Words of Life

The scriptures referred to is Hebrews 4:12-16.

A man decided that he wanted to know the will of God for his life but he didn't pray for it. He figured since the Bible is the Word of God, God would speak to him through it. He picked up his Bible, opened it at random, jabbed his finger onto the page without looking and then read the verse. It said, “Judas went out and hanged himself.”

Ok, it wasn't what he was expecting, but he felt God would make it all clear to him. He closed the Bible, riffled the pages, inserted his finger, and read the verse he was touching. “Go thou and do likewise.”

All right, now this was getting puzzling. But God moves in mysterious ways so the guy decided to give the Almighty one last chance. He shut the Bible, held it upside down, flipped it rightside up and holding the other hand over it, gently let it light on the page. He peeked at the verse. It said, “And there will be much rejoicing in heaven.”

I have no doubt that there are people who play Bible roulette that way. There are people who treat the Bible as if it were a talisman, a magical item. There are even people who worship the Bible, making it the subject of a kind of idolatry. All of those reactions are distortions of how we should relate to the scriptures. But what should our response be? How should we look at the Bible?

When I was ordained, I solemnly declared that I believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God. In what used to be called “the Catechism,” is now called “the Outline of the Faith,” and in the next edition will probably be called “the Christian F.A.Q.”, the Book of Common Prayer asks, “Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?” The answer goes, “We call them the Word of God because God inspired the human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.” What it doesn't ask is why do we believe them to be the Word of God? And how do we believe them to be the Word of God? The answers to these 2 questions are at the root of much of the church's turmoil today.

It used to be that many people thought that God dictated the very words of the Bible, that the authors were not much more than stenographers. But if you read the 66 books of the Bible you will notice that we do not get just one voice or one point of view. You get many. The writers of parts of the books of Kings and of certain psalms see the world as fundamentally just. Good things happen to good people; bad things happen to those who are bad. But the author of Job knows that sometimes bad things happen to good people and asks why. And certain psalms and parts of the book of Proverbs talk about how bad people can prosper. Hosea emphasizes how much God loves his people. Jonah learns the hard way that God loves foreigners too. Most prophets speak of God's holiness, many of the same ones tell of his forgiveness. Some see God as a warrior. The old English phrase “Lord of Hosts” means “Lord of armies.” Others prefer to talk of God as shepherd, Father, or loving husband. Which is correct?

To answer, let's consider the Buddhist fable of a group of blind monks who encounter an elephant for the first time. One feels the elephant's tail and says, “An elephant is like a rope.” Another touches its leg and says, “No, it's like a tree.” One pats its side and says, “It is more like a wall.” Another fingers its ear and says, “I think it's like a leaf.” Still another encounters its trunk and says, “An elephant is like a snake.” But another feels its tusk and says, “No, it's like a spear.” The point is not that they are wrong. They are all right in part. What each perceives is true about an elephant but not exhaustive. Put all of their data together, noting their different positions around the animal, and you have a pretty good idea of what an elephant is like. And if describing all the elements of that creature is complicated, how much more is describing all the aspects of our Creator.

And some holy books only have one perspective on God, being filtered through just one person. The Quran is a collection of the revelations of one man, Muhammad. The distinctive doctrines of the Latter Day Saints are derived from The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price and other writings of Joseph Smith. Christian Science gets its name and beliefs from Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science with Key to the Scriptures. But the 66 books of the Bible were written by at least 40 people over as many as 1000 years, with material that goes back another 1000. Even in the New Testament, we have not one but 4 versions of Jesus' life and teachings, each with a different perspective. The church respected them enough not to edit and harmonize them into one account. Put all of these encounters with God together and you have a multi-dimensional view of a very big and complex God.

But a lot of people have a problem with this big and complex God. They want a simple God, small enough to carry around comfortably in their head. So they disregard some of the data, especially the parts they are uncomfortable with.

The central thesis of J.B. Phillip's book Your God Is Too Small is that we have a natural tendency to diminish God. We reduce him to one aspect of divinity, like justice, or mercy, or holiness, or forgiveness. It makes God easier to understand. The problem is that any god small enough for us to totally comprehend is too small to help us in all aspects of this large unwieldy universe, which we also don't totally comprehend. We need to resist our proclivity to chip away at the parts of God we don't like or understand.

