4.2 A Body and Soul? (philosophy series)

My spring philosophy class has been going now for almost eight weeks, so my live sessions have resumed. The idea of this series was to slowly fill in a rough sense of the journey through philosophy that I take semester after of semester. These posts of course go well beyond what we have time to talk about in our live sessions. For example, I am being more forthright here in what I actually think.

This post is in the section on what a human being is. My last post in this stretch was here. See the bottom for the overall shape.
___________________________
1. I think it's clear that we human types have a body. I've never met a person yet who didn't. (At least not that I know of.)

I seem to remember my mother resisting the notion that we are animals. I wasn't saying that we are only animals. But this seems difficult to deny short of some grunt of irrationality. I am much more than a mammal, but by every defining characteristic of a mammal, I am one.

My observation of human behavior is that we behave far more like animals than we would like to admit. I have noted that the roosters in my yard seem preoccupied with fighting each other and mounting hens. So it would seem with a quite large portion of the human men in the world. Very little going on upstairs. A lot of fighting and mounting.

When I'm having this train of thought, I sometimes think of the 1968 movie, The Planet of the Apes. Interestingly, that was a time of American history not unlike our own. The movie is of course a parable of humanity. The sentient apes of the movie mirror human society. There are virtuous apes. There are intelligent apes. But they had better watch out because there are militant, violent apes too.

2. As I observe humanity, the difficulty is not seeing that we are animal as well as human. Strictly from observation, the difficulty is in seeing how we are more than animal. So few humans seem self-reflective. Rather, we seem driven and tossed by our urges.

B. F. Skinner long ago demonstrated that we can be manipulated using behavior modification, just like animals. In one episode of The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon humorously trains Penny to stop talking when he offers her a chocolate. Most of us are just as easily manipulated.

What might be defining characteristics of humans that rise above other animals? Is it our self-consciousness? The majority of humans are barely self-aware, it seems to me. We are elephants that go where we want, with our riders rationalizing our actions after the fact. [1]

We are herd animals. We do whatever our tribe does, and say what our tribe says. Nowhere is this clearer at the moment than in politics, where the official line of the government is so obviously false it is excruciatingly painful. And yet a third of the population mindlessly parrots insanities. Ironically (or perhaps revealingly), a predominant part of that third are evangelicals.

Is it our ability to tell the difference between right and wrong? I have long been disabused of any sense that humans come with a universal conscience. I have never found C. S. Lewis' moral argument persuasive. Our consciences seem in large part culturally conditioned and psychologically formed, apart from some basic instincts.

Theologians call what I am describing "Sin." If you were beginning to get nervous, I am simply describing what we Christians call "fallennesss." Our failure was to think that we were somehow immune. Yes, the other side is fallen, but we have our act together. No, we are all human, all too human.

2. Do we have a soul? Is there a spiritual dimension to us as well? From a Christian perspective, we are image-bearers regardless. We are intrinsically valuable one way or another because God says so. [2]

There is a stream of Christian thought that might be described as "non-reductive physicalist." It does not believe in a detachable soul or a true spiritual ontology, but does not believe that humans can merely be described in terms of our bodies. Our minds may be based in our brains, but it would not be adequate merely to equate them with our brains. The mind is "more than" our brains in some sense.

I would put Joel Green in this category. [3] I'm not sure that N. T. Wright exactly fits this category but his work on the resurrection has emphasized that resurrection in Scripture is an embodied existence. [4] These books, which came out around the same time, were pushing back on the popular Christian narrative that "you die and go to heaven or hell" and that's it.

Rather, resurrection in the New Testament is overwhelmingly physical. It involves a body. The tomb is empty because Jesus' resurrection self is in continuity with his body. It was not a merely spiritual resurrection, as so many in the church seem to imagine the afterlife. 1 Corinthians 15 is emphatic about the corporeal nature of resurrection, as we would expect from an ex-Pharisee.

This is not a new observation although popular Christianity is often disconnected from common scholarly knowledge. Oscar Cullmann, while no doubt oversimplifying the categories, pointed out in 1955 that the notion of the immortality of the soul was far more Greek than biblical. [5]

Nevertheless, I believe these scholars have created too sharp a distinction. There are places in the New Testament that use imagery of the soul or spirit as a detachable part of our identity, not least the pre-resurrected souls under the altar in Revelation 6:9. Paul speaks of the "unclothed" dead (2 Cor. 5:3) and to be absent from the body (2 Cor. 5:8). In what way might the thief be with Jesus in Paradise before the resurrection (Luke 23:43)?

It would thus seem easily that many biblical authors had some notion of a disembodied intermediate state between death and resurrection. Despite what we are often told, embodied resurrection was not the only Jewish tradition around the time of Christ. I and others have argued that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which reflect one stream of Jewish thought in the century before Christ, would far more accurately be characterized as looking to a disembodied future existence in the afterlife even if you can find a few fragments that assume a different position. [6]

3. I should emphasize that these are pictures. The Bible gives us incarnated revelation, revelation that comes to us in the clothing of ancient paradigms. It is the reality to which these images point that we are to look. The clothing is ancient, reflective of the categories of the day. The clothing can change even withinn the pages of the Bible itself. 

So, the point is that we survive death. We survive death not only when God resurrects us in the future. We survive death immediately. In my opinion, the form of that survival is above our paygrade. The Bible uses ancient images drawn from its world to picture that survival. But those images are not the point. Paul can express these uncertainties: "Whether in the body or out of the body, God knows" (2 Cor. 12:2).

4. Even from an empirical perspective, I do believe it is plausible that humans have a spiritual dimension to their identity that "goes beyond" what we can see. Let me use a modern image that is also an attempt to give clothing to a timeless truth.

Science fiction has given us a sense that there may be other "dimensions" to existence beyond the three (or four) that are most obvious to us. In 1884, Edwin Abbott published his novella, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. In it, a three dimensional creature terrifies a two dimensional one. He seems to be able to walk through walls by simply stepping in and out of the third dimension.

It seems to me that there have been countless instances of events that seem to go beyond what can be observed physically. Someone wakes up in the night with an urge to pray for someone who, at exactly that moment, is undergoing some kind of a crisis. [7] A person seems to effect spiritual power both good and evil.

As a Christian, we nest these sorts of events within a larger spiritual framework--a personal one at that. God and the Devil are personal agents, as are angels and demons.

5. The ontological existence of the soul would be incredibly convenient philosophically. Here are just a few examples:

• It would account for continuity of identity between this life and the next. If God merely recreates us in the resurrection, how is that anything more than cloning some version of our bodies and giving that new person our memories?
• It could anchor human identity at the moment of conception.
• It could ground a notion of human free will outside the cause-effect flow of the material world.
• It might account for human identity beyond the memory and personality functions of the brain.

This last possibility is fascinating. What if, for example, Alzheimer's was an interface problem? What if, the person is in there but unable to connect with us through the brain, like a defunct computer screen on a computer that still works? You can't see what the computer is doing because the screen isn't working, but all the functions are still being performed.

Of course, the advantages of a concept are not in themselves an argument for the truth of the concept. That would be the fallacy of subjectivism--wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Nevertheless, faith in the existence of a detachable soul would seem to cohere well with Christian faith and biblical faith.

6. The brain does correlate well to many functions we like to attribute to our identity. When a rod blew through Phineas Gage's frontal lobe, his personality changed. The same is of course true for those in the past who were forced to undergo a frontal lobotomy. Alzheimer's involves the tangling of physical neurons in our brains, leading to a loss of memory and self. Biochemistry clearly affects our moods and behavior.

Years ago, a colleague at Indiana Wesleyan University (Michael Boivin) presented a paper showing that certain parts of our brains "light up" when we are undergoing a spiritual experience. That is to say, it is at least theoretically possible that someone could counterfeit religious experiences by targeting those parts of our cerebral cortex.

However, these data points are not proofs that the brain is all there is to human identity. They merely indicate that the brain is significantly involved in human identity. They do not disprove the existence of a soul. 

[1] An image from Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Pantheon, 2012).

[2] I realize my statement borders on incoherence. I am using "intrinsically" in a questionable way. What I am trying to say is that our value cannot be detached or dislodged from us. Yet all created value is derivative. It derives from God. I do not see it as "ontological" in the sense that it inheres in us in some metaphysical way. It is ascribed value--undetachable, inalienable--but solely based on God's assignment. "Good is good because God says so." It is permanent and thus "essential," but it is not truly intrinsic.

[3] Joel Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Baker, 2008).

[4] N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (HarperOne, 2008).

[5] Oscar Cullmann, The Immortality of the Soul or the Resurrection of the Dead (Epworth, 1958).

[6] See John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: Death and Afterlife in the Second Temple Period and in several other works.

[7] It is tempting to invoke some sense of quantum entanglement here, although any literal reference would no doubt expose a quantum incompetence on my part. I am simply wondering if there is such a thing as a "spiritual" quantum entanglement.

