A Contemporary Evaluation of Lutheranism:: A Spiritual Odyssey

© 2014 . Bernard C. Baumbach All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 05/30/2014

ISBN: 978-1-4969-0539-0 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4969-0538-3 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014907332

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Scripture quotations marked RSV are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.

Contents

Foreword:

A Spiritual Odessey

Addendum

Is The Bible The Word Of God?

The Case Against Biblical Literalism

God’s Word: Problems Of Authenticity

God’s Word: An On-Going Revelation

Holy Scripture As A Prism

Summation

The Doctrine Of Original Sin

The Augsburg Confession

The Apology Of The Augsburg Confession

The Smalcald Articles.

The Formula Of Concord.

The Doctrine Of Holy Baptism

Aquatic Rituals In The Old Testament

Aquatic Rituals In The New Testament

Non-Canonical Presenttion Of Baptism

Baptism: A Review Of Lutheran Doctrine

Conclusion

The Doctrine Of Holy Communion

Prologue

The Augsburg Confession

Articles In Which Are Reviewed The Abuses Which Have Been Corrected. Article Xxiv.

The Apology Of The Augsburg Confession

The Smalcald Articles.

The Small Catechism.15A

The Large Catechism

The Formula Of Concord: Part First.

Conclusion

Nature: Those Venues Revealing The Presence Of The Spirit

Preface

Introduction

Post-Theism: The Spirit’s Presence Revealed

Conclusion

FOREWORD:

A SPIRITUAL ODESSEY

Of late, my retirement years have provided the opportunity for an inexpressible spiritual transformation. I have experienced a creative enhancement and spiritual enrichment engendered by slowly and deliberately eschewing many orthodox Lutheran doctrines. I have done so subsequent to random exposures to contemporary endeavors of scholars of scripture, church history, biblical archeology, and various related topics. By delving into such a richly vibrant context of religiously relevant material, I soon discovered myself to be attracted to heterodox doctrines and spiritual formulas, developing a religious disposition—a faith matrix—that I would have never anticipated during those early years of my retirement.

In consequence thereof, I have experienced a spiritual transformation from orthodox theology to post-theism. Crucial to this process has been the rejection of the proposition that The Spirit—that is, God—possesses a persona. In spite of the scriptural assertion that God is Spirit (John 4.24a), orthodox Christianity and traditional Lutheranism are built upon doctrines that rely upon the presumed integrity of divine personas. It is my contention, given the historical particulars of our evolving species, such characterizations of The Spirit were understandably inevitable, but were justified only because of the cerebral constraints of earlier stages of our evolutionary development. It is my contention that every organismic phenomenon has the potentiality to experience some aspect of the Presence of The Spirit because of its indisputable relationship with Nature. Obviously, a rational consciousness of that Presence is not embedded within every potentiality. (That issue is addressed in a different treatise.) Ergo, Nature has always been the most universal of all venues though which the Presence of The Spirit might be effectively communicated. But in this contemporary age, in consequence of (1) our cerebral development, (2) our enhanced sciential capabilities, (3) the greater sophistication of our systems of knowledge, (4) the proliferation of evermore sophisticated investigatory technological processes and devices, and (5) because of the eternal Presence of The Spirit within and throughout the entire span of the Universe, we are better able to discern the Presence of The Spirit. Indeed, we are better able to characterize, without fully comprehending them, the evidences of the immanence and the transcendence of The Spirit whose domain is the ever-evolving Universe.

This volume contains chapters that address only a selection of Lutheran doctrines and practices that are also relevant for spiritually sensitive persons associated with other institutionalized Christian assemblies. The central thrust of this book is the presentation of those biblical and Lutheran doctrinal evidences that provoked my religious transformational experience. This volume replicates the spiritual odyssey the experience of which has involved the re-examination of several of the Lutheran doctrinal roots with which my spiritual matrix was initially nurtured and which dominated the greater portion of my adult life.

It was during the spring semester of my first and only year at Trinity Lutheran Seminary following my receipt of a B.A. degree from Capital University in Columbus, Ohio that in 1947 I confided to Dean Edward Fendt that I did not think that the seminary program was what I really wanted in a post-baccalaureate theological program. However, after several dean-student conferences, Dr. Fendt agreed that my interests might be better served in a graduate school of theology. Had I taken such a step, my recent transformation might well have emerged years ago.

But there was another factor to be considered: actually, I aspired to teach sociology in a university setting. It was then that Dr. Fendt’s counsel became most helpful. He contacted Dr. Morris Wee of the Division of College and University Work at the then National Lutheran Council (NLC). It was Dr. Wee who facilitated my enrollment in the Graduate School at The University of Texas in Austin. There, in addition to my studies as a full-time graduate student, I also served as the Contact/Resource Person for the NLC on the UT campus during the years 1947-49.