In just about every episode of the show C.S.I., Gus Grissom, head of the Las Vegas crime lab, reminded his subordinates that their job is to follow the evidence. Although they may have their own pet theories and a tempting suspect, they must remain objective and not go beyond what the evidence tells them. So, unlike most fictional detectives, they don't always get their man or woman. Sometimes the evidence is insufficient. Sometimes the evidence is ambiguous. As Sherlock Holmes, Grissom's hero, said, “It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts.” And yet in The Adventure of the Yellow Face, Holmes himself makes that mistake. When the real solution of the mystery is revealed, Holmes even tells Watson that he may remind the great detective of this case should Holmes ever display such arrogance in violating this basic principle of investigation.

If we pick and choose among the Biblical evidence we can make it say whatever we choose. And indeed that's what cult leaders do. Right now churches that belong to the New Apostolic Reformation boast that their leaders are prophets and apostles. They make predictions and yet when they are wrong, they try to get around what Deuteronomy 18:20-22 says about false prophets. When their apostles say things that contradict the Bible or even Jesus, they say these new revelations supercede the ones in scripture. And they add to God's Word with doctrines about awakening angels and about picking up the mantle of dead prophets by lying on their graves. They run schools of supernatural ministry, nicknamed by students “Hogwarts for Christians,” which use a lot of New Age practices. And despite Jesus turning down Satan's offer of all the kingdoms of this world (Matthew 4:8-10), N.A.R. churches teach that Christians are to take control of everything, including business, media, entertainment, and the government, as part of the non-Biblical Seven Mountain Mandate. Jesus told Pilate his kingdom did not come from this world and that the evidence of that was that his followers were not fighting for him. (John 19:36) But the N.A.R. plans to take over earthly kingdoms and make them God's kingdom, not by persuasion or showing Jesus' love or by letting Jesus' enemies do their worst to them what they did to him, but by any means necessary. That's why you saw so many Christian symbols at the January 6^th insurrection. They think spiritual warfare includes physical warfare and violence. Contrast that with what Jesus said about turning the other cheek and loving our enemies. (Matthew 5:39, 44-45)

So how do we understand the Bible as the Word of God? In its totality, as a mosaic of human-divine encounters, some dramatic, some subtle, some obvious, some counterintuitive, some straightforward, some paradoxical, some popular, some decidedly not. And while we may have to view some of the content through knowledge of the cultures of the time, we may not simply dismiss parts by assuming we are smarter because our time and culture is superior. That's what C.S. Lewis called chronological snobbery, the idea that newer ideas are always better.

Knowledge changes but wisdom endures. Human paradigms shift but human nature remains the same. That's why our passage in Hebrews says that the Word of God is living. In other words, God still speaks to us through the Bible. More than that, it says God's word is “active” or as some translations render it, “energizing” or “effective.” It changes lives. Like a man I know of who was put into solitary confinement and left prison transformed. Why does it have this effect? Because the Bible is “sharper than a two-edged sword.” It cuts both ways, affecting our beliefs and our behaviors. It pierces to our marrow, to the dividing line between our earthly soul and our eternal spirit. It dissects our emotions and our thoughts. All we are is stripped naked before its divine perspective.

And yet there are those who feel we have grown beyond the Bible. It is not as up to date as science. But science is always a work in progress. Plus science is about how: how things develop, how they are structured and how they work. The Bible is about why: why we exist, why certain things are good and healthy and why some things aren't. It's about values, meaning and purpose. So science can tell you that some animals eat their young. It can't tell you why people shouldn't. Science and the Bible are dealing with different questions.

Whereas the current scientific understanding of things can be overturned tomorrow by some new discovery, the wisdom in the Bible is timeless. It's not like we have evolved beyond sin. It's not like technology will render murder, jealousy, lying, envy, drunkenness, arrogance, cowardice, slander, or foolishness obsolete. It's not like we will find replacements for the virtues of courage, wisdom, justice, moderation, faith, hope and love.