___________________________

Introduction
1.1 What is philosophy?
1.2 Is philosophy Christian?
1.3 Unexamined assumptions
1.4 Socrates and the Unexamined Life
1.5 The Natural Philosophers 

Logic
2.1 The Structure of Thinking 
2.2 When Thinking Goes Wrong
2.3 Three Tests for Truth
2.4 Knowing the Bible
2.5 Plato and Aristotle
2.6 The Story of Logic 
2.7 Hellenistic Philosophy

Philosophy of Religion
3.1 Faith and Reason
3.2 How can we know that God exists?
3.3 God as First Cause 
3.4 God as Intelligent Designer
3.5 God as Necessary Being (including ontological argument)
3.6 God and Morality
3.7 God and Miracles
3.8 The Problem of Evil
3.9 Augustine and Aquinas

Philosophy of the Person
4.1 What is a human being?
4.2 A Body and a Soul?
4.3 What is the meaning of life? (including existentialism)
4.4 Are we free or fated?

Ethics

Social and Political Philosophy
6.1 How to Structure Government
6.2 Christ and Culture

Epistemology
7.1 Beyond Binary Thinking
7.2 Plato's Allegory of the Cave
7.3 Reason vs. Experience
7.4 Kant Breaks the Tie
7.5 The Bible as Object of Knowledge
7.6 Wittgenstein and Language
7.7 Kuhn and Paradigms
7.8 Foucault and Power
7.9 A Pragmatic Epistemology

Metaphysics
8.1 Hard Times for Metaphysics
8.2 A Brief Story of Metaphysics 

8.3 A Plug for Critical Realism 

Notes Along the Way -- 4.1 A Fork in the Road, with a side of Ordination

Last week I finished my reminiscences on my student years at Asbury Seminary.
____________________________
1. Asbury had a sweet set up where each year they would choose a graduating senior to be a Teaching Fellow for two years. The task was primarily to teach Greek, but I was privileged to get to teach Hebrew as well.

I applied that final year and waited to see what door might or might not open. I put out a sort of fleece. If I was chosen as the Teaching Fellow for that year, I would teach my two years and go on to do PhD work in New Testament. I would minister primarily as a teacher of ministers. If I was not chosen, I would take a church in Florida and perhaps go on to do graduate study at some point in the future.

Perhaps this is a good place to say that, when I first felt a call to ministry at Central, my first thought was to focus on theology. This reflected my philosophical bent. Besides, I thought, the meaning of the Bible is pretty obvious. But I thought there would be all sorts of puzzles to solve in theology.

This was the naivete of my unreflective youth and pre-modern background. As it turned out, there were countless puzzles to solve in biblical studies. Meanwhile, the basic beliefs of Christendom had been established for over 1500 years. When Thomas Oden set out to write his three volume systematic theology, his goal was to have no new idea.

Of course, I would eventually become sympathetic to constructive theology, a theology that engages with the contexts of those who reflect on it. There's a lot of synthesis to do there. But that's not important right now. 

The bottom line is that my attention shifted to biblical studies when I realized how many challenges there were there. And, I think somewhere deep down, I realized the power and authority that an expert on the Bible had in my circles. Subconscious, not noble, but alas.

Of Old and New Testament, as I've said, I was far more attracted to the New Testament. The New Testament is more directly theological; the Old more poetic and ancient. Mind you, I love the Old Testament world.

There seemed far more landmines in Old Testament studies than in New Testament studies. I taught Old Testament Survey my first semester at IWU. What should I mention? What not? I also remember a girl coming up after I made a joke about the King James being good enough for Peter and Paul. She sincerely asked after class, "Peter and Paul didn't use the King James?"

Finally, the New Testament is determinative of Christian faith. The Old Testament certainly provides critical background. But, in some ways, even then it was the Old Testament as interpreted in the Intertestamental Period that provided the framework from which first century Judaism emerged.

I realize there is much to debate in that paragraph, but I'll let it fly. Perhaps to be continued.

So, I put out the fleece. A fork in the road. Biblical studies or the pastorate.

2. I had done supply pastoring for a few months over two summers at Zephyrhills Wesleyan. I believe the summer after graduating from Asbury was when I was the youth pastor for my home church in Fort Lauderdale -- now New River Church. My sister Sharon was pastor at that time.

I should point out that my sister is ultraconservative by any reckoning. She hasn't cut her hair since she was a teenager, only wears skirts or dresses, has no jewelry, doesn't buy on Sunday. AND, she is an ordained minister.

It is a reminder that women in ministry is not a liberal or secular feminist thing for the Wesleyan tradition. We were ordaining women in the 1800s before it was cool. The United Methodists didn't start ordaining women till the 1950s. It goes back to the fact that we were a "Pentecostal" tradition before tongues got involved.

3. My sister had been Assistant Pastor for a while under Dr. Everett Putney. He had been so kind and gracious. He's the one I had asked about Hosea 11:1 after my first year at seminary. He was also a middle school principal, I believe in one of the public school systems in the western part of Broward County. At that time, it was up against the Everglades, but I imagine "civilization" has pushed much farther inland since then.

An interesting window into my holiness background was the question of whether we should eat in the fellowship hall where we had children's church. By the time my family arrived in Fort Lauderdale in 1970, they had expanded the original building so that, across a cemented hallway outside the original back of the church, there was a series of Sunday School classrooms, a pastor's study, and a larger room for children's church. That room was used as a fellowship hall when we would have a church pitch in dinner.

However, at some point, because it was now under the same roof as the sanctuary, there was a question whether it was appropriate to eat there. I can't remember the reason. As far as I know, no one had ever asked that question in the early days of the church. It was an extension of not eating in the sanctuary. I'm sure there was a prooftext. Maybe it was 1 Corinthians 11:22, where Paul asks if the Corinthians don't have homes to eat and drink in? 

But there was also a tendency to see the church as a kind of version of the temple. It was holy ground and so you shouldn't run or eat in it. You should dress up in honor of God. My father always wore a suit and tie to church--to the day before he died. Maybe it was something like the moneychangers violating sacred space?

4. I haven't fully studied this tendency, but I think it finds its origins in Scotland. Remember Chariots of Fire when he won't run on Sunday, which he understands to be the Sabbath (which it never was). The holiness movement was "sabbatarian," if that is an appropriate word for it. We ate pork chops, but there was a strong tendency to consider Old Testament law as still binding on Christians.

We find this tendency in many circles today despite what seems to me to be the clear teaching of Paul in relation to Gentile believers. Paul does not bind the Sabbath on Gentiles. Mark 7 does not bind the food laws on Gentile believers (perhaps any believers, despite a valiant attempt at reinterpretation by Logan Williams). Hebrews does not bind the sacrificial system on anyone anymore. The New Testament does not really talk about a tithe as the basis for giving in the church.

It is a misinterpretation of Matthew 5:17-19 to say that all the OT laws are still binding, despite the interpretation of my mother and many others. The rest of chapter 5 makes it clear what fulfilled law looks like and it changes some things (e.g., an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth). The final paragraph of 5:43-48 makes it clear that the fulfillment of the Law is love, which 7:12 and 22:40 confirm.

All of that is to say that, by the summer I was youth pastor, all fellowshiping was done in a duplex behind the church that they had bought for such purposes--ultimately so we didn't eat under the same roof as the sanctuary.

5. This seems as good a place as any to note that I was ordained the following summer of 1991 in the Florida District. With an MDIV, you only needed one year of further ministry service. Without, you needed two. Between my summers of supply and youth pastoring and my year under appointment as an educator at Asbury, they considered me cooked enough to ordain.

I had gone back to Central for two weeks to do my remaining ministerial courses. I believe it was my first summer after graduation from Central. I believe it was Wesleyan Church History and Discipline that I needed. Perhaps I also took the Theology of Holiness at that time with Herb Dongell. Those are the two that usually slip through the cracks.

Those were the days when the process wasn't nearly as rigorous as it can be sometimes today. I met one time with the whole District Board of Ministerial Standing (as it was called back then). My father was on it, and my brother-in-law Dennis Waymire head it up as Assistant District Superintendent.

I had all sorts of things bouncing around in my head. I was frankly worried where my head would end up going, but I felt like I was able to affirm all the requirements. Rev. Noel Taylor asked the most discerning question. "Kenny, we've known you since you were a boy. But sometimes people change their minds as they grow up. Have you changed your mind on any of your beliefs?"

It was a great question. I said that, while I had made many of the beliefs my own, I still affirmed the teachings of the Wesleyan Discipline.

6. I never expected to end up teaching at Indiana Wesleyan University. Young and immature, we had laughed when it changed its name from Marion College. "You can't make yourself sophisticated just by calling yourself a university," we said. I don't remember who the "we" were. I would later admire President Barnes for his business savvy.

Tom Sloan had tried to recruit me to Marion out of high school, I think I said. The Bostics were good friends of Marion College and they spent the winters in Fort Lauderdale. Big donors to IWU--Terry Munday mentioned them to me just last week. As a reflection of his virtue, he took care of them till Mrs. Bostic eventually passed at Colonial Oaks. They were close friends of my parents, and they often had breakfast together at their favorite diner. They would have been delighted for me to go to Marion.

