Another reason why I am staying with the United
Methodist Church is that they respect my conscience as to my hermeneutical
approach to Scripture.
I know for sure that the Bible was not written seventy
years ago by Billy Graham in America in English.
It was written roughly 2000 (plus) years ago, in
different languages, in very different cultures.
I seek the original “on the scroll” context and
meaning at the time it was written rather than a prima facia “it means what it
says and it says what it means” understanding.
Contemporary translations and cultural conditions can
cause us to misread original context and intent.
For example, Jeremiah 8:8 (and this is a truly
intriguing verse)…
“‘How can you say, “We are wise,
for we have the law of the Lord,”
when actually the lying pen of
the scribes
has handled it falsely?
If I were to take a literal and prima facia
understanding of those words, I would have to conclude that we cannot at all trust
the Law as written in Exodus and Leviticus. The words in verse 8, without
seeking a proper context, pretty explicitly tell us that the scribes have
handled it falsely.
But, if we take into consideration the fuller context
of Jeremiah and the idolatry described in that book, we may get to a workable
view-point that the King or leadership at the time was pressuring the scribes
to write the Law such that it would accommodate the King’s policies.
Another really fun one for the literal and prima facia
reader…
Deuteronomy 23 12 Designate
a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something
to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your
excrement. 14 For the Lord your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver
your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among
you anything indecent and turn away from you.
If your restroom is in your home, aren’t you
incompliant with the Law?
Well, as I said, I take into consideration the
context, the times, and the purpose of the Scripture, and so I have a restroom
at home. Two as a matter of fact.
So, my approach to preaching and teaching Scripture is
to first, as best I can without having coffee and discussion with Moses or
Apostle Paul, determine the likely original meaning and context. Then, with faithful intent, apply the lesson to contemporary situations.
When I was very young, I was in a denomination that
dictated how the Bible was to be read, with no personal room for interpretation
or Holy Spirit inspiration.
When I was a teenager and young adult I was in a
denomination that insisted that the pastor was the ultimate authority of
Scripture.
None of us have Moses or the Apostle Paul to ask clarifying
or confirming questions.
But you know, the United Methodist Church also
respects the hermeneutical approach of preachers who reach more toward a prima
facia understanding of the Scripture. Those folk also may preach from their conscience.
Therefore, I appreciate the humble approach that the
United Methodist Church takes toward faithful interpretation of Scripture.
Whenever I compose a sermon, I review it with the
Articles of Religion in mind as a measure of quality control and doctrinal
integrity.
And for the record, when I read or speak the Apostle’s
Creed, I intend the words in their most literal meaning.
I have never met a United Methodist clergy person who believes
those words in the figurative sense.
I will stay with the United Methodist Church where we
have open hearts that change hearts, open minds that can reason with each
other, and open doors that do not close on disputable matters (Romans 14:1).
