We Who Are Strong

Today we have been using the set readings for 'Bible Sunday': the occasion in the year when we think about the Bible, what it is, how we use it, etc.

At the end of many of the Bible readings in church we say, This is the Word of the Lord. So we are affirming that what we read and hear is the Word of God. But that is, to say the least, a heavily loaded expression. What exactly does it mean? I think we can discern a number of different levels.

First, what we might call the ABSOLUTE word of God. This is the kind of thing we have in our first reading, in which the prophet records what he has heard as the direct utterance of God: Isaiah 45.22-23:"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. My myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear'" God is God. There is only one God, and anyone who worships God is worshipping the same God. We might think that anyone who worships God in a different way, or with different beliefs, from us, is mistaken; but I dare say God's view is that we are somewhat mistaken too. But all people, all faiths, would surely agree with this 'absolute' word: about the godhead of God, about the fact that salvation (again, a word with many different nuances and shades of meaning) involves, and is the result of, turning to God, having faith in God, and that ultimately God's purposes will be achieved - every knee shall bow to me.

But secondly, we have 'the word of God in scripture', which some people have called the secondary or recorded word of God - not entirely satisfactory expressions. Scripture, as we have received it, is a record of many different actions and words of God. We heard in last Sunday's NT reading from Timothy that all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3.16-17) But this is far from straightforward, because in fact there is no unanimous agreement about the meaning it carries. And there wasn't in Jesus' day, either. In Luke 4 we saw how Jesus was asked to read the scripture passage, in the synagogue at Nazareth; he read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah, sat down to expound it, and more or less said This is the word of God, because it is being fulfilled today, this is true today, in your hearing. So, converting the recorded 'word of God' into the direct word of God. (To some extent, this is what all preaching aims to be, though in the case of most preachers, it is more tentative than it was with Jesus - or, jolly well ought to be.) One of those occasions when it would have been good to be a fly on the synagogue wall, to see the listeners' mood changing from warm approbation of his gracious words, to complete inability to accept the challenge to their beliefs that Jesus presented, when he showed them what God was really like: a God who is God for the outsiders, those who are not one of us, not insiders within our cosy religious family. And within moments they were dragging Jesus out to throw him off the cliff. So, controversy about the exact meaning of God's word in scripture is nothing new. Which means that there has to be interpretation, and because not all interpretations are equally valid, there has to be discernment about the different interpretations.

How is this done? With great patience, prayer, study, and humility: willingness to listen to the views of others, and to be prepared for the possibility (outrageous as it seems) that we may be wrong.

Now, this has considerable relevance at this time, for the Anglican Communion, in a week after the publication of the Windsor Report that was produced by the commission chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames. (He seems to get all the impossible jobs.) It is a report about the meaning of communion, but of course it is specially concerned with the difficulties with regard to communion that have been raised by the approach of different parts of the Church to homosexuality.

I couldn't help thinking about this when I read the third passage the lectionary set for today: Romans 15.1-6. "We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak, and not to please our neighbour." Now, St Paul was a genius: this is brilliantly put. For who are the strong? And who are the weak? In the present context, you have those who take what we might call a more traditional view, about the sinfulness of homosexual practice, saying: Well, we are the strong ones, because we believe in the word of God. We have the correct view about the authority of God's word, and we understand it to teach, unequivocally, what we believe. While on the other hand you have those who take what we might call a more liberal view, and they say, Well, we are the strong ones, because we believe that the balance of God's word allows us to move beyond the literal sense of those texts that you are quoting, and that it teaches what we believe.

No one who is involved in any controversy as big and damaging as this is, then, will be likely to say, Well, to tell you the truth, I am weak (in my faith, in my views, in my interpretation of scripture.) "We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak, and not to please our neighbour".

So who are the strong? We are! Whatever side you take in this issue, this is meant for you, you are one of those Paul described as the strong. And what should you do? Put up with the failings of the weak (that is, the other side) not please yourselves, but please your neighbour, for the good purpose of building up your neighbour. "For Christ did not please himself, but, as it is written, 'The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.'" Wouldn't it be wonderful (astonishing, but wonderful) if what we now saw in this dispute, was both sides falling over themselves to give way to the other? For the 'traditionalists' to be saying: Please go ahead, make your churches as inclusive as they can be of all people, no matter what their sexual orientation etc., and we won't raise any question about it on the ground of our certainty about scripture. While the 'liberals' would be saying, We respect your deeply held views so much that we won't go on flaunting our freedoms, or doing anything possibly inflammatory like consecrating Gene Robinson, or publishing official liturgies for blessing same-sex unions, etc. (A man can dream, can't he?) But oh, for a Christian Church that could behave in a Christian way!

So we come back to that question about how we discern between different interpretations of the scriptures, and decide which is or are valid. Because what I've just described, as the way both sides would behave if they were really walking Christ's way, could surely only be an interim measure, a provisional solution until everyone agreed about what was true.

The message of Bible Sunday is that we should all go back to our Bibles and work even harder at knowing and understanding the scriptures. We've got to know what they say, what appears to be the literal meaning, as well as what it meant to those who wrote these words. And we've got to wrestle even more determinedly (as we have been doing and must go on doing) with the question: In what circumstances, in what conditions, is God's direct word for us today, different from that literal sense of the text, the recorded word? The Church has always known that there are other meanings than the literal: figurative, allegorical, symbolic etc. which may be the meanings which are the vehicles for God's direct word to us in our day. It takes work and study and prayer to find them out. And then it takes the obedience to do what God tells us, without necessarily enforcing the identical obedience on others to whom God may not (or not yet) have spoken the same word.

 

Preached at St Nicholas Marston, and St Thomas of Canterbury Elsfield, on October 24, 2004