To go even further down the rabbit hole, I don't think I've mentioned what Wesleyan/Methodist "royalty" my home church had attracted in my childhood. Clayton Luce, an old time Methodist and beneficiary of the Blue Bird Bus company attended our church with his wife and her nurse. I was able to take a ride on his yacht once.

Rev. and Mrs. C. Wesley Bradley also attended. He had been a Wesleyan Methodist District Superintendent in Jersey. My father was executor of his will and we ended up with much of his Wesleyana collection.

There was another Pilgrim General Superintendent of old, William Neff, who attended our church when I was a boy. (These were the days when my brother-in-law Dennis was pastor.) I remember he would pray up a storm when called on. 

7. So many diversions. Making Wesleyan theology my own.

I bring up teaching at Indiana Wesleyan because returning to a Wesleyan context after my doctoral work pushed me to refine my Schenckification of Wesleyan doctrines. But I had worked out the seeds in time to be able to make the appropriate affirmations for ordination.

I think I have already mentioned my journey with entire sanctification. Having detached the doctrine from Acts, I reformulated it in a more "Wesley"-an way. At some point I had read Wesley's sermon on the new birth, where he talks about not always being able to discern the moment of death, but you know that there is a point when you know someone is alive and you know when someone is dead.

Wesley was not specifically talking about entire sanctification there, but I thought it might apply as well to sanctification. I reimagined entire sanctification logically, the transition from not surrendering everything to God and surrendering everything to God. Bounds of course helped perfect my understanding later. Sanctification is God's work, not a work of our will, although full surrender is a prerequisite. 

In any case, you can read how it all ended up here.

On inerrancy, I found Asbury's statement, "without error in all it affirms" to be helpful. That raises the question, "What does the Bible affirm?" In other words, it allows not only for interpretation but for theological integration. It thus can be taken in terms of the whole counsel of God as the final answer more than atomized pieces. Indeed, we can even go further to think about a Christian reading of Scripture. 

Here is an early attempt to capture some of these thoughts in 2005.

I was asked what version of the Bible I would like to be given at the ordination service. I chose the NASB because I thought it would be more intelligible to the Florida District than the RSV they used at Asbury, which might be thought liberal. I had moved beyond the KJV of course. I didn't respect the NIV at that time and wouldn't be very comfortable with it until the revision in 2011. I used to make fun of its random insertions of words that weren't there so it could smooth out evangelical theology (like "now" in 1 Peter 4:6).

I used the NIV at IWU because Lennox had used the NIV Study Bible as his textbook for Old Testament and New Testament Survey. With each passing year, I was becoming more and more of a pragmatist, having started out as an idealist.

But I didn't really like the NASB, to be honest. I found it's translation too stilted. But it was considered respectable and conservative enough in my circles. Also, to be honest, I didn't like the formatting of the RSV. Too much block text. It worked for inductive Bible study. Not so much for good reading, IMO.

8. I was grateful to be chosen as a Teaching Fellow in 1990. That was a fork in the road. The rest of my life followed.

The Story of Mark's Passion 1: The Death of Peter

I believe it will be much harder to do with Mark what I just did with Hebrews. Neverthless, let's give it a shot.

______________________________ 
1. The death of Peter was more devastating than that of Paul. Paul was a divisive figure in the church--especially in Jerusalem. Conflict seemed to follow him everywhere he went. When the prefect handed down his final sentence, there was of course great sorrow in the churches across the Mediterranean. But there were others who felt he had brought it on himself.

Peter was more universally treasured. Most Christians saw him as the first to whom Jesus appeared after the resurrection (although there was also a rumor that he appeared to Mary Magdalene even before Peter). While the brother of Jesus, James, had dominated the Jerusalem church, Peter was treasured across the church.

True, he often spoke before he had thought everything through. He was helped by those around him. When he preached in Rome, I -- John Mark -- helped him with his Greek. Silas did too. He could of course speak some, but it was not very polished. I often stood beside him to translate.

2. But his stories were gold. I was from Jerusalem, so I had only briefly known Jesus during his final week on earth. But I loved him, and I think he took a quick liking to me as well.

I loved hearing the stories of his brief ministry in Galilee. The feeding of the 5000 -- or was it 4000? Some of the stories had different versions, but they all rang true.

After Paul died in the eighth year of Nero's reign (AD62), Peter decided it might be helpful to visit some of the churches Paul had founded. This was a little uncomfortable, since he was not accustomed to eating or fellowshiping with Gentiles. Neverthless, Silas and I accompanied him and helped to translate and negotiate the Diaspora world with which Peter was largely unfamiliar.

We saw the churches in Galatia and Ephesus. We visited Corinth. And finally we arrived in Rome. This was such a rich time hearing the stories of Jesus. I had heard them in Jerusalem too, of course. But to hear them straight from Peter himself was such a treat.

3. Peter was in Rome the better part of a year before the fire. About the 10th year of Nero's reign (AD64). Bad timing. Nero wasn't in town at the time, but everyone was blaming him -- especially after he started his building projects on the land the fire had cleared. He seemed quite blissful for the door to open so nicely.

Christians were an easy scapegoat. Peter's stories about Jesus had a lot of power in the synagogues of Rome -- far more than Paul's preaching. As you might expect, Paul had polarized the Jewish community in Rome during his almost two years in the city. But stories about Jesus healing the lame and the blind, even the story of him raising the dead, they were very powerful. And Peter was an eyewitness, no less. He had seen these things with his own eyes.

And then he was gone. Crucified just like our Lord. It was devastating.

Silas and I retreated to Puteoli. What do you do when the first apostle is gone? Paul and Peter both, gone. James the son of Zebedee and James the Lord's brother, both gone as well. It was deeply unsettling. Surely Jesus would return soon and set the world to rights!

4. It was a day or two after Peter's death that I woke up determined to preserve my memories of his preaching, as well as my own memories. What if Silas or I were martyred next? Nero didn't seem to be stopping with the deaths he was inflicting on the churches of Rome. He was enjoying it.

He killed some by putting animal skins on them and letting dogs go to town. He even set them on fire to light his garden at night, while he paraded around dressed like a charioteer.

The thought of preserving some of the stories not only energized me. It filled me with hope. Later that day, I secured some drafting papyrus and began jotting down the stories I remembered about Jesus' time on earth. There was the baptism of John -- that's where it all began. There were the miracles he began to do after John was arrested. Soon, Peter and the others started following him as he preached about the kingdom of God.

There were his parables. He cast out demons. He even healed Peter's mother-in-law. The stories were coming to me quickly, and I jotted a note for each one as I remembered them.

I spent the better part of a day jotting down notes. It was dark before I even thought to eat. When I saw Silas, he added a few that I hadn't thought to write down. I was getting more and more excited.

We all knew these stories, but no one had really written them down. There was little need to record them because Peter and the other apostles were close at hand to tell them. Of course they circulated with slightly different versions. My goal was to get as many down as I could.

5. Then came that final week of Jesus on earth. That was the week that I met Jesus, from his glorious procession into Jerusalem to his crucifixion. I would need more papyrus for that.

Notes Along the Way -- Asbury 3.3 -- The End of Seminary

continued from last week
____________________

1. There was a provision at Asbury that, if a student was on a more academic path, they could exchange some of the pastoral ministry classes for Bible or theology. Similarly, if someone had taken some of the required courses in college, you could take more advanced classes.

With the second provision, I did an independent study in Aquinas rather than take an introduction to theology. I took Philosophy of Theism instead of Philosophy of Religion. I took Patristics instead of church history. I had taken the introductory courses at Central.

In terms of opting out of practical ministry classes, I petitioned out of Servant as Liberator, the social justice course at that time. I also had taken evangelism with Bill Philippe at Central so I petitioned out of that course as well.

This allowed room for two extra Bible classes. I mentioned the independent study I did in the summer with Dr. Bauer on Acts. In the J-term of my final year, I did another independent study with Bauer on the book of Hebrews.

2. My interest in Hebrews had come from my holiness background. I had been told that Hebrews was the Leviticus of the New Testament. And Leviticus had a lot to do with holiness. Hebrews of course had that great holiness preaching text -- "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man will see the Lord" (12:14, KJV). There are also verses about being sanctified and perfected through the sacrifice of Jesus (10:10, 14).

I had highlighted these verses in orange in college as having to do with entire sanctification. By my final year of seminary, I knew that they were not about a second work of grace but about the purification that happens when one first comes to Christ. True, Hebrews insisted one must remain pure thereafter as well. Still, Hebrews seemed like a challenge, perhaps the most challenging book of the New Testament (perhaps outside Revelation).

Two years later when I was applying for doctoral studies at Durham, Hebrews seemed a good topic to run by Jimmy Dunn. Along with Acts, I probably had a more thorough knowledge of its contents than any other book. It wasn't necessarily because I loved it more than Paul. I would say I loved Paul more. But it seemed my best hand to play.

Bauer had also introduced me to a key article by C. K. Barrett on the eschatology of Hebrews. In it, he had argued for a synthesis of the Platonic and the eschatological. I included that in my letter to Dunn. I was not aware at the time, I don't think, that Dunn had put forth a similar thesis in his Partings of the Ways. Dunn liked my proposal, I suspect thinking I might be able to support his hypothesis in greater depth.