This appointment signaled my academic shift from theology to sociology and social psychology. It also signaled a shift in the Lutheran Student Ministry in Austin, Texas from a purely volunteer program implemented by the local NLC Lutheran churches to one that was cooperative and partially subsidized out of the NLC’s Chicago office. I have since considered that experience to have been significantly relevant for my current spiritual odyssey in that, although my religious beliefs and practices continued to be reinforced in accordance with Lutheran orthodoxy, I became involved with well-schooled and knowable persons associated with other religious assemblies (Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish) who were responsible for their respective student ministry programs. In short, the ‘walls’ that protected my religious disposition were subjected to significantly effective challenges.

It was during these years at UT that the case of Heman Marion Sweatt worked its way through the courts. In September of 1950 he became the first black student enrolled in the prestigious and all-white School of Law at the University of Texas. His case created a crack in that wall that protected the Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) doctrine of separate, but equal in education. However, the Supreme Court in 1954 declared segregation in education to be unconstitutional in the Brown vs. Board of Education (Topeka, KS) decision. In spite of that declaration, segregation was not erased from the American scene.

It was that same September of 1950 that I joined the faculty at Texas Lutheran College as its first full-time professor of sociology. Therein, during my first semester at TLC, I discovered myself to be in a situation wherein the socially and religiously broadening experiences of my three years in Austin were only partially replicated. One issue that was most troubling was that pertaining to race relations. There I was, on the faculty of a college of the former American Lutheran Church, and the question before the TLC faculty—in its advisory role to the TLC Board of Regents—was whether or not a black male student, who was not a local student and living in town, would be permitted to register in the fall and live in a college dorm. The Board’s initial answer was one supported by precedent. It was an apologetic, but nevertheless quite resolute, no! But it didn’t end there!

Sociologists are known for conducting polls and so I was asked to poll the campus community—faculty and students alike—and report my findings at a future faculty meeting. I no longer have a copy of that report—the original report is probably on file in the school’s archives—but you will be pleased to know that the response of the faculty and a majority of the student body produced a radical shift in TLC’s student recruitment policy. It ushered into existence a new era in the history of the TLC student body that was in accord with the Civil Rights movement that was mushrooming across the country. My involvement in race relations also led me to serve on the board of the Bi-racial Commission in Seguin, Texas. Unfortunately, there were those in that community who did not graciously accept the efforts of a white person in issues related to race. ‘Town and Gown’ relationships boded no advantage. Regretfully, I resigned my position after two short years in order to regain unchallenged tranquility in my life and that of my family.

My association with TLC lengthened into forty years of service. Early in my retirement I became actively involved in volunteer service in four non-profit agencies in Seguin. Then, in the later years of the 1990’s, Ted W. Ziehe, the husband of my first student secretary, introduced me to Marcus Borg via his book, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Inasmuch as their home is in north Austin, scarcely thirty miles from our home in Georgetown, for the past twenty years he and I have maintained an ongoing and vibrant dialogue that has incorporated a variety of spiritual issues. This association has contributed significantly to the enrichment of my current spiritual odyssey. It has been in consequence of our conversations over the span of two decades that my spiritual odyssey has been energized with previously unimagined religious conceptualizations. The most amazing feature of this spiritual odyssey is that, although these experiences have led me to reject much of Lutheran—if not Christian—orthodoxy, never before within my religious life have I been as certain about my relationship with The Spirit. Never before within my religious life have I been experienced such peace that now embraces me. I confess, however, that I am now more comforted in a Lutheran congregation because of the caring relationships that are mine as an interactive member rather than as a confessional member of that religious assembly. As the renowned Christian John S. Spong refuses to step outside the relational bonds of his Episcopal congregation, so I also view myself as a Lutheran in Exile.

The integrity of my Spiritual Odyssey, however, has also been substantively affirmed by many years of my association with the Religious Research Association, by my having been elected as a Fellow into the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, and by my time in the classroom, instructing students in the Sociology of Religion at Texas Lutheran College.

I will be bold enough to say that I’ve had an ‘Ah-Hah’ moment in my religious life which has evolved into a larger and ongoing WOW phenomenon. So join me now in an examination of a selection from a greater number of those issues within Lutheranism that, upon careful examination, have sparked a theological rebellion in my religious life. It is with a newly experienced sense of certitude that I am propelled along this path of existential spirituality. Or is this Spiritual Odyssey perhaps just the personal experience of a very minute segment of that which continues to constitute the pathway originated by The Spirit in order that The Spirit’s Presence might be acknowledged and celebrated throughout Its Domain?

Bernard C. Baumbach, Fall 2013

Addendum

A disarming stumbling block arose after I had completed what I had determined to be the final revision of this book prior to its publication. I was engaged in a study of the Christian Creeds when I ‘stumbled’ upon a learned essay from the pen of David Jay Webber: "The Nicene Creed and the Filioque: A Lutheran Approach in the journal, Logia (Vol. VIII, No. 4, pp. 45-52 of the Reformation 1999 edition). It was therein that I read that The ancient Fathers understood that the same Biblical truth can be stated in a variety of ways, just as Lutherans recognize the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles as mutually-compatible expressions of the same faith, despite the marked differences in style and vocabulary between Philip Melanchthon and Martin Luther."

