Some really interesting historical illustrations from Rachel Held Evans of the pitfalls of a "the Bible clearly says" type of hermeneutic. I don't beleive that these examples should keep us from EVER making final statements about the meaning of scripture, but they do admonish us to be ever more honest and humble in our interpretations. So often that which we think is clear from scripture is really nothing more than our effort to justify our own culture with the words of scripture.
See the blog here: The Bible was ‘clear’…
Showing posts with label application. Show all posts
Showing posts with label application. Show all posts
Monday, January 20, 2014
Monday, May 20, 2013
How to take a stand on difficult issues (Part 1)
One of the things that we talk about every semester in my "Issues in Interpretation" class is how to take a stand on difficult issues of theology and hermeneutics. What are those principles and those virtues that should guide us when debating and conversing about contentious issues related to the Bible, culture, theology, etc.? Now that the semester is finally over, I am going to post over the next several days some of my own principles on how to take a stand on difficult issues. As usual, I welcome your comments.
1. Have I loved the person on the other side of this issue?
There is an Indian proverb that goes something like this: “There is no point in cutting off a person’s nose and then giving him a rose to smell.” Someone else said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The same person even said to love even your enemies. Jesus came into the world full of both grace and truth. It seems that the manner that he came into the world should be the same manner in which we try to conduct ourselves in the world. The second greatest commandment is not suspended the moment that we enter into a theological debate. This is not to mean that we shouldn’t have a position and defend that position with conviction. (To let a person continue in obvious error without any sort of confrontation may be “nice” and “tolerant,” but it certainly isn’t loving.) And there are some issues (more on this later) which demand a stronger, uncompromising defense. I am simply saying that in the midst of our debates we shouldn’t forget that there is another person on the other side of the debate who is deeply loved by God and should be deeply loved by us as well.
In other words, ask yourself what is the motivation for your debate? I’m worried about the Christian whose sole motivation is to win a debate. We imagine ourselves, like Saul of Tarsus, doing the Lord’s work with righteous zeal. If other people get offended or hurt or angry along the way, that is just the cost of doing battle for the Lord. We are God’s champions. But in the way that we conduct ourselves, we commit violence; violence against our neighbor and brother and ultimately violence against the purpose of Christ. So often what we are defending is not really God anyway. Because of our own insecurity, we end up defending only our own pride. Our theological positions become like idols that demand our devotion and our defense.
Be careful of disembodying your opponent on any difficult issue. We may be tempted to say, “It is the principle that matters. Nothing else.” This sounds a lot more righteous than it actually is. Remember, it was the Greeks who loved to argue about disembodied ideas (Acts 17?). Christian theology is embodied. People matter in the kingdom of God. But sometimes it seems that we love ideas so much more than people. People are messy. People are difficult. People take time. People require our service and our love. Ideas on the other hand are manageable. There is little selflessness in an idea. In fact, I can easily use an idea in my own service. Too often my ideas may seem to be about something else, but really they are about me.
We disembody our opponents in a number of ways. (One way might be in calling them “opponents.”) But one of the most common ways that we disembody others today is by engaging in debate through the safe anonymity of the Internet. The Internet has empowered us to say things to people online that we would never dream of saying to their face. The Internet has made slander convenient. Like a video game that allows us to virtually and safely fight all manner of enemies, the Internet has given us an arena in which to send our disembodied ideas into battle against other disembodied ideas. I’m not saying that we should never dialogue on-line, but we should probably develop the habit of asking ourselves whether or not I would say in person what I’ve just said on-line. If the answer is “no” then you are probably running the risk of disembodying your opponent. And let’s all just admit it. All of our verbal jousting on-line has paid very little actual benefit to the kingdom and in some cases has done a great deal of harm.
1. Have I loved the person on the other side of this issue?
There is an Indian proverb that goes something like this: “There is no point in cutting off a person’s nose and then giving him a rose to smell.” Someone else said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The same person even said to love even your enemies. Jesus came into the world full of both grace and truth. It seems that the manner that he came into the world should be the same manner in which we try to conduct ourselves in the world. The second greatest commandment is not suspended the moment that we enter into a theological debate. This is not to mean that we shouldn’t have a position and defend that position with conviction. (To let a person continue in obvious error without any sort of confrontation may be “nice” and “tolerant,” but it certainly isn’t loving.) And there are some issues (more on this later) which demand a stronger, uncompromising defense. I am simply saying that in the midst of our debates we shouldn’t forget that there is another person on the other side of the debate who is deeply loved by God and should be deeply loved by us as well.
