But which way is the Gospel? Lent 1

Luke 4: 1-13

About 20 years ago, I for a time often attended what would probably be described as a rather fundamentalist church. The reason to be honest was that this church had a few rather enticing women even though any mission to corrupt them, was an abysmal failure on my part.

One of the practices of some within this church was to occasionally give a verse of scripture to others. Generally, the motive was to encourage friends in their Christian walk. Only once did someone offer me a verse. It was Isaiah 1 verse 6;

“From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
There is no soundness ---
Only wounds and bruises and open sores,
Not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil.”

Mmm. I guess it was his way of telling me that I was a heretic. Whether he was right or wrong, in the immortal words of the late Ian Richardson’s “House of Cards” creation, the scheming Frances Urquhart, “I could not possibly comment.”

Recently I found myself reading an article from the Independent about Sir Ian McKellen the great actor who is also a veritable campaigner against discrimination on grounds of sexuality. In his one man show in Edinburgh some years ago, he took to removing a page from the Book of Leviticus. It was the page that contained a the twenty second verse of the eighteenth chapter;

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman.”

Sir Ian went on to say that he removes the same page from hotel Bibles on his travels.

Now I have to confess that the thought of Gandalf the wizard (McKellen’s famous part in Lord of the Rings) arriving at hotels armed with scissors to remove the offending page, is a thought that brings a wry smile to me. But at the same time, knowing the hurt that some have felt from hostile use of that verse, I can understand his reaction even if I am not exactly into book destruction myself.

But wait a moment! None of us can exactly be smug about some of the verses to be found in the Bible, least of all me. After all the black pudding that I love is condemned in the Holiness Code. By the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, tattoos are condemned before in the twenty first chapter, those with disabilities or any defects are barred from the priesthood.

And then let’s turn to capital punishment as permitted by the first five books of the Bible.

According to Exodus and Numbers, violating the Sabbath is a capital offence. And yet I freely confess that by driving to this service, even before I admit to having bought a Sunday paper, I have done precisely that today.

According to Leviticus and Deuteronomy, pre marital sex is not just disapproved of, but is an offence that calls for the death penalty.

And according to Deuteronomy, a rebellious son should be taken to the gate of the town and there stoned by all the men of the town.

Now don’t get me wrong, I can’t see too many church leaders or members of this congregation who will be defending my qualities of godliness should I seek to impose such a punishment on my ever so rebellious son, James. And to be honest I’d be more than worried if you would defend me in such.

And this brings me to my problem. For I am finding myself moving swiftly to a policy of picking which scriptures I like and discarding the others. And I suspect that you are also for taken literally, these verses would have the gallows busy 24/7 and in the process make Saddam Hussein appear like a lily livered liberal. And so the question needs to be asked as to what is the true message of God. How do I decide which scriptures I must adhere to and which I can evade whilst remaining one who takes a high view of scripture?

In a way, Luke’s Gospel we meet the temptations. These are the challenges that Jesus faces in working out what his Mesiahship They have a logic in them. Turning stones into bread is what might be expected from the God who provided the exiles from Egypt with manna. Indeed on the second temptation you almost get the feeling of Jesus and Satan playing scriptural ping pong. Who has the better scriptural quote? And that is how it has often been in the pages of church history. Let’s take a particularly relevant example at a time when we are preparing to celebrate the Wilberforce law which in 1807 brought an end to the transportation of slaves by Britain. We rightly remember the role of a Christian named Wilberforce, encouraged by other Christians such as John Wesley and John Newton. These people felt that the slave trade was in conflict with scripture. And yet, there were others who equally claimed to treat scripture seriously who were in favour of the slave trade and defended it rigorously. Even the churches of Bideford were not of one mind!

And this pattern has been replicated since. We see it in the German Church Struggle during the 1930s and 1940s. And more recently, there was a major Christian voice on both sides in the struggle that led to the ending of apartheid in South Africa. And as way of aside, some of the Christian voices around the current US President certainly leave me with very deep concerns.

Now we here may be of one view on all of these matters. I suspect that we are all against slavery, saddened that much of the German Christian Church collaborated with Nazism and with no time for apartheid. We may share a disturbance at how the religious forces around the US President have represented our faith. But the really important matter is that these things remind us that there is a very real temptation to simply pick the verses from scripture which fit our particular leaning and ignore the problem. And frankly this far from treating scripture seriously, trivialises it

So if we are going to move away from the pursuit of clincher verses, how are we to seek to use scripture. Let me recommend an approach offered by Professor Keith Ward who was the Professor of Divinity at Oxford University. In his book “What the Bible really teaches” he gives the following suggestions.

Firstly we should read scripture in context. This means taking the background seriously and seeking to explore the nature of the text. An example is that Genesis 1 may not be meant as literal history or science but another means of communicating profound truths.

The second principle is consistency. An example of this is that if you take some verses from a chapter of Leviticus literally, then you cannot take the next verse metaphorically just because it doesn’t suit you.

The third principle is comprehensiveness. Passages should not be taken in isolation. An example is Paul’s teaching about the role of women. Hard as they may seem, they still represent an advance on some of the Old Testament teaching with concubines and even the compulsory divorce of foreign wives. Does progress come to a halt?

Fourthly, some teachings supercede others. The Psalms have within them on a number of occasions, justifications for the hatred of enemies. Yet Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” And surely, this means that whilst we may hate the wrongs done by others, we are no longer free to hate the people themselves.

Fifthly, sometimes scripture is more faithfully read spiritually than literally. An example is where in Habbakuk, God is seen as “trampling the sea with your horses.” and where Sun and moon are caused to stand still at the sight of God’s flying arrows and flashing spear. But does God seriously ride a horse? I think not. I think that what we have here is inspired poetry that points to the greatness of God.

And finally and in my opinion most importantly, Ward argues that we must read the Bible in a way that is Christ centred. For the Christian, the Bible must point to the living Jesus and to the unlimited, liberating love of God that is revealed in Jesus. It is incumbent on all our interpretations of scripture that they point to the God who is as John puts it “love,” love for all. Anything less is a parody.

Now none of this makes understanding scripture easy. Indeed, in rejecting clincher verses, it reminds us that none of us can claim to have the whole truth and that is a good thing for the Bible needs rescuing from being used as a plaything for those so disposed.

So finally back to these temptations. What are they about? Well in way they reveal the counter cultural nature of Jesus. All three of the temptations involve the use of power to take short cuts. In a way the strength of these temptations is that inkling within all of us that if only we had the power, the world would be a better place. After all we are pretty decent chaps.

But is not this merely like shifting deckchairs upon the Titanic? You see, the way of Jesus is revealed to be more radical. Jesus does not seek power as we understand it. On the contrary, he confronts power with powerlessness. He takes on prejudice by being inclusive. And he opposes hatred and violence by the explosive power of love. And it is this counter cultural approach, sabotaged as it was by Constantine’s incorporation of the church into the state, which is our hope and it is this counter cultural approach which has given hope to generations when the legacies of Pilate and Augustus Caesar are forgotten.

And this counter cultural approach needs to inform our discipleship. We are called on to follow a way that is not motivated by climbing the greasy pole or excusing the us of power over others. The path of discipleship is not about the exercise of domination or quick fixes but is about a path of servanthood and non violence. It involves a path not of judging others but of affirming the value of all God’s children.

As we travel through this season of Lent, we follow the Christ who goes on a path of self giving that leads to Calvary. May we travel not as those who would turn the scriptures into a weapon that denigrates but may we see in them and in Christ, God raising people up out of love.


This sermon was preached at Gammaton and Torrington on Sunday February 25th 2007