Hearing the many voices. . .

The old ways of the higher critic are not dead -- the one who sees Scripture as just another book, to be viewed and unpacked as one would any book, but perhaps with more suspicion than other books.  For these, there is no story in the Bible but many stories, no theme or purpose but many themes and purposes, and no single author but many perspectives and different contributors.  Scripture has become an anthology of authors, voices, and stories and inspiration less gift than a burden -- if these have divine truth, we must dig through them to find that truth as best we are able.  So much for the Spirit who guides us into all truth, this view mines the Scripture sifting through the worthless in search of the ore to be made precious by the wisdom of the exegete.

So, not long ago, Walter Brueggemann (incidental fact, he was born just down the road from where I was born!) has applied this idea to the Scriptures to find out what the Bible really says about gay, lesbian, trans, and the whole gamut of genders and desires.  It should surprise no one where he comes out.

Well, start with the awareness that the Bible does not speak with a single voice on any topic. Inspired by God as it is, all sorts of persons have a say in the complexity of Scripture, and we are under mandate to listen, as best we can, to all of its voices. 

Even clear Scripture passages must give way to other passages, not quite so clear, that just might give some room to, say, approve of what is disapproved?

On the question of gender equity and inclusiveness, consider the following to be set alongside the most frequently cited texts. We may designate these texts as texts of welcome. Thus, the Bible permits very different voices to speak that seem to contradict those texts cited above. Therefore, the prophetic poetry of Isaiah 56:3-8 has been taken to be an exact refutation of the prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:1:

Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and do not let the eunuch say, “I am just a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off … for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them besides those already gathered (Is. 56:3-8).

This text issues a grand welcome to those who have been excluded, so that all are gathered in by this generous gathering God. The temple is for “all peoples,” not just the ones who have kept the purity codes.

The welcome contradicts the exclusion -- even without the specificity accorded the exclusionary texts so that Gospel triumphs and even erases and negates the Law.  Gospel reductionism is the term that comes to mind even without it being specifically mentioned.  After parading through the usual suspects of texts that might be used to welcome those who were once excluded (unless repentant, of course), Brueggemann makes this point:

Finally, among the texts I will cite is the remarkable narrative of Acts of the Apostles 10. The Apostle Peter has raised objections to eating food that, according to the purity codes, is unclean; thus, he adheres to the rigor of the priestly codes, not unlike the ones we have seen in Leviticus. His objection, however, is countered by “a voice” that he takes to be the voice of the Lord. Three times that voice came to Peter amid his vigorous objection:

What God has made clean, you must not call profane (Acts 10:15). 

The voice contradicts the old purity codes! From this, Peter is able to enter into new associations in the church. He declares:

You yourselves know that it is unlawful for Jews to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean (Acts 10:28).

And from this Peter further deduces:

I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him (v. 34).

This is a remarkable moment in the life of Peter and in the life of the church, for it makes clear that the social ordering governed by Christ is beyond the bounds of the rigors of the old exclusivism.

In case you are wondering, yes, this sounds exactly like the reasoning that led to the ordination of women in the mid to late twentieth century after nearly two millenia of believing Scripture and tradition said an unequivocal no.

You can read him yourself here.  I am only quoting here enough so that you can see how exegesis in this way can allow the interpreter to rule the text and decide what it says even when the explicit text says something different.  By this methodology, nothing is true in a permanent sense but every truth evolves or at least is subject to the mind and experience of the interpreter and every truth is equal since there is no one voice but many, all of which must be heard with equal weight and attention.

However, my favorite is this:

The Gospel is not to be confused with or identified with the Bible. The Bible contains all sorts of voices that are inimical to the good news of God’s love, mercy and justice. Thus, “biblicism” is a dangerous threat to the faith of the church, because it allows into our thinking claims that are contradictory to the news of the Gospel. The Gospel, unlike the Bible, is unambiguous about God’s deep love for all peoples. And where the Bible contradicts that news, as in the texts of rigor, these texts are to be seen as “beyond the pale” of gospel attentiveness.

Gospel reductionism.  Explicit.  Pitting the Bible against the Gospel as if they were two different stories (at least two).  It is this kind of stuff that was in vogue when I was in college and seminary and it is the reason today the commentary shelf in my library is the smallest section out of some 10,000 books.  The ultimate danger of the exegete is that he or she drinks the kool-aid of their own poison and attempts to pass around the cup to the rest of us.  I am not buying it and neither should you.  However, it would seem some folks in Rome have perked up their ears to what the likes of Brueggemann is saying....