“The Word of God.”
If God is Spirit—not a humanlike creature—than God has a spiritual language, not a human language. Surely, the spiritual language speaks to everyone, no matter what their dialect or accent.
I’d have to agree with the scholars who take a metaphorical historical interpretation of the Bible and figure the words in the Bible are not directly from God, but from human beings who were hopefully inspired by God. Readers of these words, including myself, have been inspired, not so much by the words, as by the expression. The writer “expressed,” or “evoked” an image or understanding. And, the heart heard and knew a truth.
The literal words in and of themselves are only tools. Words, in fact, can become powerless. For millenniums, words have been going unheard by people who don’t want to listen, or who are too afraid, or angry, to hear.
Because words can be powerless, there are translations and revisions and rewordings, and it is proven that all power belongs to God, Love, Truth.
“For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.” I Peter 4:6, ESV
Easter is an interesting time of the year. Of course, friends and neighbors have been involved in Lent for a few weeks now. I’ve covered a story on Ukrainian Egg decorating—a rather impressive and fancy process. My husband came home from church with a palm branch (the cats play with it). But, I have to admit, the most impressive 2013 Easter happening, for me so far, is reading a book by Marcus Borg. Not really thinking about Easter, I checked out the book, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (published in 2001) and began reading with the hopes it would keep my attention. It did.
Although I’ve never heard of the man before, Marcus Borg apparently is well known in both academic and church circles as a Bible and Jesus scholar. Moreover, his vocabulary is bigger than mine, but I hung in there and kept reading his book. I’m sure I didn’t catch the full meaning of his “metaphorical historical approach to interpretation,” but I did catch enough. Borg points out the difference between a metaphorical and a literal interpretation, and his reasoning is sound.
A literal interpretation would render the resurrection as an event that occurred only once. Whereas, a metaphorical interpretation can admit an ongoing resurrection. It reminds me of the definition for resurrection as found in a revision of Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health, “Resurrection: Spiritualization of thought; a new and higher idea of immortality or spiritual existence; material belief yielding to spiritual understanding.” This can happen right now.
Literal interpretations lead to exclusivity and contradiction. Literalists serve a convention or culture, whereas, Borg points out, we can rather be liberated to be God’s image. Our salvation doesn’t come through rituals, syllables, or words, but by letting go of an old way of being, and embracing a new way of being.
The old way of being is to insist human words are infallible or inerrant. The fact is: reading is an interpretation. Borg says, “There is no such thing as non-interpretive reading.” Readers are using their own discerning judgment when reading. But the meaning of anything sacred can “go beyond particular meanings of the texts in their ancient contexts.”
We have revisions of the Bible to show its surplus of meaning, and allow it full voice. The Bible is a lens through which we see God, but we need to remember, not to believe in the lens, but to believe in God.
Believing in God is not hard for me. Reading Marcus Borg’s book reaffirmed that I don’t need to believe in the Bible, or some other religious book, but can focus on believing God. This affirmation, I’d have to say, was a great Easter gift.
Rated PG, The Magic of Belle Isle is watched with relief. A washed out celebrated author, Monte Wildhorn (played by Morgan Freeman) takes up summer residency in a house that neighbors a single mother and her three daughters.
Directed by Rob Reiner, The Magic of Belle Isle reveals the pains of loss and the confusion that juxtaposes divorce. However, credit to script, characters focus on one another’s talents and contributions to society. The few innuendos associated with sexuality were regarded as inferior to the assets of humanity and creativity–a plus to the movie.
Monte Wildhorn regularly used his excellent grasp on the English language, supported with an extensive vibrant vocabulary. The single mother played the piano beautifully. The daughters were genuine sisters that expressed concern for one another’s well fair, yet still exhibited impatience.
Monte Wildhorn was supposedly a drunk before the neighboring house of feminine wisdom tempered his goal to self-destruct through alcohol. Morgan Freeman’s performed admirably the part of a jaded author, however, sloshed people slur their words more.
Typical to Hollywood, no one has real money problems in The Magic of Belle Isle. As a viewer, I had to remind myself that usually single mothers are working a job, driving an older vehicle, and not granting their children expensive birthday parties.
A feel good movie that makes you wonder why life doesn’t turn out like this for everyone, but yet still offers the possibility.
109 minutes, Filmed 2012
Zen kitty showed me all-presence
posted 7:01:06am Aug. 29, 2015 | read full post »
Bee stings and manure fertilizer
posted 8:55:14am Aug. 23, 2015 | read full post »
Rest rather than sleep
posted 8:30:45am Aug. 17, 2015 | read full post »
The qualifications for Communion
posted 8:12:25am Aug. 12, 2015 | read full post »
Bones and crayons
posted 8:42:58am Aug. 06, 2015 | read full post »