In previous three-year cycles, when this Gospel text was the lectionary reading for a given Sunday, I skipped over the first two paragraphs—the ones about divorce—and used the third paragraph, which is about Jesus blessing children. But I used that paragraph last Sunday for my first sermon as your interim pastor, so I can't use it this morning. But more important, the verses in Mark's Gospel about divorce provide a helpful teaching opportunity or a reminder about the ways people interpret "scripture" or the Bible.
Several weeks ago I saw a news clip on television in which a minister told his congregation, "I can't support a politician who is anti-God and anti-Bible." By which he meant a politician who was not anti-gay and anti-abortion. As I watched him, I remembered reading that certain Bible colleges in preparing their students for pulpit ministry gave them specific instructions about how to hold the Bible when preaching, how to hold it out and up, and hold it with firmness.
Now lest anyone get the wrong impression, I have a high view of Scripture. I take the Bible very seriously. It is the witness without parallel to God's self-disclosure in the history of Israel and in Jesus of Nazareth, the Word incarnate, as our Epistle reading implies and the fourth Gospel clearly states. Because I take the Bible very seriously, I am saddened by the fact that the level of Biblical illiteracy is high in our culture and painfully high in many Christian churches. During my time with you I will encourage you to do something about your own knowledge of the Bible, perhaps reading one of the four Gospels in its entirety in one sitting, which should take two to four hours, according to the speed at which you read and which of the four Gospels you select.
For this morning I want to say a few things about how not to read the Bible and how to read it. How not to read the Bible? Don't read it as though it were a seamless, consistent book of instruction on how to live as a Christian—or as a good, moral person for that matter. That is probably obvious to most people in a congregation like this one, but it bears repeating anyway. We need to remember, if only because of the importance of dialoguing with non-Christians or fundamentalist Christians, that the Bible is a collection of widely different types of literature. Its parts were written over a period of more than a thousand years and include collections of poetry, history, laws, letters, and propaganda or attempts to persuade. When we read the Bible, we can never lose sight of its complexity, although I believe its central message is simple—and clear.
Don't read the Bible as though it were a seamless document conveying simple instructions on how to live. And don't read it as though it had been dictated word-for-word by God, speaking to people whose humanity was set aside so that they were exempt from the limitations of their culture. At a time in history when it is imperative for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups to come together for meaningful conversation, it is essential that such conversation explore the nature of the texts that are sacred to the respective groups. There are many Christians, Jews, Muslims—Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses for that matter—who regard their Scriptures as inspired, as inerrant, as the Word of God. I use those words or phrases only when I can clarify what I mean, because they carry a lot of emotional freight for a lot of people.
Don't read the Bible simplistically, and don't read it without recognizing the humanity of its various authors who wrote down their experience of God and of God's activity in their world and the world of their ancestors. And, to make a positive statement, read the Bible with an awareness of its relationship to the Church, the community that has been interpreting it for centuries. It's fine to read the Bible "devotionally," that is, in the privacy of your home. But do so remembering that the Church recognized the Bible as authoritative, and it is the Church that continues to re-define how the Bible is authoritative in succeeding generations.
The verses in Mark's Gospel about divorce illustrate much of what I am talking about. They are complex—far from simple, although some people read them that way and end up saying divorce is always wrong or sinful. Notice how the subject of divorce is introduced in Mark's Gospel. Some Pharisees (read religious leaders—James Sanders) wanted to set a trap for Jesus. They were not seeking his wisdom. As early as in the third chapter of Mark's Gospel, the Pharisees were conspiring to "destroy" Jesus. As part of their plot, they asked him a question loaded with potential danger. This is where it becomes important not to read a few verses of the Bible apart from their larger setting.
In an earlier chapter of Mark's Gospel we have the story of John the Baptist's execution. John was beheaded because he angered Herodias, at the time the wife of King Herod, who had divorced his previous wife to marry Herodias, who had been married to his brother Philip. So the question about divorce had a context, and not an easy one. Mark portrays Jesus as not falling into the trap that had been prepared for him. He turns the question back onto the Pharisees and asks them what the Law of Moses says. They show they know the book of Deuteronomy, which says a man can give his wife a bill of divorce simply because she no longer pleases him. Jesus moves the discussion beyond the sexist or patriarchal setting of Deuteronomy to a gender-neutral statement about divorce and adultery. He applies the Deuteronomy standard equally to men and women.
But for me the matter doesn't end there. Just as the biblical understanding of marriage evolved from polygamy to monogamy over a period of centuries, so the Church's understanding of divorce has moved from never being permissible to being permissible under a variety of circumstances. When I was ordained as a minister forty-eight years ago, I had to get the specific permission of my presbytery in order to officiate at the marriage of a divorced person. I no longer need to do that because the Church's interpretation of the Bible's teaching on divorce has changed, just as our church's understanding of slavery and the role of women has changed. And I believe the Church's understanding of marriage will eventually broaden to include same gender couples as well as mixed gender couples.
Why? Because the way to read the Bible is always through the lens of its central theme, which can be called "the rule of love." Patrick Miller, recently retired professor of Old Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, writes in a book chapter called "What the Scriptures Principally Teach":
The Scots Confession says this: "We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of scripture, or to the rule of love."
That rule of love reminds us that our interpretation of scripture stands under the divine command to love God and neighbor. Thus, what we hear from scripture should not lead us away from the expression of love for others.
Professor Miller quotes the document "Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture," adopted by the PCUSA General Assembly in 1983, which says:
...all interpretations are to be judged by the question whether they offer and support the love given and commanded by God. When interpretations do not meet this criterion, it must be asked whether the text has been used correctly in the light of the whole Scripture and its subject.
No interpretation of Scripture is correct that leads to or supports contempt for any individual or group of persons either within or outside of the church. Such results from the interpretation of Scripture plainly indicate that the rule of love has not been honored.
How not to read the Bible then? Never read it apart from its central message, which is the good news that God loves us as we are, and intends fullness of life for all people, and peace with justice for the world. As I said last week, we are people whose faith rests on good news, not on guilt-producing rules and regulations. I hope you have heard good news in what I have said today.
This is the kind of sermon that invites response, and I welcome your feedback in conversation, email, or phone call. I never expect unanimous agreement with what I say in preaching. I offer you my wrestling with Scripture as I understand it, guided by the confessional standards and history of the Church. I expect that you will consider what I say, do your own soul-wrestling with it, then take what you like, and leave the rest.
Thanks be to God.