The claim of biblical authority is not difficult as it pertains to the main affirmation of apostolic faith.  But from that base line, the hard, disputatious work is interpretation that needs to be recognized precisely for what it is:  nothing other than interpretation.  The Bible, our mothers and fathers have always known, is not self-evident and self-interpreting, and the Reformers did not mean that at all when they escaped the church’s magisterium.  Rather, the Bible requires and insists upon human interpretation that is inescapably subjective, necessarily provisional, and, as you are living witnesses, inevitably disputatious.

I propose as an interpretive rule that all of our subjective, provisional, disputatious interpretation be taken, at most, with quite tentative authority, in order that we may (1) make our best, most insistent claims, but then, with some regularity, we may (2) relinquish our pet interpretations and, together with our partners in dispute, fall back in joy into the inherent apostolic claims that outdistance all our too familiar and too partisan interpretations.  We may learn from the rabbis the marvelous rhythm of deep interpretive dispute and profound common yielding in joy and affectionate well-being.  The sometimes characteristic and demonic mode of Reformed interpretation is not tentativeness and relinquishment but tentativenss that is readily hardened into absoluteness, whether of the right or of the left, of exclusive or of inclusive, a sleight-of-hand act of substituting our interpretive preference for the inherency of apostolic claims. (13-14)

Brueggemann, Walter.  “Biblical Authority: A Personal Reflection.”  Struggling with Scripture.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.  5-31.

Thought provoking words from Walter Brueggemann*:

The issue of the authority of the Bible is a perennial and urgent one for those of us who claim and intend to stake our lives on its attestation.  But for all of the perennial and urgent qualities of the question, the issue of biblical authority is bound, in any case, to remain endlessly unsettled and therefore, I believe, perpetually disputatious.  It cannot be otherwise, and so we need not hope for a “settlement” of the issue.  The unsettling and disputatious quality of the question is, I believe, given in the text itself, because the bible is ever so endlessly “strange and new.” (The phrase is an allusion to the famous essay of Karl Barth, “The Strange, New World within the Bible,” in The Word of God and the Word of Man.  New York:  Harper & Brothers, 1957, 28-50.)  It always, inescapably, outdistances our categories of understanding and explanation, of interpretation and control.  Because the Bible is, as we confess, “the live word of the living God,” it will not submit in any compliant way to the accounts we prefer to give of it.  There is something intrinsically unfamiliar about the book, and when we seek to override that unfamiliarity we are on the hazardous ground of idolatry. (5)

*Brueggemann, Walter.  “Biblical Authority: A Personal Reflection.”  Struggling with Scripture.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. 5-31.

If we’re talking about changing a society that yields most painfully to change, we are really talking about being good stewards not only in our vocations, but in the public realm.  The important decisions in our time – whether there will be peace or war, freedom or totalitarianism, racial equality or discrimination, homophilia or homophobia, food or famine – all these are political decisions.  To Christians, political decisions are not at the center of their faith; they are at the periphery of their faith.  But without a periphery there can be no center.  A center without a periphery is a contradiction in terms.  Together, faith in Jesus Christ and political application of that faith form one unbroken circle.

When to stress their distinction and when to stress their unity depends almost entirely on the situation.  Not every political issue of the day demands a decision from the churches, and I feel strongly that churches should not pursue political goals that are self-serving or parochial.  I hate to see Chrstians try to legislate their convictions on divorce or abortion into state or federal law.  I hate to see Christians fight to establish Sunday blue laws, or try to keep creches on public greens, or prayer in and evolution out of public schools.

But I love to see Chrstians enter the fray on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, to fight for housing for low-income families, for decent health care for the aging, for fair treatment for minorities, for peace for everyone – provided they always remember that there are many causes and more than one solution to problems of injustice and war.  Most of all, in these times that are neither safe nor sane, I love to see Christians risk maximum fidelity to Jesus Christ when they can expect minimal support from the prevailing culture.  I have in mind what the prophet Nathan did to King David – he spoke truth to power. (147-148)

William Sloane Coffin.  Credo.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Another excerpt from Credo* by William Sloane Coffin:

No two Shakespearean actors have ever sounded exactly alike, and no two readers of the Declaration of Independence, or of the Constitution of the United States, or of the sixty-six books of the Bible, will ever understand those documents in exactly the same way.  Let Protestant fundamentalists claim, “The only safe interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself.”  It’s a fine sounding claim, but it is pride masquerading as humility to believe that one can see so plainly revealed the mind and will of God.  Search for the truth we can and must, but own it – never.