I was privileged to meet Barrett when I was in England. I mentioned that his chapter in the Festschrift for C. H. Dodd had a significant impact on me. He smiled and said that he wasn't sure if he still agreed with it -- or even fully remembered what it said.

3. Barrett was an interesting person, it seems to me. He was a Methodist preacher. However, someone told me that the small, blue-collar, grassroots congregations out in the countryside sensed a disconnect between his books and preaching (sometimes formerly coal-mining communities--Margaret Thatcher had brought their epoch to an end). Of course, I have no sense that Barrett was in any way liberal in the vast scheme of things (Witherington studied with him, I believe). 

But I understood this disconnect. It seems to me that, when you have come to know so much that is under the hood, you realize that much of the car's inner mechanics are not particularly helpful to the person who merely needs to drive the car to get places. Perhaps Barrett in his own way, not entirely unlike Boers, thought that it was the surface story that those congregations needed to drive the car of faith to where it needed to go.

I want to be clear, though, that Barrett believed in the central story--the cross, the resurrection. In that he was quite unlike Boers. He just had a much more precise conversation when he was presenting papers or writing commentaries. That's my take.

4. I also finished out the practical ministry courses that final year. I had Wayne Goodwin for "Servant as Leader." (As an aside, I found that "Servant as" curriculum a bit cheesy in title.) I remember three things from the course. First, he loved a systems approach to management. I was never quite sure what the big deal was. It seemed like common sense to me.

I remember him setting out five leadership styles. It was something like autocratic, charismatic, laissez-faire, democratic, and systems approach. 

Lastly, he was enamored by Walter Ong's recently published book Orality and Literacy. It stayed with me as I moved more deeply into the field of biblical studies. I had first learned about paradigms and paradigm shifts -- Thomas Kuhn in other words -- with a 1 hr capstone we had to take at Central. That was the only class I had with Martin LaBar at Central.

Ong basically argued that a paradigm shift began to take place in the early 1500s between civilization consisting of an oral culture toward a more literary culture (primary to secondary orality). With the advent of computers in the late 1900s, people said we were at the dawn of an information age. But things have changed dramatically even since then. Is this a digital age? Will it be the age of AI?

5. I took Servant as Proclaimer with Don Demaray. I thought it was a great class. I had taken preaching with Ken Foutz at Central and had enjoyed that too. I think I've mentioned that I preached all over the South as a student, mainly in North and South Carolina. We traveled, mostly singing, from Virginia to Florida to Tennessee. 

Demaray had us preach the pieces of a sermon and then finally the whole one. I changed my topic at the end. He had loved the build up pieces on running the race of faith. I still got a good grade when I switched at the last minute to the problem of evil, but he wished I had finished the other one.

He would begin every class by saying, "Let's pray that this will be the best class ever! Why not!" I always thought that was funny. They can't all be the best class. We would all explode.

6. We were required to do supervised ministries, one church and one institutional. I did my church one as a summer internship at Zephyrhills Wesleyan Church in Florida. My brother-in-law Eduardo Garcia was pastor in those days. Ironically, I heard that the church is closing today. Sad. Zephyrhills has exploded as a retirement community. My father-in-law has a place there.

I did that a couple of summers while my sister and brother-in-law were in the Philippines. It was a good experience. I enjoyed preaching. I didn't enjoy visitation so much but that was very much expected. I think I've mentioned the visitation I did with Jim Wiggins when I was at Central. 

Another supervised ministry I did was at a nursing home near Shakertown. I enjoyed the case studies. I did one on whether you should correct someone who was having delusions of being somewhere special, like at a beach. It seems silly to me now. Of course you shouldn't correct someone who is not in complete control of their faculties. 

That's the conclusion I came to then. But I was coming out of a mindset with a very impoverished understanding of fact-telling. There's a difference between what is known and what should be said. My wife insists I am not "on the spectrum," but the fact that it's ever been a conversation probably says something. My mother used to say, "You don't have to tell everything you know."

My first and last "integrated reflection community" (again, who came up with these names?) had Stan Beck as supervisor. Skip this paragraph if you are prudish. We always laughed about him because he insisted on asking everyone about masturbation. I nicknamed him "Stand Back." Those were naturally funny conversations for a 20 year old (I started seminary at 20).

7. We took Myers-Briggs in that first course, I think I've mentioned. I found the test helpful. I didn't take it as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It genuinely rang true to my sense of myself. It gave me words to describe my characteristics. An introvert, although not extremely. Intuitive off the charts--a struggler with details and the concrete. A feeler--more interested that people get along than that they be corrected for being wrong. Desiring completion more than wanting things to linger incomplete.

This grid has proved helpful to me ever since, and I was sure to include Myers-Briggs in Wesley Seminary when we founded it. I would learn more about the categories then. One of these is a dominant function. For me, it is being intuitive. I have come to consider myself unusually gifted at seeing the big picture.

That means of course that "sensing" is my inferior function. I have come an incredibly long way with managing details and the concrete, but it remains a constant fight.

I can be friends with almost anyone. I once mused that I even like the people I don't like. To me, "thinkers" are often illogical because they don't understand people. They don't understand the world or how it works. I laugh at Aristotle's focus on humans as rational animals. The same with Descartes and humans as thinking things. 

We are more often irrational animals. We are herd animals. Even those who fashion themselves thinkers are frequently driven and tossed by the winds of their own unexamined assumptions and biases. Their sense that they are consummately rational often leads them to miss their own skew.

8. I've already mentioned some pieces of my time at Asbury. My senior year, Chris Fisher, Ed Ross, and I edited the Short Circuit. I mainly did cartoons for it. I had worked in the cafeteria all three years at Asbury. The first year, Ed and I were dishwashers. My last two years I was the front cashier and I put up the menu for the night on the board.

At some point early on, I got tired of just listing the items and began to draw them into pictures that were often along the lines of The Far Side. Those two years at Christmas I did a Menu Calendar that I gave away as Christmas presents. I would pick my top twelve favorite menu drawings to go along with each month. I also made Christmas cards from card stock with drawings. I was never a spectacular artist, but I was above averaage I suppose.

I also did improv my last year. It was something along the lines of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" I think I did pretty well. I don't remember being funny in high school or college. I was too painfully shy I suppose. My Dad and the Miller side of his family were funny (Old German Baptist folk). 

Sometime while I was at Asbury I think I started being funny. Maybe because I had moved out of paralyzing fear into the freedom of the Lord. The next couple years were probably the happiest of my life.

9. I always sang. I was in the choir at Central. I was in the "Singing Seminarians" at Asbury, under Bill Gould. We went to Bolivia my last year, Santa Cruz. Scotty and Rachel Gulledge, Mike and Cathy Rash were on that trip too. Alvin Whitworth played for us in the US, although I don't recall that he went on that trip.

A few things stand out to my memory. I tried to learn a little Spanish but of course wasn't close when we were there. I remember trying intently to listen to an older man say something to me in a church. The national superintendent said to him, "El no habla Espanol." Ouch.

I remember spending a very cold night sleeping on a bus just a little up country.

I remember a time when Scotty complimented them (in a southern accent) for their "cheese biscuits" and the translator was a little dumbfounded at how to translate that. Then another time Mike said a somewhat complicated sentence and the translator said something about how difficult a sentence it was, and everyone laughed. Mike was taken aback with a little paranoia because he hadn't said anything funny.

10. Those were great years. I feel privileged to have experienced them. Of course, when we started Wesley Seminary, we didn't plan to reinvent the wheel. There were already plenty of seminaries like Asbury. And most of them weren't doing particularly well. What there was a market for was a practically-focused seminary. We targeted the 85% of Wesleyan pastors who didn't go to seminary.

This was the "F" of my Myers-Briggs coming out. I loved the Asbury model. But I knew it wasn't the model for most people. It wasn't the model that most ministers needed.

That's in large part why Wesley grew to over 500 students in 6 years. We created a practical, accessible, and affordable seminary. After Wayne Schmidt and I left, in my opinion, the gravitational field of traditional seminary education increasingly moved it in the direction of all the dying seminaries. 

I wonder if we have just seen the long term result. They have had to abandon their building for reasons of emptiness. 

16. Don't be like Israel in the desert (Heb. 3-4)

The journey concludes. I hope to write these up in some fashion. We'll see what form it ends up taking. The Story of Hebrews thus far...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
12 -- The Cheering Witnesses (Hebrews 11)
13 -- The Discipline of the Lord (Hebrews 12)
14 -- Celebrating the Enthroned Christ (Hebrews 1)
15 -- The Logic of Salvation (Hebrews 2)

_________________________ 

1. "The structure of your sermon is now fairly clear to me," Tertius said. "But tell me again how you see it."

"We will start triumphantly with the celebration of the enthroned Son" (Heb. 1), Apollos said, "followed by the logos of salvation and the key point of the sermon."

He continued. "We will hinge the argument at two places where we urge them to hold fast because Christ has passed through the heavens into the Most Holy Place of heaven where he now sits at God's right hand."

"Wonderful!" Tertius said.

"I do think there needs to be some warming up still before the first hinge (4:14-16),"Apollos continued. 