Science cannot tell us about God's love and forgiveness. Science cannot tell us about the meaning or purpose of life. And it sure can't tell us about eternal life. In the Bible, however, we have the field notes of those who have encountered God in the wild and who have found answers which make life about more than mere existence.

And where else would we get our knowledge about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ? You can deduce that God is Creator from nature but how on earth would you know that he so loved the world that he sent his son to become one of us so that we can become like him? From other historical sources we know that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified, but without the Bible we would not have 4 different perspectives on him as our big complex God. We would not have a portrait of the God who is far above us, as Phillips put it, focussed in terms we understand, that is, in terms of time and space and human personality. We would not have the picture of Jesus picking up and blessing children, rebuking hypocrites, touching and healing lepers, overturning the tables of the money changers, weeping at Lazarus' grave, commending Mary for listening to his teachings rather than doing the housework, defending and then forgiving the woman taken in adultery, praying for his executioners from the cross, comforting Mary Magdalene in the garden, or eating fish with the disciples on the shores of Galilee after his resurrection. We would not know that Jesus is the living Word of God, the embodied expression of who God is, to whom the written Word of God testifies.

It is real tempting to keep the parts of the Bible that we like and discard the rest, just as it is tempting to always eat potatoes and never anything green. But a lopsided diet leads to malnutrition, whether we are talking physically or spiritually. And the Bible gives us exercise in the form of wrestling with God over these things.

Ultimately it is a matter of faith, of trusting that God loves us and knows what is good for us, even when we cannot understand all the reasons why. When I was a child my parents prohibited stuff for no good reason that I could see. And they encouraged me to learn or do things that were of no earthly use to me at that time. And then, when I was a parent, I found it's hard to communicate the reason for your instructions to kids who think they know it all. They had to trust that I was looking after their best interests.

Finally, the reason why we call the Bible the Word of God comes down to the way its truths resonate deep within us. While it does not tell us everything about everything, it does give us what is vital and essential to understanding God and ourselves and how we should live. It points us in the right direction, gives us landmarks to look for, and the name of a trusty Guide. That's why people still read and follow it today.

The gospel of John tells us that, when Jesus spoke to the crowds that wished to make him king, he talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Those folks turned away in droves. So Jesus asked his disciples, “Do you also wish to go away?” Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

First preached on October 19, 2003. It has been revised and updated.

You're All a Bunch of Animals

For the feast day of St. Francis of Assisi and the Blessing of the Animals.

Ever hear of the Cambrian Explosion? In 1989 the late paleontologist Stephen Gould published a critically acclaimed book called Wonderful Life. In it, Gould discusses the Cambrian Explosion, the discovery of thousands of fossils from the Cambrian period where it looked like innumerable new lifeforms suddenly appeared, many of them with bizarre types of bodies. Other scientists, however, were reappraising this event and coming up with a different interpretation. But to ethologist Richard Dawkins, Gould's explanation of what was once the scientific consensus was in fact a “near-disingenuous” misrepresentation of the facts. That's awfully close to calling Gould a liar! And of course, this had nothing at all to do with the fact that Gould said that Dawkins' “selfish gene” theory was a form of “reductionism” and an example of “Darwinian fundamentalism.” Nor should we infer that Dawkins doesn't get along with anyone who disagrees with him, whether they are theists or other scientists!

What this was really about was whether these fossils represented new forms of life or not. In fact one of the heroes of Gould's book, Simon Conway Morris, had changed his mind. He originally thought these fossils belonged to new phyla but now thought that most of them belonged to modern classifications. And that's what these scientists were really arguing about—names! They were getting all worked up about what categories to put these fossils into, even though one of the constants of science is redrawing the tree of life. New specimens and new data are always challenging the existing reconstructions of how various lifeforms are related. In the early days scientists looked at various specimens and grouped them by similarities. But since the discovery of DNA, classification has gotten trickier. It turns out that aardvarks and anteaters are not that closely related even though both have long snouts, burrow in the dirt and eat ants. On the other hand, fungi are closer to animals than plants! Although some scientists argue that plants are closer to animals than fungi. Science is always a work in progress.

