I suppose Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians on baptism are a little surprising at first. Paul starts off in chapter 1 sounding like baptism wasn't a high priority for him and seems to have difficulty remembering who he had actually baptized while he was at Corinth. He baptized Crispus and Gaius, oh, and now that I think of it, I baptized the house of Stephanus as well (1:14-16).
The way Paul says all this, and a little extra reflection, stretches my imagination a little. For one thing, the baptism of the house of Stephanus is introduced as if it were an oversight. He started in 1:14 with the impression that Crispus and Gaius were it. Further, it is then doubly suspicious that the house of Stephanus shows up in chapter 16, and we find out that Stephanus and his servants were in fact the first converts of southern Greece!!! (16:15). How do you forget that? And, indeed, it makes sense to see them as the ones who brought the letter that Paul is answering for so many chapters of 1 Corinthians (chaps. 7ff).
In short, I have good reason to see Paul's deemphasis on baptism in chapter 1 closely in relation to the situation at Corinth. So I'll respect Quakers and Salvationists who might use this chapter as an argument against the significance of baptism. But ultimately I think Paul considered baptism the fare of every convert. See next paragraph.
Galatians 3:27 implies that all the true sons of God (which, remember, explicitly includes women in this passage) have been baptized. Romans 6:3 also implies that baptism is the common experience of all Christians. In a side note to Friends and Salvationists, we have no evidence here that Paul used the word baptism only in relation to the Spirit. Indeed, Ephesians (which may not reflect Paul's normal use of language, but that's a different issue) speaks only of one baptism (Eph. 4:5).
And if we have to decide on the evidence whether it is more likely that a reference to baptism without explanation would be to water or to a more metaphorical meaning, the normal use of the word is the more likely. Hebrews will later use the image of the washing of the body with pure water (Heb. 10:22); Acts clearly uses baptism primarily in relation to literal water (cf. Acts 8:36); and Paul speaks of being buried with Christ (6:4)--so tempting to see such a comment in relation to immersion in water.
I imagine that most of Paul's references to baptism in these passages relate to adult baptism. After all, he was a church planter who 1) did not like to minister where the gospel had already reached (cf. Rom. 15:20) and 2) saw himself as an apostle to Gentiles rather than to Jews (cf. Gal. 2:8). It thus makes sense that most of his baptisms were adults accepting Christ for the first time.
As a side note, Paul never connects baptism with repentance. Indeed, repentance is not one of Paul's dominant categories, an observation that has sparked a good deal of discussion in terms of how Paul related to his Jewish background.
We can at this point ask how the early Christians came to baptize. For various reasons I will leave Matthew 28:19 out of consideration at this point. I imagine that early Christian baptism was an extension of JB's baptism. At first I imagine that many Christians continued to baptize in preparation for Christ's return and the restoration of the nation of Israel. I wonder if at first they saw such baptism much differently from the baptism of JB.
I imagine that baptism was an essential part of converting to Judaism if you were a Gentile. I don't think it was an initiatory rite per se, but rather essential because a Gentile would simply have massive amounts of sins to cleanse. A Jew who accepted Christ as Messiah would want to purify him or herself in preparation no doubt, and perhaps eventually as a sign of allegiance and acceptance of the gospel. Whenever the early Christians came to see Jesus' death to have atoning value (I think almost immediately), baptism in Jesus' name would have been a completely appropriate way of appropriating that atonement.
These are all thought experiments, attempts to fill in gaps in our knowledge of how the early church got from Jesus to Paul. Acts is of course written much later and, as the gospels, is written with the benefit of hindsight.
So eventually Christian baptism is connected with the death of Christ (e.g., Rom. 6:4). It is uniting with Christ. For Gentiles in particular, Paul connects it with adoption into the people of God (e.g., Gal. 3:27). It is possible, although I will just mention the thought, that from 1 Corinthians to Galatians we see some solidifying of Paul's practice of baptism. Since many evangelicals date Galatians before 1 Corinthians, of course, that thought would not be viable for them.
I do not find it at all surprising that Paul baptized whole households like that of Stephanus (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:16). Would this have included children? Given the way I think Paul thinks, I believe it would have. On the other hand, given how pragmatic Paul was, I don't know if he would have baptized very small babies. I'm not sure that Paul would have been a stickler on a particular mode of baptism, but I suspect he at least primarily immersed.
The next text you might expect me to turn to is 1 Corinthians 7:14. In this "strange" verse, Paul encourages those married to unbelievers to stay with them. His reasoning goes like this: the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse, and this sanctifies (makes holy) the children as well. Needless to say, this is not a verse that the typical evangelical would have written. We usually resort to some banal comment on spiritual influence--which seems a rather weak translation of "to sanctify."
Indeed, Paul addresses the church at Corinth as "those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called..." The most natural inference is that the unbeliever and the church are brought into the church by their relationship with the believer--the holiness is contagious in the direction of the non-believer and the children. Now Paul does not equate such sanctification with being saved. He tells the believer not to worry if the unbeliever departs: "How do you know if you will save your spouse?" Here we remember that Paul thinks of salvation mostly in the future tense, as escaping God's wrath on the Day of Judgment (e.g., Rom. 5:9). The connection with the believer brings them into the Spiritual force field of the church, but it does not ensure that they will escape the coming wrath of God.
What does this imply about child baptism? I don't know whether the practical side of baptizing an infant came into play with Paul. But if Paul considered the children from even one Christian parent "in" and sanctified, then how much more would he have considered children from two Christian parents in. I truly believe that Paul would have baptized everyone in the household who was at all willing, including children. And think it would even have been appropriate in that world for fathers of households even to twist a few arms in some cases.
So if Paul were here today and were to comment on this issue, I truly believe he would be in favor of infant baptism--the children are sanctified by the believing parent or parents. Salvation is not thereby a done deal, for salvation depends on where you stand when God comes in judgment. And there might just be a whole lot of time between childhood and that Day.
I don't think I should close until I have mentioned Paul's peculiar reference to baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Then what will those are are baptized on behalf of the dead do? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they even baptized for them?"
To be clear, Paul does not include himself among this group. He does not argue against such individuals, but he does not argue for them either. Here are some thoughts:
1. He is surely referring to Christians, unless this is some strange mystery religion rite he has in mind. Baptism seems a word with a Jewish provenance. But Jews themselves would probably not feel a need to baptize so that other Jews would be part of the resurrection.
