(Salman) Rushdie was raised a Muslim in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay) but has not practiced the faith for years. Yet he remains a key player in the debate over how and why the religion seems to have been hijacked by fanatics and what can be done about it. In a recent op-ed piece in the Washington Post, he proposed that one way out of this morass was for Muslims to begin thinking of the Koran as a historical document, of "their religion as an event inside history, not supernaturally above it." Placing the Koran firmly in its 7th century origins is, says Rushdie, "a question of power. When you deny people the right to examine the fundamentals of what they think, you're taking away from them a very important power…It's necessary for a different kind of culture to come into being, otherwise the crazies hijack the religion." L.A. Times Sept. 17, 2005

The quote above, which reports outlawed writer Salman Rushdie's critique of Islam, resonated with me deeply. Islam, after all, profoundly believes that the Koran is the very word of God. So central is that belief, that it is considered insufficient to read the Koran in translation. The preferred way is to read the text in the original Arabic and to read it aloud, as the very sound of the syllables and the cadence in reading are also revelatory. Some modern Muslims thinkers claim that this impediment to access of those masses barely literate in their own languages, gives to the local Mullahs (oftentimes foreigners to the local countries) tremendous authority and power. The inadequacy of their training and the oftentimes fundamentalist and literalist interpretations given to the verses of the Koran will form a nation, especially the generations of the young who are idealistic, impressionable and volatile. Ignorance and arrogance are a dangerous combination and "good religion" can indeed be "hijacked by fanatics."

But the reason Rushdie's observations struck a cord with me is because it forced me to confront what we as Anglicans and Episcopalians believe about our sacred text, the Bible.

Clearly, the Holy Bible contains a wide variety of literature. Among the genres can be found poetry, history, prophesy, wisdom sayings (proverbs), novellas (e.g. the story of Ruth), letters (the Epistles), apocalypse and gospel to name but a few. Should they be read differently?

Anglicans have generally held that the scriptures are sources of truth; that God is revealed in our sacred text but have rejected the Puritan call "sola scriptura" (scripture alone) choosing to acknowledge God's truth revealed in church teaching (tradition), human reasoning and experience. Most especially, Anglicism was suspicious of the more extreme Protestant claims that scripture was self revelatory to believers. Communitarian in nature, classical Anglicanism held up the value of scripture engaged in community; wrestled with as "church" in a dialogue with scripture. And as a tradition, we rejected the sad tendency of others to use the bible as a proof text in which verses are taken out of context to prove a preachers' point.

Clearly, we live in a far different religious world than Muslims in the Far East or on the African Continent who may or may not have the Koran available in their native languages and even if they do, these volumes may be considered to be a less reliable transmission of God's word than the original text. Imagine, if you can, gathering for Church to hear the stories of Jesus in the original Greek only and being dependent on the preacher to transmit the story and its meaning to you in English. With access to the biblical texts in a variety of good English translations and the availability of extensive interpretative commentaries, there is little excuse for the ignorance of American believers or the dominance of our own fanatics in American Christianity.

This summer past, while worshipping in another denomination, I was struck by the liturgical response to the two readings other than the Gospel. Where our Book of Common Prayer has the reader say "The Word of the Lord" to which we respond "Thanks be to God;" in this church the lector said something quite different: "Holy Wisdom, Holy Word." (The great value of worshipping outside your tradition from time to time is that we hear things that shake us up and cause us to think.)

What was "Holy Wisdom, Holy Word" intended to portray? I suspect that it means to say that the words we have just heard read contain in them something of great value to our spiritual journey, and that they reveal a glimpse of the "holy" but that they themselves are not the literal words of Almighty God, dictated from on high.

Progressive theologians have argued over this present generation that the bible should be understood as first the children of Israel's; and later the Jewish-Gentile Christian's, reflection of their histories and their encounters with the holy. This is only to say that the words found in the bible were written by men, not channeled through them.

That these writers and editors were "inspired" is undeniable. But what does it mean to say that someone was inspired? The word conveys the image of being "in the spirit," which is the language the writer of Revelations chooses to describe how he came to write the last book of the Christian scriptures. Might that understanding work for all of scripture?

All this being said, what do we as Episcopalians claim in retaining the language that says of bible readings that they are "the word of the Lord?" If we mean that these readings reveal something of God's nature and purpose but are not God's actual words, should we not more accurately say instead "the word about the Lord?" (Awkward indeed.)

I don't mean to be provocative here but in good Anglican tradition we observe that "as we pray so shall we believe." What are we communicating in our worship to our young and impressionable generation about what we believe about scripture?

Much has changed in the quarter century since out Book of Common Prayer was last revised. The enormous popularity of texts like the New Zealand Book of Common Prayer in this country suggest that it may be time to revise our Prayer Book again.

The "radical" suggestion of author Rushdie that the Koran be seen in its historical context and that religion is "an event inside history, not supernaturally above it" challenges Christians as well as Muslims for it challenges all people of faith to read their sacred text with head as well as heart.

As Episcopalians, we will continue to evolve and to test the words we use in worship including the words we use to speak about scripture. God, who is a God of on-going revelation, would expect nothing else and perhaps even now is inspiring someone, somewhere, with new language for a new generation.