This revelation was most disconcerting inasmuch as—in Chapters 2 and 4 particularly—I expound on such differences. However, I had completed my examination of various portions of both documents and, in consequence thereof, was driven to avoid any inclination to revise my work in an effort to reconcile the opposing presentations of Luther and Melanchthon. My rationale for this decision was, admittedly, initially self-serving. However, further reflection raised this question: If, regarding the scriptural bases of the church doctrines and sacraments, the Reformers were so resolutely insistent upon rigid exactitude when utilizing biblical passages literally, by what standard do they agree to variant and sometimes contradictory expressions of ecclesial proclamations? I will adhere to the judgments I have made in those chapters in this regard. The Reader, however, is free to formulate independent conclusions. As for me, I conclude that, if nothing else, this book provides further evidence as to why The Book of Concord has not been totally effective in achieving throughout the global span of Lutheranism the goal which is implied in its title.

Bernard C. Baumbach, Spring 2014

Chapter 1

Is The Bible The Word of God?

There are many controversial issues which engulf the proclamation that The Bible is ‘the written Word of God’ or simply The Bible Is The Word of God. In that which follows, I will present but a few of the significant challenges which seriously impugn the integrity of such a claim. This is not to reject The Spirit’s presence in the lives of those whose literary efforts have crafted the Word of God. Rather, this essay will seek to demonstrate that although the Word of God is accessible from within The Bible, the Bible itself—that is, the collection of canonically identified writings—contains much that conceivably cannot be regarded literally as the Word of God. Unfortunately, in failing to maintain scriptural integrity for its collection of sacred literature, the Church and its Councils have incorporated passages—if not books—which are not free of social, cultural, ethnic, and religious biases and distortions which are further burdened by specific historical errors. A consequence of preserving such faulted passages has been the development of inappropriate and patently perverse, if not simply misguided and false, systems of beliefs, doctrines, and theologies. A brief and incomplete identification of such exhibits is included in that which follows.¹

There is no denying that the authorship of that which was ultimately identified as sacred scripture was initiated in response to a consciousness of a Presence that was exceedingly more majestic than the human spirit. Nevertheless, from the individual viewpoint of its various authors, the Bible is an unintended phenomenon—unless, of course, you are proposing that the Bible is exactly what God wanted. It is my contention that the process of literary creation by which the individual books came into being was not centrally marshaled according to a divinely designed template nor were the individual segments—they could hardly be labeled ‘submissions’—initially edited so as to be free of specifically historical and cultural contextual circumstances as well as the inescapable significances of the existential biases of the authors. Such constraints would, indeed, have been embodied in the total document were it initially intended to be the singularly authentic body of sacred literature so crafted, rather than cobbled, that its integrity was resolutely virtuous not only for those of the referenced moments of history, but for all people including those yet-to-be born throughout the continuingly uncharted span of time.

It is patently evident that there was no notion of The Bible in the minds or aspirations of the various contributors to that collection. The authorship of each book in the O.T., as well as that of the Gospels and the epistles, was obviously one of a singular purpose without any anticipated collaboration with other authors directed toward the collation of their collective efforts. Nevertheless, the Bible remains in all of its parts a product of historically and culturally specific, yet variously diverse, human endeavors. Indeed, a significant portion of the O.T. cannot be properly understood without reference to the ‘international’ turmoil that dominated the Middle East throughout the last half of the 1st millennium BCE Even the N.T. cannot be properly understood without reference to the ‘international’ turmoil that dominated the Middle East throughout the 1st century CE. Nor should it be overlooked that both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible are what they are primarily because of the subsequent actions of specific religious communities in both instances.² Furthermore, often the standards utilized in the determination of (1) which writings were worthy of inclusion in the canon and (2) which writings were unworthy of canonical validation were significantly formulated so as to accord with accepted doctrines and theologies already developing, if not yet structurally configured, from oral traditions. In short, I am proposing that the deliberations of religious assemblies (congregations, conferences, diets, synods, and councils) regarding the integrity of what was to become Christian religious literature—that which was to become sacred—were not totally free of parochial and/or political agendas. Regarding the vast number of written documents which sought to capture the essence of the oral traditions which fluoresced during the century and one-half following the crucifixion of Jesus, it is not likely that any were produced with the intention that they would be collected in a tome which, when compiled, would be regarded as The Complete Works & Words of God.