"Great," Tertius said. "Could you come back to that. For the moment, could you lay out the rest of the sermon as you see it?"

"Yes," Apollos said. "After the first hinge, we will start the argument that Jesus is a heavenly high priest (5:1 and chapter 7). But just as soon as we begin, we will startle them with the strongest warning of the letter (6:1-3). If they do not hold fast and fall away, they will not be able to return."

"Yet, each time," Tertius added, "you give your strongest exhortations, you remind them that they can still choose to hold fast and be faithful (10:26-31). It's not too late."

"The heart of the argument is when we show them that the new covenant is superior to the old one (chapter 8) and that Christ's sacrifice in the true heavenly sanctuary is superior to the Levitical sacrificial system and any earthly sanctuary (chapter 9).

"That ends with the second hinge, right? (10:19-25)" Tertius said.

"Yes. After the second hinge," Apollos continued, "we'll give them the cloud of witnesses urging them to keep running the race (chap 11). And we'll remind them of how beneficial the discipline of the Lord is (chap. 12)."

"And that will end the sermon, right?" Tertius asked.

"Yes. Then we'll add a letter closing after that (chap 13). It will wind down first with some general exhortations and then end with final greetings." 

2. "This is going to be a spectacular sermon," Tertius said. "Now about that material between the introduction to the sermon and the first hinge--what do you see going there?"

"We are going to use the negative example of Israel in the wilderness."

"Ah. They did not hold fast," Tertius said.

"Exactly. They left Egypt. They had the hope of the Promised Land," Apollos started.

"But their corpses fell in the desert" (3:17), Tertius said, completing his thought.

"Sadly so," Apollos agreed. "They are a reminder that it is not enough to be in the people of God at this moment," he continued. "It is not just about getting in. One must be faithful and stay in."

"Very sobering," Tertius said.

"Those who did not keep the covenant were ejected from Israel," Apollos said. "And so if these Roman converts do not persist in faith, they will have nothing to look forward to but a fearful look toward judgment" (10:27).

"And if the consequences were severe under Moses, how horrible will they be in the better covenant" (2:2-3; 12:25).

3. "I do want to start this section with reinforcement of Christ as greater than his equivalents in the first covenant," Apollos said.

He continued. "We will start the sermon with the fact that Christ is greater than the angels, who administer the first covenant."

"Then in the heart of the sermon," Tertius added, "you will show that Christ is greater than any earthly priest and sacrifice--and in a greater sanctuary."

"So in this part of the sermon between the introduction and the central argument," Apollos said, "I want to start wit the fact that Christ is greater than Moses" (3:1-6).

"That will be very controversial to some," Tertius said.

"Yes, but clearly the Messiah is a greater prophet than Moses," Apollos said. 

He continued. "Moses was a servant in God's household" (3:5; cf. Num. 12:7).

"Ah, but Christ is God's Son" (3:6), Tertius added.

"Exactly. In a household, a son is greater than a servant."

4. Apollos continued. "I want to end this section with the psalm that tells us not to harden our hearts like Israel in the desert" (Ps. 95:7-11).

"Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts," Tertius started. "That one?"

"Yes," Apollos answered. "God did not let them enter into his rest in the Promised Land because they did not continue in faith."

"We are only in God's household if we hold fast until the end" (3:6; 14), Tertius said. 

"I love how the psalm sets aside a day for us," Apollos said.

"Today?" Tertius asked.

"Indeed! Today! Today, if we hear his voice, God is calling us to enter his rest."

"And tomorrow will be another today," Tertius agreed with a grin.

"If the earthly Promised Land had been the full rest, David would not have spoken of another day" (4:8), Apollos said.

"So there remains a rest for us to enter," Tertius concluded.

"Yes. There is both the rest that we enter every day when we choose to hold fast."

"And there is the final rest we will enter when the kingdom fully arrives," Tertius extended the thought.

"Indeed! That final rest will be like God resting on the seventh day after he had finished putting all the creation in order," Apollos said.

"Ah, the ultimate Sabbath rest for the people of God!" (4:9), Tertius said.

"What a blessed hope!" Apollos said.

15 - The Logic of Salvation (Hebrews 2)

Getting close to the end. We've presented the content of Hebrews as a series of conversations between Apollos and Tertius. It is a fictional picture, but I don't think it's impossible. In my opinion, it's as good a guess as any specific guess could be.

The Story of Hebrews concludes...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
12 -- The Cheering Witnesses (Hebrews 11)
13 -- The Discipline of the Lord (Hebrews 12)
14 -- Celebrating the Enthroned Christ (Hebrews 1)

_________________________ 
1. "What is left of the sermon?" Tertius asked.

"The proposition," Apollos replied. "Near the beginning of the sermon, we want to state clearly that "Jesus was made like us in every way so that he could serve as a faithful and merciful high priest for us in order to atone for the sins of the people" (2:17-18). That's what this sermon is all about.

"That explains everything," Tertius said. "It hints that Jesus is the one who has taken care of the sins of Israel. Even though the temple is destroyed, Jesus is their true high priest."

"And Jesus has suffered unjustly like they are suffering," Apollos added. "So they can count on him to identify with their troubles."

"Many speeches start off with a narration of the situation," Tertius said. "Do you want to embed this key statement explicitly in what they are currently undergoing?"

Apollos paused for a moment. 

"I want to situate it in the cosmic story," Apollos anwered. "I want to situate them in the human problem."

"In Paul's letter to the Romans, he talked about Adam versus Christ," Tertius said.

"Yes, something along those lines, but maybe without naming Adam," Apollos responded.

2. "We've just celebrated the enthroned Christ as king," Apollos continued.

"Yes, Christ the Son of God who is far more exalted than the angels who mediated the first covenant," Tertius agreed.

"First, let's pause for the first exhortation," Apollos said.

"We've talked about that," Tertius agreed. "We will alternate between teaching and preaching."

"Christ is greater than the angels, so they had better pay attention and not drift away" (2:1), Apollos added.

"Because if the word spoken through angels was serious and breaking that word brought serious consequences," Tertius started.

"Then the consequences of neglecting the word through Christ will be even worse," Apollos finished. "And to think of all the signs and wonders that confirmed it, too!"

3. "Sounds good," Tertius said. "Now the story of salvation?"

"Yes," Apollos answered. "The coming world is not going to be for the angels of the first covenant. It will be for Christ and humanity."

"Makes me think of the eighth psalm," Tertius said.

"Exactly. They will know that association of Christ enthroned with the eighth psalm. 'What is humanity that you care for them... you crowned them with glory and honor and put everything under humanity's feet."

"At least that's the way it was supposed to be with Adam and Eve," Tertius agreed.  

"Sadly so," Apollos added. "We do not yet see everything under humanity's feet."

"But we see Jesus!" Tertius said triumphantly.

"He lived out the psalm!" Apollos agreed.

Apollos continued. "Let's use the word order to make it like we are investigators. We don't see all things under humanity's feet (2:8). What we see is the one having been made lower than the angels for a little while... Jesus. He lived out and fulfilled the psalm!" (2:9).

"And he was crowned with glory and honor!" Tertius said. "He tasted death for everyone."

"Yes, he tasted death so that we do not have to face death for all eternity. He destroyed the one who has the power of death--the Devil" (2:14).

"He was made like us, with blood and flesh," Tertius added. "So that he could solve our death problem" (2:14).

"There are some great words in the Psalms and Isaiah that fit here," Apollos said. "They speak of how the Christ was a brother alongside us" (Heb. 2:12; Ps. 22:22; Isa. 8:17-18). 

"Jesus solved the human problem," Tertius concluded.

"Yes. He was made like us so that he could fulfill humanity's intended goal, which had been foiled by death."

14 -- Celebrating the Enthroned Christ (Hebrews 1)

I'm thinking of moving to a Thursday-Sunday night rhythm for my blog posting. I seem to get good traffic on a Sunday night/Monday morning. I haven't always had great traffic on my Bible posts Sunday morning. I wondered if, if I posted the Bible material Wed-Thursday, if I might catch some sermon preparation.

What do you think?

The Story of Hebrews continues...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
12 -- The Cheering Witnesses (Hebrews 11)
13 -- The Discipline of the Lord (Hebrews 12)

_________________________ 
1. "Now that we know how most of the sermon will go, how do you want to begin it?" Tertius asked.

"The main point of the sermon is that the Romans need to rely on Christ for their atonement," Apollos said. 

"He is the greatest and truest high priest of all!" Tertius agreed.

"Yes," Apollos continued. "We are showing that, just as Jesus sits at God's right hand as Lord of all, he is also the eternal high priest in the Most Holy Place of God's cosmic temple."

"And every believer knows that Jesus is there in heaven, sitting at the right hand of Majesty in the heavens!" (1:3; 8:1), Tertius added.

"So, let's begin with a celebration of Jesus as king," Apollos said.

"I love it," Tertius agreed. "The first few moments of the sermon can be like a grand celebration of Jesus' enthronment as king of all!"

2. "I want the beginning of the sermon to be a grand proemium, a periodic sentence the likes Paul never wrote," Apollos said.