2. So we most likely have Gentile Christians being baptized for individuals who died before the Christian message came. Or perhaps we have Jewish Christians who believed baptism in Jesus' name was essential for resurrection and are doing similar things. In either case, Paul's argument makes it clear that it is baptism with a view to future resurrection.
3. Whoever they are, they must be some group that the audience of 1 Corinthians would respect or that Paul thinks they might respect. Apollos or Peter would fit that bill, but I have difficulty picturing Peter teaching this. Wouldn't he more assume that Jewish heroes of faith would be resurrected? Very difficult. 1 Peter 4:6 may picture Christ preaching to the dead after his resurrection, another possible solution to the question.
While I find the following interpretation difficult, it is where I'm at right now. After Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, we have the teaching that the dead in Christ will rise. But there is no clear teaching by Paul on other dead. What about Jews before Christ? What about Gentiles who never heard of Christ? I wonder if some segments of Gentile Christianity started baptizing themselves for family who had never heard the gospel so that they might be part of the resurrection.
Again, Paul does not promote such a practice. But it helps us get into the minds of the ancient church a little, a church that existed in a world where identity was far more a matter of the groups in which you were embedded than of you as an individual. You can bet that if they were being baptized for the dead, then they were having their infants baptized as well.
So some options on how we might reflect on our our often hyper-individualistic focus today: 1) a God-sanctioned development in understanding from that of the NT world, 2) a balancing out of excess in the early church, 3) we might see it needing some corrective, a partial by product of our own cultural factors today.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Wheaton: Protestant or Anti-Catholic?
Many will know that Wheaton College fired one of its professors these last few weeks because he converted to Catholicism. He was a professor in medieval history (surprise) and originally Episcopalian. Wheaton made a determination that one could not be a Roman Catholic and consider the Scriptures the "highest and final authority," chiefly because a Roman Catholic must (or so Wheaton says) view the Pope as an equal authority to the Bible.
I remain conflicted over this decision. I want to be (and am) angry at Wheaton. On the other hand, I recognize the right of private institutions to set boundaries for its faculty. I suppose it's far easier simply to say, "Catholics are out" than to come up with some reliable measure for biblical compatibility.
I suspect the standards for hiring at IWU are much stricter in some regards than Wheaton's, and for the most part I affirm IWU's hiring standards. But I wonder whether you can just say, "if you belong to group x, you are automatically disqualified." I'm sure this would be true at IWU of a Mormon or Jehovah's witness--such people do not believe in the Trinity. I suspect I would similarly resist hiring a "Jesus only" Pentecostal to teach at IWU.
But here's the rub for me. I don't think you can assume that a Roman Catholic is "outside" in the way these others are simply because such a person is Roman Catholic. I suspect there are as many Roman Catholics in the world who have a personal relationship with Christ as there are Protestants. And I suspect that a very significant number of Roman Catholics believe the Bible to be as or more authoritative than the Pope.
I suspect that orthodox Roman Catholic theology views the Bible as more authoritative than the Pope when the Pope is not speaking "from the chair," and when was the last time a Pope did that... over a hundred years ago. And even if the Pope did speak "ex cathedra," would the RC church drive a wedge between Pope and Bible or simply claim that the Pope was giving the right interpretation of the Bible.
This last point leads to the Wheaton rub. No one, not even Wheaton professors, really use the Bible as the "supreme and final authority" on any issue. I've already gone into this matter in detail. Because we as interpreters have to join the individual teachings of biblical books together and then jump the river of time from their time to our time, the interpreter is always the final authority on what the Bible actually teaches. And for evangelicals, this authority is heavily a function of evangelical theology and tradition.
So the substance of Wheaton's explanation amounts to "we cannot hire this person because we cannot guarantee that his interpretations of Scripture will be the same as ours any more." So tell us what those interpretations are, that will help us out. I imagine they probably could if they approached it in this way. What are the elements of Roman Catholic theology that this person has embraced that are incapatible with the limits of evangelical theology allowed at Wheaton? Show me the money.
I remain conflicted over this decision. I want to be (and am) angry at Wheaton. On the other hand, I recognize the right of private institutions to set boundaries for its faculty. I suppose it's far easier simply to say, "Catholics are out" than to come up with some reliable measure for biblical compatibility.
I suspect the standards for hiring at IWU are much stricter in some regards than Wheaton's, and for the most part I affirm IWU's hiring standards. But I wonder whether you can just say, "if you belong to group x, you are automatically disqualified." I'm sure this would be true at IWU of a Mormon or Jehovah's witness--such people do not believe in the Trinity. I suspect I would similarly resist hiring a "Jesus only" Pentecostal to teach at IWU.
But here's the rub for me. I don't think you can assume that a Roman Catholic is "outside" in the way these others are simply because such a person is Roman Catholic. I suspect there are as many Roman Catholics in the world who have a personal relationship with Christ as there are Protestants. And I suspect that a very significant number of Roman Catholics believe the Bible to be as or more authoritative than the Pope.
I suspect that orthodox Roman Catholic theology views the Bible as more authoritative than the Pope when the Pope is not speaking "from the chair," and when was the last time a Pope did that... over a hundred years ago. And even if the Pope did speak "ex cathedra," would the RC church drive a wedge between Pope and Bible or simply claim that the Pope was giving the right interpretation of the Bible.
This last point leads to the Wheaton rub. No one, not even Wheaton professors, really use the Bible as the "supreme and final authority" on any issue. I've already gone into this matter in detail. Because we as interpreters have to join the individual teachings of biblical books together and then jump the river of time from their time to our time, the interpreter is always the final authority on what the Bible actually teaches. And for evangelicals, this authority is heavily a function of evangelical theology and tradition.
So the substance of Wheaton's explanation amounts to "we cannot hire this person because we cannot guarantee that his interpretations of Scripture will be the same as ours any more." So tell us what those interpretations are, that will help us out. I imagine they probably could if they approached it in this way. What are the elements of Roman Catholic theology that this person has embraced that are incapatible with the limits of evangelical theology allowed at Wheaton? Show me the money.
Friday, January 20, 2006
More Adventures in Baptism: Gospels
I thought I would wander through the NT and think about baptism for a few entries.
I thought the gospels were a fair enough place to start... and a pretty easy place to start, really.