Certainly, it was not anticipated at the outset that any one document would necessarily persist via unending replication and ultimately gain special status as sacred literature and would receive an official ecclesiastical imprimatur and be so identified as canonical. Remember that the earliest of the N.T. formulation consisted of the epistles of St. Paul and then the transcriptions of the oral traditions of the 1st century church which became the Gospels that were transcribed into the written forms of scrolls and codices. These scrolls and codices were later transcribed into manuscripts. Furthermore, reputable scholars have provided irrefutable evidences of instances where the authors of canonical and non-canonical literature relied upon even earlier writings. Furthermore, serious attention must be directed to the practice of hand-written transmissions as a probable source of complicating, if not conflicting, emendations injected into copies of manuscripts in order that parochial, if not personal, agendas might be implemented. Such literary dependence—direct and indirect—suggests the presence of sources for which there are no existing copies.³ However, literary analysis validates the proposition of such dependence inasmuch as some literary efforts—in terms of authorship—provide evidence of disparate structures within a single document which invalidate any contention of a single author. Similarly, different religious communities established parochial standards that rendered such writings—because of ecclesial oversight—as inappropriate for inclusion in the canon. Indeed, it is highly improbable that any of the biblical authors were aware of the future and, in terms of their current historical moment, the ultimate disposition of their individual literary efforts as sacred literature beyond the historical moment in which they were drafted. I will allow, however, that the issue of intentionality may not apply to the Torah in the same manner as I am associating intentionality with the N.T. O.T. scholars will have to attest to the relevance of this issue with respect to the other books of the Old Testament.

In other words, the N.T. was not written. It was collected and assembled over the span of nearly four centuries and during times that were historically distinct, being culturally, politically, and socially separate from the times during which its various components—which we casually, if not mistakenly, call ‘books’—were written. Such conditions require that the serious student of the Bible seek accommodation of, if not justification for, its many disparate, if not contradictory, evidences which tarnish, if not negate, the proclamation of authenticity for the The Bible as literally The Written Word of God.

In spite of its many translations, the issue of genuine authenticity tends to be bypassed by fundamentalist and orthodox Christians alike. Indeed, I find it most disconcerting that Lutheran churches in the United States continue to regard The Bible in a manner that was appropriate for the spiritual insights of the faithful throughout the centuries now long gone. Indeed, their implacable position which proclaims the Bible to be an inerrant compilation of divinely inspired and divinely formulated texts persists in spite of contradictory evidences from within scripture which support speculation regarding the spiritual integrity of many of Christianity’s historically revered doctrines and teachings. And yet, although such religious assemblies would probably deny it, I would label them as Bibliologists because their resolute disposition toward the Bible lofts it to that level of adoration whereby it becomes sacrosanct, thus impervious to human analysis or criticism.

For me, the Christian church is therein failing to recognize that perhaps God—The Spirit which is God—is acknowledging the growth and development in the human capacity to grasp an ever broadening dimension of spiritual matters. This is, indeed, in consequence of the fact that as with every other aspect of the Universe, human consciousness is also evolving as is the human brain that provides both for its ‘place of residence’ and its ‘functionality.’ For me, there is also the proposition that the Christian church is therein failing to recognize that, perhaps, the presence of God, the immanence of God—The Spirit which is God—can now be more broadly acknowledged and/or experienced in consequence of the evolutionary growth and development of the human consciousness and the concomitant development of humanity’s creatively intuitive cognitive capabilities. Indeed, this is happening in spite of our more secular milieus. Nevertheless, there exists an even greater opportunity to perceive, witness, and become interactive with spiritual matters as our understanding of the dynamics of the physical parameters of the Universe continues to develop. Our failure to rise to the challenge of such enhanced measures of spirituality, while remaining constricted by medieval conceptualizations, is actually and inappropriately conceptually confining The Spirit to historically and culturally specific dimensions and venues of spiritual receptivity frozen in time.⁴ Such limitations introduce issues which are pathetically human and mundane propositions.

Challenges—even as feeble as this one—to the printed Word as ‘The Word of God’ are not to be judged as insidious efforts to disparage any reverent disposition toward the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is to be acknowledged as (1) a devotional guide to spiritual renewal, (2) a resource for religious worship, (3) a compendium in which the essential Gospel message is discoverable even to those Seekers willing to be unshackled from the constraints of tradition-encrusted doctrines which the Church espouses, and (4) an established medium for channeling the ‘actual’ Word of God by The Spirit to those who seek communion with God. However, what is herein proposed is that the presence of The Spirit in and through His ‘messengers’—Jesus and St. Paul, to name just two⁵—has always been communicated to the faithful. Furthermore, I am confident that The Spirit is pleased by the manner in which the messages are represented and that throughout this communicative process each of the ‘messengers’ retains the full integrity of their own individual humanity as expressed in and through the particular culture which enabled them to identify, define, relate to, and understand the historical moment within which they lived, moved, and presented themselves as ambassadors of The Spirit. It follows, then, that the tests for divine authenticity—that is, This’ Is the Word of God!—might be (1) whether or not the message is substantively consistent with the purposes of The Spirit in other presentations (including those which are non-Jewish and non-Christian) when cultural variations are held constant, (2) whether or not the integrity of the messenger (also non-Jewish and non-Christian)—by reason of historical circumstances—has been compromised either in the process of communicating and/or in translating that message, and (3) whether there are internal and textual evidences (particularly within Jewish and Christian sacred literature) which indicate that the message may have been compromised in the process of reproduction or transmission. I would suggest at the outset that the second and third issues are the overwhelming factors which, more often than not, undermine the claim for divine authenticity throughout the Bible.⁶

