Defending the Gospel

Here in Lynchburg, the language around religion and a life of faith is decidedly different than that in many other municipalities. Lynchburg has been deeply influenced by the presence of Liberty University and the theology it espouses. One of the pat phrases I have heard, quite a bit, since I arrived here this spring has been, "We need to defend the gospel." In this theology, the thinking goes something like this:

1. Scripture is sacred. Every word in it is sacred.

2. Our job is to defend its sacred nature by following it as closely as we can.

And, ok--I'm with you that scripture is sacred. I might even say to you that I agree that every word is sacred. I spent 8 1/2 years studying that sacred word, learning Hebrew and Greek, pondering word after word after word. I am into words--a former English teacher with two degrees in English and Rhetoric, I like to think I understand words and grammar--I like knowing whether a verb is in the imperative, or what noun an adjective is modifying. Not to mention that, for the 40 years before I went to seminary, I was in Sunday School and church pretty much every Sunday. To say that every word is sacred, however is not the equivalent of taking every word literally, which, as approach to a text like our Bible, is a ridiculous thing to say. I recognize, of course, that saying that the literal approach is "ridiculous" is going to make some people mad. I think it is a shame that they will get mad, because the insistence on talking about the Bible as "literal" is a silliness--not even history books are literal--they always reflect the bent of the writer, the effects of the culture. They are always story, and story is never literal. A basic of study of literature will teach this understanding of all the writing that ever was.

I also believe, because I have been watching this for almost 40 years, that "defending the gospel" is code--in my experience it offers the speaker three things:

1. An excuse to keep women out of ministry leadership.

2. An excuse to exclude people who identify as LGBTQ.

3. A permission to interfere in the lives of others (i.e. abortion law).

Have this conversation with someone, and see if you don't end up talking about one of those three things. They are anxious to defend the gospel--against powerful women. They are willing to stand firm and make sure no person who is on the LGBTQ spectrum--and no person who associates with those persons--is allowed into their culture. They are willing to sacrifice anything to make sure that some other woman has to put aside her own decision and do what THEY want with her body.

Here's what I would ask:

First, what do you mean by the gospel? If you mean the four books which are The Gospels, you should know that Jesus provides for the ministry of women, and for their empowerment, and says absolutely nothing about homosexuality (as if the modern concept of homosexuality were even available to the culture of that time). Is that the gospel you are defending? Are you defending Mary's right to sit at the feet of Jesus with the men, a position Jesus himself defended, saying to Martha that it was the better choice and that it would not be taken from Mary (Luke 10:42)? Is that the gospel you are defending? 

Second, if, by "defending the gospel," what you mean is the entirety of scripture, I would ask you which one? Does yours include the Apocrypha? Is it only the KJV, or do you equally defend The Message? Do you defend Leviticus 19:33-34 ('When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord you God.")? Are you standing up for the refugees who come to our borders, welcoming them as brothers and sisters, in fear that you would fail in the task--one that is often reiterated in scripture--to welcome the foreigner or stranger as commanded in "the gospel?" Do you defend the rights of women, based on the choosing of Deborah as judge for the people of Israel, based on the heroism of Esther, based on the ordination of Phoebe as deacon of the church? Do you welcome everyone carefully, humbled by the words of Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"), understanding the the default setting of the gospel is that gender is not something with which we need to concern ourselves?
I have been working hard to get along with people from every walk of faith here in Lynchburg--I like people. I like connecting with people. And I have no problem with people who disagree with me about the interpretation of scripture. But I also believe that my theology of scripture is as valid as anyone else's. I have earned the right, by my scholarship, by my faithfulness, and by my labor, to have my own theology of scripture. And I guess this blog is my fair warning--I am readying myself to share it more openly in Lynchburg. Defending the gospel, in my theology, includes defending people from bad theology--from harmful theology, which casts  people out, which condemns and threatens, which costs people their family members, which leaves refugees by the side of the road, or separates them from their children and places them in detention. So, fair warning--I am putting on the armor of God--I am readying for battle. I am preparing to step forward and defend the gospel.