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the baptism mentioned is primarily that of John the Baptist. We would not, as Christians, consider this baptism to be Christian baptism. Matthew 3:11 does predict that Christ will baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire. Mark 1:8 similarly mentions a coming baptism with the Holy Spirit.
But of most interest to us of these is Luke 3:16, which also predicts that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.<1> This prediction in itself is not unique, but in the case of Luke we have Acts to give us what Luke understands to be the "rest of the story." Of greatest interest to us here is Acts 19:1-7, where Paul clearly does not consider baptism by John to be Christian baptism because it did not include baptism with the Holy Spirit. Paul insists that this group of twelve men be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Baptism in Matthew, Mark, and Luke thus is more indirectly related to our subject than directly. John the Baptist of course baptized Jewish individuals who repented of their sins with a view to forgiveness and in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. For JB this was a one time act of preparation, but baptisms were not uncommon, repeatable things in Jewish life at this time. Miqvaoth were cleansing pools that you can find in any number of places in the Holy Land (e.g., at Qumran, Masada, etc...).
John is a little more complicated, for John is the only gospel that says Jesus' disciples baptized before JB was arrested (John 3:22, 26; 4:1-2). Are we to understand these acts as Christian baptisms? Certainly not in the world of Luke-Acts, for the Holy Spirit does not come until the Day of Pentecost. In that sense Jesus "baptizes" no one until that day and we cannot properly even speak of any Christians until that day. Paul agrees in his own way: "If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are not his" (Rom. 8:9).
But I think John also agrees in his own way with these ideas, for he makes it a point to say that Jesus himself did not baptize (4:2). John also teaches that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1:33) and symbolically presents the beginning of such baptism after the resurrection (20:22).
So what do we learn from any of these gospels about contemporary issues relating to baptism?
1. Mode: It seems more likely than not to me that JB immersed or dipped people in the river water. I suppose it is possible that he poured water over their heads. The text doesn't really say and I don't really buy the argument that the word baptizo in Greek itself proves it was immersion. This seems a kind of root fallacy that insists the root must dictate how a word is used in practice. But words take on a life of their own and often leave the root or etymological building from which they came. Nevertheless, I have no problem with the usual suggestion that JB probably immersed in the river. Again, this does not take us yet to the question of what a Christian mode of baptism might be.
2. Infant: It seems to me very likely that all or at least nearly all of those who came to JB were adults. They were preparing Israel for the Messiah by purging it of its sins. Of course, I would not say absolutely that no children were involved. It seems a little difficult logistically in that they would have to travel out to the river from wherever. I also wonder how many women he would have baptized. I wonder if there were many.
Does this impact the discussion of Christian infant baptism? We'll have to wait for the argument that baptism involves repentance and therefore does not apply to an infant. For the moment, we will simply note that JB's baptism is not Christian baptism and therefore that it is somewhat of a unique moment in salvation's history that does not directly affect our discussion of Christian baptism.
3. Repeatable? I doubt that JB's baptism was meant to be repeatable, although baptism in general was in Jewish culture at the time. JB was preparing for the Messiah. That would normally have been a one time act I think.
<1> By the way, the story of John the Baptist is one of those rare places where Matthew and Luke agree in wording against Mark. Given the extra stuff that Matthew and Luke have in common in this story, it is often suggested that the JB story was in Q.
I thought the gospels were a fair enough place to start... and a pretty easy place to start, really.
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the baptism mentioned is primarily that of John the Baptist. We would not, as Christians, consider this baptism to be Christian baptism. Matthew 3:11 does predict that Christ will baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire. Mark 1:8 similarly mentions a coming baptism with the Holy Spirit.
But of most interest to us of these is Luke 3:16, which also predicts that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.<1> This prediction in itself is not unique, but in the case of Luke we have Acts to give us what Luke understands to be the "rest of the story." Of greatest interest to us here is Acts 19:1-7, where Paul clearly does not consider baptism by John to be Christian baptism because it did not include baptism with the Holy Spirit. Paul insists that this group of twelve men be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Baptism in Matthew, Mark, and Luke thus is more indirectly related to our subject than directly. John the Baptist of course baptized Jewish individuals who repented of their sins with a view to forgiveness and in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. For JB this was a one time act of preparation, but baptisms were not uncommon, repeatable things in Jewish life at this time. Miqvaoth were cleansing pools that you can find in any number of places in the Holy Land (e.g., at Qumran, Masada, etc...).
John is a little more complicated, for John is the only gospel that says Jesus' disciples baptized before JB was arrested (John 3:22, 26; 4:1-2). Are we to understand these acts as Christian baptisms? Certainly not in the world of Luke-Acts, for the Holy Spirit does not come until the Day of Pentecost. In that sense Jesus "baptizes" no one until that day and we cannot properly even speak of any Christians until that day. Paul agrees in his own way: "If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are not his" (Rom. 8:9).
But I think John also agrees in his own way with these ideas, for he makes it a point to say that Jesus himself did not baptize (4:2). John also teaches that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1:33) and symbolically presents the beginning of such baptism after the resurrection (20:22).
So what do we learn from any of these gospels about contemporary issues relating to baptism?
1. Mode: It seems more likely than not to me that JB immersed or dipped people in the river water. I suppose it is possible that he poured water over their heads. The text doesn't really say and I don't really buy the argument that the word baptizo in Greek itself proves it was immersion. This seems a kind of root fallacy that insists the root must dictate how a word is used in practice. But words take on a life of their own and often leave the root or etymological building from which they came. Nevertheless, I have no problem with the usual suggestion that JB probably immersed in the river. Again, this does not take us yet to the question of what a Christian mode of baptism might be.
2. Infant: It seems to me very likely that all or at least nearly all of those who came to JB were adults. They were preparing Israel for the Messiah by purging it of its sins. Of course, I would not say absolutely that no children were involved. It seems a little difficult logistically in that they would have to travel out to the river from wherever. I also wonder how many women he would have baptized. I wonder if there were many.
Does this impact the discussion of Christian infant baptism? We'll have to wait for the argument that baptism involves repentance and therefore does not apply to an infant. For the moment, we will simply note that JB's baptism is not Christian baptism and therefore that it is somewhat of a unique moment in salvation's history that does not directly affect our discussion of Christian baptism.
3. Repeatable? I doubt that JB's baptism was meant to be repeatable, although baptism in general was in Jewish culture at the time. JB was preparing for the Messiah. That would normally have been a one time act I think.
