Currents of Faith: Open and Unfolding Reflections

I now move to how theology has informed my faith, focusing specifically upon areas which have been central to the Christian faith: Scripture, Jesus, Christ, Evil, Salvation, Forgiveness, Prayer, Death and Judgment. I begin with the Bible.

I knew that there was a Holy Bible before I entered the church at age sixteen, but not much more. I had seen it on our bookshelf at home and heard about it at vacation Bible school and LDS primary classes. It had existed in the periphery of my life, then, it leaped onto center stage. Each Sunday it would be read from the pulpit and served as the basis for the sermon. I soon gathered that it was important!

I did not have a devout grandmother who would invite me to sit on her lap in the old rocking chair while she read Bible verses or told Bible stories. I had no father or grandfather who would read passages from the Bible at the evening meal or bedtime, nor a beloved Sunday school teacher who instilled a love of scripture. There were no such spiritual figures in my childhood whom I could later recall with warmth and devotion. In my later teaching in the church I heard many life stories from persons who fondly remembered such introductions to the Bible. Not me!

My experiences were more academic. During the week I was in biology, zoology, and botany labs and heard the scriptures read on Sunday. I attended my first formal Bible class at the LDS Institute of Religion across the street from the Idaho State College campus. In that class I recall writing a paper in which I responded to one of Paul’s letters in the New Testament. It would be interesting today to read what I said in my early conversations with scripture. Later, as I was studying for my Local Preacher’s License I read Frank Lankard, The Bible Speaks to Our Generation, as one of four books on which I would be tested. That book bore the copyright date of 1941 and surely did not reflect the burst of biblical scholarship which would come forth in the next few decades. It resides on my bookshelf today with the following inscription: Robert Brizee, Residence Hall, Idaho State College, Pocatello, Idaho, 1952. In those same years there was great excitement about the new version of the Bible soon to be published, The Revised Standard Version. I still have the New Testament, which became available several years before the Old Testament.

Like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, I loved to unlock the meaning of passages, especially later when I had an introduction to the original languages, Hebrew and Greek. I enjoyed reading the variety of interpretations written by scholars in the Bible commentaries, as they unfolded the circumstances surrounding the verses and the shades of meaning which a given word could have. It felt as though I were solving a mystery. I enjoyed being a Sherlock Holmes of the Bible! In my third year of seminary I wrote a Master’s thesis on the Temptations of Jesus. It was a pleasure for me to learn of the different viewpoints expressed by the fifty commentators I read.

On the other hand, I have never read the Bible “cover to cover.” I have never memorized the names of the books of the Bible or felt the need to do so. I am sure that I went through a stage similar to Thomas Jefferson who with his scissors cut out all references to miracles in the Bible. Mine were psychological scissors. I simply could not read as fact or history a number of the miraculous events reported. I have never learned by heart a particular Psalm or the Ten Commandments. I have seldom used the Bible as a daily devotional. Rather, I focused on knowing how to go about finding what I needed. I was devoted to developing methods of interpreting the scripture rather than knowing every word of it. When I needed to understand a certain verse or chapter, I would know how to unlock it.

In the committee I met with to obtain a Preacher’s License in 1952, and those I met with to consider my candidacy for a Deacon in 1964, and an Elder in 1967, I can recall no questions about whether I saw the Bible as the Word of God, inerrant and literal. It seems that during the 1950’s and 1960’s the lines were not drawn so clearly regarding this issue. Word of God was clearly not a central issue in my theological education or my ordination. As I consider the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I place Experience first, Reason second, followed by Scripture and Tradition. Surely that must mean that I am more  Pentecostal than Fundamentalist! I think the truth for me is that experience is the underlying reality of the other three. More recently in reading and hearing Dr. Marcus Borg, I agreed with his taking the Bible seriously rather than literally

I have spoken about what I did not learn in my childhood and youth and what I did not do with The Bible. I wish to share what I do now; how my theology guides me to relate to the Bible. I can state it simply and concisely: when I read scripture, I search for experience. My reason for doing so is that experience is the ultimate reality in the universe according to process theology. Every happening, event, occurrence, is an experience, technically an “occasion of experience.” So, I look for that reality within the Bible. What is the occasion of experience in this passage? Who is the center of creativity in this verse? What is the invitation that God is offering in that occasion to that person at that time? How may I translate that offering into a contemporary question: What is God’s invitation to me today?