In other words, ask yourself what is the motivation for your debate? I’m worried about the Christian whose sole motivation is to win a debate. We imagine ourselves, like Saul of Tarsus, doing the Lord’s work with righteous zeal. If other people get offended or hurt or angry along the way, that is just the cost of doing battle for the Lord. We are God’s champions. But in the way that we conduct ourselves, we commit violence; violence against our neighbor and brother and ultimately violence against the purpose of Christ. So often what we are defending is not really God anyway. Because of our own insecurity, we end up defending only our own pride. Our theological positions become like idols that demand our devotion and our defense.
Be careful of disembodying your opponent on any difficult issue. We may be tempted to say, “It is the principle that matters. Nothing else.” This sounds a lot more righteous than it actually is. Remember, it was the Greeks who loved to argue about disembodied ideas (Acts 17?). Christian theology is embodied. People matter in the kingdom of God. But sometimes it seems that we love ideas so much more than people. People are messy. People are difficult. People take time. People require our service and our love. Ideas on the other hand are manageable. There is little selflessness in an idea. In fact, I can easily use an idea in my own service. Too often my ideas may seem to be about something else, but really they are about me.
We disembody our opponents in a number of ways. (One way might be in calling them “opponents.”) But one of the most common ways that we disembody others today is by engaging in debate through the safe anonymity of the Internet. The Internet has empowered us to say things to people online that we would never dream of saying to their face. The Internet has made slander convenient. Like a video game that allows us to virtually and safely fight all manner of enemies, the Internet has given us an arena in which to send our disembodied ideas into battle against other disembodied ideas. I’m not saying that we should never dialogue on-line, but we should probably develop the habit of asking ourselves whether or not I would say in person what I’ve just said on-line. If the answer is “no” then you are probably running the risk of disembodying your opponent. And let’s all just admit it. All of our verbal jousting on-line has paid very little actual benefit to the kingdom and in some cases has done a great deal of harm.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals
Just finished Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals by William Webb. The dominant purpose for the book is to provide some guidelines when making judgments about what is cultural and what is transcultural in scripture. In other words, how do we decide if a text in scripture is intended only for its immediate cultural context ("greet one another with a holy kiss") or if it is meant to be applied in every culture ("your sins are forgiven")? Some passages are relatively easy to categorize. Others are notoriously more difficult like Paul's comments about women in 1 Timothy. Webb's observation is that scripture teaches what he calls a multi-level ethic - not a simple static ethic. Scripture establishes a trajectory of faithful applications. We should apply the text differently as the culture changes. This isn't to strip scripture of its authority - quite the opposite. This gives scripture a contextual power whatever culture it may encounter. In a multi-level ethic the principle and the application of the text are related but different. In a static ethic, the principle and application are seen together. The application may need to be translated into a more contemporary culture, but the application is essentially the same.
Webb calls his approach a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. He uses the case of slavery to illustrate his approach. Scripture does not openly condemn slavery, but it does establish a sort of trajectory which eventually led committed Christians to challenge the institution of slavery from scripture itself. From this case study, he moves on to talk about the situation of women and homosexuals in scripture - two hot button issues in our culture today. In the case of women, Webb argues that the trajectory established by scripture moves from patriarchy to what he calls "complementary egalitarianism." The case with homosexuals is far different however. The trajectory established by scripture is not one of acceptance and endorsement but one of condemnation. You can see a summary of his position here.
I liked this book overall. I think that there were times that he seemed to be stacking the deck in favor of his already decided positions, but it is hard to argue with his observations and methodology. All of us engage in a multi-level ethical understanding of scripture - even those pious "literalists" among us.
Webb gives eighteen criteria from making judgments about what in scripture is culture and what is transcultural (or universal in application). I decided to reproduce them here. Some are more convincing than others, and he also discounted or ignored historical theology and the regula fidei in his approach (especially on the interpretation of various Pauline texts on women), but taken together they provide some nice guidlines in deciding these issues.
Persuasive Criteria (his designation):
1 - Preliminary Movement - A component of a text may be culturally bound if Scripture modifies the original cultural norms in such a way that suggests further movement is possible and even advantageous in a subsequent culture.
2 - Seed Ideas - A component of a text may be cultural if "seed ideas" are present within the rest of Scripture to suggest and encourage further movement on a particular subject.
3 - Breakouts - A component of a text may be culturally confined if the social norms reflected in that text are completely "broken out of" in other biblical texts.
4 - Purpose/Intent Statements - A component of a text may be culturally bound, if by practicing the text one no longer fulfills the text's original intent or purpose.
5 - Basis in Fall or Curse - A component of a text may by transcultural if its basis is rooted in the Fall of humanity or the curse.
Moderately Persuasive Criteria
6 - Basis in Original Creation, Section 1: Patterns - A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the original creation material.
7 - Basis in Original Creation, Section 2: Primogeniture - A component of a text may be transcultural, if it is rooted in the original creation material and, more specifically, its creative order.
