How Should We Read the Bible? Through Creeds or through the Scriptures?

N.T. Wright and those Pesky Creeds

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/07/n-t-wright-and-those-pesky-creeds/#more-28048

by Scot McKnight

May 7, 2012

Comments

Tom Wright doesn’t back down from this claim: those who read the Gospels by way of the Creed will miss what the Gospels are saying. He doesn’t back down then from this second claim: [but,] if we read the Creed by way of the Gospels — understood in context — we will read the Creeds as we ought. (After the jump I have The Apostles’ Creed.) I agree with both of Tom’s claims; but I have some reservations (see below).

Do you agree with N.T. Wright on seeing the Creed as leaving out kingdom and life of Jesus? Do you think the Creed therefore distorts the New Testament/biblical narrative? What is the relationship of Creed to Canon? Do you think the problem is Creed or soteriology?

1. Tom Wright’s aim in his scholarly career, and in this new book How God Became King, is to get into the inner and developing fabric of the Story of Israel and the Story of Jesus in order to find out what makes it tick and work the way it does — shedding light on what we’ve got, not getting back to some pristine, earlier, uninterpreted Jesus or Israel. In this, Tom’s historical Jesus works differs from many. Yet, Wright’s approach is every bit that of the historian.

2. Wright knows that some today want to avoid historical scholarship, in part because some just tear the thing apart and never put it back together again. But others are more robust in saying “the Creed is what the Church believes, I will read the Bible through the Creed.” Wright contends the Creed doesn’t let the Bible do what it does naturally. The Creed is an outline of the faith, not a comprehensive confession. If you agree with that statement, everything changes when it comes to reciting the Creed.

3. The Creed omits the whole Israel Story and Kingdom Story of the Bible. Creed and Canon are not the same: “But if their enthusiasts claim that they teach exactly the same thing as the canon, they have deceived themselves, and the truth is not in them” (257). [This does leave out some historical nuances, I have to admit: just what is the relationship of the Creed to Canon? It is not that we had Canon and then we got Creed, but that Creed and Canon were mutually developing alongside one another.]

4. The Tradition and Scripture are not the same, and Scripture is not the early part of the Tradition. For Wright, who is a good Protestant and not just a historian, first Scripture and everything must answer to Scripture. There’s more to Wright than that: for him, the categories we use to understand Jesus and the gospel must derive from the Bible and be biblical and historical and not simply theological or creedal.

5. There are two ways to read the Creed, one without awareness of the biblical Story — Israel, God becoming King through the cross and resurrection of Jesus — and one with that awareness. [I am convinced many in the church have done and do read the Creed through the Bible's Story, but there is no question that far too many read the Creed with little awareness of the Bible's Story. The big point, which I will make below, is that they have learned to read the Creed through a soteriology.]

6. I’d like to contend that the problem Tom Wright is addressing in this book is not simply Creed. Yes, I agree; Creed does create some problems for non-Bible readers. But the issue is more that the Creed is not needed because what the Bible teaches is a soteriology, a personal soteriology or an ecclesial soteriology or a theological soteriology, and once one has that soteriology worked out — I see this in Matt Chandler’s book The Explicit Gospel and I see this in the Reformed “covenant soterians” and I see this in Catholic soteriological theology and I see it in Eastern Orthodox soteriological approaches and I see it in four spiritual laws revivalists gospel approaches — and these make Creed of some value but what is of value is already established.

7. In other words, the Creed problem for not reading the Gospels aright is already a “gospel problem” that means neither Israel’s Story nor the Creed are really necessary. All we need is a good soteriology [according to the groups above - res].

8. Tom Wright’s reading of The Apostles’ Creed in light of the Bible’s story, found on pp. 264-273, is a good place for someone to begin forming a good solid class on Christian Theology.