<1> By the way, the story of John the Baptist is one of those rare places where Matthew and Luke agree in wording against Mark. Given the extra stuff that Matthew and Luke have in common in this story, it is often suggested that the JB story was in Q.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
The Protestant Limbo
I don't enjoy Christian baby dedications. To me they're a little sad and a little irritating all mixed together.
It's sad to me because to me it's like making your kids live in a tent in the back yard until they know how to unlock the back door. You let them stay on the property but they don't really belong. So you make sure they don't come in the house. It's irritating to me because I don't really agree with the reasons usually given against infant baptism.
I should say right off the bat that I don't think baptism saves you. I don't think that baptism keeps a child from hell or protects them from the consequences of original sin. In that sense, I believe it is possible for a person to go to heaven even if they are never baptized. So in terms of the symbolic aspect of baptism, deciding when a person is baptized is partially a question of what you are trying to symbolize. Do you want them symbolically in from the beginning of their lives or only when they have made the personal commitment?
But are they really out when they are 2? I believe they're really in when they're 1, 2, 3, maybe even 4, 5, 6. Indeed, I believe it's possible that a person might be "in" at every moment of their life--if they accept Christ from the moment they understand their need for him. I bet Russ Gunsalus and Keith Drury have been on their way to heaven every single moment of their lives! Accordingly, it makes me really sad when we make it a point of saying that our children are "out." Frankly, I think our children should take communion too. I guarantee you the children at Corinth ate the communion meal of 1 Corinthians 11.
But of course I believe baptism is also a sacrament, a means of grace. In that sense, I believe it "helps" our fellowship with God in some mystical way. I actually believe that a child who has been baptized has a better chance of accepting Christ personally later, not too dissimilar from the passage in 1 Corinthians 7 that says our children are sanctified by our faith apart from any act of will on their part.
If baptism is truly a means of grace in this way, then to forbid our children from baptism is actually to refuse them an avenue of God's grace. In other words, it sets down a "harder" path into the kingdom for them than it could be. If we knew this to be true for certain, refusing our children baptism would be rather infuriating to us, something we would actually fight against (P.S. I write these words with some restraint).
I suppose the main objection to infant baptism is the idea that you cannot be saved without a personal confession of faith. But of course nothing I've said thus far contradicts this idea. That's part of what's irritating to me. Salvation is not the same thing as baptism. And there's often a subtle individualistic assumption that goes along with this position--as if for an experience to be meaningful I have to be conscious of it (note to self: examine possibly self-oriented assumptions I may not have examined).
And of course the fact that the baptisms recorded in the New Testament are all or at least nearly all adult baptisms doesn't settle the issue. The Bible never tells us an incident where someone is baptized as an adult who was in the church as a child. All the adult NT baptisms are people entering the church for the first time as an adult. And of course the NT does mention more than once that whole households were baptized--we just don't know who all was in them. On the whole, my sense of how group dynamics worked in the Bible makes me suspect it more likely than not that child baptism was a part of early Christian practice.
A personal relationship with God and Christ is of course essential, meaning that every individual must confess Christ and appropriate his death if they are at all intellectually able (Frankly I would still baptize a severely mentally challenged person, even if they will never really understand). But I suspect that such relationships were always imbedded in the community of faith in New Testament times. In a sense they were personal, but not individual, relationships with God and his Christ.
And of course infant baptism isn't just some Catholic thing. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley would all give an intense scolding to anyone using their name and not baptizing their children. In recent times, adult baptism is really an Anabaptist thing that resurfaced these last few hundred years, a backwater trickle that has really only flourished in America.
Many will disagree with me, but I find baby dedications lamentable, missed opportunities. To me they impoverish the church by placing our children in a limbo that they are not really in. While we could use baptism to emphasize that we are communities and families of faith, instead we accentuate ourselves as isolated individuals of faith. Rather than making our children have to work to leave, we make them work to get in when they are really in already. Rather than avail them of God's means of grace and give them any sacramental benefit to baptism, we make them come in cold turkey.
So maybe I'll go become a Methodist. Oh wait, the Wesleyan Church actually allows for infant baptism. I wonder why nobody does it? Maybe it's because we've been hanging out with the Baptists for so long.
It's sad to me because to me it's like making your kids live in a tent in the back yard until they know how to unlock the back door. You let them stay on the property but they don't really belong. So you make sure they don't come in the house. It's irritating to me because I don't really agree with the reasons usually given against infant baptism.
I should say right off the bat that I don't think baptism saves you. I don't think that baptism keeps a child from hell or protects them from the consequences of original sin. In that sense, I believe it is possible for a person to go to heaven even if they are never baptized. So in terms of the symbolic aspect of baptism, deciding when a person is baptized is partially a question of what you are trying to symbolize. Do you want them symbolically in from the beginning of their lives or only when they have made the personal commitment?
But are they really out when they are 2? I believe they're really in when they're 1, 2, 3, maybe even 4, 5, 6. Indeed, I believe it's possible that a person might be "in" at every moment of their life--if they accept Christ from the moment they understand their need for him. I bet Russ Gunsalus and Keith Drury have been on their way to heaven every single moment of their lives! Accordingly, it makes me really sad when we make it a point of saying that our children are "out." Frankly, I think our children should take communion too. I guarantee you the children at Corinth ate the communion meal of 1 Corinthians 11.
But of course I believe baptism is also a sacrament, a means of grace. In that sense, I believe it "helps" our fellowship with God in some mystical way. I actually believe that a child who has been baptized has a better chance of accepting Christ personally later, not too dissimilar from the passage in 1 Corinthians 7 that says our children are sanctified by our faith apart from any act of will on their part.
If baptism is truly a means of grace in this way, then to forbid our children from baptism is actually to refuse them an avenue of God's grace. In other words, it sets down a "harder" path into the kingdom for them than it could be. If we knew this to be true for certain, refusing our children baptism would be rather infuriating to us, something we would actually fight against (P.S. I write these words with some restraint).
I suppose the main objection to infant baptism is the idea that you cannot be saved without a personal confession of faith. But of course nothing I've said thus far contradicts this idea. That's part of what's irritating to me. Salvation is not the same thing as baptism. And there's often a subtle individualistic assumption that goes along with this position--as if for an experience to be meaningful I have to be conscious of it (note to self: examine possibly self-oriented assumptions I may not have examined).
