* People talk about details in the bible being inconsistent, but they're not being consistent themselves. the same ppl might accept hieroglyphics, or julius ceasar's writings to be a reliable account even though they're open to a huge amount of interpretation, and may have had elements of political propaganda too in their own day.

Study : Who or what is a Pastor ?

Who or what is a Pastor ?
NT church leadership : Dictionary study 


I got some Bible dictionaries out, mainly Vines and looked up a few New Testament leadership words. I think some of them are so loaded with political and religious overtones these days that it could be safer just to use the word leader ! I think that if you keep a funny looking foreign word that's become a posh or jargon word then you can give it any meaning you like cos you've avoided using plain English.

* Pastor : latin of course, I forgot that. The greek is poimen - I'd never heared of that before and the New Testament is riddled with it. Not a religious word in greek or latin, but a concept used for leaders in the OT. Everywhere the translators go all the way to translating it into shepherd  EXCEPT in eph 4 where they keep the latin word pastor. Hmmm, is there a whiff of politics in the air here ?

* Bishop :  An englishified pronunciation of episcopos - epi - greek for over, scopeo - to look at or watch. Overseer, foreman, supervisor. Not a religious word.

* Elder : prebuteros : greek for old, and may well refer to maturity and experience not just age given that life expectancy wasn't so brilliant. Not a religious word. We still talk greek - presbyters - i've never known what they do though although I was christened in my grandad Jones' Presbyterian church and he was an elder. I've just answered my own question. He sang in the Liverpool welsh male voice choir too and he died playing tennis - his friends thought he as larking around as usual when he keeled over. That's not in Vines.

* Deacon or Minister was well worth a look. : - greek verb diaco - to hasten after. Used to mean servant or serving. It indicates that you're not the boss - you're running round for a master. You're not doing things because you fancy it or for your fulfillment (though that could be a result). It gets used all over the place. Very very rarely is it a job title. The ones who are picked in acts 6 are never actually called deacons, the word is the one used for waiting at tables (pretty impressive church policy  to pay for that many high quality men to care for the elderly - we do pick and choose what doctrines and practices we choose to follow or ignore). 

Diakonos are household servants amongst other things, but can be doing anything from scrubbing floors to accountancy. It comes in "serving one another" 1pet4v10, "works of service" eph4. In 1timv10,13 "Let them serve as deacons" seems to be more encouraging a particular attitude than a job title, Mr. Vines says. It seems to be that we all should serve. Some are appointed serve as overseers but they should do that and everything else they do with an attitude of service.

Diaconos describes a)  how we work for God, b) preaching and teaching and c) working for the church. Paul calls himself one twice, in  acts 26v16 and along with Apollos and Cephas in 1cor4v1.

Vines says the technical difference between diaconos - hired servant, and dulos - bond slave is  the type of contract with the master - ie the second is permanent.They probably do much the same work just on a different contract.

[Dulos - bond slave ie Old Testament slavery which is forced service too but the person is not bought or kidnapped. It's imposed by a court (the elders at the gate) to pay off debt or fines. Slaves should still be given civic rights. It can't last more than 7 years. If at the end of the time the slave decides steady work with food and lodging thrown in is less hazardous than hanging about in the market place being used as temporary labour its him who says to the master I like you and want to stay on. I dont know how much say the master gets in it! A scarification on the ear lobe is the visual sign of the permanent contract between the two according to Leviticus. What if these days, instead of prison, offenders had to work as free household employees for the people they have stolen from, or creditors etc... until they've worked enough hours to pay it off, or 7 years which ever is the least and then have the option of permanent work and lodgings at the end of it?]

1pet 5v2 refers to people as overseers and shepherds, 
and in hebrews Jesus is the overseer and shepherd. 

1tim5v17 those that look after the affairs of the church well are worth paying properly.

Leadership is always plural when it comes to elders or shepherds 
and they 1)feed 2)lead 3)protect : Acts - Paul's farewell to the Ephesian elders.


