Baker Street and the Bible

In the past few months I have had a lot of requests to teach a Bible study course. In some sense, today’s service is perhaps a prelude to such a course. For before speaking about the meaning of particular passages within the Bible, I want to look at a couple of ways of approaching the Bible.

I think because of the place that the Bible has within our religion, our culture and history, that it makes it difficult to approach it the way we might approach other books of importance. It is even difficult to come to understand exactly what it means to take the Bible seriously. Certainly for some, to take it seriously seems to be connected with understanding the Bible as literally true in all ways. However, I believe that taking the Bible seriously means something quite different than this approach.

There is a band of enthusiasts that are devoted to the sixty Sherlock Holmes stories who have given themselves the name "The Baker Street Irregulars." Some of its members refer to the Sherlock Holmes stories as the canon, others even refer to it as the sacred writings.

The tradition among the members is to assume that the stories are true tales that tell of actual events. Dr. John H. Watson is the real narrator of all the stories except for two, and that he and Sherlock are real people. For some there is even a reluctance to admit that either of them is actually dead, even now. Apparently the inside story is that they are living in retirement in some quiet cottage in the English countryside.

However there is the problem of the books having an author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This is not seen as a real problem because it is obvious to the Baker Street Irregulars that Conan Doyle is really only Watson’s agent. This being a well established fact, there is a system of explanation that seems rather solid.

In terms of Sherlock Holmes, I am a novice, I am aware of the general story, I know about the pipe and the phrase "elementary my dear Watson", I have even read two of the books back when I was in High School. The quote "evidence" provided by the Baker Street Irregulars is strong enough that it seems believable. After all, these people seem to know everything about the stories. From casual references, to the state of the weather, the arrival of mail, or the date a particular adventure took place can be reasoned out and explained by this group.

On some level it should seem quite reasonable for someone like myself to join this group, and commit myself to believing that the Sherlock Holmes stories are inerrant. I might even find myself having great passion in my commitment. However the question remains; If I take these stories to be literally true in all ways, am I really taking these books seriously?

For some, this is their approach to the Biblical stories. This is the level that we might speak of as a natural literalism. A lot of churches in mainline denominations orient themselves to the Bible in this way. It is where the Bible is read naturally as it is, without much further thought or reflection, if its actually read at all. It’s similar to the level of real knowledge that I have regarding Sherlock Holmes. I know the general picture that everyone in the world probably knows, but I have not read in any rigorous way. And one of the main differences you find between a natural literalism and fundamentalism is the level of rigor in which the Bible is read.

So lets say, that as a newly affirmed member of the Baker Street Irregulars, I sit down to really read the historical documents of Dr. Watson. For now its time to really know the truth as outlined by these books. But what happens when I really begin my "study" of the Sherlock Holmes books?

If I really paid attention to what I was reading I would discover something that can only be discovered by careful study. I would discover that the inerrant documents of Dr. Watson seemed to contain some errors. In the later books in particular, there are many inconsistencies and contradictions. The most striking that I know of is when Mrs. Watson refers to her husband John H. Watson as "James."

Now at first, this may cause me to lose faith in a group like the Baker Street Irregulars. But more likely, I might end up thinking there is something wrong with me. After all, who am I compared to the entire Baker Street organization, how could my own interpretations be compared to this group that takes Sherlock Holmes so seriously, a group that seems to have all the answers right at their fingertips.

Well, as it turns out, the Baker Street Irregulars have dealt with the apparent inconsistency about Dr. Watson’s name. It has been pointed out in scholarly fashion that Watson’s middle initial "H" probably stands for "Hamish", which as it turns out is the Scottish equivalent of James. Hence the infallibility of the Sherlock Holmes stories was proved once again.

This approach when used to understand the Bible, is what is meant by fundamentalism. This is the way in which fundamentalism goes beyond a natural literalism. It would be a mistake to assume that fundamentalism is overly simplistic. It is an approach that uses logic in its own way to create complex theories and systems in order to maintain the idea that the Bible is absolutely true and perfect in all ways.

A good friend of mine from seminary began his first ministerial career serving the Worldwide Church of God. On several occasions he explained to me their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. It was incredibly complex to say the least. It involved links to current events, contrasting texts, and going back to the original Greek to uncover hidden meanings. With what he was taught he could essentially relate any issue very directly to certain clusters of Biblical passages to come up with a single answer that they understood to be absolutely true.

The complexity of fundamentalist scholarship can lead one easily to the conclusion that the Bible must be absolutely literally true in all ways. Yet what happens if you read the Bible with care, is that you begin to find contradictions laced throughout the book. The first five books of the Bible, known as the Torah, are held by fundamentalists to be written by Moses. Yet if one takes this literally it would seem that Moses did not even know the nationality of his own people because in one version they were the Ishmaelites (Gen. 37.25), and in another they were the Midianites (Gen. 37.28.) The New Testament has the same inconsistencies between the various Gospels, for instance the last supper is depicted as a Passover meal in one book, and in another the last supper occurs before Passover.

But fundamentalist scholarship deals with these issues. For instance in the Gospels of Mark, Mathew, and Luke the story of Jesus cleansing the temple of the money changers occurs at the end of his public ministry. In the Gospel of John it occurs in the beginning. Fundamentalism would hold that all the gospels are correct, and since it is not explicitly stated otherwise, that there were in fact two temple cleansings.

So like the Baker Street Irregulars, Biblical fundamentalism uses logic in its own way to make the case for infallibility. For those who favor this point of view, taking such things to be literally and perfectly true is synonymous with having a serious understanding and respect for the Bible.