Fundamentalists are no different from the rest of us.  Just as often as do we, they use a Bible as a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.  And consider this:  perhaps God approves the struggles of the human mind to try to interpret God’s designs.  “The unknown is the mind’s greatest need, and for it no one thinks to thank God” (Emily Dickinson).  So far from being a danger to it, difference of opinion is an essential ingredient of religious life, just as difference of opinion is no danger but an essential ingredient to a helathy political life.  So interpretation is not only inevitable; it’s desirable. (156)

*William Sloane Coffin.  Credo.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Recently, I discovered a book that was published in 2004, and I am sad that I have not known it until now.  This book contains a series of writings by William Sloane Coffin and carries the title, Credo*.  The following words are from the book’s Preface and are by William Sloane Coffin.  They merit our prayerful consideration.

Credo – I believe – best translates “I have given my heart to.”  However imperfectly, I have given my heart to the teaching and example of Christ, which, among many other things, informs my understanding of faiths other than Christianity.

Certainly religions are different.  Still most seek to fulfill the same function; that is, they strive to convert people from self-preoccupation to the wholehearted giving of oneself in love for God and for others.  To love God by loving neighbor is an impulse equally at the heart of Chrstianity, Judaism, and Islam.  It therefore makes eminent sense in today’s fractured world for religious people to move from truth-claiming to the function truth plays.

Moreover, when we consider how, on a whole range of questions – from the number of sacraments to the ordination of women, pacifism, abortion, and homosexuality – Christians cannot arrive at universal agreement, then we have to be impressed by a divine incomprehensibility so vast that no human being dare speak for the Almighty.  As St. Paul asks, “For who has known the mind of God?”  To learn from one another and to work together towards common goals of justice and peace – this surely is what suffering humanity has very right to expect of believers of all faiths. (xv)

*William Sloane Coffin.  Credo.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

In the last post I made reference to Dr. Walter Brueggemann’s Journey to the Common Good* noting particularly his writing that the “journey from anxious scarcity through miraculous abundance to a neighborly common good has been peculiarly entrusted to the church and its allies.” (32)

In this post we continue to consider Dr. Brueggemann’s eloquent words.  He writes about the feeding of the five thousand as recorded in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 6:30-44) and the feeding of four thousand people as recorded in Mark 8:1-10.  I encourage you to read these sections from the Gospel.  Dr. Brueggemann continues:

He [Jesus] wants them [the disciples] to reflect on his work of abundance.  But they avoided eye contact and make no response.  The disciples are beyond their interpretive capacity, because they do not know what to make of the new abudance caused by Jesus.

Like a good teacher, Jesus retreats to more concrete operational questions:

— How many baskets of bread were left over in chapter 6 when I fed five thousand?

— They are eager with an answer: “Twelve.”

— How many baskets of bread were left over in chapter 8 when I fed four thousand?

— They are eager with an answer:  “Seven!”

The disciples are very good at concrete operational questions.  They know the data, but they have no sense of its significance.  The narrative concludes with one of Jesus’ saddest verdicts:

Do you not yet understand?  Mark 8:21

Do you not understand that the ideology of scarcity has been broken, overwhelmed by the divine gift of abundance?

It is our propensity, in society and in church, to trust the narrative of scarcity.  That is what makes us greedy, and exclusive, and selfish, and coercive.  Even the Eucharist can be made into an occasion of scarcity, as though there were not enough for all.  Such scarcity leads to exclusion at the table, even as scarcity leads to exclusion from economic life.

But the narrative of abundance persists among us.  Those who sign on and depart the system of anxious scarcity become the historymakers of the neighborhood.  These are the ones not exhausted by Sabbath-less production who have enough energy to dream and hope.  From dreams and hopes come such neighborly miracles as good health care, good schools, good housing, good care for the earth, and disarmament.  The dream subverts Pharaoh’s nightmare.  Jesus laid it out, having read the exodus narrative:

“Do not be anxious” – do not trust Pharaoh; “Your heavenly father knows what you need” – then provides abundantly; “Seek the kindgom” – care for the neighborhood, and all will be well.  Matt 6:25-33

The ones who receive the gift have energy beyond themselves for the sake of the world.  And we, if we receive well, may be among those who push beyond ourselves. (34-35)

Are we stuck in the scarcity of operational-only understandings or are beginning to understand the significance of abundance?

*Brueggemann, Walter.  Journey to the Common Good.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.

It is my sad observation that many people are busy going but really have absolutely no idea about their destination, their vision, or even their reason for continuing to go.  As I have continued to consider this observation I have been reminded of words from two of the beloved volumes on the shelves of my library.

Dr. Walter Bruggemann* writes:

That journey from anxious scarcity through miraculous abundance to a neighborly common good has been peculiarly entrusted to the church and its allies.  I take “church” here to refer to the institutional church, but I mean it not as a package of truth and control, but as a liturgical, interpretive offer to reimagine the world differently.  When the church only echoes the world’s kingdom of scarcity, then it has failed in its vocation.  But the faithful church keeps at the task of living out a journey that points to the common good. (32)

These are powerful words and will provide some of the launching point for several of the coming posts on this site.  They also remind me of words of another thoughtful mentor, Thomas L. Are**:

The song we sing is good.  It is called grace.

