It Ain't Necessarily So - When Scripture and Tradition Collide

By Dale Austin

A line from the song "It Ain't Necessarily So," from the Gershwin brothers' play "Porgy and Bess," tells us that "the things that you're liable to read in the Bible, it ain't necessarily so." While we would like to take issue with that comment, this book, of the same title as the song, explores the validity of such a seemingly heretical statement. But it isn't what we read, so much as how we interpret those words that "ain't necessarily so." While the words are accurate, sometimes our understanding can be a bit off-track. In this work, Pastor Austin challenges the reader to explore the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in our lives and in our faith formation. Much of what we claim to believe about the Scriptures is actually based more on our Traditions than we wish to acknowledge. We have been taught by previous generations what the Scriptures are saying to us. This becomes a significant part of our individual Tradition-the sum total of what we believe the Scriptures to say and how they compel us to act. Because we trust those ancestors not to lead us astray, we don't question this Tradition. Perhaps we should. One of the primary assertions of this work is that "Tradition trumps Truth." We don't intend for it to be so, but often what we think we are reading in the Scriptures is tainted by years of Tradition and the teaching of the Church. We don't question what we've been taught; it is the Truth. Sometimes, however, that "truth" is slightly skewed by our life experiences and teachings. When this happens, Scripture often yields to our own Tradition, without our awareness that this is happening. This book explores the possibility that when "Tradition trumps Truth," there might be more than one way of understanding the Scriptures, particularly when we recognize how our truth has been compromised by years of tradition and practice. This is not to say that we have been wrong for all of these years. But these chapters are written in the hopes of spurring further discussion into the many layers in which the Scriptures are given to us, and perhaps lead us to gaining new insights and appreciation for the depths of our faith, not to replace our previous convictions, unless necessary, but to augment them.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: May 10, 2017
• ISBN: 9781635755893

Book preview

301471-ebook.jpg

It Ain’t Necessarily So

When Scripture and Tradition Collide

Dale E. Austin

ISBN 978-1-63575-588-6 (Paperback)

ISBN 978-1-63575-589-3 (Digital)

Copyright © 2017 by Dale E. Austin

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher. For permission requests, solicit the publisher via the address below.

Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.

296 Chestnut Street

Meadville, PA 16335

www.christianfaithpublishing.com

Printed in the United States of America

Preface

As a former student of music, I’ve always loved what we used to refer to as drag triplets, three quarter notes strung together as a triplet. It’s squeezing three beats into the space of two. Oddly, although we would expect this compressing of the rhythm to give us a sense of hurrying or rushing, the exact opposite effect is obtained. The sensation is more akin to dragging one’s feet, hence, the description drag triplets.

Since music is a foreign language to many, it helps to have a good illustration of these drag triplets. One of the best examples can be found in the Gershwin brothers’ song, It Ain’t Necessarily So, from their opera Porgy and Bess. Even people who know nothing about the show itself are usually familiar with the song. It is these drag triplets which give the song its characteristic sensation of taking one’s time and not hurrying, an effect which I’m sure was intentional.

The end effect is, perhaps, contrary to what might be expected. As stated, when compressing three notes into the space of two, the expectation is one of haste and eagerness. The effect, however, is just the opposite. We get a feeling of being laid-back, easy-going, and not in much of a hurry to get to where we’re going.

We find a similarly unexpected effect when we begin to study the Bible as it actually stands. We are likely to find ourselves quite surprised at what we actually find written in those sacred pages.

One of the lines in that the Gershwin song tells us, The things that you’re li’ble to read in the Bible, it ain’t necessarily so. The premise of this book is that there is some truth to that observation, but not in a strictly literal sense. Before anyone tries to dismiss that comment as pure heresy, allow me to clarify. The premise of this book is that what we think we’re reading in the Bible may not be what is actually recorded. It isn’t the words of the scriptures themselves which are the problem. I believe that the scriptures are reliable and authoritative, even in the 21st Century, and that they can be trusted. What cannot always be trusted, however, is the spin which we choose to impose upon those words as we read them. Even with years, or sometimes centuries, of teaching and preaching a specific passage in a certain way, there is still the possibility that we may have been getting it wrong for all of those years. The words, themselves, are still reliable and trustworthy; what is questionable is our understanding of what those words mean for us. Perhaps it’s time to take another look, and to begin seeing some of the scriptures from a different perspective. It’s time to put a different spin on some of those words, and to see if what emerges makes sense. If it does, then perhaps we might do well to reconsider some of our long-held beliefs, or at least to receive an alternative viewpoint as something with which we can live, even if we don’t actually buy into it.