But there is another approach that I believe is even more respectful as well as serious. For example, there is another way to understand the contradictions that appear in the Sherlock Holmes stories. And that is to include in one’s interpretation the actual event of writing the books themselves. As it turns out, the real author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle grew sick and tired of writing Sherlock Holmes after a while. The extraordinary popularity of the character drowned out the other books he was writing. He tried to stop writing the stories, he tried to raise the price, he even tried to kill Holmes. Nothing helped. He became the best paid writer in the world, provided he would continue to write the Holmes stories. So he did, as quickly and as angrily as possible. The result is that by the later books, not much care went into what he wrote and he managed to introduce many errors.

To examine the books on this level is to understand them in their fullest depth. Despite what some fervent Baker Street Irregulars might suggest, the Holmes stories are not sacred writings. They do not attempt to open up any mysteries or provide moral guidance. On the other hand, the Bible is a sacred writing. It is perhaps the most influential work within Western civilization. So much of how we have become who we are as a people is related to the collection of writings contained within it. I believe this makes it important enough that people should strive to understand it in its fullest depth.

What makes this level of seriousness and respect for the Bible difficult for fundamentalists is that they have based the entirety of their faith on the Bible being inerrant. Thus the Bible begins to take on characteristics normally attributed to God. And here I am using the word God in the most general sense to refer to the source of life. For the fundamentalist, to reject the perfection of the Bible is the same thing as rejecting God, as rejecting the source of life itself.

Fundamentalism creates a religious orientation in which the Bible becomes the object of one’s ultimate commitment instead of God. The bitter irony in treating the Bible this way is that it commits what the Bible itself refers to as idolatry. The theologian Paul Tillich describes idolatry as the tendency to confuse the symbol for the reality that it is pointing to. There is a Buddhist proverb along these lines that reminds us not to mistake the moon for the finger which points to it. For both Tillich and Buddhists this confusion is the root of all suffering.

Now none of us is perfect. You might say we are all idolaters in some sense. We make imperfect decisions about what will affirm life, we hold values that contain flaws, and our understanding of truth is always limited. Our lives are surrounded in mystery and uncertainty in every direction, and we mistake the false for true on almost a daily basis. But my critique of fundamentalism lies in the degree to which it is idolatrous. None of us will perfectly grasp the ultimate source of life. Yet, the difference between God and a book is simply too great to ignore. It is the depth and magnitude of the difference between God and a book that is the root of so many of the prejudices and bigotry’s that have emerged from fundamentalist religions. Whether it be condoning slavery or homophobia, or vandalizing rival churches and synagogues, justifying various forms of cruelty to non-believers, to destroying Buddhist statues in Afghanistan; all this can be understood religiously as the classic mistake of worshipping a false God. In no way is the problems of fundamentalism linked to a lack of intelligence, the problems are linked to its idolatry of the Bible.

The Bible is not God, nor can it be understood as literally true in all ways. For the writers of the Bible were not historians, and therefore it should not be interpreted as literal history. The writers of the Bible were not scientists, and therefore it should not be interpreted as science. The writers of the Bible were not perfect, and therefore it should not be interpreted as perfect. Rather, the writers were priests, prophets, poets, and peasants, whose testimony to life’s meaning shares the insights and prejudices of the times in which they lived.

Interestingly enough, even parts of the Bible, like the Gospel of John seem to poke fun at the literalists. Jesus says "to see the kingdom of God is to be born anew," to which Nicodemus replies "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Because Nicodemus takes Jesus’ sayings literally, his response simply misses the point.

I believe the key to finding the Bible’s truth is not by studying the literal text but by entering into the experience out of which the literal text came to be written. The ancient words that have been employed to interpret the religious experience are not sacred in themselves. The stories are sacred to the extent that they can reveal the actual experiences which inspired them. This requires going deeper in our understandings, and placing the words within the historical worldview in which they emerged.

I am a firm believer in historical religion. I fear that to reject history is not only to lose our roots in the past, but to lose our hope in the future. I believe that we human beings are historical beings. Our lives are entwined in various communities and institutions that have been shaped and have the power to shape history. So for my own understanding, to participate in life, is to participate in traditions.

Our free faith tradition affirms that the revelation of religious truth is continuous. The final meaning of life has not yet been fully captured, even I the Bible. Thus our relationship to tradition is not one in which we are bound to live a 1700 year old doctrine or creed. Rather, our relationship to tradition is more like a conversation partner. To truly respect the Bible is to be in a dialogue in which you are open to the questions that it raises, as well as looking to the insights of the modern prophets as well. For there are contexts in which Lord of the Flies is a deeper myth regarding humanity’s capacity for evil than Genesis; in which Death of a Salesman shows more insight than Jonah; and in which Martin Luther King Jr. presents a more dramatic plea for the triumph of love and grace over the law than the letters of Paul. This is not even to mention the wisdom that can be gleaned from traditions around the world.

As our world changes at ever more rapid rates the black and white extremes of fundamentalism and relativism will become more and more appealing. Our free faith tradition is one that strives to resist the temptation of either extreme. Rather than seeking an escape from our freedom and responsibilities, we are called to enter into the mystery of life which comes in all the shades of the rainbow, and use our freedom to bless the world. And so may we find the wisdom and courage to act as neither a slave nor a master, but as part of a larger living history, a larger living community, with a past and a future in which we are active participants with the power to shape the world that is yet to be.

Amen.