8 - Basis in New Creation - A component of a text may be transcultural if it is rooted in new-creation material.
9 - Competing Options - A component of a text is more likely to be transcultural, if presented in a time and setting when other competing options existed in the broader cultures.
10 - Opposition to Original Culture - A component of a text is more likely to be transcultural if it counters or stands in opposition to the original culture.
11 - Closely Related Issues - A component of a text may be cultural if "closely related issues" to that text/issue are also themselves culturally bound.
12 - Penal Code - A prohibited or prescribed action within the text may be culturally bound (at least in its most concrete, nonabstracted form) if the penalty for violation is surprisingly light or not even mentioned. The less severe the penalty for a particular action, the more likely it is of having culturally bound components.
13 - Specific Instructions Versus General Principles - A component of a text may be culturally relative if its specific instructions appear to be at odds with the general principles of Scripture.
Inconclusive Criteria
14 - Basis in Theological Analogy - A component of a text may be transcultural if its basis is rooted in the character of God or Christ through theological analogy.
15 - Contextual Comparisons - A text or something within a text may be transcultural to the degree that other aspects in a specialized context, such as a list or grouping, are transcultural.
16 - Appeal to the Old Testament - A practice within a New Testament text may or may not be transcultural if appeal is (or could be) made to the Old Testament in support of that practice.
Persuasive Extrascriptural Criteria
17 - Pragmatic Basis Between Two Cultures - A component of a biblical imperative may be culturally relative if the pragmatic basis for the instruction cannot be sustained from one culture to another.
18 - Scientific and Social Scientific Evidence - A component of a text may be culturally confined if it is contrary to present-day scientific evidence.
Monday, February 4, 2013
The Bible in History
I just finished reading The Bible in History by David Kling. It is a very in-depth study of the historical importance of various key passages of scripture.
Chapter 1 explained the connection between Matthew 19:16-22 and the rise of the monastic movement.
Chapter 2 explained the rise of the papacy and the various passages - especially Matthew 16 which were sometimes used to justify the power of the Pope.
Chapter 3 talked about Bernard of Clairvaux and his allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs which was the most frequently read and expounded book in the medieval monastery. Kling points out that nearly one hundred extant commentaries survive from the sixth to fifteenth centuries. More than 500 commentaries had been written by 1700 on this book!
Chapter 4 gave the history of the Protestant Reformation and talked about how various passages, especially Romans 1:16-17, were critical in the theological development of men like Luther.
Chapter 5 talked about the Anabaptist tradition which (eventually) took the various teachings of Jesus especially from the Sermon on the Mount on loving your enemy as critical to the practice of their faith.
Chapter 6 explained the influence of the Exodus story on the founding of this nation and in the development of African American theology as a protest theology.
Chapter 7 talked about the roots of Pentecostalism and the importance of the book of Acts in its origin.
Chapter 8 talked about the rise of feminist understandings of scripture rooted in such formative passages as Galatians 3:28.
The question that runs throughout the book is how do scripture and history interact. Do scriptural texts, pregnant with meaning and relevance, find their historical moment so that various passages actually change history? Or do the events of history actually change the sense of certain passages of scripture, so that texts are used or interpreted prejudicially to suit the historical needs of the moment? It's not an easy question to answer, and, like most things, the answer is probably both/and not either/or.
He does offer five conclusions at the end of his study which are worth sharing:
- Texts have indeed functioned as transforming agents. "Through Christian history, the Bible has functioned not merely as a book of story, instruction, and inspiration but as the vehicle of divine communication and supernatural transformation."
- Texts have also re-created meaning. "Texts of Scripture are not merely agents of transformation but are re-created and resuscitated int he interpretive and historical process. Texts re-create people, and people re-create texts. New ways of understanding are elicited by contexts. As a particular text works its way through history, it undergoes multiple interpretations and applications."
- Some select texts have served as comprehending sources. "A particular text of Scripture has functioned as a key text around which other texts of Scripture are illuminated, and these in turn refract back to the original text. Or to change the metaphor: a particular text functions as a centripetal force, drawing other biblical texts into its thematic orbit."
- Texts serve as hermeneutical keys. "A text functions not only as a comprehending source but also as an interpretive key to unlock the essential meaning of Scripture or resolve tensions within Scripture."
- Texts work as secondary justifications. "A particular text of Scripture functions to legitimize what has already occurred or to support the current climate of opinion. In a sense, many texts function in this way, for they confirm already existing notions, ideas, or convictions in the mind of the reader."
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Christopher Rollston's shocking discovery of patriarchy in scripture!