I have often felt that if I just had five days, or even five hours in which I were free to listen, God would surely speak to me.  It would have been important to me if he had done so.  I would have listened and now I would have been able to say, “Hear the new word from God.”

However, nothing like that has happened.  I have had many hours free.  God has had ample time to tell me anything he wants me to know.  I have been more quiet than usual and God has been terribly silent.

This disappoints me.  His silence has pushed me back to the old recourses of friends, books, and memories that have always sustained me.  I won’t give an authoritative new chapter but will reaffirm the same old word I have already said, done, thought, experienced, and half-believed all my life.

For the prophets, the only requirement for writing a book was to begin by saying, “Thus saith the Lord.”  Later the church fathers would write: “The church has alwyas said . . .”  I can’t say, “Thus saith the Lord,” because he doesn’t always speak to me.  Nor can I say, “The church has always said . . . ,” for the church has seldom had enough unity to have always said anything.  The most honest thing I can say is, “It seems to me.” (93)

And so for the next few posts I likely will begin with the phrase “It seems to me.”  I hope you might join the conversation.

*Brueggemann, Walter.  Journey to the Common Good.  Louisville:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.

**Are, Thomas L.  Faithsong: A New Look at the Ministry of Music.  Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1981

More important information and insight from Dr. William Loving*:

THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG

By William Loving, MD, ABAM

Imagine separating the brain into the areas of higher functions (above the ears) and lower primitive functions (below the ears). The higher functions such as speech, voluntary movement, will power, logic, judgment and ethics are located in the big wrinkled part of the brain above the ears. This area is called the cerebrum or neocortex. The primitive functions which are involuntary and instinctual in nature are located lower in the underbelly of the brain. This area is called the mid-brain and brain stem.

You might think that the pleasure or reward center is located in the area of higher function – but it is not. It is located in the primitive mid-brain. Stimulate this discrete area of the brain known as the reward center and the person feels pleasure, euphoria, or “high”. This is “where the action is” in the alcoholic or chemically dependent person’s brain. Because of their chemical structure, certain substances like alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, opiates and other drugs of abuse have their primary action at the reward center. When stimulated the reward center does two things – it makes chemically dependent or alcoholic people feel “high” and then it sends a message to the rest of the brain saying “do that again”.

It has been discovered, through animal studies and sophisticated brain scans, that the alcoholic and chemically dependent person has an ultra-sensitive reward center, and this type of stimulation causes it to overreact. That means the chemically dependent person not only gets a higher “high” than the average person, but, even more significantly, gets super strong messages saying “DO IT AGAIN!” Not only are these messages to repeat the behavior very strong, but they come from the primitive area of the brain. This means they trump control by the higher function area of the brain. Chemically dependent people find themselves obeying the primitive brain’s message even though it goes against their own logic, judgment, and ethics. The primitive brain then starts to run the show or control behavior, and the higher brain is just along for the ride.

When alcohol and/or drugs are actively used, the primary motivation and control of behavior is coming from the part of the brain below the ears. Above the ears the cerebrum just spends its time rationalizing, explaining away behavior, and lying, if necessary, to cover its tracks. One author said the brain gets “hijacked” by drugs and alcohol. When it comes to behavior, it is like the tail wagging the dog.

*http://www.billlovingmd.com/TailWaggingTheDog.php

The idea that we need to go down in order to get up, or backward in order to go forward is an important part of understanding the journey toward wholeness and health – the journey often involves the practice of taking three steps forward followed by two steps backward.

In this post I turn to some very important words of wisdom from my mentor, colleague, and friend Dr. William Loving* and his explanation of the Chinese finger trap:

CONTEMPLATING THE CHINESE FINGER TRAP

By William Loving, MD, ABAM

The first impulse to free yourself from a Chinese finger trap is to pull hard, but this only entraps you more. The way to get free is the opposite-give up the struggle. Likewise, brute force, strong determination, or sheer willpower do not work to free a person in the throes of chemical dependency. Nearly 20% of our population struggles with the dangerous and destructive central nervous system disorder of drug addiction and alcoholism. This disorder is often inherited but can be acquired, and is due to a particular primitive part of the brain that grossly overreacts to drugs that induce euphoria.

Divide the brain horizontally in half at the ears, and you have the neocortex above the ears which contains the higher functions such as logic, speech, thought, and willpower, while below the ears you have the primitive or instinctual brain. The key part of the brain involved in chemical dependency is just below the ears at the reward center (mesocorticolimbic system.) This reward or pleasure center registers the feeling of euphoria or “high”, and then reflexively urges you to repeat the experience that induced the pleasure. If the reward center overreacts, not only is the euphoria extremely intense, but the reflex urges are very powerful saying “DO IT AGAIN!”

