Ugh

I'm very confused by this. Schools should offer training in biblical interpretation and fire arm usage? I am not a pacifist and I am not in principle opposed to Christians owning and using fire arms, but the naked equivocation of scripture and fire arms in this picture makes me a little nauseous. Add to it the inherent nationalism...and well....ugh. I've got serious questions about whether or not the creator of this actually does know how to use the Bible.

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:

1. 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."
2. 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."
3. 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."
4. 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."
5. 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."

The Bible in History, 311-312

Fiorenza's Hermeneutical Authority

Schussler Fiorenza approaches the biblical text with a "hermeneutics of suspicion rather than with a hermeneutics of consent and affirmation." According to her feminist theory, "all texts are products of an androcentric patriarchal culture and history." Males not only wrote them but also have dominated their interpretation. Consequently, one must engage in a two-tier demythologization and "reclaim the Bible and early Christian history as women's beginnings and power." Because the text is the word of men, it is not authoritative and "cannot claim to be the revelatory Word of God." The Bible itself must be liberated from its "perpetuation and legitimization of such patriarchal oppression and forgetfulness of, silence about, or eradication of the memory of women's suffering."

Rather than appeal to a "canon within the canon"...Schussler Fiorenza calls for a "canon outside the canon." She proposes "that the revelatory canon for theological evaluation of biblical androcentric traditions and their subsequent interpretations cannot be derived from the Bible itself but can only be formulated in and through women's struggle for liberation from all patriarchal oppression." The New Testament is not the archetype--an ideal, unchanging, timeless pattern--but a prototype, an original, to be sure, but "critically open to the possibility of its own transformation." The text itself is no longer the interpretive authority; rather, the "personally and politically reflected experience of oppression and liberation must become the criterion of appropriateness for biblical interpretation and evaluation of biblical authority claims." The Bible "no longer functions as authoritative but as a resource for women's struggle for liberation."

In sum, "a feminist paradigm of critical interpretation is not based on a faithful adherence to biblical texts or obedient submission to biblical authority but on solidarity with women of the past and present whose life and struggles are touched by the role of the Bible in Western culture." Women's experience in their contemporary struggle against racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression is the standard by which to approach and interpret Scripture. Thus only those portions of Scripture "that transcend critically their patriarchal frameworks and allow for a vision of Christian women as historical and theological subjects and actors" are worthy to be considered divine revelation and truth.

from David Kling, The Bible in History (New York: Oxford, 2004), 302-303.

Kant and Enlightenment Hermeneutics

For Kant practical reason provided the framework of categories for theology and also for christology. Anything "which is of no practical use" does not concern us. "Scripture texts which contain certain theoretical doctrines stated to be sacred, but surpassing every conception of reason (even of moral reason) may be expounded for the benefit of the practical reason, while those which conflict with practical reason must be so expounded." The doctrine of the Trinity "offers absolutely nothing of practical us...And the same is true of the doctrine of the incarnation of one divine person." Something similar can be said of the stories of the resurrection and the ascension. For "articles of faith do not mean what ought to be believed...but what for practical (moral) purposes it is practical and useful to accept, even though it may not be possible to prove it, but only to believe it." Thus the revelation of God can only be what is in agreement with what reason understands to be "appropriate to God." "In this way all expositions of scripture, in so far as they concern religion, must be made in accordance with the principle of morality intended in revelation, and without this are either in practice empty or even hindrances to good." For we understand only him who speaks with us through our own understanding and our own reason. Therefore "the God in us", i.e. the free conscience, is "himself the interpreter."

In Moltmann, The Crucified God (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 93-94.

Racial liberation and the gay marriage debate

One of the interesting side-plots in the whole gay marriage debate - especially since President Obama publicly announced his support - involves the disposition of the black church towards the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. James Cone announced his feelings loud and clear here. Of course this position comes as no surprise. Many within liberationist (both racial and gender) circles have been associating the causes of racial justice, gender justice, and sexual justice for years. Desmond Tutu, for instance, has said, “We struggled against apartheid because we were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about. It is the same with homosexuality. The orientation is a given, not a matter of choice. It would be crazy for someone to choose to be gay, given the homophobia that is present.” The reasoning is this: The Gospel is a message of liberation. The Kingdom is upside down - humbling the powerful while giving power to the powerless, chastizing the elite while comforting the marginalized. This is the guiding principle of liberation theology. And, despite the many flaws (and there are many) of liberation theology, it must be granted that the kingdom IS truly upside down and counter-cultural. We can (and will) argue and debate about how to best implement or practice this kingdom principle - but the principle itself is biblical and powerful.