Dr. Christopher Rollston is an accomplished academic and author. I respect his academic credentials (I've never met him personally, but I'm sure he's a decent enough guy), but his recent article in the Huffington Post is just, in my opinion, sophomoric. I encourage you to read it here. This type of biblical critique plays extremely well on the Internet and on cable television shows aired around significant religious seasons. It's the type of biblical "gottchaism" that popular culture celebrates. But is it true? Is it accurate? In this case, I think that Dr. Rollston's brief article is extremely misleading.
The thing is, I actually agree with Rollston's conclusion - at least the first part of it. He says at the end of his article: "People today often wish to turn to sacred literature for timeless tru[th]s about social norms. This impulse is certainly understandable. But that impulse can be fraught with certain difficulties." This statement is obviously true on all counts. We desire timeless truths from sacred literature, but these timeless truths are frustratingly elusive at times. Anyone who has genuinely struggled with scripture knows this is the case. Our culture is radically different than the biblical culture. (Though I've noticed that for most of us, whenever there is a cultural conflict we just assume that our culture is correct.) These differences in culture are certainly apparent when one considers gender roles in society. No one would deny that the Bible emerges from and reflects a patriarchal worldview, and this worldview is out of step with contemporary cultural assumptions and norms (at least in the west). But rather than dismissing scripture, the student of scripture enters into the hard work of trying to bridge that cultural gap.
My problem emerges in Rollston's next statement: "After all, to embrace the dominant biblical view of women would be to embrace the marginalization of women." I apologize to Dr. Rollston if I am misunderstanding him. But this is quite the exegetical leap. He has made a totalizing statement that the dominant view of women in scripture is one of marginalization. And so, the biblical message on this point must not be embraced or seriously studied but rejected. (And by no means should we think of adopting a spirit of humility ready to learn from the biblical text. Our sovereign task is to interrogate and expose the text.)
But is this totalizing statement even accurate?
He brings up the example of Jewish law as an example of this marginalizing tendency. Once again, no one denies that the Law does reflect patriarchalist assumptions. But anyone with his academic credentials knows that Jewish law, while patriarchal (jarringly at times), was nevertheless much more sensitive to the rights and needs of the marginalized (including women, orphans, and aliens) than the nations that surrounded them.
He cherry picks numerous other passages to support his case. Some support it better than others. (I'm not sure why he chose to devote so much time to Proverbs.) Let's admit, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult like some of Paul's statements about women's roles in the community of faith or some of the OT narratives that depict deplorable treatment of women. But that's a part of the problem. He casually brings up these passages from both the OT and the NT and pretends as if no deeper discussion of them is needed. No exegesis needed. No attempt to put the texts into their proper cultural context. Of course these passages must support his point. When in fact each one of these passages deserves a fair exegetical hearing. For instance, his treatment of the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians is almost laughable. He totally dismisses how counter-cultural Paul's command to husbands is and choses instead to point out that the nasty word "submit" is used for women. These passages that really speak to the dignity of women in the marriage relationship (especially when compared to the culture of the day) are dismissed as yet further examples of the marginalization of women. No honest explanation is even attempted. It is simply a gottcha text. Even if we were to concede the point that there are marginalizing texts in scripture, is it reasonable to conclude from those few passages that the overall message concerning women is one of marginalization?
He does charitably acknowledge that there are some renegade passages in scripture that support the dignity of women. But these are clearly minority reports. They don't reflect the real heartbeat of scripture. There just happened to be a few individuals in the pages of scripture who were enlightened, like us, before their time. (Of course, Paul must have written Galatians because look how egalitarian he is. The Paul we know never could have written those nasty things about women in 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy or Colossians or Ephesians.)
And why he chooses to talk about Job but not JESUS I'll never figure out. Seriously. Do the gospels and Acts exist in his New Testament? Read Luke. Read Acts. What you will find is story after story marvelling at the faith and the dignity and the sacrifice and the ministry of women. Is this the message of marginalization that Rollston is referring to?
He ends the article this way: "And sacralizing patriarchy is just wrong. Gender equality may not have been the norm two or three millennia ago, but it is essential. So, the next time someone refers to "biblical values," it's worth mentioning to them that the Bible often marginalized women and that's not something anyone should value." That's a nice and pretentious shot across the bow at conservative evangelicals. But does it ever occur to him where this cultural assumption came from? Why assume, as we do today, that gender equality is "essential?" The fact that he began this article by talking about Augusta National opening up its membership to women actually made me laugh. This is what passes for gender inequality? That women couldn't become members of a private country club in Georgia? Seriously, doesn't that sentence alone demonstrate how far we have come in gender equality over the last several millennia? But how did we get here?