Strong messages like this from the instinctual part of the brain overpower willpower, which is a function located above the ears in the neocortex. When a child says, “If you don’t let me have what I want I’ll hold my breath till I turn blue and die,” we are amused. We know the child will breathe in due time-the breathing center in the instinct actual brain stem will overcome the child’s willpower.

Drug addicts and alcoholics truly experience a more intense “high” because their reward center is overly sensitive or reactive to certain chemicals. Ask a non-alcoholic how alcohol makes them feel, and they will give an answer such as, “Oh, it makes me feel kind of loose and giddy�calmer and uninhibited maybe, but at three or four drinks I start to feel dizzy and out of control so I quit.” An alcoholic will answer, “It makes me feel GOOD and four drinks is great-five drinks is better-and six is better still so I keep drinking and lose count.” The alcoholic’s reward center is very stimulated; it says “DO IT AGAIN” repeatedly; they feel great; this primitive part of the brain is running the show and they become out of control. The neocortical functions such as logic, willpower, morals, and ethics are superseded by the strong reward center impulses. And what is more dangerous, the brain is disinhibited and the vital neocortical functions including insight and judgment are impaired by these same chemicals. The chemically dependent person feels the “high” while those around him or her only experience that person’s misbehavior due to the short-circuited neocortical functions.

So, do we have a reward center so cocaine, pot, alcohol, and opiates have a place to work? Of course not. The reward center is naturally stimulated by sex/intimacy, exercise, food, collecting/shopping, a job well done, and artistic/spiritual experiences. All of these categories of natural “highs” give us survival benefits, and yet isn’t it interesting that any one of these natural “highs” can create problems as well if compulsively overdone. Remember, there is Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, Over Eaters Anonymous, Debtors Anonymous, Workaholics, Compulsive Exercisers, and even a Fundamentalist Anonymous group. The natural “highs” when done in moderation, though, do not disinhibit the brain and impair the other neocortical functions, and so are less likely to become problems.

When chemically dependent people become out of control they are functioning very much like the primate in this monkey trap picture: ” …a coconut with a small hole in each end and fastened to the ground by wire or cord. Bait is placed inside. Monkey reached in, closes fist, and won’t let go even though he can’t pull fist through hole.”

This is an illustration from a World War II survival manual for downed pilots which instructs a hungry pilot how to catch a monkey for food. The trap uses the strength of the monkey’s instincts against him. The monkey will hold onto the food to the point of being captured rather than do the smart thing and let go. Chemically dependent people will hold on to their drugs and alcohol in the same manner to the point of great loss and even death. In this way, the supersensitive reward center, in the instinctual brain, takes over and controls the human’s life.

So what does all this have to do with the Chinese finger trap? Struggling and willpower won’t free a chemically dependent person any more than pulling can free a person from a finger trap. After willpower fails, and it always does in a true addict or alcoholic, the chemically dependent person has to use a different approach than their first impulse. They must stop fighting and accept their powerlessness. This is the first step of Alcoholics Anonymous Twelve Steps to recovery.

This surrender frees up a great deal of energy so that the person can accept help and make the profound changes necessary to recover. After this stage the power can shift to the functions of the neocortex to establish an ongoing, proactive, sobriety plan based on new information about the disorder. Now, effective skills and tips can be learned in treatment to manage the disorder. The person can find real power and freedom in the treatment axiom of “surrender to win,” just like freedom from the Chinese Finger Trap comes by doing the opposite of what you might think.

*This article and other important articles and information from Dr. Loving may be found at http://www.billlovingmd.com/

The dominant culture calls us into isolation – when the going gets tough the tough get going – have it your way – be all that you can be – just say no!  The truth is that wholeness and health are not found in isolation – wholeness and health are found in loving relationship – and – loving relationship is found in surrender.

Surrender is generally not understood as a positive word in our culture and society, but true surrender – surrender to a higher power – surrender to a loving relationship is the path to freedom – the path to wholeness and health.

That is much of the power found in the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and the remainder of the Anonymous family of fellowships.  The foundational understandings are outlined in the first three steps.  As it says in the Big Book:

We thought we could find an easier, softer way.  But we could not.  With all the earnestness at our command, we beg of you to be fearless and thorough from the very start.  Some of us have tried to hold on to our old ideas and the result was nil until we let go absolutely . . . Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery [a path toward wholeness and health]:

1.  We admitted we were powerless over alcohol [over life] – that our lives had become unmanageable.

2.  Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3.  Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

By letting go “absolutely” we fall into loving relationship, and loving relationship is where we find freedom – it is where we find wholeness and health – it is where we find life!

For more information about the Big Book visit http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/