I recognize that I am making an assumption, a leap of faith. I cannot prove what is reality. It is my assumption that experience is the basic reality and that occasions of experience are the real entities in the universe. My assumption leads me naturally to methods of exploring reality. I fully acknowledge that others start with different assumptions, such as the Bible is the inerrant, literal Word of God. Or that the Bible is an interesting history of the people of Israel, just as the Odyssey and Iliad are epics of the Greeks and the Aeneid is the story of the founding of Rome. Of course, each of these claims leads to different methods of approaching scripture.

As I engage a particular passage in scripture, I ask, “If I were there and had a video camera, what would I see and hear?” “Would I see and hear Jesus speaking to a gathering while standing on a mount, as reported in the Gospel of Matthew?” Or, “Would I see one or more members of Matthew’s community of faith sitting with quills in hand writing of their imagination of that event?” “Is the center of creativity located in Jesus or Matthew’s community, Jesus speaking or members of Matthew’s community imagining?” By such questions I am attempting to determine if the reality of this passage is history or metaphor. A metaphor is a story which is not actual history yet reveals a truth. The best example of such stories are the parables of Jesus, not history, not event, but nonetheless a creation of the imagination which speaks of reality.

I find that the interpretations of the Creation story in Genesis 1 illustrate the difference between metaphor and history. When I studied with Dr. Loren Fisher, an Old Testament scholar, I learned an interpretation of the seven days of creation as a ritual. The Israelites held a week of celebration of the creation. The experiences, the centers of creativity, would then be in the psyches of a gathering of priests creating a litany for worship. The video camera would record the conversations and writing of ninth century BCE Hebrew priests, flowing from their creative imaginative experience.

Such an interpretation is obviously different than those who have modified each of the twenty four hour days into a long time period of history, possibly eons of time. This interpretation clearly differs from those who affirm a history in which God created everything in seven actual twenty-four days exactly as written. These interpretations are based on different experiences and centers of creativity: priests praying, imagining, writing, editing together, God creating over eons of time or God creating in seven twenty-four hour days. Are these Genesis 1 verses metaphor or history? Where is the reality? Each reader is a biblical interpreter and will decide which is true. I find Dr. Fisher’s ideas compelling.

His interpretation does not simply come out of the blue. Rather, it is based on a well accepted theory proposed by Dr. Julius Wellhausen about the origin of the five books of Moses. The books are a collection and synthesis of four different streams of wisdom which have been labeled, J, E, D, and P, Jahweh, Elohim, Deutronomic, and Priestly, respectively. The first two are identified by the name given to God by a community of faith. Genesis 1 is generally accepted as a Priestly document, followed immediately in Genesis 2 by a much more simple and homey description of the creation of humans from the Jahweh  tradition. Surely, such dramatic differences gave clues that the text was not a smoothly integrated and unified story line. Knowing this source as a Priestly document gives more credence to the interpretation of a group of priests in deliberation. It also allows modern readers to be more forgiving of the obvious errors in the stages of creation. Those priests lived a long time ago and had limited knowledge about the physical world.

Thus, I search for experience, occasions of experience, and centers of creativity in scripture which allow me to seriously engage the challenges which I face today.

My friend, Dr. William Beardslee, was the first biblical scholar to apply process theology to the Bible. He proposed that the texts of scripture bring propositions to challenge the reader. In most texts these propositions are evident and on the surface, such as Jesus’ call to “love your enemy.” In contrast, in the book of Revelation the propositions addressed by John of Patmos are to those facing martyrdom by the Roman empire. “Hold to your faith” is hidden under layers of dramatic happenings. It is possible that the propositions set forth may not have even been in the awareness of the writer.

Dr. Beardslee influenced a generation of biblical scholars in this creative approach to scripture. Dr. David Lull, Dr. Ron Farmer, Dr. Russell Pregeant and others are carrying forward this innovation in their biblical studies. I credit Dr. Farmer with saving the book of Revelation for me, for I admit that I had taken out my psychological scissors and cut out that scary, violent, brutal, blood-filled story. I now have a new appreciation for the wonderful stage production created by John of Patmos featuring the four horsemen, the harlot, 666, and the rest of the cast. When I think of John as a Cecil B. De Mille or Steven Spielberg I can begin to locate the word of hope which he proposes. Turning to the popular Broadway production, Music Man, I agree with salesman Professor Harold Hill, “You’ve got to know the territory.” I needed to know John’s territory.