"Is it a competition, now?" Tertius said with a smile.

"Of course not," Apollos grinned. "How does this sound?"

Apollos continued: "Although God spoke in many and various ways formerly to the fathers through the prophets..." (1:1)

"I love that!" Tertius said.

"In these last days, he has spoken to us through a Son" (1:2).

"Great contrast," Tertius interjected. "You have the old covenant and the new covenant right there in one sentence. Is the mention of the "last days" an allusion to Jeremiah as well?"

"Indeed," Apollos answered. "I want them to see that the promises Jeremiah made about the new covenant are in fact what has now taken place."

Apollos continued. "But a great periodic sentence wouldn't end there. I want to expand on who the Son is, who this king of the cosmos is."

"You mean tell them more about who Jesus is?" Tertius asked.

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "Let's describe Jesus with a few descriptive phrases."

Apollos continued. "whom God placed as heir of all things" (1:2).

"He is the Son of God," Tertius nodeed. "Son's do inherit from their father. Also, didn't Philo write a treatise something like that?"

"Yes," Apollos agreed, "and of course Jesus is the Logos, which is the heir Philo had in mind. Good catch, Tertius."

Apollos continued. "through whom also God made the ages" (1:2).

"Wow, there's a Logos theme here that most of them won't catch," Tertius said.

"Can't I enjoy it," Apollos asked with a smile, "even if they don't fully pick up on all the undertones?"

Apollos continued. "Since he is a reflection of God's glory, and the image of his substance" (1:3).

"Now I hear the book of Wisdom" (Wis. 7:26), Tertius exclaimed. "You're likening Jesus to the wisdom of God!"

"You're pretty sharp, Tertius."

Apollos continued. "And since he bears all things by the word of his power..."

"Magnificent," Tertius exclaimed.

"After he had made a cleansing for sins, he sat on the right hand of Majesty in the heavens," Apollos said (1:3).

"Ah, now you have anticipated the high priestly theme without naming it," Tertius said.

3. "Yes," Apollos agreed. "I want to end this periodic sentence of the exordium with a transition to a piece contrasting Jesus with the angels."

"Why is that?"

"Because the angels were the ministers of the old covenant," Apollos answered. "Angels delivered the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai."

"I've heard that tradition. Jubilees?" Tertius asked.

"It's in many Jewish traditions, including our beloved Philo."

Tertius smiled.

"How about this?" Apollos continued. "having become as much greater than the angels as the name he has inherited" (1:4).

"That's a great transition," Tertius agreed. "Jesus sat on the right hand as king and priest, and this established him far above the angels."

"And thus," Apollos concluded, "the new covenant with Christ as mediator is far greater than the old covenant in which they served as ministers."

"It reminds me a little of the letter Timothy sent to Asia right after Nero had put Paul to death. There was a peculiar Jewish movement there that thought they were worshiping with angels in their synagogue worship."

"I remember that," Apollos said. "It was not long after the earthquake."

4. "So that's the introduction. What will we say next?" Tertius asked.

"I'm thinking about a chain of contrasts between the enthroned Christ and the angels, again, all along implying that the new covenant is greater than the old covenant."

"A catena!" Tertius said. "You sure know your rhetoric."

"Let's use a good deal of Scripture," Apollos said. "Pop, pop, pop."

"Like what?" Tertius asked.

"To which of the angels has he said, 'You are my Son. Today I have given you birth'?" (1:5), Apollos said.

"The second psalm," Tertius said. "A classic verse on how Jesus sat at God's right hand after the resurrection when he was enthroned as Lord."

"Yes," Apollos agreed. "And in Samuel, God said he would be the Christ's father."

"What other passages do you have in mind?" Tertius asked.

5. "There's a passage in Deuteronomy where God commands the angels to worship God's agent in the judgment of the world" (Heb. 1:6).

"In the song of Moses, yes?" (Deut. 32:43), Tertius asked. "It's in the Greek but not in the Hebrew. And it is more or less in the Essene version I think."

"But the Romans only read the Greek of the Old Testament, right?" Apollos asked.

"Yes, so they will know the passage that way," Tertius agreed.

"There is a grand passage in the psalms about the Christ's throne being forever" (Ps. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-10).

"Doesn't that psalm call the king God on his wedding day?" Tertius asked.

"Yes, in an extended sense. But I am reading it in a fuller sense of the Messiah," Apollos answered.

"And there's a grand psalm about the Lord founding the earth" (Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12), Apollos continued. "Here I want them to see that this created realm and the old covenant will fade away, but the kingdom of Christ will last forever."

"Isn't that psalm about God the Father?" Tertius asked.

"It is," Apollos said, "but this is a hymn to Christ. It is somewhat poetic. We are reading Scripture with the eyes of the Spirit. And Jesus is Lord too, is he not?"

"Indeed," Tertius agreed.

"All of these Scriptures about the enthroned Christ," Apollos continued, "we'll contrast them with verses about the angels. There's the psalm that calls them winds and flames--passing messengers of God" (Psalm 104:4; Heb. 1:7).

Apollos continued. "In the end, the angels are ministering spirits sent to serve us under the old covenant" (Heb. 1:14). 

"But Christ is king for all eternity," Tertius said.

"Amen."

Notes Along the Way -- Asbury 3.2 -- Theology Old and New

Continued from the previous post.
_______________________
1. My final year at Asbury was filled with theology. I had contemporary continental theology in the fall with Larry Wood. I had Wesleyan Theology Today with Steve Harper in the spring. I had biblical theology in the spring with Harold Kuhn (theology of the church). I feel privileged to say so.

I loved Harold Kuhn's biblical theology class. We used Hans Kung's The Church. as a text. Kung, a Roman Catholic scholar, was a brilliant scholar and orthodox in belief. Kuhn would never have used him otherwise. Kung was of course stripped of his right to teach by the RCC in 1979. Too many uncatholic elements.

I wouldn't learn until decades later that Kuhn had been instrumental in the scandal that led to resignation of Claude Thompson in 1950. I would like to think that he later had regrets about that incident. Misguided youthful zeal.

2. Steve Harper's class on Wesleyan theology was, in some respects, my first deep encounter with John Wesley's thought. This is an interesting fact. The Wesleyan Church is not Wesley-an. He was our great grandfather, but who knows what their great grandfather was like?

The Wesleyan Church is as much Baptist as Wesley-an. We were born of the nineteenth century holiness movement, a child of our grandmother Phoebe Palmer, who was only a shadow of Wesley. I don't think I ever heard a word about Wesley in all the holiness preaching of my youth. 

I learned Wesleyan theology from H. Orton Wiley's theology book, a twentieth century Nazarene scholar, with James Bross as professor (Bross didn't actually use Wiley). And of course, Bob Black gave us insights into Wesley in church history class. It was at Central that I learned that Wesley was not particularly gifted in his relationships with women.

I would say Chris Bounds had as much to do as anyone with a revival of interest in Wesley among Wesleyans during his years at IWU. That layer of Wesleyan pastors and thinkers have a love of Wesley that frankly was completely foreign to my youth. While I value Wesley, his foreigness to my formative years bequeathed me a complete freedom to critique him. I was always more of a "constructivist" Maddox type than a devotee like Ken Collins.

I remember then GS Earl Wilson saying at the first Wesleyan theological symposium that he had never heard of Bounds' breakdown of views of sanctification into longer, shorter, and a middle way. As holiness folk, we only knew Palmer's shorter way.

I always felt like Harper had a heart of gold. He would later direct the Asbury Orlando campus, which unfortunately has more or less been closed. I personally think that was a foolish mistake. But, then again, I don't know many academic institutions that know how to thrive. They seem wired for self-destruction.

Asbury's board would take away Harper's emeritus status in retirement because he published a book that was LGBTQ affirming.

3. Larry Wood was exactly the kind of quirky professor you love to have and tell stories about later. He would sit in front of the class and talk seemingly without ever actually looking at us. I wondered if it would matter if anyone was even sitting there. I seem to remember one day when he got confused about what class he was lecturing to and gave us a lecture for a different class.

For me, Larry's greatest bequeathing was his argument that Wesley knew John Fletcher's sense of Acts as baptisms in the Spirit and that Wesley assented to it. Wesley did not formulate Christian perfection in terms of Acts. That was the thinking of John Fletcher. So, it has been possible to say--and I have even said it--that you can believe in entire sanctification without thinking that the Spirit-fillings of Acts were such. After all, that's not how John Wesley preached it.

Wood has argued (in part in damage control for Bob Lyon's biblical argument against the Spirit-fillings of Acts being entire sanctification) that Wesley knew of Fletcher's approach and was ok with it. To me, that is a noble effort and probably true. However, it doesn't change the fact that Acts was not the way that Wesley preached it. To me, it is an example of an obscure argument to try to preserve a tradition.  

I am not trying to be hard on Wood at all. He has made a good argument, one very worthy of being made.

4. We used Paul Tillich's History of Christian Thought as a text for Contemporary Continental Theology. Of course Tillich was not an evangelical theologian in the slightest. But Asbury might be allowed to use his book to discuss theologians. Tillich saw God as the "ground of all being," which sounds great until you know what he meant by it. It's more existentialist language that sounds perfectly normal but means something else.