Believing Something Does Not Make It Factual

Whether or not we are aware of it, the way in which we understand many scriptural passages has been colored by years of history and tradition. As traditions develop, in time they become so deeply ingrained within us that we no longer even question whether or not we’re on the right track. Like the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree—something which may have originally been intended as only a cute story in order to illustrate a point about being truthful—in time the story becomes a staple of popular folklore and legend until it ultimately becomes accepted as actual fact. Of course, as many of us who are now over fifty may remember from our elementary school days, it was considered tantamount to heresy to question the validity of that story in decades past; you don’t argue with such historical facts. It really did happen, just as the legend claims. Nevertheless, in spite of decades of acceptance, it’s generally conceded today that there is little to this tale which is indeed factual.

Similarly, our interpretations of specific biblical passage become generally accepted as the truth through years of repetition and acceptance. In time, the particular perspective becomes codified as though it was actual fact, and to question it is viewed as heresy. Our version of the story may or may not coincide point-by-point with the actual written record of the scriptures, but generally we won’t recognize this. Even if our understanding strays far enough from the text to become obvious, we will stand adamantly by our understanding as though it was actual biblical truth. We see what we expect to see. Indeed, we will probably insist that it’s actually there in the text, somewhere; we just can’t find it right now. Many are familiar with the expression which we’ve come to refer to as the seven last words of the Church: But we’ve always done it that way. Heaven forbid that we should even consider making any changes. If that attitude is so prevalent with regard to the practices of the Church, consider how deeply entrenched it is with regard to our beliefs.

I have chosen to take up that challenge and to question some of our traditionally held views. My contention is that many of our traditional understandings of the scriptures may, in fact, be leading us down the wrong path. The traditions to which we cling so tenaciously, and the actual words and intent of the Scriptures may occasionally collide with each other, rather than harmonize. Sometimes, we may even have allowed ourselves to be carried in a totally different direction from what was intended. Sometimes we may be only a little bit off the mark; sometimes, we miss the point altogether. Even when we’re not headed in the wrong direction, there may exist alternate understandings which are every bit as valid as the official interpretation; they don’t negate the tradition, but they might offer some new perspective. Could it be that there might be more than one right understanding?

Generation after generation, however, continues to perpetuate the traditional perspectives because we have become so firmly entrenched in them. They’ve become comfortable to us. We accept the time-tested, but possibly erroneous, explanation as being the one and only correct approach. It’s the version which we’ve heard since we were children, so it must be right. We pass along to the next generation this same understanding, without recognizing that the only reason for doing so is that we’ve simply gotten ourselves into a theological and liturgical rut.

Stuck in a Rut

There are several reasons for such stubborn adherence, apart from the simple fact that you don’t mess with tradition. First, we don’t take the time to consider the social or cultural setting of what is being said; we simply accept what we’ve always been taught, even when that understanding may totally rip a given passage away from its context. We pay, at best, only a nodding acknowledgment to the role which the historical setting might play, but we often rely upon explanations which defy history, or which bend the facts. Peter’s discussion with Jesus in John 21 is a good example (this exchange will be discussed in more detail in a later chapter). Through the years, pastors have made much ado about the fact that Jesus and Peter use different words for love (phileo vs. agape) and have drawn heavily upon the distinctions in nuance between those two Greek words. In doing so, they totally ignore the historical fact that neither of them was actually speaking Greek at the time and that John’s record is really a translation of their conversation. Their native language was Aramaic, a language in which similar distinctions are not made. Nevertheless, pastors and commentators will still continue to wax eloquent on the significance of the different words, insisting that Jesus is holding fast until Peter agrees to his understanding of what love means. But wait; in the end, it is Jesus who changes his language, not Peter, as Jesus consents to using Peter’s word for love and not vice-versa. Don’t take my word for it; check the Greek text for yourself. Even when we know the truth, we still bow to tradition, and that will probably never change.

A second reason for our persistent misrepresentation is that we forget that we are dealing with the written word. Granted, we may be talking about the Word of God, but it still comes to us as words printed on the pages of a book. In this specific form, these words carry no vocal inflection. The words, in and of themselves, are devoid of any emotion. This realization is vital to much of what follows. We cannot be absolutely certain of the tone with which the words were originally spoken, even though we adamantly claim to possess such insight. We claim to understand what the speaker was feeling at the moment. But do we, really? Were the words spoken in anger or compassion? Were they bitter words, or an expression of disappointment and sadness?

Many of us have had the experience of our own words being misunderstood by someone else. We might send a note of congratulations to a friend who has recently received some great honor. Unfortunately, the friend reads the note and hears sarcasm and jealousy in our words, even though we may have been totally sincere. It doesn’t matter; our friend is now upset with us over a simple misunderstanding of our written words. What we had written with the best of intentions is being perceived, instead, as an insult. We may try to explain to our friend what we really meant; but once someone gets an idea into their heads, it’s very difficult to displace that notion. It will not be easy to convince our friend that our words were genuinely heartfelt.