And of course the fact that the baptisms recorded in the New Testament are all or at least nearly all adult baptisms doesn't settle the issue. The Bible never tells us an incident where someone is baptized as an adult who was in the church as a child. All the adult NT baptisms are people entering the church for the first time as an adult. And of course the NT does mention more than once that whole households were baptized--we just don't know who all was in them. On the whole, my sense of how group dynamics worked in the Bible makes me suspect it more likely than not that child baptism was a part of early Christian practice.
A personal relationship with God and Christ is of course essential, meaning that every individual must confess Christ and appropriate his death if they are at all intellectually able (Frankly I would still baptize a severely mentally challenged person, even if they will never really understand). But I suspect that such relationships were always imbedded in the community of faith in New Testament times. In a sense they were personal, but not individual, relationships with God and his Christ.
And of course infant baptism isn't just some Catholic thing. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley would all give an intense scolding to anyone using their name and not baptizing their children. In recent times, adult baptism is really an Anabaptist thing that resurfaced these last few hundred years, a backwater trickle that has really only flourished in America.
Many will disagree with me, but I find baby dedications lamentable, missed opportunities. To me they impoverish the church by placing our children in a limbo that they are not really in. While we could use baptism to emphasize that we are communities and families of faith, instead we accentuate ourselves as isolated individuals of faith. Rather than making our children have to work to leave, we make them work to get in when they are really in already. Rather than avail them of God's means of grace and give them any sacramental benefit to baptism, we make them come in cold turkey.
So maybe I'll go become a Methodist. Oh wait, the Wesleyan Church actually allows for infant baptism. I wonder why nobody does it? Maybe it's because we've been hanging out with the Baptists for so long.
Monday, January 16, 2006
On a Lighter Note...
I've put a two part algebra promo on CafeTutor.com. If you're looking for a reason to procrastinate, I'd be interested to know any problems you have opening up anything.
I've been having problems with my own computer with my Internet Explorer shutting down while the video is downloading. I don't know if this is a glitch with my computer, because some hidden internet file is full and I'm having memory problems, or whether there's a code problem.
If you want to blow twenty minutes, I'd appreciate any comments on whether it works or not:
www.cafetutor.com
then click on algebra to the left. Thanks!
I've been having problems with my own computer with my Internet Explorer shutting down while the video is downloading. I don't know if this is a glitch with my computer, because some hidden internet file is full and I'm having memory problems, or whether there's a code problem.
If you want to blow twenty minutes, I'd appreciate any comments on whether it works or not:
www.cafetutor.com
then click on algebra to the left. Thanks!
Sunday, January 15, 2006
What's Wrong with Those Who Oppose Women in Ministry?
I have worded the title of this piece boldly, for I write it prophetically and not as a matter of academic discussion. I do not mean the piece personally in the sense that I do not think I am necessarily more spiritual, more informed, or more intelligent than anyone who is opposed to women in all roles of ministry. And I do not mean to say that someone is automatically unspiritual, uninformed, or unintelligent if he or she opposes women in all roles of ministry.
But I do mean to say that this position is wrong. And those who are against women in all roles of ministry simply do not know God's mind on this issue. The Christians of even fifty years from now will view such individuals as most of us view the Christians who were in favor of slavery 150 years ago. That future generation will have to pray for the Lord to give them strength not to think badly of such people. They will need the Lord's help to have faith that the problem was one of heads and not hearts. It will take some hard thinking for them to understand that such individuals could be spiritual even though they believed the way they did. Luke implied it best through the mouth of Gamaliel in Acts 5: This is of God. There is nothing you can do to stop it because you are fighting against God.
So what are some of the reasons why some Christians oppose women in ministry?
1. Their head is in the way.
I believe that perhaps even for most Christians, opposition to women in all forms of ministry is mostly a matter of their heads. In other words, some aspect of the way they understand the world and have formulated their faith is getting in the way.
I have the utmost of respect for many who don't really understand why (or so they think) God opposes women in some offices of the church. But their head tells them that's what the Bible teaches or what the church teaches. And indeed, in a culture where 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 have been highlighted again and again by some, it is easy to think God just mysteriously doesn't want women doing these things on earth--even though it makes no sense at all from any reasonable perspective. Just using our heads alone, it seems pretty stupid since we know factually that male genitilia have nothing to do with leadership ability or spirituality.
I have the utmost sympathy for the person who says, "I don't understand it. I know women who are more spiritual than I am. I know women who say they're called. I know women whom I think would make gifted speakers and leaders. But the Bible just doesn't seem to allow them. I don't understand it but I submit to it." I respect this person and pray for their heart to win out over their heads.
This is not the place for a detailed examination of the key passsages; I have done some of that elsewhere. Instead I simply want to point out that no one directly applies all the statements and injunctions of Scripture directly to today. And this is the way God wants it to be. Why?
a. Because Jesus and Paul did not directly apply the words of the OT directly to themselves without passing those words through a spiritual filter. In Matthew 5:38, Jesus tells his audience not to live their lives like Deuteronomy 19:21: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." And in Mark 2:25-26 he actually argues that there are times when the right thing to do is to make exception for some of the most significant laws.
Paul sometimes takes the OT text allegorically in ways that contradict the clear original import of those passages, such as when he interprets the veil on Moses' face as a hiding of the fading glory of the old covenant (2 Cor. 3) or when he interprets Hagar in relation to the literal Jerusalem (Gal. 4). To be sure, some learned modernist evangelicals have applied their immense intelligence to wiggling out of these plain interpretations. But just because you're smart enough to come up with an ingenious alternative doesn't mean you're correct and it certainly doesn't mean that you're actually listening to Paul. So called "high views" of Scripture often have a way of shoving their preconceived views on the text when the text doesn't say what they want it to say.
b. The original meaning of so many passages is ambiguous or inaccessible to us. I submit to you that the connotations of 1 Timothy change drastically depending on the situation that stands behind it. Again, an honest listen to Paul's writings and the gospels must conclude that the tone and approach of these writings is often in tension with the others because of situational factors.
c. And again, if we really value the text of Scripture enough to listen to it rather than make everything fit together, we will find a healthy dialog within the text of Scripture. Once we allow for these things we will find that some parts of Scripture point in opposite directions from other parts. Ezra would point us toward divorcing spouses and children who are not "Israel" like we are. Jonah, Ruth, and Paul would point in the opposite direction. Luke-Acts is perhaps the most pro-women work in the New Testament. 2 Timothy would lead us in the opposite direction if we absolutized it and ignored the rest. But if we did not have 1 Timothy, we would not expect Paul to make some of its comments, since his other books make no issue of women in ministry roles. He seems to refer to one woman, Junia, as an apostle in Romans 16:7, and he calls Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1 as well.
d. Finally, if we really listen to Scripture rather than shove our preconceived theology down its throat, we will conclude that there is a flow of revelation that moves not only between the testaments but into the history of the church. The OT simply is not as close to our Christian beliefs as the New Testament is, and the New Testament books are not the end of the story on matters like the Trinity or the precise nature of Christ's divinity. As a scholar, I would claim that we will not believe Christ to be fully and ontologically divine, of one substance with the Father, unless we accept developments in Christian belief beyond the New Testament.