Here is the question however: Does scripture regard issues of race and gender in the same way that it regards issues of sexuality? Because homosexuals are relatively powerless. They are certainly marginalized. Should the arguments applied to racial or gender liberation be applied to sexual liberation as well? The answer from scripture is clearly "no." William Webb's redemptive movement hermeneutic illustrates this point pretty well. This is why most who associate sexuality with race and gender will choose to make arguments based on the fallibility, ignorance, or outright homophobia of ancient people especially Paul. Paul was just mistaken or perhaps he was closeted himself. If he would have been as enlightened as we certainly are, he would not have said those nasty things about homosexuality (or the dozens of other sins that we energetically try to justify in our own lives). Of course no one wants to be labeled a bigot or closed-minded. And this is unfortunately becoming the popular assumption. If you are against gay marriage, you are against civil rights, you are closed-minded, hateful, and probably dangerous. You might as well be one of those rednecks from the deep south spraying water hoses at black teenagers during the civil rights protests in the 60's. Classic straw man - falsely associating a person's beliefs with those of another, more despicable person for the purpose of dismissing or underminding their arguments. Clearly we are called to love and reconciliation. And clearly, we shouldn't treat homosexuality as some sort of "unforgiveable" sin (1 Cor. 6:9-11)! But if we are interested at all in taking scripture seriously on this topic, we must acknowledge that it does in fact call this "sin." It is just not regarded in the same way as race or gender. And to attempt to bully black churches (or anyone) into this position just because of their race (and their politics) is, frankly, insulting.

Is the doctrine of inspiration deistic?

Of course the Bible as described above is the primary testifying, mediating witness to Jesus Christ. Of course the Bible comes to the church in writing and therefore enjoys a durability and some level of material objectivity over time (leaving aside the problems of copying and translating). But something is nevertheless wrong with the idea that all presence, communication, fellowship, exchange, and commerce between God and humans always and only transpire somehow through the paper and ink of the Bible. That is an overly rationalistic, modern approach to faith and life. John Webster rightly notes, "Accounts of scriptural inspiration are not infrequently curiously deistic, in so far as the biblical text can itself become a revelatory agent by virtue of an act of divine inspiration in the past."

Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 119

Interpretive Pluralism

...as the Reformation began to spin out of control (from his point of view) with the spread of Anabaptist and other sectarian groups, Luther had to back away fromt he perspecuity of only one "correct" view and recognize the potential to prove a wide variety of doctrinal positions from scripture, admitting, "I learn now that it is enough to throw many passages together helter-skelter, whether they fit or not. If this be the way, then I can easily prove from Scripture that beer is better than wine." In another, more general  sense, this problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism goes all the way back to teh recognition of the early church fathers Tertullian (155-230) and Vincent of Lerins (early fifth century) about the impossibility of using scripture to persuade heretics of the error of their ways. Vincent wrote, "Owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters." According to Tertullian, scriptural "ambiguity" and the possibility of reading the Bible in different ways means that a "controversy over the Scriptures can clearly produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain." Tertullian observed: "Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will made no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy...Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures."

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 21.

Joseph Smith and the problem of interpretive pluralism

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinion, I often said to myself, What is to be done? who of all these parties are right? Or, are they all wrong together? If one of them is right, which is it, and how shall I know? The teachers of religion of the diferent sects destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must...ask of God.

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 20.

Inerrancy and disunity

N.T. Wright observes, "It seems to be the case that the more you insist that you are based ont eh Bible, the more fissiparous you become; the church splits up into more and more little groups, each thinking that they have got biblical truth right." Likewise,Kevin Vanhoozer admits that "inerrancy--the belief that the Bible speaks truly in all that it affirms--does not necessarily generate interpretative agreement among those who hold to it...It is one thing to posit the Bible's truthfulness in all that it affirms, quite another to say what the truth of the Bible is." Similarly, D.A. Carson notes that "I apeak to those with a high view of Scripture: it is very distressing to contemplate how many differences there are among us as to what Scripture actually says...The fact remains that among those who believe the canonical sixty-six books are nothing less than the Word of God written there is a disturbing array of mutually incompatible theological opinions." As far back as 1958, Geoffrey Bromiley had observed--anticipating the present book's view--that "We have to recognize that the Bible is...a fruitful source of dissension and disunity in and among churches, so that acceptance of its authority does not solve at once the problem of unity...The interpretation of the Bible gives rise to a whole series of more or less important and divisive differences...These are obviously very real difficulties which cannot be ignored even if they cannot be fully embraced and answered....Even in this sphere (of the Bible) there is the constant bias to disunity."