For centuries, we have assumed that we fully understand the words of the Bible because we understand the way in which they were spoken. Years of traditional interpretation have gotten us into a rut. Of course, the rut is comfortable to us, because we’ve been here before and we know where it’s going to take us; the way in which we hear those words is presumed to be the factual truth. From where does this conviction come? What makes us so totally convinced that we are hearing these words correctly? More than likely, one of the Church Fathers or another patriarch from long ago ages wrote an essay or published a book stating that thus and so is the meaning of a given passage, or that it reflects anger, disillusionment, joy, or whatever emotion they might have chosen to attach to it. After a couple of centuries, the source is forgotten; can anyone tell us who first told the story of Washington and the tree? But the scripture story and its interpretation, remains strong with us and we simply assume that what we’ve always believed is absolute, God-given fact. We can no longer identify the source of that belief, but that doesn’t matter; it’s always been so, therefore it must be true, so it will always be so.

Simply changing the tone of voice, however, can totally alter our understanding of some passages. This is the primary limitation of the written word/Word. Whatever vocal inflection we may perceive is something which we have imposed upon the words; it is not inherent in the words, themselves, even though we may often argue to the contrary. We stubbornly cling to our perception as though it was the ultimate truth, refusing to consider even the possibility that there might be another way of hearing those very same words. Perhaps the writer or the speaker had in mind something very different from what we understand. Changing the way in which we hear the words of Scripture may be the first step toward finding our way out of some of these ancient ruts in which we have become mired.

Digging Out Isn’t Easy

I realize the potential pitfalls of challenging such long-held and established beliefs. When historians sought to debunk the story of Washington and the cherry tree, they found themselves bumping up against generations of tradition. For years we’ve taught that story to our children as an actual fact. Now you’re trying to tell us that it never really happened? Who do you think you are? Consider how much more challenging the prospect may be when we’re talking about the sacred Scriptures and the stories of our faith. Our spiritual convictions are even more unshakable than our historical ones. Unlearning what we’ve previously learned can be as difficult, if not more so, than unlearning history. But in matters of faith, we should all strive for the truth, never settling for we’ve always done it this way, and always aiming for a correct understanding and interpretation.

To illustrate how difficult it can be to unlearn what we’ve learned, think about all of the music of the Christmas season. I love Christmas, and I love the music of the season. But for several years, now, I have been bothered by the way in which the holiday hijacks any and all music which contains any reference to snow or winter. Think about such songs as Frosty, the Snowman, Jingle Bells, Winter Wonderland, Sleigh Ride, Let it Snow, Baby, it’s Cold Outside, and dozens of similarly popular Christmas songs. There is no mention of Christmas anywhere in these songs. They are winter songs, not restricted to the holiday. Every one of these songs is just as relevant in February as it is in December. Nevertheless, we group them with that vast collection of music which we deem to be appropriate from Thanksgiving Day until, perhaps, a couple of days past Christmas. Then we put them away for another year. That truth notwithstanding, try breaking into a rousing chorus of Jingle Bells in the middle of February and watch the reaction of those around you. Common sense reminds us that these songs are tied to a meteorological season of the year, and not just to a holiday within that season. But tradition prevents us from acknowledging that fact. It makes us uncomfortable and self-conscious whenever we attempt to challenge the common practice. We cannot—or, perhaps will not—allow ourselves to unlearn this common practice. Even when confronted with a February snow storm which blankets all of the trees and leaves a magnificently beautiful landscape in front of us, we refuse to celebrate it with the singing of Winter Wonderland. It’s just not appropriate.

My intent is not to convert anyone to a new way of thinking. All that follows is, ultimately, my own opinion and my own personal slant on the scriptures. I am certain that many other individuals have come to some of the same conclusions as they also wrestle with the texts. Some of these thoughts might not seem very new. They aren’t. Some of these thoughts result from years of studying and preaching many of the same texts over and over. When we do so, we often want to find a fresh approach, one which we’ve never tried before. In that quest, some of us have stumbled onto some incredible concepts and even a few truths which we’d previously ignored or failed/refused to recognize. Yet, even after years and years of sharing some of these alternative thoughts with congregations, we find that people, in general, still tend to cling to the traditional understandings.

I’m not saying that what follows is right and all other understandings are wrong; I only believe these views to be more faithful to God’s original intention, based upon my life-long passion and obsession with getting it right. I don’t expect or ask everyone to agree with my assertions or conclusions. But it is comforting to know that there are a handful of others who have arrived at similar conclusions through their own years of study and reflection.