I'm sure we touched on Barth and Bultmann in that class, although I confess I don't remember all the details. I'm sure somewhere in here I learned about Emil Brunner, who was more to my liking than Barth. Brunner still believed in natural theology.

I know we touched on Jürgen Moltmann in this class. Moltmann never gelled with me. He probably sounded too social activist for my taste then, although he was more theoretical than activist. He saw Christian ethics in the present as a function of our hope for the future ("theology of hope"). Of course, I would have mocked things like social activism and liberation theology at that time. 

He also wrote a book called The Crucified God. In part to process the things that had happened during Nazism, he wrote about God identifying with human suffering on the cross. I'm not much into "patripassianism," which is what this sounded like--God the Father suffering. But I don't think Moltmann meant that God the Father literally suffered. I think he meant that God identified with our suffering.

One thing I learned is that my existing categories usually misinterpreted these theologians. I very much came with a foundationalist, even fundamentalist view of the world. I learned that these thinkers almost never meant what their words said to me. They were like poets to me who never meant what they said.

I would later joke that philosophers (and theologians) invent their own language and then call you stupid for not understanding them.

I would later find out that, while Moltmann was all the rage in America, he was hardly talked about in Germany.

5. Wolfhart Pannenberg was closer to my frequency. He was concerned about history. He was more evidentiary and modernist. For him, Christianity stands or falls on the historicity of its central claims--especially that of the resurrection. (Take that, Barth)

What seemed somewhat out of place to me at the time was that Pannenberg did not consider the virgin birth essential to Christian faith. This was very curious to me. Most of us consider the virgin birth essential to Jesus being divine. 

Of course, Jesus is not half-man, half-God. He is not a demigod. He is fully God and fully human. His DNA was not a splicing of Mary's chromosomes and Holy Spirit chromosomes. In other words, the virgin birth is not part of the mechanics of his divinity. N. T. Wright calls it a gift to us.

I believe in the virgin birth for sure, but in retrospect I think I get Pannenberg a little better now.

6. On a side note, I adjuncted some classes for Midway College (now university) while I was a Teaching Fellow at Asbury. Intriguingly, I was asked by Robert Miller to teach New Testament Survey to some nursing students. Bob was a member of the famous Jesus Seminar, so I was surprised he would ask someone from Asbury to teach for him.

The Jesus Seminar was the group started by Robert Funk that aimed to come up with a "true" red letter version of the Gospels. I used to make a lot of fun of this group, which voted with colored beads to decide what to print in their Bible (red, pink, grey, black). Perhaps I'll come back to the quest for the historical Jesus later.

Along with Harris' New Testament Survey text, they had a source book on literary parallels with the New Testament. It was interesting since I hadn't really come across some of the Greco-Roman (supposed) parallels.

But the reason I thought of this was because of an argument I used in class for the virgin birth. My argument went like this: "Paul believed in the virgin birth, and he would have known." As I looked back, I realized that Paul never really mentions the virgin birth one way or another. For all my studying, I was still to some extent a pre-modern interpreter. I saw the Bible as one book rather than 66 books written by dozens of authors over 1000 year period.

13 -- The Discipline of the Lord (Hebrews 12)

The Story of Hebrews continues...

1 -- The Setting of Hebrews
2 -- The Cast of Characters
3 -- The Context at Corinth/Ephesus (13:22-25)
4 -- Closing Clues (13:1-19)
5 -- The Main Takeaway (4:14-16; 10:25-31)
6 -- Remember the Good Times (5:11-6:2; 10:32-39)
7 -- The Impossibility of Repentance (6:3-8; 10:26-31)
8 -- The Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews 
9 -- An Eternal Priest (Hebrews 5, 7)
10 -- The New Covenant (Hebrews 8) 
11 -- A Better Sacrifice and Sanctuary (Hebrews 9-10)
12 -- The Cheering Witnesses (Hebrews 11)

_________________________ 
1. "I feel like I have a good sense of the heart of the sermon" (4:14-10:18), Tertius said, "and the very end of the sermon that is like a letter's end (13:1-25). And the exempla will clearly urge them to faithfulness (chap. 11). But it feels like we need something between the examples of faith and the letter ending. Something to help the bird land."

"That seems right to me too," Apollos agreed. "I think we want another mild warning. Not one as strong was we have made earlier. Something that will gently put in context the suffering they are experiencing right now."

"What about something more relating to paideia and training? We hinted a little that way back near the central warning of the sermon." Tertius asked.

Apollos thought for a moment.  

"I'm thinking perhaps something to do with the Lord's discipline," he finally said.

"Yes, I can see that," Tertius said. "Maybe even tie in the proverb about the Lord's discipline" (Prov. 3:11-12).

"Excellent," Apollos agreed. "We will liken their current suffering to the discipline of a father. Discipline is like training for a race, which fits well with the sense that they need to keep running even though they are getting tired."

"Yes," Tertius continued. "You cannot run a race unless you have trained. The Lord's training is the discipline that makes sure they can finish the race, as brother Paul once put it to the Corinthians here" (1 Cor. 9:24-27).

"Those whom the Lord loves, he disciplines, the proverb says." Apollos continued. "The discipline can be like correction, but it is much richer than that. It is direction. It is preparation for the future. It is training."

"It will help them get over their weak knees" (12:12), Tertius said with a smile.

"Yes, and their feeble hands."

2. Apollos thought I little more.

"We are very close," he said. "I think perhaps a stern warning goes here. Perhaps start with the negative example of Esau."

"Esau? How so?" Tertius asked.

"They are worried in part because of what the synagogues of Rome are telling them--that they need to participate in their meals for atonement now that the temple is destroyed."

"How does that connect to Esau," Tertius followed up.

"Well, Esau sold his birthright for a meal," Apollos said. "They are tempted to abandon Christ for a meal that they think is needed for atonement."

"Got it," Tertius said. "We will urge them not to be like Esau, who sold his birthright--his right to be the child of God--for food" (12:16).

"And he couldn't get it back," Apollos said very seriously. "He tried to find a place of repentance, but he couldn't" (12:17).

"That's so scary," Tertius said. "It's like he knew with his head what he needed, but it simply wasn't possible.

"I do want to sober the Romans up," Apollos agreed. "If they abandon the living God at this point, I don't think they will ever be able to come back. Their head might know better, but their hearts will be hardened."

3. "Now for the grand finale," Apollos continued after another pause.

"Are we going out with a thunderclap?" Tertius asked.

"Yes," Apollos answered. "Let's picture two mountains: Mt. Sinai and the heavenly Mt. Zion."

"You're reminding me again a little of Paul. Remember the letter he wrote to the Galatians? The Sarah and Hagar allegory."

"Indeed," Apollos said. "An allegory something like that but perhaps more comprehensive."

"So how will you set it up?" Tertius asked.

"They have two mountains in front of them. First, there is the mountain of the old covenant, which is earthly. We'll liken it to Mt. Sinai where Moses received the Law" (12:18-21).

"And the other mountain," Tertius said, "the one you're calling Mt. Zion? Isn't that the earthly Jerusalem, which is now in ruins?"

"Ah, but that's the key move of the allegory," Apollos responded with excitement. "The earthly Jerusalem was never the truest Jerusalem. Just as the true tabernacle is in heaven, the true Jerusalem is in heaven" (12:22-24).

"Ah, I get it," Tertius smiled. "You've already hinted at that when you've talked about Abraham. He was seeking a heavenly homeland (11:16). We don't have a city that remains here (13:14)."

"Exactly," Apollos agreed. "They have not come to Mt. Sinai, which was no doubt an awesome sight."

"They were terrified at it," Tertius added. "Man, even if an animal touched it, they had to put it to death! Even Moses was scared" (12:20).

"So imagine how much scarier it would be not to heed the voice of the one who is speaking to them now from heaven" (12:25).

"And how much more glorious is the heavenly Zion!" Tertius added. "You can picture the tens of thousands of angels in festive assembly" (12:22).

"Not to mention all the firstborn children of the Father throughout all of history" (12:23), Apollos agreed.

"And Jesus" (12:24), Tertius finished. "I can't wait to see Jesus."

4. "Let's end then the sermon part of the letter here with a look to the final judgment and restoration of
the world," Apollos said next.

"How will you do it?"

"I want to quote Haggai," Apollos continued. "God is not just going to shake the earth. He is going to shake the whole creation--skies and earth included" (12:26).

"What will be left?" Tertius said nervously.

"Of course the highest heaven cannot be shaken, the new, heavenly Jersualem we have just mentioned," Apollos explained.

"Whew," Tertius said. "You made me a little nervous there. I get confused between the true heaven and the created heavens."

"God will shake the created heavens and earth," Apollos said, "so that the unshakeable will be all that remains" (12:27).

"Will there be a new heaven and earth?"

"No doubt," Apollos said. "Perhaps the heavenly Jerusalem will come down to the new earth."

"What a picture!" Tertius exclaimed.

"It is going to be beyond our greatest imaginations," Apollos agreed.