I have been helped greatly by another group of biblical scholars known as the Jesus Seminar. Beginning with invitations by Dr. Robert Funk in the mid 1980’s these seventy-five scholars began to meet in the Flamingo Hotel in Santa Rosa, California. Their aim was to search for the authentic words of Jesus. A second more amusing purpose was to speak radically enough to gain the media attention usually given to televangelists and conservative preachers. I had the opportunity to attend one of their sessions and watch the Fellows in action and later participate in another conference featuring presentations by several of their group.

I was intrigued by their method of voting by colored marbles. I think that this technique was a later adaptation of the round stones used in the democratic elections of ancient Athens. Papers were read by those who had completed extensive research on a particular section of the New Testament. Discussion followed, then they cast their ballots, red, pink, gray and black marbles allowing each Fellow to express a range of conviction. A red marble meant that these words were very probably spoken by Jesus, pink , the theme was likely from Jesus, gray expressing real doubt and the black marble, the belief that it was highly unlikely that  the statement was made by Jesus. The values of the marbles were counted, giving a particular statement a number. Thus, the first book from the Seminar was aptly called The Parables of Jesus, The Red Letter Edition. A bit of humor sparkled from the title. Yes, if it is red or largely red intertwined with pink Jesus probably said it.

After establishing a number of red sayings and parables it was then possible to compare a new statement under question with them. They assumed some consistency in the words of Jesus. They began to get the feel of the stories he told and the sayings he spoke.

An illustration of this can be found in the parable of the vineyard owner, which I have already mentioned. At the conclusion of this story of everyday life in Galilee recorded in Matthew’s gospel, there appears a statement, “So, the last will be first and the first will be last.” Whoa! Hold On! Just a Minute Here! In those parables judged to be authentic, Jesus never offers a moral or gives a meaning of the story. Jesus is more likely to leave the listener’s head swimming with a zinger. It is assumed, then, that this is the word of the gospel writer at a later time rather than the word of Jesus.

The work of the Seminar helped me to find the reality, the experience, giving rise to that statement. In the case of the parable of the vineyard owner, I can with some certainty know that in the closing verse I am listening to Matthew rather than Jesus. The statement just does not seem consistent with the central message of Jesus in other sayings and parables. I have no quarrel with valuing how Matthew interpreted Jesus for his generation of Christians some fifty years later. One can gain rich insights from how the Christian communities translated Jesus into their time and place. I just want to know to whom I am listening!

I also rely heavily on “biblical criticism,” the scholarly adventures which have advanced over the decades since the early 20th century. They include textual criticism, literary criticism, historical criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and the more recent canonical criticism. While the names sound rather daunting, they simply name methods to answer practical questions regarding any particular section of the Bible: Is the text of the verse I am reading the original or at least the oldest text available? Do these verses fit with the surrounding verses or have words been inserted here? Have verses been deleted? Do these verses fit with other verses written by this same author? What is the historical and cultural setting of this text? Who was around, who was in power, what circumstances were they facing? Does this verse contain a phrase or concept, such as Wilderness, which wends its way through many centuries of scripture? How did the gospel writers, often called redactors, modify, combine or transcribe the materials with which they had to work?

These various methods help in locating whose center of creativity produced this passage in scripture. Was it Jesus? Was it Paul? Was it Matthew, Mark, or Luke? They help me to understand when this center of creativity was operating: Was it 33 C.E. in Galilee? Was it 55 C.E. in Galatia? Was it 72 C.E. in Rome?

I have been grateful to those scholars who have searched for ancient manuscripts. I subscribe to the Biblical Archeology Review, in which an article appeared in the past several years describing thirty-four fragments of gospels which have been identified. This is a far cry from the four gospels which appear in our present New Testament. I am drawn to wonder who wrote those texts, when and where they lived, and what visions of reality they professed. I wonder why they were lost, discarded or hidden. I assume that they, too, were the result of centers of creativity open to the inspiration of God. We know that some gospels were actively opposed and refuted.

While I do not know the details, I am intrigued by the process of canonization, another long and technical word. It refers to the decisions made over many centuries by the Christian community regarding which gospels and letters would become holy scripture. It did not happen quickly or all at once, rather extending over many years and prompted largely by that which the people found helpful for living their lives. On my bookshelf I have a large book entitled The Canon Debates. Someday I may read it cover to cover! Alas, I am a bibliophile and am better at buying books than reading them.

As I approach the Bible I have to ask about the persons, and the qualities of their centers of creativity, or, in other words, who decided which of many manuscripts were acceptable, which were not. As noted above, we have only a small portion of those which were spoken, written, and distributed among the various early Christian communities. Why this one, why not that one? Knowing the vast number of original manuscripts and the long process of selection keeps me humble about knowing the exactness of what was said and what was done in the Galilee of Jesus’ time.

