This morning I plan to skim across the surface of the Bible readings we just heard, but not preach on them in great detail. Instead, I’ll concentrate on the Bible as a whole, and how its parts relate (or don’t relate) to each other. In fact, I’ll give several examples where two or more passages side-by-side in scripture frankly disagree. Then I’ll suggest why that might actually be good news for us.

But first, a story: Dudley Riggle told it last Sunday in Adult Ed; so some of you will know it.

It’s about Pablo Picasso, who invented cubism, the art of taking a subject apart and putting it back together like a jigsaw puzzle – but with every piece in an odd place. From its start in the early 1900s, many people considered the art form outlandish and bizarre.

One day a man told him, “I wish you would paint people as they really are.”

Picasso answered naively, “I don’t know what you mean.”

The man reached in his pocket, pulled out a photograph of his wife, and said, “Like this. This is how she really is.”

Picasso stared at the photo and said, “Wow! She’s really small. And thin.”

Picasso believed that no single image can capture a person or other subject completely. Multiple angles and images are needed for us to see things “as they really are,” three-dimensionally and in all of their fullness.

As an artist, Picasso found a way to look at things from several perspectives at once, to reveal things we would otherwise miss.

The same happens in the Bible. The 66 books of our sacred scriptures often juxtapose contradictory viewpoints in order to paint a fuller, multi-dimensional picture of God.

Today’s reading from Genesis 2 is one example. It contains the start of the second creation story, following smack-dab as you’d expect on the heels the first creation story. But the two accounts are utterly different.

Creation Story #1 tells of the world being created in six days, with the seventh day as a day of rest. Humans arrive near the end of the process. After all the plants and animals have been made, male and female burst on the scene – together.

But today’s reading begins, “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens …” DAY! (Singular – not six or seven.)

It also places the creation of man at the start of the process, before animals and plants. And I do mean “man,” not male and female. In Creation Story #2, she has to wait. People have been “ribbing” Adam about that ever since!

From the opening pages of the Bible, we get two witnesses, two very different and incompatible accounts of creation. But one God. Kind of strange, isn’t it?

If that is how Genesis begins, and it is also how the Gospel of John ends. John doesn’t actually supply two alternative endings, but he owns up to the fact that he doesn’t have the only word about God. Other voices and reports exist. All valid.

John says that his testimony is true, “but there are also many other things Jesus did,” and if they all were written down, all the books in the world couldn’t contain them.

(While we’re at it, ask yourself why we need 4 Gospels at all. If any one of them is true, couldn’t we – or shouldn’t we – discard the other three Gospels?)

As it is, though, the people who compiled the Bible kept stories that sometimes contradict each other … but that are necessary to keep us from “flattening” God into a small, two-dimensional image we can carry around in our pocket.

Sometimes, this range of voices about God is hard to sort out. In Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, we read the famous prophecy about beating swords into plowshares. It is a great and beloved vision of worldwide peace and shalom.

But right in between Isaiah and Micah, the prophet Joel turns those words inside out, calling the nations to “ … Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears” in preparation for war.

I’m not sure why Joel did that. But I am impressed that whoever was in charge of deciding what belongs in the Bible felt a need to kept both of thos prophetic words rather than silencing either one.

Speaking of Isaiah, you’ll only see one book of Isaiah in your Bible. But scholars detect at least three different authors behind the writing, which they have dubbed First, Second, and Third Isaiah. And each has a distinct tone and message.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is similar. Strictly speaking, you won’t find it anywhere in the Bible. But the idea of God being revealed to us in three “persons” – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – that is certainly biblical. And it is further evidence that we Christians long ago rejected a one-dimensional, or even two-dimensional view of God.

The same is true again every time we use the ancient baptismal creed found in Galatians 3, to declare that

It’s a reminder that the baptized people of God can’t claim know-it-all status based on nationality (Jew or Greek), economics (slave or free), and or sexual identity (male and female). “For all are one in Christ Jesus.”

Personally, I find that exciting. But not everyone does. Many Christians approach scripture from a rigid, black-&-white perspective, insisting there is only one right answer, and one answer only.

The surprising thing, though, is that the idea of reading scripture in a rigid, absolute way is relatively new. It came into being, oddly enough, just a century ago – at exactly the same time Picasso was teaching us about the need for multiple viewpoints!

Isn’t it amazing how God works? She’s clever, isn’t she?!

Given a choice between one perspective and many, I’ll go with Picasso … and the Bible. My experience has always been that if we look at God from only one angle, our God is bound to be small. And thin.

And a small and thin God leads to small and thin faith.

And small and thin faith leads to a small and thin church.

And a small and thin church inevitably becomes sectarian, inhospitable, inward, frightened and nervous about any kind of new revelation.

For Christians that has led to things like the Inquisition and Crusades – terrible, bloody ordeals.

For Muslims, a similar fundamentalism has produced the Taliban and bin Laden.

And among Jews, the reduction of God to a single absolute perspective has produced terrible violence against Israel’s Palestinian neighbors.

So what’s the good news I promised for us?

A week from Tuesday, the subject of multiple viewpoints versus rigid uniformity will be the underlying topic of conversation and vote at a meeting of the Presbytery of Milwaukee. In the afternoon, several hours before our own Bonnie Stafford is installed as Moderator of the Presbytery, we will deliberate over several proposed amendments to our denomination’s constitution.

The most controversial proposal involves a revision to G-6.0106b. (You can find both versions on an insert in your bulletin.) As currently written, that paragraph requires “conformity” by all who are called to serve as deacons, elders, and ministers of the church. To me “conformity” sounds suspiciously like a flat and unilateral voice.

When that paragraph was originally inserted in our Book of Order in 1996, we were firmly told that would apply to all people in the church. But in reality, it has been enforced exclusively to crush the spirit, voice and witness of gays and lesbians.

But with the proposed change to our Book of Order, we have a chance to move from a position of legislated “conformity” to a stance that allows multiple voices to speak and be heard. Rather than prejudging people, “each governing body” will have to examine each candidate, and decide who is fit for ordination and leadership in the church.

That is not to say that we might adopt a policy of “anything goes.” Rather, we will be called to discern the will of God for each and every person. And we will be asked to carefully consider what God is saying to us in every situation.

We live in interesting times. I’m eager to see how the Presbytery votes and how our denomination decides. It is far from certain that this amendment will pass. In fact, there’s a pretty good chance it won’t and things will stay as they are.

But pass or fail, we belong to a church that knows truth is never one-sided, and that God’s truth is always greater than any of us. I’m proud of that – proud to be part of a church that keeps struggling to hear God’s voice and get it right. Proud to be part of a church that appreciates the gifts and godliness of each person. Proud that we are called to expect and respect many voices that help us know God better, rather than silencing the ones that speak truth in unexpected ways. And I am proud that one of our ancient historical principles says that the Holy Spirit speaks most clearly to us only when we speak – and listen – to each other.

The Word of God does not come to us in a perfect vacuum, but in the many voices and viewpoints we share with each other.

Starting from the way our scripture is put together, we affirm many witnesses, including those who have gone before us, those among us now, and those yet to come.

And we attest to one God, merciful, just and loving, whose truth is for all.