The fluidity of these efforts to catalogue creation means we need to take the pronouncements of how we are related to other species with a large grain of salt. It is obvious that we are related to apes, and DNA confirms this, but it is just as obvious that human beings are radically different from them and all other species. When I was a kid, I was taught that one of the things that one of the things that made us unique was that we were toolmakers. Now we know that chimps use sticks to fish for termites in their mounds and otters use rocks to break open shells. But there is a huge difference between a stick and a Swiss Army Knife and between a rock and a laser. What we create is much more complex than what other animals make. And while chimps are among the few animals who recognize themselves in mirrors and so may be self-aware, the smartest chimp is not as smart as the average 5 year old human child. We can teach chimps to use symbolic languages but left to themselves they don't develop any. Nor do they use the languages we teach them to communicate in any great depth about anything other than their current needs, feelings and perceptions. They are never going to produce an insightful memoir or great work of fiction.

Nor will they ever endanger the whole world, as we do. All of the locusts in history could not duplicate the ecological damage that humans can. Jane Goodall was shocked to observe the chimps she studied for decades go to war with each other and even practice cannibalism. But they will never develop nuclear devices or biological weapons. The gulf that exists between our powers and those of the other animals means not only that we can do greater good but also greater harm. And due to our language, our ability to imagine the future and to judge potential outcomes as well as our ability to empathize with others, we cannot excuse such acts as due to ignorance. Greater intelligence does not necessarily lead to better behavior. That's why every human culture has to spell out explicit rules of morality.

The ability to choose right over wrong is part of what the Bible calls “the image of God” in humanity. (Genesis 1:27) The negative version of the Golden Rule, that is, “Don't do to others what you wouldn't like done to you,” is so universal it could almost be called a meme, Dawkins' unit of cultural thought that spreads like a gene. While there are areas of morality in which cultures disagree, all peoples recognize concepts such as fairness, moderation, compassion and wisdom. There is broad agreement that these principles apply to our relationships with our fellow human beings. But what are our obligations to the other animals?

In the beginning humanity was not only created in God's image but we were also given “dominion” over the rest of creation. (Genesis 1:28) What does this mean? Some have felt that it means we simply can walk all over other creatures and that we have been granted absolute power over them. That's not what the Bible says. Genesis 2:15 says, “The Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to care for it and protect it.” A better translation of the Hebrew would be “to serve it and preserve it.” In other words, the man was to act as its gardener. So this “dominion” is not ownership but stewardship. The earth belongs to God, not us. We have authority over the earth and its creatures in the same way the manager of a great estate has authority over its land and native animals. He can act in the name of the estate's owner but he is expected to do the owner's will. He is not authorized to go against the express wishes of the owner.

We tend to forget this. We act as if we know better than God does when it comes to what we do with his gifts. We often go against his express wishes. And then we are surprised when we suffer the consequences of going against the principles upon which this world was created. We forget just how interconnected it all is.

For instance, large commercial farms have been paying beekeepers with portable apiaries to travel the country and use their bees to pollinate crops on a scale that the local bees cannot do alone. But the exchange of diseases between the visiting bees and the local ones is being studied as a factor in the problem of colony collapse disorder. As bees mysteriously disappear, the crops they pollinate are endangered. This includes almonds, cranberries, cucumbers, raspberries, strawberries and watermelons. In trying to do God's natural order one better, we may lose many of its delicious gifts and one of its most iconic insects.

In the Keys we have seen how overfishing has had drastic negative effects on our fish stocks. It seems that even after killing all the dodos and passenger pigeons, we have not learned our lesson and we have pushed almost to the brink of extinction blue whales, red wolves, black rhinos, gorillas, leatherback sea turtles, chimpanzees, sea otters, elephants, lions, tigers and bears. Oh, my! Even with recent conservation efforts most of these species are endangered or the slightly higher rating of vulnerable. But their numbers are not robust and some are in decline. They are not out of the woods yet, so to speak.

