A king is not saved by his great army;
a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.
The war horse is a vain hope for victory,
and by its great might it cannot save.
Truly the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him,
on those who hope in his steadfast love,
to deliver their soul from death
and to keep them alive in famine.
Our soul waits for the Lord;
he is our help and shield.
Our heart is glad in him
because we trust in his holy name.
Let your steadfast love, O Lord, be upon us,
even as we hope in you.
Psalm 33: 16-22 NRSVue
I attempt to read scripture regularly using the daily schedule of lessons provided through the ecumenical lectionary. My goal is to peruse the psalm on a daily-ish basis although I often read from the other prescribed passages for the day. Some of the "smitey" psalms are alarming but most of what I read is thought-provoking, inspiring and even emotionally touching. This exercise takes a matter of minutes each day and from time to time I wonder how it is that I fall off the scripture wagon. The "tyranny of the urgent" seems like a lame excuse when I'm non-gainfully retired.
Mainline denominations such as the United Church of Canada tend to claim that they take scripture seriously but not literally, but what does that mean. A current article from the Christian Century by Stephanie Perdew asks important questions about biblical literacy or perhaps more accurately illiteracy amongst mainline/oldline Christians. Here are two from an introductory summary:
1. Perdew recalls a conversation with some mainline Christians in which they lamented not having conversational “weapons” to use with White Christian nationalists. How equipped do you feel to discuss the Bible or history with people who strongly disagree with you?
2. Perdew notes that it is popular for churches in her circles to say, “We take the Bible seriously but not literally,” as a way to distance themselves from fundamentalism. Unfortunately, Perdew laments, it often seems that mainline communities don’t take the Bible seriously or literally. What is your reaction to this observation?
These are honest and to the point. Through my years of congregational ministry I led studies on lots of subjects and always made a point of relating our explorations to scripture as our sacred north star.
I also offered lectionary based groups including one for a decade which was made up mostly of elderly women with a smattering of men and younger (than them) adults. I was impressed by how well versed and wise they were, with members often coming from denominations that were more literally biblically-based. They left because those churches were too rigid and "us and them" but they brought their biblical foundation.
When we lived in Sudbury there was a family whose teens had a strong knowledge of scripture and it turned out that the mom grew up as a Mennonite so bible reading were important.
Biblical literalism usually isn't. It is a bias that often cherry picks scripture in a dismaying manner and ignores essentially aspects of Jesus' message of inclusion and compassion echoed in the New Testament letters. I've had interesting conversations with supposed literalists where I pointed out inconsistencies with this claim.
I did love that the old United Church Observer magazine featured biblical cartoons by Cuyler Black who brought his wacky sense of humour as a guest speaker when I was at St. Paul's in Bowmanville.
This morning I read the daily psalm, 33, and it included the verses above. I wonder what MAGA Christians and Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War, have to say about this one? Weak, it sounds very weak...
