If we believe that the same God who created asn evolving universe is revealed in an evolving Bible, we can derive some fascinating insights from contemporary studies of genetics. Today's chickens, it turns out, still have the genetic information in their DNA that was used to produce long tails, scales, and teeth in their ancestors the dinosaurs. During embryonic development, some of those primitive dinosaur characteristics still manifest themselves in chicken. (Human embryos similarly have stages where they sport gills and tails, so it is said that our ontogeny recapitulates our phylogeny.) We might say that the Bible similarly retains the record of its own evolution, and in our individual spiritual development we may personally recapitulate earlier stages.
Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 273.
It is tough to even know where to start with this quote. Do you start with the hopelessly outdated (Contemporary? Really?) and abandoned arguments for evolutation based on embryology? (I always knew that dinosaurs had something to do with my spiritual formation. I just could never figure out precisely what. Thanks!) Do you start with the retreaded developmental hypotheses of source criticism? I have not read the entire book in question, so I don't want to be unfair or uncharitable to McLaren, but I was under the impression that he was a prominant voice for the emerging movement. So why is he acting so modern by restating all of their old arguments?
Friday, November 18, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy, Christian News
Christianity Today just wrote up a brief article concerning the controversy swirling around Michael Licona and his interpretation of Matthew 27:51-54 in his 700 page volume defending the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. You can read more about the controversy - as well as a critique of Licona's interpretation here: Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy, Christian News. Personally, it's sad that what is widely acknowledged (even by Licona's critics) to be a very capable, thorough, and orthodox work is being called into question simply because he offers a symbolic/apocalyptic interpretation of four verses from Matthew which have caused scholars to scratch their heads for years.
The issue, of course, is bigger than this particular text. The issue is has really become about Licona's committment to the innerancy of scripture and what it means to believe that scripture is "without error." Can a person hold to the inerrancy of scripture without adopting a rigid literalism regarding certain texts? The above article quotes the Chicago statement on inerrancy:
But this quote highlights a problem faced regularly in our exegesis of an inerrant text. A committment to grammatico-historical exegesis requires that we do in fact take into account the literary forms and devices of scripture - including figurative or symbolic language. Most everyone would agree that Jehovah's Witnesses are not being faithful to the intent of scripture to take the number 144,000 literally in the book of Revelation. But it's pretty noncontroversial (in most circles) to identify the language of Revelation as largely symbolic. But what about other genres like the gospels? Licona isn't questioning whether the text of Matthew 27 is true. He's questioning whether or not a literalistic interpretation is faithful to the text's intent. It's not as simple as saying, "I believe in inerrancy, so therefore, I believe the text to be literally true." The word "literally" has been smuggled into the definition and has had the effect of dramatically changing the definition. The bumper sticker cliche "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." may sound good to some. But it is not only naive, it also (ironically) undermines the authority of the text. A committment to inerrancy actually calls us to study and discuss the literary meaning of a text not just the literal meaning of a text. A committment to inerrancy calls us to robust and humble hermeneutics where Christians may actually disagree with how to take certain texts while agreeing theologically with each other about what scripture is. We simply disagree with the best way to understand it.
Maybe Licona's right and maybe he's wrong on this text. But what this controversy reveals is the danger of a simplistic and overly literalistic understanding of inerrancy. It is frightening that some are calling for him to be kicked out of the ETS simply because he doesn't walk lock-step (on this ONE text) with this rigid definition of inerrancy. My goodness. Is this all that it takes for us to disfellowship each other? Have mercy. (It's worth noting, by the way, that Licona is now rather agnostic about the text in question. He says that it may be literal or figurative. But apparently that's not good enough for some of his inquisitors.) I am committed to inerrancy, but it's no wonder that so many young theologians and students are so cynical about this whole issue in light of these types of witch hunts.
The issue, of course, is bigger than this particular text. The issue is has really become about Licona's committment to the innerancy of scripture and what it means to believe that scripture is "without error." Can a person hold to the inerrancy of scripture without adopting a rigid literalism regarding certain texts? The above article quotes the Chicago statement on inerrancy:
Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement makes this point with precision: “We
affirm that the text of the Scripture is to be interpreted by
grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and
devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of
any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to
relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its
claims to authorship.” Furthermore, the Chicago Statement requires that “history
must be treated as history.”