Notes Along the Way -- Asbury 3.1 Old Testament Interpretation

Here's the previous post.
_________________________
1. The fall of my third year at Asbury featured Foundations of Old Testament Hermeneutics with John Oswalt. Oswalt was a very good teacher and, I would say, took a scientific approach to issues and critical questions.

This was the late 80s. Postmodernism was not yet in full swing. Whether you were traditional or mainstream, you still played the game. You gathered evidence. You examined competing hypotheses. You chose the one that seemed to best account for most of the evidence in the most economical way.

Of course, this is often a game. For Wang or Oswalt, you always knew where they would come out on a critical issue. If it was an issue where they were allowed to think freely, they were/are tremendous scholars--far more capable than me at cataloging the evidence and history of interpretation. 

But there is an electric fence around many issues in some circles, and they would never go near it. They're not allowed. Their positions on such issues are totally predictable. The only creativity is in how they get there. I'm not saying they didn't believe what they taught. I'm hypothesizing that they didn't ultimately think inductively on such issues. There were hidden variables.

2. Oswalt's main claim to fame is of course his commentary on Isaiah. For chapters 40-66, he sees Isaiah having a vision of Israel 150 years after his time. This is a way for him to see Isaiah as the direct author of these chapters with them still being about the late 500s BC.

By this point, however, Asbury had reoriented me around inductive Bible study. What is the most likely conclusion based on what the text says? Let the text drive the car, not tradition.

Consider that Isaiah is never mentioned in chapters 40-66. They never say he was the author of that portion. (For perspective, I think it's also worth noting that we have Isaiah in a book, where it is all in one place. In ancient times, Isaiah was probably on multiple scrolls.)

The context of Isaiah 40-66 is clearly the late 500s BC. It mentions Cyrus, king of Persia, for example (45:1). It does not speak of him or its context as a matter of the far off future. That is, it is not in the form of a prophecy about the distant future. It is worded about the present or near future. "Comfort my people... make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (40:1, 3). Inductively, it reads like something going on in present time.

The bottom line is that, if we let the text drive our conclusions, Isaiah 40-66 doesn't want to be read as a text directly written by Isaiah. It wants to be read as a text celebrating the return of Israel from captivity around the year 538BC. It is easily read as a text in the tradition of Isaiah. The mainstream view is that authorship was not as limited in ancient times as we think of authorship. Documents associated with a figure could be collected under his name.

3. So when Oswalt goes with a different conclusion, IMO, it is not because he's listening to the text. It's because he feels compelled to argue for the tradition. And, of course, he is ingenious. Sometimes I felt like I just wasn't smart enough to argue for some of these things that seem to go against the obvious evidence. 

It didn't occur to me that, if refugee descendants of king David had resettled in Galilee, they might have named their village after the branch of Isaiah 11:1, and that might explain why Matthew might think Jesus settling in Nazareth was a fulfillment of prophecy. My mind just isn't that beautiful.

I didn't feel the pain at the time, but the reason the authorship of Isaiah 40-66 is a big deal is because the New Testament thinks of this material as coming from Isaiah. For that matter, Josephus thinks of this material coming from Isaiah. It was the traditional understanding at the time of the New Testament.

I am at peace with God revealing himself to the New Testament authors within their framework of understanding. It goes back to the distinction between the message and the envelope in which it comes. I'll talk a little more about this at the end. In any case, I would come to lean toward those who side with what the text seems to imply rather than what tradition says.

4. Of course, this opens a can of worms--listening to the text. I was so happy to pursue New Testament studies because there are so many landmines in Old Testament studies. In evangelical circles, I was so happy not to have to teach the Old Testament. I also was glad to stay away from teaching Daniel and Revelation or the Pastoral Epistles. Leave them to Steve Lennox and Dave Smith. It's not that I don't love those books. It's just that I don't like getting shocked by electric fences.

Inductively speaking, Moses is never mentioned in Genesis. He is always spoken of in the third person from Exodus to his death in Deuteronomy. That is to say, inductively speaking, you would not conclude that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. He did this. He did that. He went up on a mountain and died. It's not the way you write when you are the he.

There are psalms that inductively do not seem to be written by David. The titles, after all, were added later. One of the most striking instances is Psalm 51, which talks about building the walls of Jerusalem. It seems to me that this fits the late 500s better than David's day. I've mentioned Psalm 110, which doesn't seem to be by David but rather a tribute about an unspecified king.

These conclusions are easy to reach if we are allowed to follow the text rather than tradition. But, for most Christians, traditions about the text drive the ship, not the text itself. In New Testament times, these traditions were assumptions, so the New Testament operates on the assumption of Mosaic and Davidic authorship. Was that part of the inspired point or the clothing in which the inspired point came?

4. Like Wang, Oswalt had a way of pushing me toward the opposite positions of those he argued for. It's because I could see my earlier self in them--not using the evidence to identify the most likely conclusions but using their intellect to argue for traditional conclusions. I suppose trying to be objective and questioning my own biases is now such second nature to me that I can't see how hard it is for others.

In this current political moment, the most likely interpretation seems so obvious to me. But I have to remember that, IMO, evangelicals are not wired to follow the evidence to its most likely conclusions. They are wired to play an evidence game with hidden variables. IMO, they tend to configure evidence to support their existing frameworks and traditions. They don't approach evidence in search of the truth. And many are wired to mock opposing interpretations with the confidence of someone who thinks they speak for God.

So Oswalt went through all the usual suspects. I learned about JEDP and all the critical issues in the Old Testament. By the way, in my first semester teaching at IWU, I made a document in which I put all the verses from the Flood story that used Yahweh on one side and all the verses that used Elohim on the other. It's easy to do.

What do you know? The result is basically two different tellings of the same story with some variations. One has 7 of every clean animal, for example; the other 2 of every kind. One has a raven; the other has a dove. I don't know why someone would splice two versions of the same story together, but I went from mocking the theory to realizing why someone came up with the theory.

In fact, once you see it, it's hard to unsee it. There are these "doublets" all over Genesis and the early part of Exodus. One version uses Yahweh. The other uses Elohim. Some of it would make perfect sense as oral tradition--the three stories between a patriarch, his wife, and a person who thinks the wife is a sister. So many of these "off limit" theories make so much sense if my brain is allowed to think rather than go on lock down.

5. During my first decade teaching at IWU, I had the opportunity to adjunct for Notre Dame. It was a precious experience, although quite tiring. I would teach a 7:50 at IWU. Drive to South Bend and teach back to back Foundations of Theology classes. Then I would drive back to teach an evening class at IWU. It was good money for a new family, and I was still relatively young.

They used Stephen Harris' Understanding the Bible as a text. Wow. I had never used a mainstream book like this, especially on the Old Testament. I've always felt a little guilty that, in England, I did not have to take comps. If I had earned my doctorate in the States, I would have had two years of course work and comps before starting my dissertation. In England, you start writing from Day 1.

So I was not as well-versed in critical scholarship of the Old Testament going into teaching. In that regard, even though Harris was an introductory text, it was an eye-opener to me on some issues. It made me a better Bible teacher because there was now a lot more under the surface. If I have appeared smart from time to time, much of it may have to do with this part of the iceberg beneath the surface.

6. It was in the 90s that I really had the paradigm shift to realize that meaning always takes place in my head or in your head. When I read a text, it's my head that understands a meaning. The "pre-modern" or better, the "pre-reflective" reader thinks the meaning is in the text. And yes, a text is someone's attempt to capture, to some extent, the meaning in their head.

But when it comes to me, the construction of meaning always and inevitably is mine. You can help try to direct it. If I'm open and able, I can take that into the meaning in my head. 

But the buck stops with my head. In that sense, the most critical moment of inspiration must inevitably take place inside of me. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter how inspired the Bible was originally if the meaning that gets in my head right now isn't. My head is the delimiting factor, the limiting agent. 

In my circles, we worry a lot about original inspiration. But you can see that none of that matters in the slightest if the meaning in my head isn't right or isn't what God wants me to see.

This insight eventually led me not to worry so much if the New Testament was reading the Old Testament in context. The meaning God inspired them to see can be true just the same. 

The same goes for the meaning you or I see in the text. It can be a truth even when I am not reading the text correctly. And, since few of us are scholars, it almost has to be that way if God is to speak to us. This changes the locus of hermeneutical, inspirational concern to the moment of reading, not the moment of writing. And you can see it really undermines our culture wars on these issues.

7. I'll end with an illustration. My paternal grandfather used to preach the highway of holiness passage in Isaiah 35:8 like this -- you don't have to be smart to be entirely sanctified. It says in the KJV that "men, though fools, will not err therein."

A fool was not a stupid person in this context. A fool was a wicked person. And to err in older English meant to wander. And of course Isaiah wouldn't have a clue what you meant by entire sanctification. The text is probably saying that there will be no wicked people on that journey of Israel back to Jerusalem from captivity.

But the point of my grandfather's sermon wasn't wrong. You don't have to be smart to follow Christ. That was the meaning in his head. That was the meaning in his congregation's heads. It was a true meaning. Perhaps it was truly what God wanted them to hear, so that's ok. 

It just wasn't what Isaiah was thinking.