It might be good to ask the question: If Christianity didn't exist, where would gender equality be today? Because he seems to be saying that the message of scripture is a message that needs to be overcome or perhaps even dismissed if we are going to have true gender equality. But this is not the case. It's not as if pagan philosophy has given us the idea of gender equality. Both Plato and Aristotle argued for forced abortions and infanticide. While Todd Akin is skewered publicly for arguing against abortion. (Although admittedly he sounded like a baffoon in the way that he approached it.) In the Roman Empire, women were so marginalized that it was excedingly rare for any family to raise more than one daughter. All other daughters would be abandoned or killed in their infancy. Rodney Stark in his book The Rise of Christianity argues that it was precisely the Christian community's view of the sanctity of life and marriage along with their dignified view of women that helped lead to its explosion of growth in the first Christian centuries. Apparently, they were reading a very different Bible than Dr. Rollston. The fact is that we wouldn't even have our treasured assumptions about equality and dignity were it not for the biblical testimony.
The thing is, I actually agree with Rollston's conclusion - at least the first part of it. He says at the end of his article: "People today often wish to turn to sacred literature for timeless tru[th]s about social norms. This impulse is certainly understandable. But that impulse can be fraught with certain difficulties." This statement is obviously true on all counts. We desire timeless truths from sacred literature, but these timeless truths are frustratingly elusive at times. Anyone who has genuinely struggled with scripture knows this is the case. Our culture is radically different than the biblical culture. (Though I've noticed that for most of us, whenever there is a cultural conflict we just assume that our culture is correct.) These differences in culture are certainly apparent when one considers gender roles in society. No one would deny that the Bible emerges from and reflects a patriarchal worldview, and this worldview is out of step with contemporary cultural assumptions and norms (at least in the west). But rather than dismissing scripture, the student of scripture enters into the hard work of trying to bridge that cultural gap.
My problem emerges in Rollston's next statement: "After all, to embrace the dominant biblical view of women would be to embrace the marginalization of women." I apologize to Dr. Rollston if I am misunderstanding him. But this is quite the exegetical leap. He has made a totalizing statement that the dominant view of women in scripture is one of marginalization. And so, the biblical message on this point must not be embraced or seriously studied but rejected. (And by no means should we think of adopting a spirit of humility ready to learn from the biblical text. Our sovereign task is to interrogate and expose the text.)
But is this totalizing statement even accurate?
He brings up the example of Jewish law as an example of this marginalizing tendency. Once again, no one denies that the Law does reflect patriarchalist assumptions. But anyone with his academic credentials knows that Jewish law, while patriarchal (jarringly at times), was nevertheless much more sensitive to the rights and needs of the marginalized (including women, orphans, and aliens) than the nations that surrounded them.
He cherry picks numerous other passages to support his case. Some support it better than others. (I'm not sure why he chose to devote so much time to Proverbs.) Let's admit, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult like some of Paul's statements about women's roles in the community of faith or some of the OT narratives that depict deplorable treatment of women. But that's a part of the problem. He casually brings up these passages from both the OT and the NT and pretends as if no deeper discussion of them is needed. No exegesis needed. No attempt to put the texts into their proper cultural context. Of course these passages must support his point. When in fact each one of these passages deserves a fair exegetical hearing. For instance, his treatment of the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians is almost laughable. He totally dismisses how counter-cultural Paul's command to husbands is and choses instead to point out that the nasty word "submit" is used for women. These passages that really speak to the dignity of women in the marriage relationship (especially when compared to the culture of the day) are dismissed as yet further examples of the marginalization of women. No honest explanation is even attempted. It is simply a gottcha text. Even if we were to concede the point that there are marginalizing texts in scripture, is it reasonable to conclude from those few passages that the overall message concerning women is one of marginalization?
He does charitably acknowledge that there are some renegade passages in scripture that support the dignity of women. But these are clearly minority reports. They don't reflect the real heartbeat of scripture. There just happened to be a few individuals in the pages of scripture who were enlightened, like us, before their time. (Of course, Paul must have written Galatians because look how egalitarian he is. The Paul we know never could have written those nasty things about women in 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy or Colossians or Ephesians.)
And why he chooses to talk about Job but not JESUS I'll never figure out. Seriously. Do the gospels and Acts exist in his New Testament? Read Luke. Read Acts. What you will find is story after story marvelling at the faith and the dignity and the sacrifice and the ministry of women. Is this the message of marginalization that Rollston is referring to?
He ends the article this way: "And sacralizing patriarchy is just wrong. Gender equality may not have been the norm two or three millennia ago, but it is essential. So, the next time someone refers to "biblical values," it's worth mentioning to them that the Bible often marginalized women and that's not something anyone should value." That's a nice and pretentious shot across the bow at conservative evangelicals. But does it ever occur to him where this cultural assumption came from? Why assume, as we do today, that gender equality is "essential?" The fact that he began this article by talking about Augusta National opening up its membership to women actually made me laugh. This is what passes for gender inequality? That women couldn't become members of a private country club in Georgia? Seriously, doesn't that sentence alone demonstrate how far we have come in gender equality over the last several millennia? But how did we get here?