However, before proceeding, it is necessary to raise the question which seeks to identify God. The central issue here is not whether God exists, but a determination of the nature of God. That which is herein assumed is that the substance, nature, and content of the Word of God will be accurately perceived only when first there is some clarity as to God’s nature.⁷ This is a very complex issue and one that, as to ultimate completeness and definitive accuracy, lies beyond the scope and the scale of human cognition. Hence, my efforts herein to explore this topic in a detailed examination of God-authored and God-structured evidences would be futile. Nevertheless, I have attempted a definitive exploration of the venues within Nature undoubtedly utilized by The Spirit to substantiate His presence—the final chapter of this book—and am now involved in an endeavor to characterize the relevance of available evidences of the relational phenomenon for living which the ‘ambassadors of the Spirit’ offer as templates for a spiritually virtuous life in their teachings and in their ministries.

Regarding the first element of the above-mentioned three-part test [(1) whether or not the message is substantively consistent with His purposes in other presentations (including those which are non-Jewish and non-Christian) when cultural variations are held constant], there is an immeasurably broad spectrum of circumstances with which The Spirit has, is, and will address human societies. The manner in which this is accomplished is, in many instances, hidden or only partially known. Only were we divinely sentient beings would we have knowledge as to the true nature of God as well as the manner in which The Spirit has addressed—and continues to address—each of the myriad of human societies which have ever existed, which are currently viable, as well as any which might yet emerge throughout the evolving span of time together with the probability of life forms upon other, yet unknown, planets.

As followers of Jesus of Nazareth, we have his assurance of The Spirit’s love within our lives. Yet, can we assume that the nature of the delivery of such a message is not similarly structured across the span of time, across the breadth of societal diversities? I believe that The Spirit which is God, continues to reveal whatever aspects of Its nature, Its presence, and—in the words of Martin Luther—His Office The Spirit desires humanity to know. The Spirit knows whether or not any given human community possesses the capabilities to comprehend what The Spirit deigns to reveal. So God accomplishes this within the sociocultural context explicitly current in each society. The Spirit must utilize the language and knowledge systems extant in each society to which The Spirit would reveal itself. It appears to me that the universal message from the Spirit of God pertains primarily to a relationship with God which serves as a model for all human relationships. In viewing the religious climates of various societies, one is impressed by the universal presence of culturally specific religious images, terms, and spiritual personages and spiritual messengers. Thus, the message available to each of the diverse cultures is, in fact, an accommodation both of His presence and of His message to the particular context of spiritual cognition extant in that society. St. Paul, in the first chapter of his Letter to the congregation in Rome, decries the fact that many have rejected The Spirit’s call (Romans 1.19-25). The qualitative dimensions of The Spirit’s relationships appear to be those of love, compassion, mercy, truth, justice, community, and mutuality. If we believe in the monotheistic Abrahamic God as the Lord of creation, we cannot deny the implications of the previous sentences.

Given the evolutionary changes in the nature of humankind together with the diversity of human cultures throughout the span of human history, no one assemblage of persons, irrevocably constrained by the factors of its history, will ever have been privileged to receive the absolute entirety of that which the Spirit of God has chosen to reveal throughout the entire expanse of His creation. We need to remember that whenever the Spirit of God chooses to effect a revelation to mere mortals—and even that is a human presumption built upon an otherwise inexplicable experience—that revelation is constrained by the culture of the persons chosen to receive that revelation. With respect to this latter issue, it is of considerable relevance to note that in the chronicles of God speaking directly to the Major Prophets of the O.T., God Himself elucidates His revelation. With respect to the Minor Prophets, however, God’s revelation was mediated to them via Oracles that utilized angelic-like personages. Obviously, in both of these situations the context of the revelation, the language employed, and the historic structure which provoked the communicative interaction were all components of a culturally explicit phenomenon that provided existential meaning to the revelation. In other words, when that which is eternal is communicated to that which is mortal and temporal, the message, irrevocably, must be fashioned in a manner that is historically specific both as to the language utilized and the sentient capabilities of the recipient involved in the revelatory experience.⁸

But I would also propose that the Spirit of God makes both His presence and His message available throughout the entire created order. That is to say, wherever the Spirit of God might be found—

"Wither shall I go from thy Spirit?

Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

If I ascend to heaven, thou are there!

If I make my bed in Sheol, thou are there!