We have also worked against God's way of breeding healthy species. Purebred people or animals are not natural. Just as blood diseases such as porphyria and hemophilia ran rampant through the inbred royal families of Europe, so have more than 500 distinct genetic defects been found in various breeds of purebred dogs. God's natural selection of mates works better than our artificial selection.

So we have not been wise stewards of the animals we have been charged with caring for and protecting. But does the Bible explicitly tell us to treat animals well? In Exodus, just 3 chapters after having been given the Ten Commandments, Moses is told that the Sabbath applies to our animals as well. (Exodus 23:12) They are also to rest from work so that they may be refreshed. And Jesus points out that the prohibition against humans working on the Sabbath could be lifted if an animal needed to be rescued. (Luke 14:5; Matthew 12:11) If you see an animal in trouble you are to help it. (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:4). Oxen were not to be muzzled as they tread on grain. (Deuteronomy 25:4) In other words, they are allowed to eat some of the food they are helping to process. And Proverbs 12:10 says that the righteous person takes care of the needs of his animals. Or as Eugene Peterson translates it, “Good people are good to their animals.”

Another significant piece of Biblical data: Animals are included in God's covenant with Noah never to flood the whole earth again. (Genesis 9:8-11) And when he tells Jonah why he cared if Nineveh was destroyed, God specifically mentions his desire to save the animals as well as the people in the city. (Jonah 4:11) Jesus says that God is aware of each sparrow that falls. (Matthew 10:29) The conclusion is clear: God loves all of his creatures, not simply humans.

This is not to say that the Bible advocates vegetarianism nor that it puts animals on parr with humans when it comes to rights. Animals can be used for food. (Genesis 9:3) They were used in the sacrificial system. (Leviticus 1:2) Their blood reminded the penitent of the cost of his sin. (Leviticus 1:4-5) Their blood was used precisely because they are precious to us. If it became easy for a person to sacrifice an animal, it would not send the right message. The loss of any life has to be a significant loss. In the Bible, part of the preparation of meat is the draining of all blood. This predates the Kosher laws. God tells Noah that blood was not to be eaten. Blood is life and all life belongs to God. (Genesis 9:4)

The paradox is that we are animals and yet we are different from all other animals. Biologically, we are their kin. Spiritually, we are their caretakers. We are, as C.S. Lewis put it, amphibians, at home in both the physical and spiritual realms. When Paul tells us to be spiritual, that doesn't mean we are to be divorced from our bodies but directed by God's Spirit. (Romans 8:8-10, 12-14) The physical creation is not to be reviled but redeemed. Our ultimate destiny is not an ethereal existence in the clouds but a resurrected life in a new world, where heaven comes to earth, and the Creator's original plan for his creation as a paradise has been restored. (Romans 8:11; Revelation 21:1-4)

So on the day we remember St. Francis of Assisi, we bless our animals and they bless us. Just as we reflect some aspects of God, so also they reflect others. But there is an overlap. We are startled to see bits of ourselves in them and they remind us that we too are creatures and not gods. They often cock their heads in amazement at what we do, reminding us of the radically generous gifts God has bestowed upon us. We need to remember that in the Biblical economy, power is not given so that some may exploit others but so that we may help and protect others. To that end we are given gifts of empathy and love for them. (2 Samuel 12:1-6) And it works both ways. Our animals often sense when we need their love to lift our spirits.

Blessings are to be shared. We are blessed so that we may bless others. And the blessings of God need to be expressed and articulated, lest we forget that they are there and lest we forget what they are and what they mean. They need to be articulated so that we can see if our works are in harmony with our words, if what is on our lips can be found in our lives.

Let us pray:

Almighty and everlasting God, creator of all things and giver of all life, let your blessings be upon our animals. May our relationships with them mirror your love, and our care for them be an example of your bountiful mercy. Grant our animals health and peace. Strengthen us to love and care for them as we, like your servant Francis, strive to imitate the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We ask these things in his name and through the power of your Holy Spirit, who live and reign with you, Father, one God forever and ever. Amen.

First preached on October 4, 2009. It has been revised and updated.