It might be good to ask the question: If Christianity didn't exist, where would gender equality be today? Because he seems to be saying that the message of scripture is a message that needs to be overcome or perhaps even dismissed if we are going to have true gender equality. But this is not the case. It's not as if pagan philosophy has given us the idea of gender equality. Both Plato and Aristotle argued for forced abortions and infanticide. While Todd Akin is skewered publicly for arguing against abortion. (Although admittedly he sounded like a baffoon in the way that he approached it.) In the Roman Empire, women were so marginalized that it was excedingly rare for any family to raise more than one daughter. All other daughters would be abandoned or killed in their infancy. Rodney Stark in his book The Rise of Christianity argues that it was precisely the Christian community's view of the sanctity of life and marriage along with their dignified view of women that helped lead to its explosion of growth in the first Christian centuries. Apparently, they were reading a very different Bible than Dr. Rollston. The fact is that we wouldn't even have our treasured assumptions about equality and dignity were it not for the biblical testimony.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Reform Judaism and the application of the Law
A law, even though divine, is potent only so long as the conditions and circumstances of life, to meet which it was enacted, continue; when these change, however, the law also must be abrogated, even though it have God for its author. For God himself has shown indubitably that with the change of the circumstances and conditions of life for which He once gave those laws, the laws themselves cease to be operative, that they shall be observed no longer because can be observed no longer.
Samuel Holdheim, the first rabbi of the Reform congregation in Berlin, 1845
in Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997) 53.
Samuel Holdheim, the first rabbi of the Reform congregation in Berlin, 1845
in Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997) 53.
Monday, March 5, 2012
heremeutical trajectories
Although the Bible is clear on central matters of the faith, it is flexible in many matters that pertain to the day-to-day. To put it more positively, the Bible sets trajectories, not rules, for a good many issues that confront the church...Different [people] in different contexts will enter into these trajectories in different ways and, therefore, express their commitment to Christ differently. This flexibility of application is precisely what is modeled for us int he pages of Scripture itself.
Peter Enns in Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 141.
Peter Enns in Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 141.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Scripture as missional and identity-shaping
The best way to describe Scripture is that it is identity-shaping. The Bible tells us who we are, where we are, and where we are going. In fact, its identity-shaping, Spirit-mentored direction propels its readers into a missional life. Eugene Peterson warns of the danger of making the Bible after our own Trinitarian image: my Holy Wants, Holy Needs, and Holy Feelings. Instead, if we read the Bible aright, we are remade--since the Bible as been sent as a word from God to us--into God's image, the perfect Eikon, Jesus Christ...
...This is what it is meant by Scripture being missional: Scripture is designed by God to work its story into persons of God so that they may become doers of the good. Scripture is missional because it is designed to create restored Eikons who are in union with God and communion with others for the good of others and the world. Scripture, I somethings have to tell myself, is not designed just to be exegeted and probed and pulled apart until it yields its (gnostic-like) secrets to those who know its languages and its interpretative traditions and who can then divulge their gleanings behind pulpits on Sunday mornings or in monographs and academic journals (very few care to read). Scripture is missional because it is designed to create missional people who learn from their missional praxis how to see Scripture as amissional text that shapes them so that they can live in the story that the church tells in Scripture.
Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 146-147.
...This is what it is meant by Scripture being missional: Scripture is designed by God to work its story into persons of God so that they may become doers of the good. Scripture is missional because it is designed to create restored Eikons who are in union with God and communion with others for the good of others and the world. Scripture, I somethings have to tell myself, is not designed just to be exegeted and probed and pulled apart until it yields its (gnostic-like) secrets to those who know its languages and its interpretative traditions and who can then divulge their gleanings behind pulpits on Sunday mornings or in monographs and academic journals (very few care to read). Scripture is missional because it is designed to create missional people who learn from their missional praxis how to see Scripture as amissional text that shapes them so that they can live in the story that the church tells in Scripture.
Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 146-147.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Foundations Only a Few Can Build
This is a sermon that was preached by Dr. Robert Lowery of Lincoln Christian Seminary in chapel services on Feb. 8, 2001. Dr. Lowery was a passionate communicator and devoted student of God's word - as this sermon so clearly illustrates. Through his many years of service in the seminary, Dr. Lowery positively impacted the lives and the ministries of thousands - including my own. My own teaching ministry owes a huge debt of gratitude to Dr. Lowery's influence and encouragement. After listening again to this sermon yesterday I was reminded all over again of just how much my own thinking on scripture, hermeneutics, and ministry I have happily stolen from Dr. Lowery through the years.