If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the

uttermost part of the sea,

Even there thy hand shall lead me,

And thy right hand shall hold me. (Psalm 139:7-10)—there the Spirit of God, in various and diverse manners—many of which may be well beyond the range of human perception—will have manifested His presence, will have demonstrated something of His nature, and will have revealed some type of message to each particular segment of Creation. Thus, in whatever place and at whatever time, humankind may well have perceived to be false other evidences of revelations or manifestations of The Spirit simply because they did not—indeed, could not—understand the circumstances under which all other visitations, visualizations, and/or revelations had been made.

Furthermore, the presence of the Spirit of God throughout the uttermost extensions of the created universe may well involve forms and substances of revelation which are presently foreign to the contemporary capacity of human understanding. And finally, a caveat needs to be issued regarding those instances of revelation which are the consequences of dreams or some form of extra-sensory trance. While such experiences in and of themselves need not compromise the integrity of the human messenger—they are well within the parameters of the nature of humankind—the circumstances creating the event must be carefully examined inasmuch as conscious awareness is temporarily suspended. Thus the possibility of an exclusively human—and I might add, or ungodly—fabrication is possible.

With respect to the second and third questions [(2) whether or not the integrity of the messenger (also non-Jewish and non-Christian)—by reason of historical circumstances—has been compromised either in the process of communicating and or in translating that message, and (3) whether there are internal and textual evidences (particularly within Jewish and Christian sacred literature) which indicate that the message may have been compromised in one way or another], we are advantaged today by the wealth of new and verifiable information at the beginning of the 21st Century which was not available to the church fathers in earlier times when debates were raging as to what should or should not be included in the canon; what should or should not be included in the Formulas of Faith (the Creeds which prescribe orthodox belief), and why. Most notable in this regard are the discoveries of the Qumran Community scrolls and the papyruses of the Nag Hammadi library. A surprising document in this latter find, The Gospel of Thomas, in its composition—together with the vaporous, yet highly regarded, Q Gospel—probably antedates even the Gospel of Mark by a decade or more. The materials from these two sources have provided startling contrasts to, as well as revealing comparisons with, the canon which has been labeled The New Testament. The burden of that which follows, in an extremely abbreviated form, responds to some of what is now known about the circumstances, together with the results of those efforts, under which the endeavors to promulgate ‘The Word of God’ were manifested.

THE CASE AGAINST BIBLICAL LITERALISM

A. Issues which are created via the process of translation.

(1) In every instance, vocabularies initially are culturally specific while subject to the historical processes of change experienced within each society as well as modification resulting from interaction and exchange with other societies.

(2) Vocabularies are a function (1) of the knowledge system extant at any given time within that society and (2) and its evolving organization and activities. We know that knowledge systems are dynamic through time, thus vocabularies became subject to alterations both as to terms, concepts, and meanings.

(3) Within specific societies, the meanings and usages of terms considered typical of each society are often altered through time as the respective cultures change and evolve through time, introducing new elements and facets of culture; hence, new words and new definitions.

(4) Many of the problems provoked by a literalistic perspective are the ramifications of the writer’s attention to situation-specific events or personal agendas which bear no relevance for subsequent times or other communities or societies; e.g., the agrarian-shepherding setting when expressed within an urban and technology-driven community.

(5) In order to understand the content and the intention of any communicative phenomenon, one must know the vocabulary and the syntax of that language and must also have a meaningful understanding of the particular socio-cultural and historic contexts in which that phenomenon was first expressed and most meaningfully employed.⁹

(6) The Sociology of Knowledge perspective is effectively instructive for resolving some of the dilemma which is at the center of this issue. The strategy which would be employed by the sociology of knowledge would capture and reproduce the understanding which was held by those to whom a particular message or aspect of knowledge was originally conveyed by that communication. This entails an understanding of their language and the specifics of the historical moment referenced by the writing. It also requires some comprehension of the social, political, economic, and religious issues churning within that society when that communicative phenomenon was taking place initially, as well as whatever forces were impinging upon them at some subsequent time, whatever their source; i.e., with friendly or hostile neighboring societies or even a catastrophic natural phenomena.¹⁰

B. Issues are created via historical inaccuracies

(1) Confusion is often introduced because actual persons/events are associated with alternative time frames. A simple illustration from the NT may not suffice, but will, at least, indicate the type of issue referred to in this statement. Consider the fact that the Gospels of Matthew (21:12), Mark (11:15-17), and Luke (19:45-46) present the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus at the culmination of his public ministry. This act was deemed to be the final and precipitating event which provoked the authorities to order His arrest. In the Gospel of John (2:14-16), however, the writer places this action within the initial stages of Jesus’ public ministry, with vastly differing implications of that event.