I am hopeful, however, that this book might serve as a stimulus for conversation, discussion, and further reflection and study on the part of the readers. I hope to begin peeling back some of the layers of tradition which have surrounded the scriptures, encasing them in untold strata of now hardened sediment. I hope to help us see to the core, and perhaps find something which has been hidden from our view for a long, long time. In doing so, I hope that we can enable some to begin seeing a bit of the incredible richness which has been buried beneath those layers of tradition for centuries. The desire is not to replace those long-held convictions, but to enhance them by adding another layer of understanding, and recognizing that both, even though they might seem contradictory on the surface, may be valid approaches to our faith. If all that is accomplished is for someone to comment, Gee, I never thought of it in that way, then this book will have accomplished its intended purpose.

A couple of final assertions merit mention. Because many of these ideas are direct challenges to long-established and firmly entrenched ideas, there are bound to be those who will attempt to level a charge of heresy against them. That is unfortunate. There is absolutely nothing contained within these pages which rises to the level of heresy. To qualify as such, a concept must be contrary to or a challenge to the doctrines of the Church, whether by that word we mean the universal Church of Jesus Christ or a specific denomination within that larger body. Nowhere is there any challenge to those doctrines. What is being questioned, instead, are many of the traditions which we tend to hold sacred, often and unfortunately even more sacred than those doctrines themselves. It is testimony to how deeply entrenched those traditions have become that some would hold them in the same high regard as doctrine.

A second charge which might be leveled is that this book is intended to compromise or undermine the faith of true believers. Quite the opposite is true. Faith is compromised when we cling tenaciously to customs and traditions of past generations without questioning or challenging them, thus denying our personal faith an opportunity to grow and expand. Faith that refuses to grow becomes stagnant and fossilized. We become content to live in our childhood faith and never allow it to blossom into a fully blooming adult faith. Hopefully, the concepts presented in this book will stimulate thought and reflection upon many of our long-held common beliefs. The intent here is not to spread darkness and to obscure the words of the Bible, but to turn on a different light so that we might see them in a new and fresh manner, perhaps seeing some great eternal truth for the first time, and thus deepening our faith. If we allow such to happen, growth can occur.

The scriptures are rich with meaning, on several levels. Of this, I am absolutely certain. Somehow, we’ve all too often limited ourselves to one specific level, a certain way of looking at the stories and teachings. We never question, not so much if our understanding is correct, but the idea that there might possibly even be another approach, on another level, which could be equally legitimate. I propose that there are often many such alternatives. Like any good literature, the Bible can often be understood in a variety of ways, varying with our individual and personal perspectives and life experiences. This book will help to open the door on those discussions just a little bit wider as we look at several familiar passages in what I hope will be a new light for many.

Chapter 1

Tradition Trumps Truth

From the moment when I first saw it performed by a traveling road company on the stage at my high school, I have been a huge fan of the musical Fiddler on the Roof. It was more than the music which caught my attention, although there are several wonderful numbers. The story line itself enthralled me. It is the story of Tevye, a simple Jewish dairyman living in Tsarist Russia, struggling to maintain his grasp on the traditions which have guided his life and given it meaning and purpose. Bit by bit, he sees his world, and his cherished traditions, being challenged, if not by the Russian authorities, then by three daughters who have begun to see the world through different eyes. Slowly, Tevye is forced to bend to this changing world, until he reaches what appears to be his breaking point, the moment where he refuses to bend any more.

The opening number, Tradition, sets the scene. Tevye describes how the traditions of his faith and of his life in their little village of Anatevka have helped him and his neighbors to hold their lives together. It is their traditions which give shape and meaning to their lives. Their traditions serve to guide them. Tradition is central to their life together. But, from whence do these traditions derive? Tevye says it best in answering his question, Why do we have these traditions? He proudly proclaims, I’ll tell you why. Then, following a brief pause, he gives a sheepish shrug and admits, I don’t know. But that’s not the final word. Pulling himself up to his full stature and pointing a finger toward the sky he insists, just as adamantly as his earlier comment, But it’s a tradition!

To his credit, Tevye is aware of and acknowledges the incredible role that tradition has played in his life. He may not understand it or know the sources of many of these traditions, but he knows how important they are to him and to his neighbors. Tradition, even in our own lives, often is a far greater influence upon us than we are willing to acknowledge. Nowhere is this truer than when it comes to what we believe and how we practice our faith.

The Foundations of Faith

We are all slaves to tradition, whether or not we acknowledge it. I have found that even among groups which claim to have cast off all the traditional trappings of faith and worship, what they have really done is to substitute a new set