It takes more than just the original meaning of the Bible to know God's will for today. It takes the Holy Spirit more than anything else. And to hear the Spirit rightly, we need the church.
2. Their tradition is in the way.
For Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, 2000 years of church tradition stand in the way. This is a strong argument to be sure. But as someone who believes God had some part in the Protestant Reformation, I allow that truths can lie dormant in the broader church for hundreds and even thousands of years. The fact that large portions of the church are recognizing the clear trajectory of the Spirit on this issue is a sign of the latest Reformation. It will only grow.
There is always room for the prophetic element of the church, especially when its witness is on a path to become the view of the church at large. You will not have to exhume my body to burn it at the stake, for in a hundred years, even the Roman Catholics will allow for a woman Pope.
I am not concerned with other more recent traditions among fundamentalists or other American trends against women in ministry. They are largely a mixture of the early 20th century reactions to modernism combined with a reaction to the empowerment of women in the post-WW2 era. They are a blip that will not stand the test of time. We as individuals can often live with irrationality because of the comfort of the familiar. But our children may not have the same emotional attachment to traditions that cannot be easily defended in the face of reality.
3. They're really reacting to something else that's been lumped in with the women in ministry issue.
I know some people who really get irritated with things like Martin Luther King Jr. stamps and days off school for his birthday. Yet I also suspect that these same people would fully be friends with a person of color and would strongly oppose something like the KKK. The only thing I can figure out is that they are confused. Maybe they thought the protests of the 60's were wrong because people broke the law, believing that Christians should keep the law. Maybe they saw it as people fighting for their rights selfishly rather than being like Christ, who submitted to unjust treatment. Similar things are said about the women's rights movement.
But somehow these things seem like diversions and even resistance to change. It is irritating when someone suggests you should speak more inclusively and say "people" rather than "man." But at the same time, surely no one with a pure heart thinks that God actually values men more than women or whites more than blacks. We have to believe that as spiritual equals, God values men and women the same. So if you are consciously using your language to exclude women, then you have the beginnings of a spiritual problem.
It's irritating, but once you are aware of how male-oriented language is, it becomes increasingly difficult to talk the same way with a pure heart. The principle of the equal value of women pushes you to include them in your speech. To do otherwise eventually requires you to exclude them deliberately in a way you perhaps did not before.
Yet some Christian groups act as if it would glorify God to resist the inclusion of women in language. On what basis? Is it because of what they associate inclusive language with? If the original Greek does not specify male or female at a point, how does it glorify God to push the translation toward the masculine? I think more than anything such individuals are resisting change and resisting things they associate with groups they disagree with. Or perhaps they do not like being forced to do something by the broader culture.
To our shame, God sometimes uses Babylonians and sailors on their way to Tarshish--those who are not His people--to get His people to do what they should have been doing on their own and leading the way on.
4. They have a serious heart problem.
Finally, some men resist the idea of women in ministry because of a spiritual problem. They do not want a women telling them what to do. Or perhaps they would feel intimidated if a woman had authority over them. And some of the above reasons can become spiritual problems when the truth is resisted. Irritation of being forced to change can become prejudice or hatred, and so many of us really value our traditions far more than the truth.
And it is not simply men who oppose women in ministry. Women are some of the greatest opponents to women in all roles of ministry. This can be for all of the same reasons as I've mentioned above. Yet it can also be for spiritual reasons.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with a woman feeling called to stay at home and be the best mother in the world. But it's quite a jump in logic to say thereby that all women should do exactly the same thing. There are women who should be in ministry but don't answer the call because of their fear of what others will say in the church. They often face stiff opposition and difficulty finding a congregation that will take them. Others like a comfortable world with well defined roles and someone else to take care of them. They don't want to move outside their comfort zone. Would some women feel less valuable next to a woman minister? They shouldn't if they are doing what God wants them to do. Would some feel envious because other women have opportunities they did not have? They shouldn't.
Not all women are called to ministry. But woe to those who put stumblingblocks in front of those who are!
Conclusion: God is on the move. The kingdom is a place where men and women both have the Spirit equally. We know that women are just as smart as men and that there are gifted women speakers and leaders who are just as gifted as any male speaker or leader. We would need a really good reason to prohibit any one of them from any role in the church, particularly since some of them feel called to these roles.
There is none. Quench not the Spirit.
But I do mean to say that this position is wrong. And those who are against women in all roles of ministry simply do not know God's mind on this issue. The Christians of even fifty years from now will view such individuals as most of us view the Christians who were in favor of slavery 150 years ago. That future generation will have to pray for the Lord to give them strength not to think badly of such people. They will need the Lord's help to have faith that the problem was one of heads and not hearts. It will take some hard thinking for them to understand that such individuals could be spiritual even though they believed the way they did. Luke implied it best through the mouth of Gamaliel in Acts 5: This is of God. There is nothing you can do to stop it because you are fighting against God.
So what are some of the reasons why some Christians oppose women in ministry?
1. Their head is in the way.
I believe that perhaps even for most Christians, opposition to women in all forms of ministry is mostly a matter of their heads. In other words, some aspect of the way they understand the world and have formulated their faith is getting in the way.
I have the utmost of respect for many who don't really understand why (or so they think) God opposes women in some offices of the church. But their head tells them that's what the Bible teaches or what the church teaches. And indeed, in a culture where 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 have been highlighted again and again by some, it is easy to think God just mysteriously doesn't want women doing these things on earth--even though it makes no sense at all from any reasonable perspective. Just using our heads alone, it seems pretty stupid since we know factually that male genitilia have nothing to do with leadership ability or spirituality.