(2). Confusion is often introduced because actual persons involved within known time frames are mistakenly associated with events occurring within other periods of time. In the Nativity narrative (as recounted in Luke 2:21-24 and 39), Joseph and Mary are portrayed as presenting Jesus for circumcision on the eighth day of his life. They then presented him in the Temple (after 40 days) according to the Purification Rites in the Torah. When they had fulfilled the requirements of the law, ". . . they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth." This event in the life of Jesus does not appear in Matthew. We read in Matt. 2:13-23 that in a dream, Joseph is admonished to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt and to remain there until Herod has died (which actually happened in 4 BCE). There is no reference to circumcision and the presentation in the Temple, two actions which devout Jews would have never failed to observe. Given that Jesus, in all probability, was born about 6-4 BCE—that is, a couple of years before Herod’s death—Matthew’s narrative would suggest that the Holy Family’s sojourn in Egypt lasted about two years. Furthermore, their return home, implied to be within the province of Judea, was modified inasmuch as Herod’s son, Archelaus, became the tetrarch of Judea in 4 BCE and so, when they went into Galilee, it was then ruled by Herod Antipas. This was he who, according to Luke 23:6-2, was a participant in the trial of Jesus. Obviously, the Gospels do not agree as to the hometown from which Joseph and Mary originally came and ultimately claimed as their own.

(3) Confusion is introduced because persons who are accurately identified within known time frames are mistakenly associated with fictitious and non-historical events. There are two such events within an outstanding list of memorable events within the Christian narrative for which there is no supporting historical evidence. Both of these are associated with the Nativity. The first example is identified in Luke 2:1-2 as a world-wide (Roman) census which ostensibly was the provocation for Joseph taking his pregnant espoused wife to Bethlehem. Such a census was exclusively secular. Hence, had it taken place at that time and in that place, there would be some historical record verifying the event. There is no affirming evidence. There actually was a census, but it occurred in 6 CE when Jesus would have been 10 to 12 years of age when when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2.2b).

The second example pertains to the manner in which Herod sought to assuage his rage. In Matthew 2:16 we read of Herod’s decree, captured in the shibboleth, The Slaughter of the Innocents. Although reminiscent of Pharaoh’s decree regarding the male children of the Israelites in Egypt following the birth of Moses, this secular event is no where recorded in secular history. This is another one of the many Matthean examples of images and circumstances that apparently were intentionally crafted to broaden his appeal to the Judaic heritage of his community.

C. Issues are created via metaphorical language; that is, in the failure to distinguish between what might actually have happened and what might be perceived as if it happened in a particular way.

(1) Confusion is introduced because the characteristics of actual persons are altered by legendary embellishments or by the omission of historically significant facts. Consider the militant actions of Jesus against the temple merchants. How many other instances are there wherein the Gospel writers ‘soft-pedal’ what was actually aggressive, if not violent, behavior on the part of Jesus vis-à-vis religious and secular authorities?

(2) Confusion is introduced because the features of actual events are altered by legendary embellishments. The Passion experience of Jesus offers several examples. (A) The personal experiences of Jesus in the events leading up to the Last Supper versus the perceptions of those experiences by those who were with him. (B) The personal experiences of Jesus during the Last Supper versus the perceptions of those experiences by those who were with him. (C) The personal experiences of Jesus throughout his trial and his crucifixion versus the perceptions of those experiences by those who were with him.

(3) The issues of history that are presented as metaphors vs. those metaphors which are presented as history. That is, historical personages and events are often endowed with fictitious, imagined, and often fraudulent characteristics which impugn their integrity while, nevertheless, acceding to a cultural, political, or religious prejudice. Similarly, fictitious, imagined, or often fraudulent characteristics of personages and events are often endowed with an aura of resolutely held factuality and the underlying cultural, political, or religious prejudices are enthroned as historically accurate presentations.

One of several illustrations of this issue pertains to the manner in which some of the parables of Jesus have been erroneously elaborated beyond the simple and singular issue which was the focus of the story which Jesus told. One notable example is the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus (found only in Luke 16: 19-31). Many have been the interpretations which have utilized the several features of the story as historical evidence providing proof of the actual existence of persons, events, and places—hell being the most notable.

D. Problems Associated With Passages Which Are Quotations From Secular—Patently Non-Religious—Sources.

(1) Throughout both the O.T. and the N.T., kings, sages, and philosophers have had their proclamations, decrees, and judgments incorporated into various books of the Bible by the respective authors without any pretense that these submissions were to be regarded as Words from or of God. At best, they are sometimes, and currently, defended as part of The Word of God simply because The Spirit of God permitted such words to be written into His Book."

(2) Given the political turmoil and the economic conditions in that part of the world during the lifetime of Jesus, the message He proclaimed and the nature of His ministry most assuredly provoked the religious and political leaders of His time to make declarations that were relevant to His teachings and the movement with which He was identified.

Again, the trials of Jesus which led to his crucifixion were essentially political events. The promulgation of the charges against him were initially provoked by religious leaders who, fearing his challenges to their religious authority, transliterated them into the political context of anti-Roman treason in order to effect an ultimate resolution to the dilemma his ministry presented to the religious establishment.

