DR. CUMMINGS: Thank God for Mark's gospel

John Shelby Spong, the retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, and the author of over 25 best-sellers about the Bible, wrote a book several years ago called "The Sins of Scripture" in which he asks: "How can a book that's called the Word of God leave such a trail of violence, hostility, and death, and still — reveal the God of Love?"

Chief Judge Max Wood (whom I admire greatly for his selfless service to our country, our state and our community) writes that I "mock traditional conservative approaches to Christianity and the Bible." I'm sorry that Max misinterprets my columns. Some Christians say the same thing about Bishop Spong too. But neither one of us intends to mock; we intend only to investigate the different authors of the biblical books in an attempt to find that God of faith, whom Max quotes in Hebrews 11:1. And I might add: "When we talk about the Bible, let's be honest!"

Bishop Spong writes about the usual "sins" of Scripture like sexism, homosexuality, anti-Semitism, etc., but one of his examples involves two quotes that most of us assumed were the same, but actually are opposites:

Mark 9:40: "He who is not against us is for us."

Matthew 12:30: "He who is not with me is against me."

In the Markan example, Jesus has been told that some outsider is casting out demons (or curing people) in his name and he must be stopped. Jesus says leave him alone. He says that even though the outsider may not agree totally with us (otherwise why doesn't he join up?) — he's not working against us and for that reason, he's "for us."

In the Matthean example, however, we see a completely different Jesus. He's arguing with the Pharisees. Jesus turns to them and says that since they refuse to agree with his message and become his disciples, they must be against him. He goes on to say that if they're not working with him (gathering), they're working against him (scattering.) Jesus makes these Pharisees his enemies simply because they disagree with him. "If you're not with me, you're against me."

Now I grant you many of the Pharisees really did become his enemies, (as history tells us) but disagreement doesn't automatically lead to enmity as we see in the Markan example. Just because that outsider disagreed with Jesus, he didn't become his enemy. Instead of that disagreement causing dissension, it lead to this statement: "If you're not against me, you're for me."

These are completely opposite viewpoints. I know you've seen both in action. People (and preachers) can quote whichever text fits a particular circumstance at the time — after all, both texts are sacred scripture. If a group wants to be isolated from other religious groups and declare they have the truth and others have falsity, they can do it — they quote Matthew. When they refuse people full sacramental membership, for example, because they're divorced and remarried or gay, they can point to their Bible and say: "Jesus said ..."

Bishop Spong feels, as I do, that the Markan version — written after the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 — is probably closer to the actual historical Jesus, who welcomed prostitutes and tax collectors and even Samaritans.

My opinion is that the Matthean Christians changed the Christian meaning of inclusivity to one of exclusivity in the late 80s. This may have reflected their fight with their Jewish neighbors who disagreed with the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Whatever the reason, Mark's beautiful and all-inclusive statement of Christian love and acceptance was dramatically changed to one of exclusion.

Now you can say that these are two entirely different scenes and Matthew's comments apply to a different set of circumstances, and that Jesus could very well have said these words and harbored these feelings. If that is true (I don't believe it), it would certainly justify the Christian treatment of Jews in the Middle Ages, and the Christian acceptance of slavery, and the Christian rejection of gays. We know we can find a scriptural basis for all three of these things, and then we can go back to Matthew's gospel for reassurance.

That's why I say: Thank God for Mark's gospel.

Dr. Bill Cummings is the CEO of Cummings Consolidated Corporation and Cummings Management Consultants. His website is www.billcummings.org.

This story was originally published November 28, 2015 at 9:12 PM with the headline "DR. CUMMINGS: Thank God for Mark's gospel ."