I needed to deal with God’s role in scripture. Some say that scripture is just a story in which God played no part. Others say that the Bible is a dictation of God, the clear Word of God. I find a middle ground which fits my theology and is more compelling. Since God is present in every occasion of experience of every entity in the universe, it follows that God was present in creating scripture. Yet, the occasion, a center of creativity, has other streams of influence, one’s past, the intersecting world, and one’s body, all of which are highly complex and persuasive. So, I conclude that every word of the Bible was influenced by God and the writer, his or her physical status, his or her past, and the current conditions of his or her world. The degree to which the invitations of God were persuasive varies in different writings. In an amusing way it is true that the words of scripture are always in the language of the writer or speaker. God’s invitations are influenced by the culture of the writer. It is no surprise that the Qur’an is written in Arabic, the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek

I had to come to terms with the holy writings of other world religions. I needed to know what my theology would say about the Qur’an, Bhagava-gita, Hebrew Bible, Analects of Confucius, the Teachings of Buddha, and others. I began my search with an understanding that I was born in the United States among largely Christian people in the first third of the 20th century. Theoretically, I could as easily have been born in a vastly different culture. Had it been India I would likely have become a Hindu or Buddhist, China, a combination of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, Saudi Arabia, a Muslim, Israel, a Jew. Most of us humans do not have the time, energy or supportive community to immerse ourselves in the various holy writings of the world and choose which speaks truth to us. We are busy earning a living, raising a family, and paying the house mortgage. There are persons, like Dr. Huston Smith, who have devoted their lives to understanding the faith claims of the world. To him and others like him we owe a debt of gratitude, for we can learn from his awesome adventures, yet most cannot follow in his footsteps.

If it was largely chance that I was born and raised in a particular culture, then I would be exposed in both overt and subtle ways to the Bible and the influences that it has had upon all that is about me. I saw churches, cathedrals, steeples, crosses. I was immersed in the community celebrations of Christmas and Easter. Only as an adult did I become aware of a number of the Jewish and Islamic celebrations and holy days. I had to first come to terms with the water in which I was swimming, Christianity and the Bible. Only later would the other holy writs even enter my consciousness.

My theology guides me to understand that God is creating in all times, in all places, with all creatures. God is actively persuading in every center of creativity. This leads me to say that God has inspired every holy scripture on this planet. This inspiration must have been influenced by the particular culture of the ones inspired. God begins with where we are and calls us to new possibilities. There is, then, a different starting point for each culture. The inspired scripture would address different issues. The circumstances surrounding Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Confucius, and Jesus would not be identical. The resulting inspiration and scripture would not be identical. Nor will the circumstances of future generations and their resulting inspiration.

The one distinctive feature of most of the world’s holy scripture is an awareness of the divine. When the one who is dictating or writing scripture is self-consciously standing in the presence of the divine the results are different. God is creative within all human events whether or not the person has any knowledge of this divine presence. This is a basic assumption of process theology which I affirm. Still, one can fully shut out any awareness of God in one’s life. This limits God’s activity. However, when a person is both aware and open to the divine, God is able to offer invitations not possible when this presence is not acknowledged.

I am certain that God was present during the creation of all written documents in the history of the world: Machiavelli’s The Prince, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy, Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night Dream, Miguel Cervantes’ Don Quixote, and the list could go on. The issue to me is the degree to which the authors were aware of and receptive to the divine creating within them. The obvious answer for some above would be, Totally Unaware! For others the answer is, Yes, to varying degrees. The writers of scripture, in contrast, began with the unquestioned assumption: I stand in the presence of God, listen for God’s guidance, and am responsible to God.

I conclude that the words of Jesus are central and life-giving for me. I find in them a reality which is inviting, adequate, enriching and satisfying. I do not, however, assume before I start that Jesus is the answer. Were I to find a more compelling message from another voice, I would seriously consider following it. For me, every holy scripture “throws its hat in the ring” for consideration. None is a priori considered the winner before the throw. I am not one who believes that Christianity has superseded Judaism. I would consider that position to be an affront to Jewish people who are as devoted to their way of life as I am to mine.

I state my summary. My assumption: I affirm that experience is reality. My method: I search for experience. My findings: I am devoted to the authentic words of Jesus. So, on to a discussion of Jesus.

Living in Process: My 43 Years in Process Theology is an interactive eBook by Robert Brizee, Th.M., Ph.D.