I have the utmost sympathy for the person who says, "I don't understand it. I know women who are more spiritual than I am. I know women who say they're called. I know women whom I think would make gifted speakers and leaders. But the Bible just doesn't seem to allow them. I don't understand it but I submit to it." I respect this person and pray for their heart to win out over their heads.
This is not the place for a detailed examination of the key passsages; I have done some of that elsewhere. Instead I simply want to point out that no one directly applies all the statements and injunctions of Scripture directly to today. And this is the way God wants it to be. Why?
a. Because Jesus and Paul did not directly apply the words of the OT directly to themselves without passing those words through a spiritual filter. In Matthew 5:38, Jesus tells his audience not to live their lives like Deuteronomy 19:21: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." And in Mark 2:25-26 he actually argues that there are times when the right thing to do is to make exception for some of the most significant laws.
Paul sometimes takes the OT text allegorically in ways that contradict the clear original import of those passages, such as when he interprets the veil on Moses' face as a hiding of the fading glory of the old covenant (2 Cor. 3) or when he interprets Hagar in relation to the literal Jerusalem (Gal. 4). To be sure, some learned modernist evangelicals have applied their immense intelligence to wiggling out of these plain interpretations. But just because you're smart enough to come up with an ingenious alternative doesn't mean you're correct and it certainly doesn't mean that you're actually listening to Paul. So called "high views" of Scripture often have a way of shoving their preconceived views on the text when the text doesn't say what they want it to say.
b. The original meaning of so many passages is ambiguous or inaccessible to us. I submit to you that the connotations of 1 Timothy change drastically depending on the situation that stands behind it. Again, an honest listen to Paul's writings and the gospels must conclude that the tone and approach of these writings is often in tension with the others because of situational factors.
c. And again, if we really value the text of Scripture enough to listen to it rather than make everything fit together, we will find a healthy dialog within the text of Scripture. Once we allow for these things we will find that some parts of Scripture point in opposite directions from other parts. Ezra would point us toward divorcing spouses and children who are not "Israel" like we are. Jonah, Ruth, and Paul would point in the opposite direction. Luke-Acts is perhaps the most pro-women work in the New Testament. 2 Timothy would lead us in the opposite direction if we absolutized it and ignored the rest. But if we did not have 1 Timothy, we would not expect Paul to make some of its comments, since his other books make no issue of women in ministry roles. He seems to refer to one woman, Junia, as an apostle in Romans 16:7, and he calls Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1 as well.
d. Finally, if we really listen to Scripture rather than shove our preconceived theology down its throat, we will conclude that there is a flow of revelation that moves not only between the testaments but into the history of the church. The OT simply is not as close to our Christian beliefs as the New Testament is, and the New Testament books are not the end of the story on matters like the Trinity or the precise nature of Christ's divinity. As a scholar, I would claim that we will not believe Christ to be fully and ontologically divine, of one substance with the Father, unless we accept developments in Christian belief beyond the New Testament.
It takes more than just the original meaning of the Bible to know God's will for today. It takes the Holy Spirit more than anything else. And to hear the Spirit rightly, we need the church.
2. Their tradition is in the way.
For Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, 2000 years of church tradition stand in the way. This is a strong argument to be sure. But as someone who believes God had some part in the Protestant Reformation, I allow that truths can lie dormant in the broader church for hundreds and even thousands of years. The fact that large portions of the church are recognizing the clear trajectory of the Spirit on this issue is a sign of the latest Reformation. It will only grow.
There is always room for the prophetic element of the church, especially when its witness is on a path to become the view of the church at large. You will not have to exhume my body to burn it at the stake, for in a hundred years, even the Roman Catholics will allow for a woman Pope.
I am not concerned with other more recent traditions among fundamentalists or other American trends against women in ministry. They are largely a mixture of the early 20th century reactions to modernism combined with a reaction to the empowerment of women in the post-WW2 era. They are a blip that will not stand the test of time. We as individuals can often live with irrationality because of the comfort of the familiar. But our children may not have the same emotional attachment to traditions that cannot be easily defended in the face of reality.
3. They're really reacting to something else that's been lumped in with the women in ministry issue.
I know some people who really get irritated with things like Martin Luther King Jr. stamps and days off school for his birthday. Yet I also suspect that these same people would fully be friends with a person of color and would strongly oppose something like the KKK. The only thing I can figure out is that they are confused. Maybe they thought the protests of the 60's were wrong because people broke the law, believing that Christians should keep the law. Maybe they saw it as people fighting for their rights selfishly rather than being like Christ, who submitted to unjust treatment. Similar things are said about the women's rights movement.
But somehow these things seem like diversions and even resistance to change. It is irritating when someone suggests you should speak more inclusively and say "people" rather than "man." But at the same time, surely no one with a pure heart thinks that God actually values men more than women or whites more than blacks. We have to believe that as spiritual equals, God values men and women the same. So if you are consciously using your language to exclude women, then you have the beginnings of a spiritual problem.
It's irritating, but once you are aware of how male-oriented language is, it becomes increasingly difficult to talk the same way with a pure heart. The principle of the equal value of women pushes you to include them in your speech. To do otherwise eventually requires you to exclude them deliberately in a way you perhaps did not before.
Yet some Christian groups act as if it would glorify God to resist the inclusion of women in language. On what basis? Is it because of what they associate inclusive language with? If the original Greek does not specify male or female at a point, how does it glorify God to push the translation toward the masculine? I think more than anything such individuals are resisting change and resisting things they associate with groups they disagree with. Or perhaps they do not like being forced to do something by the broader culture.
To our shame, God sometimes uses Babylonians and sailors on their way to Tarshish--those who are not His people--to get His people to do what they should have been doing on their own and leading the way on.
4. They have a serious heart problem.
Finally, some men resist the idea of women in ministry because of a spiritual problem. They do not want a women telling them what to do. Or perhaps they would feel intimidated if a woman had authority over them. And some of the above reasons can become spiritual problems when the truth is resisted. Irritation of being forced to change can become prejudice or hatred, and so many of us really value our traditions far more than the truth.