When I first accepted the call to teach at Ozark Christian College, Dr. Lowery shared with me a prayer of his for all of his students - especially those who teach. His prayer was from Psalm 119:99 - "I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statutes." I laughed when I heard it, and it still sounds outrageous to think about today. But really, shouldn't this be the prayer of every teacher and mentor? That his students may eventually be able to say, "I have gained more insight than my teachers - not because they were unfaithful or ignorant or irrelevant - but because they faithfully pointed me to the timeless truths of God's word. These truths which I have learned to consume and which I have learned to let consume me."
Dr. Lowery died last week after a prolonged battle with cancer. The man who knew more about the book of Revelation than anyone I've ever known, now knows immeasurably more than he ever imagined. Thank you, Dr. Lowery.
When I first accepted the call to teach at Ozark Christian College, Dr. Lowery shared with me a prayer of his for all of his students - especially those who teach. His prayer was from Psalm 119:99 - "I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statutes." I laughed when I heard it, and it still sounds outrageous to think about today. But really, shouldn't this be the prayer of every teacher and mentor? That his students may eventually be able to say, "I have gained more insight than my teachers - not because they were unfaithful or ignorant or irrelevant - but because they faithfully pointed me to the timeless truths of God's word. These truths which I have learned to consume and which I have learned to let consume me."
Dr. Lowery died last week after a prolonged battle with cancer. The man who knew more about the book of Revelation than anyone I've ever known, now knows immeasurably more than he ever imagined. Thank you, Dr. Lowery.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The Goal of Study
Read whatever chapter of Scripture you will, and be ever so delighted with it--yet it will leave you as poor, as empty and unchaged as it found you unless it has turned you wholly and solely to the Spirit of God, and brought you into full union with and dependence upon him.
William Law, The Power of the Spirit (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1971), 19 quoted in Cymbala, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, 140.
William Law, The Power of the Spirit (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1971), 19 quoted in Cymbala, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, 140.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Hermeneutic of Love
Whoever, therefore, thinks he understands the divine Scriptures or any part of them so that it does not build the double love of God and of our neighbor does not understand them at all.
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, in George Montague, Understanding the Bible, 47
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, in George Montague, Understanding the Bible, 47
Friday, May 14, 2010
Exegesis is a dust cloth...
But, inconvenient or not, we are stuck with the necessity of exegesis. We have a written word to read and attend to. It is God's word, or so we believe, and we had better get it right. Exegesis is the care we give to getting the words right. Exegesis is foundational to Christian spirituality. Foundations disappear from view as a building is constructed, but if the builders don't build a solid foundation, their building doesn't last long.
Because we speak our language so casually, it is easy to fall into the habit of treating it casually. But language is persistently difficult to understand. We spend our early lives leaning the language, and just when we think we have it mastered our spouse says, "You don't understand a thing I'm saying, do you?" We teach our children to talk, and just about the time we think they might be getting it, they quit talking to us; and when we overhear them talking to their friends, we find we can't understand more than one out of every eight or nine words they say. A close relationship doesn't guarentee understanding. A long affection doesn't guarantee understanding. In fact, the closer we are to another and the more intimate our relations, the more care we must exercise to hear accurately, to understand thoroughly, to answer appropriately.
Which is to say, the more "spiritual" we become, the more care we must give to exegesis. The more mature we become in the Christian faith, the more exegetically rigorous we must become. THis is not a task from which we graduate. These words given to us in our Spiritures are constantly getting overlaid with personal preferences, cultural assumptions, sin distortions, and ignorant guesses and pollute the text. The pollutants are always in the air, gathering dust on our Bibles, corroding our use of the language, especially the language of faith. Exegesis is a dust cloth, a scrub brush, or even a Q-tip for keeping the words clean.
Eugene Peterson, Eat This Book, 53
Because we speak our language so casually, it is easy to fall into the habit of treating it casually. But language is persistently difficult to understand. We spend our early lives leaning the language, and just when we think we have it mastered our spouse says, "You don't understand a thing I'm saying, do you?" We teach our children to talk, and just about the time we think they might be getting it, they quit talking to us; and when we overhear them talking to their friends, we find we can't understand more than one out of every eight or nine words they say. A close relationship doesn't guarentee understanding. A long affection doesn't guarantee understanding. In fact, the closer we are to another and the more intimate our relations, the more care we must exercise to hear accurately, to understand thoroughly, to answer appropriately.
Which is to say, the more "spiritual" we become, the more care we must give to exegesis. The more mature we become in the Christian faith, the more exegetically rigorous we must become. THis is not a task from which we graduate. These words given to us in our Spiritures are constantly getting overlaid with personal preferences, cultural assumptions, sin distortions, and ignorant guesses and pollute the text. The pollutants are always in the air, gathering dust on our Bibles, corroding our use of the language, especially the language of faith. Exegesis is a dust cloth, a scrub brush, or even a Q-tip for keeping the words clean.