I think that, (following the logic of vines' suggestions):-

° Overseer/Bishop (episcopos) is a job title, 
° Elder (prebuteros)- is the qualities/qualifications required
° Deacon/Minister/Presbyter (diaconos) is job role and attitude ie obedience to the boss, working, meeting needs
° Shepherd/Pastor (poimen) is a job/task description, along with Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Teacher, (see below) 


So -lizzy f's conclusion  :

Using the words as they were originally used outside a church context 
- your average slave
could spend his/her day serving
he becomes elderly/experienced, 
so he/she could be promoted to work as theforeman/supervisor. 
Senior tasks can include being looking after and teaching other workers, and acting on behalf of the boss - giving messages, being sent out to sort out things, and making public announcements about his good news.

AND inside church the same person could also 
- be in a dulos/slave relationship with God, 

and so could Deacon/Minister serve in the church 
he's mature Elder/Presbyter
and so could be an Overseer/Bishop, which according to Ephesians 4  could then be

Pastor  ( poimen :greek -shepherd), one who feeds, leads, protects the flock

Evangelist (euangelion -  town crier, from : eu - well/good,- angellein- to bring news ) person who proclaims some good news

Apostle (greek apo - away, stellein - to send) someone sent out to help or advise

Prophet (greek - prophetes, pro - for(another)- phanai - to speak) to speak on behalf of someone, in this case God, spokesman, representative.

Teacher (didaskalos - to show, teach, impart) to pass on skills and knowledge

and by doing it he will be helping the people to serve too and so build up the Body of Christ

A Rant : Legitimate needs, Non-legitimate grumbling.

A Rant : Legitimate needs, Non-legitimate grumbling

Who can sit in judgement on his brother ? - no one. Who ought to exercise right judgement ? - every one.

I've been meditating lately in Exodus. They got out of Egypt. They got across the Red Sea. They had a huge party. Everything was going swimmingly. Moses had obeyed God, conquered his fear of talking and faced up to Pharaoh. He'd done it. Now he was tired but he was out in a familiar and comforting environment for him, he'd lived in the desert. But he'd taken on these people. He didn't remember that they were in what was totally new to them, and he was still in charge. He'd led them out. That was only the end of the beginning. He forgot they needed water. 3 days in and it's desperate. It's an oversight. He should have thought of it. 

 But instead of asking politely "what should we do about this, Moses ?" it was a perfectly legitimate need after all, instead they lurched straight into grumbling and destructive negativity. In the end it's the sin of grumbling that is remembered rather than Moses' mistake.

 I love the new church movement. From my first experiences in Lincoln in the mid 70s onwards. But there have maybe been oversights along the way. How do we do mid course flight correction, but without condoning the grumbling that is asking for it? The needs are legit. The grumbling isn't. Moses gave them the water, it would have been pretty churlish not to. But the deeper need of learning how to communicate need in appropriate ways, providing channels for it to be able to be dealt with took much longer to set up. It's not just getting folks out of slavery, it's getting the slavery out of them.

I can't pretend that there hasn't been some pretty dreadful things happen in "churches" and done by some of their leaders. There are some pretty stupid and pointless or petty things too. Maybe there are inherent weaknesses, even sin, built into how we structure "church". The needs/demands are on the whole legitimate. But how can we deal with that in healthy ways? Ways that will build up, not break down ? How can we say that there is hurt and abuse and manipulation and ask for it to be dealt with, but in a way that is not grumbling and focussed on negativity?

I've read a few blogs lately on the subject of "church" and the fact that some people are finding a place that suits them better in what they are calling the wilderness. Some are loving and thoughtful expressions of wanting to walk with God despite not being able to walk with "institutionalised" expressions of "church". But some of them have some pretty negative, judgemental attitudes running along within them too. The need is legit. But the grumbling isn't. How do we honestly face up to the failings and fragility of "church" but without throwing the baby out with the bathwater ? Like, you really think you'd be better off back in Egypt ? Like we founded new churches specially to leave you to die of thirst in a wilderness ? Like we really need to smash each other's efforts with friendly fire - haven't we got enough to deal with with the enemy?

This isn't anything new. But are we capable of finding new ways of dealing with it ?

Moses needed to face his responsibilities.

The People needed to learn how to express their needs in appropriate ways. 

40 years earlier Moses had had to learn that you can't just deal with things by lashing out, however legitimate the argument.

The People needed to learn the same lessons. Yes they were damaged goods, they'd been bullied and oppressed. But they too needed to learn how to act like free people. They'd got to grow up too.

Lord help us. Lord help us.