GOD’S WORD: PROBLEMS OF AUTHENTICITY

The Spirit’s revelations are expressed in words associated with an explicitly historical context. In ecclesial assemblies, however, separated by centuries from the originating event, the church certified these words to be authentic Words of God. Hence, they were thereby identified as components of the canon.

A. In so doing, there has been the imposition of a humanly-defined standard as to what the Spirit of God would say.

B. In so doing, there has been the imposition of a humanly-defined standard that limits the audience to whom the Spirit of God would speak.

C. In so doing, there has been the imposition of a humanly-defined standard as to where and when the Spirit of God would speak.

D. In so doing, there has been the imposition of a humanly-defined standard determining the historical and cultural biases—in what language the Spirit of God would speak as well as the content and manner of that speech—and so directing the Spirit of God as to preclude Its speaking to whomever, wherever, and whenever The Spirit pleases so to speak.

GOD’S WORD: AN ON-GOING REVELATION

A. The Spirit of God has spoken from the beginning of time, continues to speak in present times, and will continue to speak to those who would hear Him throughout the ages to come.

B. The Spirit of God is heard by those who have sought to know Him from the beginning of human consciousness—although their religious beliefs and rituals may not articulate with the religious beliefs and rituals associated with Judeo-Christian assemblies. C. The Spirit of God has always spoken to those who seek Him in the language which they understand and within circumstances which are amenable to their historically specific situations.

D. The Spirit of God has always been present in all that we are, whatever we have ever been, and in all that we might someday become wherever we might be, within whatever we might be doing, whenever these situations might occur. This relationship prevails in spite of the fact that humankind often has failed to acknowledge, and/or has ignored, and/or has rejected the relationship which The Spirit has sought to maintain with us in an actively viable fashion.

E. These elements come together in the concept Panentheism. In Acts 17:24-28, the Apostle Paul’s oration in the Areopagus proclaims both the transcendence and the immanence of God (Cf. M. Borg, The God We Never Knew, 1997, Ch. 2).

Holy Scripture as a Prism¹¹

A. The Prism provides the focus, albeit multi-faceted, multi-focal, and multi-colored according to which we (in our own time and through the enabling aspects of our own culture—which is not to limit its operation to our own time and our own culture) define our own explicitly structured spiritual quest.

B. The Prism directs our quest toward the spiritual resources necessary for our religious fulfillment. Furthermore, we must be aware of the diversity inherent within the Prism’s potential for multi-faceted—hence, the capacity for differentially discrete—manifestations of spirituality.

C. The Prism is our most reliable and effective connection with, and conduit for, The Spirit’s dynamic presence and communion within our minds and our lives. This is not to assume, however, that the workings of the Spirit of God are circumscribed—that is, exclusively comprehended—by the cultural, the linguistic, the religious, and the spiritual presentations collated within The Bible.

D. The Prism is but a metaphor for the incomprehensible transcendence and awe-inspiring immanence with which The Spirit is eternally manifested within Its Domain. We possess but a feeble potential for conceptualizing the majesty of our experience of The Spirit’s presence in our lives and, in all probability, do so more presumptively than existentially. How passionately we yearn for a concretely explicit manifestation of The Spirit’s presence particularly in those instances wherein death, destruction, and evil are rampant. What remains an even greater test of our faith is when we—subject to the circumstances of our own nature and our place in the evolutionary history of this planet and every constituent component of its dynamic existence—seek to contemplate the immanence and the transcendence of The Spirit throughout the imponderably vast and extraterrestrial reaches of the Universe. The 19th Psalm captures the essence of this concern most dramatically.

The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world (Psalm 19.1-41).

This passage foreshadows the declaration of St. Paul (Romans 1.19-20a-c) in which he states that the presence and the nature of God could be ". . . clearly perceived in the things that have been made,." (Romans 1.20c).[For a somewhat more extensive analysis of this passage, I refer the reader to the final chapter of this book.]

SUMMATION

[This statement must be understood only insofar as one employs Biblical Literalism. It is not a denial of the Bible as being our most reliably authentic vehicle for access to the Word of God.]

A. If our reading of the Bible utilizes a literal perspective and we hold that the Bible is the Word of God, then the answers we find therein to social, political, economic, or other mundane, as well as religious and theological, issues must be accepted as possessing immutable integrity. A most serious problem arises when we are thereby compelled, without exception, to incorporate every precept found within the entire Bible into our norms for faith and life.

Contrariwise, and as examples, we reject polygyny, we permit widowers to marry sisters-in-law, we refuse to stone adulterers or disobedient children, and we patently reject most civil and religious directives—including blood sacrifice—all of which and more are found in Leviticus.

B. Such a disposition engenders a legalistic religion in which righteousness is based upon the deeds of the law. How then could we understand the