Where Christianity Stands on Welcoming and Affirming

Glad to be Gray 2.0

http://www.thereligiousleft.org/2012/05/glad-to-be-gray-20.html

By Becky Garrison

May 4, 2012

Originally posted 5/4/12 at Believe Out Loud

Following the international outcry over Sojourners decision to reject a Mother’s Day themed ad from Believe Out Loud, I penned a piece for Ship of Fools titled “Glad to be Gray.” In this piece, I offer a summary of the range of views on this subject as expressed publicly by those who profess to be US based religious leaders, starting from fundamentalist extremists and then moving to the more progressive end of the spectrum.

 

In light of the first anniversary of what I have termed the “Sojourners Snafu” I decided to revisit this piece to see what shifting, if any, might have transpired during this ensuing year. Suffice to say the situation remains more or less SNAFU. While some of the leaders profiled here cite their gay friends as evidence they are pro-gay, their public actions tell a different story. I chose not to rely on statements issued in private conversations or semi-public forums like one’s personal Facebook page, as what I am assessing is the public face these individuals present when marketing their wares. Also, unfortunately, some of the more extreme positions garnered more followers in light of the current battles over marriage equality.

 

Following is my analysis completed in the Summer of 2011 with any changes noted in italics. Also, my article “Deconstructing Dominionism” (published in the 4th Quarter 2011 issue of American Atheist) offers a history of the theology behind some of these individuals and organizations.

 

1. Homosexuals are evil and of the Devil.

 

See God Hates Fags. (Check out Truth Wins Out for the latest news on those fundies who pull similar Phelps-like moves.)

 

2. Homosexuals aren't satanic per se but their acts pay homage to Satan.

 

A "respectable" fundamentalist might think homosexuals are of the Devil, but they shy away from the God Hate Fags crew in the same way their Bible-believing ancestors distanced themselves from the Ku Klux Klan. These folks tend not to make the news, as they prefer to separate themselves from this "sinful" world. However, you can find them in droves at places like The Creation Museum, The Holy Land Experience and other "Christian" business establishments.

 

3. Homosexuality is a disease that can be cured, and I don't want anyone with that disease contaminating my family or my church until they repent of their sins and become Bible-believing heterosexuals.

 

Those anti-gay groups designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "hate" groups fall into this line of thinking, as do ex-gay movements such as Exodus. As part of their ministry to "pray away the gay," they will minister to fallen sinners they meet on sites such as Rentboy.com. (The GLAAD Commentator Accountability Project seeks to have the media hold these so-called ‘pundits’ accountable for the extreme anti-LGBT rhetoric they continue to spread.)

 

4. Jesus commands me to love the homosexual sinner but hate homosexual acts. Therefore, I have no problem with homosexuals, but I am opposed to any sex outside of a traditional marriage which, according to biblical law, is between a man and a woman.

 

True Women like Nancy DeMoss and Purpose Driven Pastor Rick Warren espouse both positions 3 and 4, though they follow the lead of prosperity gospel Pentecostal Joel Osteen by toning down the hate rhetoric while repeating ad nauseum the "love the sinner not the sin" mantra.

 

5. I love and respect my gay friends and family members and support homosexuals in church leadership as long as they remain celibate. I cannot in good faith approve of the homosexual lifestyle.

 

This tends to be the dominant view held by those who market themselves as "evangelical progressives" on the Christian author/speaking circuit. They received well earned kudos for their pro-civil rights and anti-war efforts, but they took a right turn when it came to the feminist and LGBT movements.

 

Examples include Ron Sider, founder of Evangelicals for Social Action, New Monastic icon and Wallis protégé Shane Claiborne, and evangelist Tony Campolo. Campolo even went so far as to compare his ministry to the work of The Family (aka Fellowship), despite that organization's role in the Ugandan kill-gays bill and other human rights atrocities. (To date no one listed on the Red Letter Christian website has spoken out against this comparison even though a number of these players claim to be “pro-gay.”)