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 18-19

A contemporary discussion on inerrancy and authority...

What role should the Bible have in society? A panel discussion with Tim Keller, Alister McGrath, and Brian McLaren. It's well worth a watch.

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.

Bibliolatry

Telford Work, a gifted scholar, makes just this point:

While the Bible is basic to Christianity, it is also marginal--in that God alone occupies the center of the faith, and that both belief in God and the believing community predate and will succeed Scripture's present form and roles.

At the center of the Christian faith is the Trinity, and the gospel and atonement are about restoring cracked Eikons to this Trinitarian God. Beginning our understanding of Scripture with the Trinity is to claim the personal nature of everything Christian.  Whenever the Bible replaces the Trinity, we have bibliolatry. The first Christians believed that God's story entered a new chapter with Jesus, and they were living in that story before they sat down to write it.  So we need to get this straight: our faith finds expression in Scripture but that faith is in the Trinitarian God and not in the Bible.  Our faith is in the Bible in the sense that in it we hear the Trinitarian God whom we have come to know.  I do not think that we can know the Trinitarian God apart from what we learn of him through the church's Bible, but even conceding this allows us to keep God front and center in terms of what Scripture is.

Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 143

Modernistic Homosexual Interpretations

The religious scriptures forbidding homosexuality were written in what was still a highly rustic milieu. Therefore they ought to have no hold on the present, at least as regards sexuality. When there is, in Bertrand Russell's famous words, "a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men," little in the way of moral progress can be achieved. Opposition to homosexuality, in whatever form it appears, indicates not so much a lower intelligence in the individual but participation in a consensus of opinion which represents a lower order of intelligence attained by civilized man. Let's hope a wiser, kinder, and more humane consensus will prevail.

John Zerilli, "Christians, Homosexuality, and the Same-Sex Marriage Question," The Humanist (May-June 2010), 32.

Humility in the Right Location

What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition . . . [and] settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 31-32

The Exaggerated Importance of Extra-Biblical Texts

It is remarkable how frequently there is the tacit assumption that we can be more confident about how we interpret secondary first-century sources than we are of how we interpret the New Testament writers themselves. But it seems to me that there is a prima facie case for thinking that our interpretations of extra-biblical literature are more tenuous than our interpretations of the New Testament. In general, this literature has been less studied than the Bible and does not come with a contextual awareness matching what most scholars bring to the Bible. Moreover, the Scripture comes with the added hope that there is conherency because of divine inspiration and that the Holy Spirit will illumine Scripture through humble efforts to know God's mind for the sake of the glory of Christ.

John Piper, The Future of Justification (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 34-35.

The Active Word

The word creates and sustains…Genesis 1:3; Psalm 33:6; Hebrews 1:3; John 1:1-3

The word is a sword…Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12-13; Revelation 1:16

The word saves…James 1:21; Psalm 107:20

The word is personified…Isaiah 55:11; Psalm 147:15-18; Acts 6:7, 12:24, 13:49

The word equips…2 Timothy 3:16-17

The word builds up…Acts 20:32

The word sanctifies…John 17:17

The word gives life…John 6:63, 68; Acts 13:46, 48; Phil. 2:16; 1 John 1:1

The word sustains…Matthew 7:24-27

The word is a lamp…Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19

The word abides forever…1 Peter 1:25; Psalm 119:89, 160; John 10:35

The word gives hope…Psalm 119:43, 74, 81, 114, 147, 130:5

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.

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

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

Authority of Scripture

The ultimate, final authority is not Scripture but the living God himself as we find him in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and the message about him constitute the material norm for our faith just as the Bible is the formal norm. The Bible is authoritative because it points beyond itself to the absolute authority, the living and transcendent Word of God.

Donald Bloesch in Grenz, Beyond Foundationalism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 67.