But this quote highlights a problem faced regularly in our exegesis of an inerrant text. A committment to grammatico-historical exegesis requires that we do in fact take into account the literary forms and devices of scripture - including figurative or symbolic language. Most everyone would agree that Jehovah's Witnesses are not being faithful to the intent of scripture to take the number 144,000 literally in the book of Revelation. But it's pretty noncontroversial (in most circles) to identify the language of Revelation as largely symbolic. But what about other genres like the gospels? Licona isn't questioning whether the text of Matthew 27 is true. He's questioning whether or not a literalistic interpretation is faithful to the text's intent. It's not as simple as saying, "I believe in inerrancy, so therefore, I believe the text to be literally true." The word "literally" has been smuggled into the definition and has had the effect of dramatically changing the definition. The bumper sticker cliche "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." may sound good to some. But it is not only naive, it also (ironically) undermines the authority of the text. A committment to inerrancy actually calls us to study and discuss the literary meaning of a text not just the literal meaning of a text. A committment to inerrancy calls us to robust and humble hermeneutics where Christians may actually disagree with how to take certain texts while agreeing theologically with each other about what scripture is. We simply disagree with the best way to understand it.
Maybe Licona's right and maybe he's wrong on this text. But what this controversy reveals is the danger of a simplistic and overly literalistic understanding of inerrancy. It is frightening that some are calling for him to be kicked out of the ETS simply because he doesn't walk lock-step (on this ONE text) with this rigid definition of inerrancy. My goodness. Is this all that it takes for us to disfellowship each other? Have mercy. (It's worth noting, by the way, that Licona is now rather agnostic about the text in question. He says that it may be literal or figurative. But apparently that's not good enough for some of his inquisitors.) I am committed to inerrancy, but it's no wonder that so many young theologians and students are so cynical about this whole issue in light of these types of witch hunts.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
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.
Monday, October 31, 2011
How do you say "balls of gold" in French? - Fiction - Salon.com
How do you say "balls of gold" in French? - Fiction - Salon.com
This is a nice article on the difficulties and subtleties of translating fiction while attempting to remain faithful to the author's intended meaning.
My favorite line: “You start with a text just like a musician starts with a composition, a work of music. And then your job is to play it for the listener so that they hear what the composer or the author intended. It takes a lot of practice to be able to do that.”
This is a nice article on the difficulties and subtleties of translating fiction while attempting to remain faithful to the author's intended meaning.
My favorite line: “You start with a text just like a musician starts with a composition, a work of music. And then your job is to play it for the listener so that they hear what the composer or the author intended. It takes a lot of practice to be able to do that.”
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Catholic Hermeneutics
Vatican cardinal warns priests not to let humanity overshadow God :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
This article, summarizing an address given by Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, offers a nice summary of a contemporary Catholic understanding of the place of sacred tradition and sacred scripture. "Scripture without tradition would be an historical book, and history tells us what others think, while theology seeks to tell us about God." I particularly loved this line from the Cardinal: "Nothing creates culture like the proclamation of the Word. In other words, it creates a new way of envisioning life, relationships, society, and even politics. The more evangelical this new way is, the more we discover how deeply and surprisingly it corresponds to the human heart."
This article, summarizing an address given by Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, offers a nice summary of a contemporary Catholic understanding of the place of sacred tradition and sacred scripture. "Scripture without tradition would be an historical book, and history tells us what others think, while theology seeks to tell us about God." I particularly loved this line from the Cardinal: "Nothing creates culture like the proclamation of the Word. In other words, it creates a new way of envisioning life, relationships, society, and even politics. The more evangelical this new way is, the more we discover how deeply and surprisingly it corresponds to the human heart."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Tribal Metanarrative
I include this video not for political reasons. I am no fan of Harry Belafonte - his music or his politics. I think that his viewpoint is caustic, dismissive, and laughable if it wasn't so racist. I am also no fan of Henry Cain. I do typically vote conservative in most elections, but I simply don't know enough about Cain to have an informed opinion on him. I also don't believe that Belafonte represents the thoughts of most or even many African-Americans. His views are on the extreme fringe. The reason why I linked to this video is because of what it demonstrates. It demonstrates the dangers of the type of tribalistic thinking that often accompanies liberationist theologies. Tribalistic thinking allows us to handily separate people into "good blacks" and "bad blacks," "good women" and "bad women," "good evangelicals" and "bad evangelicals," etc. based on how faithful an individual is to the accepted narrative of their tribe. If you occupy a certain tribe (or rather, as is most often the case, if I have placed you into a certain tribe independant of your personal feelings), then you must think, act, and talk in a certain way in order to be "good." In this case, it turns blackness into nothing more than an ideology or dogma.
http://youtu.be/5fxjQ5h6Ri4
http://youtu.be/5fxjQ5h6Ri4
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)