Eugene Peterson, Eat This Book, 53
Eating the Word
Christians feed on Scripture. Holy Scripture nurtures the holy community as food nurtures the human body. Christians don’t simply learn or study or use Scripture; we assimilate it, take it into our lives in such a way that it gets metabolized into acts of love, cups of cold water, missions into all the world, healing and evangelism and justice in Jesus' name, hands raised in adoration of the Father, feet washed in company with the Son.
Eugene Peterson, Eat This Book, page 18
Eugene Peterson, Eat This Book, page 18
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Transformational Hermeneutics
If you open yourself, day by day and week by week, to the message of scripture, its grand sweep and its small details, and allow the faithful preaching of Jesus and his achievement to enter your consciousness and soak down into your imagination and heat, then the admittedly uncomfortable work of God's word will be happening on a regular basis, showing you (as we say) where you really are, what's going on deep inside.
N.T. Wright, Hebrews for Everyone, 41.
N.T. Wright, Hebrews for Everyone, 41.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Alexander Campbell
There is a distance which is properly called the speaking distance, or the hearing distance, beyond which the voice reaches not, and the ear hears not. To hear another, we must come within that circle which the voice audibly fills. Now we may with propriety say, that as it respects God, there is an understanding distance. All beyond that distance cannot understand God; all within it can easily understand him in all matters of piety and morality. God himself is the centre of that circle, and humility is its circumference. The wisdom of God is as evident in adapting the light of the Sun of Righteousness to our spiritual vision, as in adjusting the light of day to our eyes. The light reaches us without an effort of our own; but we must open our eyes; and if our eyes be sound, we enjoy the natural light of heaven. There is a sound eye in reference to spiritual, as well as in reference to material light. Now, while the philological principles and rules of interpretation enable many men to be skilful in biblical criticism, and in the interpretation of words and sentences, who neither perceive nor admire the things represented by those words, the sound eye contemplates the things themselves, and is ravished with the spiritual and divine scenes which the Bible unfolds.
Alexander Campbell, “The Bible-Principles of Interpretation,” Millennial Harbinger 3 (January, 1846).
Alexander Campbell, “The Bible-Principles of Interpretation,” Millennial Harbinger 3 (January, 1846).
Inductive Hermeneutics
The following list points out some of the difficulties that have been noted in the methodology of inductive hermeneutics: 1) It tends to dismiss poetic and literary aspects of the Bible. 2) It ignores the fact that culture and background play a role in understanding. 3) It addresses the language of the head but not of the heart. 4) It tends to equate spirituality with a correct intellectual understanding of the text. 5) It makes correct biblical understanding dependent on the latest scientific methodology.
David L. Little, “Inductive Hermeneutics and the Early Restoration Movement” in Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (Spring, 2000): 18.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Authority of Scripture
Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion. It is no longer “authoritative” in any strict sense; that is, it may be cited as though in “proof” of some point or other, but it is not leading the way, energizing the church with the fresh breath of God himself. The question must always be asked, whether scripture is being used to serve an existing theology or vice versa.
N.T. Wright, The Last Word (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005), 70
N.T. Wright, The Last Word (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005), 70
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Augustine
Augustine held a high view of Scripture: divinely inspired, it is without error and of supreme authority in matters of faith. With respect to its purpose, to bring salvation, the message is simple; but beyond that it is sublimely suprarational. Because unaided human reason cannot penetrate its profound truths, one must come to the Bible first in faith. It is faith which informs understanding, not vice versa. He said the goal of Bible study should be to learn how to love God and one’s neighbor. Therefore he guided interpretation by the twofold law of love: glean from it the principles of a pure life, which teach how to love God and one’s neighbor; and learn sound doctrine, which gives true knowledge about God and humankind.
James T. Spivey Jr. in Bruce Corley et al, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2002), 101.
James T. Spivey Jr. in Bruce Corley et al, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2002), 101.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Application
He would say, “Anyone whose deeds are more than his wisdom—his wisdom will endure. And anyone whose wisdom is more than his deeds—his wisdom will not endure.
Abot 3:9, II
Abot 3:9, II
Application
R. Ishmael, his son, says, “He who learns so as to teach—they give him a chance to learn and to teach. He who learns so as to carry out his teachings—they give him a chance to learn, to teach, to keep, and to do.” R. Sadoq says, “Do not make [Torah teachings] a crown with which to glorify yourself or a spade with which to dig. (So did Hillel say [M. 1:13], “He who uses the crown perishes.”) “Thus have you learned: Whoever derives worldly benefit from teachings of Torah takes his life out of this world.”
Abot 4:5
Abot 4:5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)