 

6. It's a mystery. And a Paradox. Love Wins. In the end. Lacan. Is On. To Something.

 

This is the stance developed by bestselling author and megachurch pastor Rob Bell, preeminent Justin Bieber scholar Cathleen Falsani, and Zizek impersonator Pete Rollins, who as Bell and Falsani note, try to emulate the likes of Eddie Izzard. However, in Stripped, Izzard deconstructs the evangelical concept of God with the finesse and skill worthy of a learned historian or theologian.

 

Conversely, these folks serve up provocative platitudes and parables that would earn a failing grade at any respectable mainline seminary. When it comes to standing up for LGBT folks, they're caught in a bind because while they talk about the need to "love" LGBT folks, if they take an actual stance on hot button issues such as gay marriage, they will lose their conservative funding streams that support their comfy Christian lifestyle. Also, they could potentially alienate their core audience – those at the intersection where cool and Christ collide, who waffle between positions 6 and 8. (In this ensuing year, Rollins’ latest book Insurrection was promoted by A. Larry Ross Communications, the PR firm representing reformed evangelicalism who count among their clients such anti-gay groups as the Promise Keepers, Rick Warren and Billy Graham, who took out a full page ad in support of Amendment One.)

 

7. While I consider myself to be an ally to the LGBT community, I'm aware of how gay rights remain a wedge issue that diverts the focus away from other critical social justice causes such as poverty and the environment. I want to align myself with a range of voices, including conservative evangelicals and Catholics, so we can advocate together on those areas where we can find common ground.

 

This line of reasoning is held by those who either stood by silently or supported Sojourners' decision not to run the Believe Out Loud ad, such as emergent church guru Brian McLaren and those mainliners who sell their wares to the emergent evangelical crowd, such as Nadia Bolz-Weber, the pastor of a queer friendly, Denver based church plant. (To date no one currently on the masthead has spoken out publicly against Sojourners decision to reject the BOL welcome ad.)

 

8. Christians should affirm gay people and allow them to have the same rights as us straights, which includes the rites of marriage and ordination.

 

This view is held by those positioning themselves as cutting edge evangelical/emergent thinkers – such as Tony Jones, the theologian-in-residence at Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, and Jay Bakker, pastor of Revolution Church NYC and son of PTL Club founders Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. But despite their claims of being inclusive, they continue to operate in a milieu that largely consists of white male postevangelicals who self-identify as straight.

 

9. In Genesis 1:26, God created ha-adam, a nonsexual term that means "human being." Then, after he created humanity, she declared that it all was "very good".

 

Hence, now is the time for evangelicals and emergents who claim to be progressive to join those in the US Episcopal, United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalist churches, as well as other communities of faith who are working for social justice among the bi- and trans- community, whose voices have been unheard even in many gay and lesbian circles.

 

With a few exceptions, such as the Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists who actually put into practice the teaching of their founder Roger Williams by welcoming all, don't expect this to actually happen any time in the immediate or near future. As senior contributing editor of now defunct “The Wittenburg Door” and author of such books as “Jesus Died For This?”I've had more than ample opportunity to observe the US evangelical 800-pound gorilla and its offshoot, the emergent chimpanzee, in its unnatural Christian habitat. Yes, some shifting has transpired in the past 20 years. But the evangelical world continues to lag way behind not only their mainline brethren but the secular culture at large when it comes to welcoming LGBT people and advocating for their rights as part of our shared humanity as global citizens on this planet.

 

 

(As evidenced by the myriad of commentators on the Believe Out Loud Blog and elsewhere, one finds a groundswell among liberal Christian and other like minded people of faith, as well as a growing number of spiritual but not religious folks coming together to ensure that all have equal access to the same rights and rites as everyone else.)

 

Photo: from the Flickr stream of Drama Queen.

 

Becky Garrison is a panelist for The Washington Post's On Faith column and contributes to a range of outlets including The Guardian, The Revealer, American Atheist magazine and Religion Dispatches.. Her books include Jesus Died for This?: A Satirist's Search for the Risen Christ, Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church, and Ancient Future Disciples: Meeting Jesus in Mission-Shaped Ministries.