An e-conversation I've been having has really helped crystalize in my mind the problem with the way some groups have defined inerrancy in the past. My denomination affirms inerrancy, but wisely has never defined it on such narrow historical and scientific terms as the groups to which I refer. Here is the breakthrough in explanation I think I've had.
In order for me to listen to, say, Mark or John, I must be willing to listen to what they seem to say. I have to get into their world, which means I have to assume what they say in order to understand them.
John
For example, when I am listening to John, I come across several statements like the following: "They led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the pretorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the pretorium, so that they would not be defiled, because they wanted to eat the Passover" (John 18:28).
If I want to hear John, if I want to listen to this text, it would seem that I must assume that these events are taking place the day before the Passover. That means that the Passover meal takes place after Jesus is already dead, the evening after Jesus dies as Sabbath begins (and thus a very high Sabbath indeed--John 19:31).
Mark
When I am listening to Mark, I must assume what it tells me as well. For example, I must assume what Mark says when he says, "And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. And when it was evening he came with the twelve. And as they were at table eating..." (Mark 14:16-17).
If I want to hear Mark, if I want to listen to this text, it would seem that I must assume that this dinner was in fact the Passover meal, the day of Passover. That means that the Passover meal takes place the evening before Jesus dies.
Listening to Scripture versus to history
So I have a choice. If I want to listen to Scripture, I apparently must suspend my sense of these two accounts as straightforward history. Perhaps there is a way to reconcile these two accounts historically, but it is not immediately apparent. Assuming the truth of both these accounts requires me to suspend my historical judgment about them. If I choose to harmonize them historically, then I have chosen to reject what they seem to say.
This seems like an odd choice at first: choosing to accept Scripture and listen to it or choosing to reject Scripture by harmonizing it historically. But this seems to be the choice. I can't see any way around it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The faith of Jesus is what justifies before God, so then, it is when someone has that faith, either as in Jesus' own faith or as in their own personal faith that one can approach the Scripture as it pertains and is applicable to them...isn't this the reader response view? (and certainly, you didn't "just learn" about this position...)
I find that while the above is true psychologically, it is not true philosophically or historically...Identity is when you choose to identify with a community. And one chooses to identify for many reasons, but all of them affirm something that one deems important. A child chooses to identify with their family, because they are dependent and have no other choice (and unfortunately, this can be a damaging environment where their rightful needs are not met). But, as the child grows, he is not bound to the identity that the family gives him. He can choose to have his own identity apart from his family. Therein is where the young adult may choose something different for his life, than what his parents would have chosen for him. The young adult comes into their own "personhood". Identifying with the family, then becomes not of necessity, but of choice, which is a choice of love and commitment.
Objectifying any personal knowledge ceases to understand the person themself. So, when a person shares an experience, a conviction, or their thoughts objectifying what they have said does not lead to understanding, because that does not affirm the person's meaning..it annihilates it.
Meaning is personal understanding within a personal context, with a personal history. So, integrity is embracing one's historical past, while aknowledging the limitations of that past and facing forward toward a new understanding of the future. This is why it is important to not strive to "attain" approval from others, when one is an adult, but live from the inside out, where one's commitments and convictions are worn as badges of honor by faith in a gracious God.
On a more objective note, isn't it important that the ethical be more important than a certain personal conviction of a portion of Scripture? Wasn't this what Jesus regularly did as far as the real intent of the Law? For isn't the universalization of ethics of more importance than a specific understanding of a particular text (historically binding the ethic, which is above time and space)?
Post a Comment