And it is not simply men who oppose women in ministry. Women are some of the greatest opponents to women in all roles of ministry. This can be for all of the same reasons as I've mentioned above. Yet it can also be for spiritual reasons.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with a woman feeling called to stay at home and be the best mother in the world. But it's quite a jump in logic to say thereby that all women should do exactly the same thing. There are women who should be in ministry but don't answer the call because of their fear of what others will say in the church. They often face stiff opposition and difficulty finding a congregation that will take them. Others like a comfortable world with well defined roles and someone else to take care of them. They don't want to move outside their comfort zone. Would some women feel less valuable next to a woman minister? They shouldn't if they are doing what God wants them to do. Would some feel envious because other women have opportunities they did not have? They shouldn't.
Not all women are called to ministry. But woe to those who put stumblingblocks in front of those who are!
Conclusion: God is on the move. The kingdom is a place where men and women both have the Spirit equally. We know that women are just as smart as men and that there are gifted women speakers and leaders who are just as gifted as any male speaker or leader. We would need a really good reason to prohibit any one of them from any role in the church, particularly since some of them feel called to these roles.
There is none. Quench not the Spirit.
Friday, January 13, 2006
The Week in Review
I haven't posted all week, in part because it's the first week of the semester, in part because I don't have anything useful to say.
But of course there have been things that have "stirred" my emotions.
1. The anniversary of "No Child Left Behind" came and went, and I talked to myself of the shallowness of the "punitive" approach to changing behavior so typical of the Bush administration and conservative Christianity--change or I'll beat you, invade you, or remove your funding (in the latter case of course simply compounding the problem rather than helping). I muttered to myself in the car how a more informed and intelligent approach tries to inspire and equip for change rather than simply hold a stick over you if you don't change.
2. I got angry both at conservatives and Democrats during the Alito hearings. At conservatives for thinking that a strict constructionist, small government, libertarian is automatically what God thinks. I muttered in imaginary debates the possibility that on some issues God is a liberal.
I got angry with Ted Kennedy for being a moron and at stupid Democrats (not meaning all Democrats but the ones that seem to be steering the Democratic party) who can even turn an advantageous climate to their disadvantage.
3. I got angry with the Bush administration again for invading Iraq now that a much more real threat--Iran--is at hand. We scarcely have the resources to take military action because we have squandered it in Iraq.
4. And I had a wonderful week of reading in preparation for classes. I read things I've wanted to read for years but didn't have the "inspiration" of a class overhead to prepare.
My potentially-but-not-blogged week in minature.
But of course there have been things that have "stirred" my emotions.
1. The anniversary of "No Child Left Behind" came and went, and I talked to myself of the shallowness of the "punitive" approach to changing behavior so typical of the Bush administration and conservative Christianity--change or I'll beat you, invade you, or remove your funding (in the latter case of course simply compounding the problem rather than helping). I muttered to myself in the car how a more informed and intelligent approach tries to inspire and equip for change rather than simply hold a stick over you if you don't change.
2. I got angry both at conservatives and Democrats during the Alito hearings. At conservatives for thinking that a strict constructionist, small government, libertarian is automatically what God thinks. I muttered in imaginary debates the possibility that on some issues God is a liberal.
I got angry with Ted Kennedy for being a moron and at stupid Democrats (not meaning all Democrats but the ones that seem to be steering the Democratic party) who can even turn an advantageous climate to their disadvantage.
3. I got angry with the Bush administration again for invading Iraq now that a much more real threat--Iran--is at hand. We scarcely have the resources to take military action because we have squandered it in Iraq.
4. And I had a wonderful week of reading in preparation for classes. I read things I've wanted to read for years but didn't have the "inspiration" of a class overhead to prepare.
My potentially-but-not-blogged week in minature.
Monday, January 09, 2006
CafeTutor, open for business
I'm not sure that many of you will be interested in buying a tutorial on the basic Greek verb!!! but CafeTutor is open for business! If you want to muse at the portal:
http://www.cafetutor.com/basicverb.html
Hurray!
If you know anyone who wants to learn NT Greek, it's available.
More promos and Greek to come...
http://www.cafetutor.com/basicverb.html
Hurray!
If you know anyone who wants to learn NT Greek, it's available.
More promos and Greek to come...
Schenck Lectionary: January 8-14
I ended up changing the Gospel, Proverbs, and Old Testament readings at the end of last week because of Epiphany and other factors: http://www.twoyearlectionary.blogspot.com
But here are the new readings for this week:
Sunday, 8th
Morning: Psalm 7:1-8; Matthew 3:1-17
Evening: Genesis 6; Romans 3:9-20; Proverbs 1:22-24
Monday, 9th
Morning: Psalm 7:9-17; John 2:23-3:21
Evening: Genesis 7; Romans 3:21-31; Proverbs 1:25-27;
Tuesday, 10th
Morning: Psalm 8; John 3:22-36
Evening: Genersis 8; Romans 4:1-12; Proverbs 1:28-30
Wednesday, 11th
Morning: Psalm 9:1-10; John 3:22-36
Evening: Genesis 9; Romans 4:13-25; Proverbs 1:31-33
Thursday, 12th
Morning: Psalm 9:11-20; John 4:1-15
Evening: Genesis 10; Romans 5:1-11; Proverbs 2:1-2
Friday, 13th
Morning: Psalm 10:1-9; John 4:16-30
Evening: Genesis 11; Romans 5:12-21; Proverbs 2:3-4
Saturday, 14th
Morning: Psalm 10:10-18; John 4:31-54
Evening: Genesis 12; Romans 6:1-14; Proverbs 2:5-6
But here are the new readings for this week:
Sunday, 8th
Morning: Psalm 7:1-8; Matthew 3:1-17
Evening: Genesis 6; Romans 3:9-20; Proverbs 1:22-24
Monday, 9th
Morning: Psalm 7:9-17; John 2:23-3:21
Evening: Genesis 7; Romans 3:21-31; Proverbs 1:25-27;
Tuesday, 10th
Morning: Psalm 8; John 3:22-36
Evening: Genersis 8; Romans 4:1-12; Proverbs 1:28-30
Wednesday, 11th
Morning: Psalm 9:1-10; John 3:22-36
Evening: Genesis 9; Romans 4:13-25; Proverbs 1:31-33
Thursday, 12th
Morning: Psalm 9:11-20; John 4:1-15
Evening: Genesis 10; Romans 5:1-11; Proverbs 2:1-2
Friday, 13th
Morning: Psalm 10:1-9; John 4:16-30
Evening: Genesis 11; Romans 5:12-21; Proverbs 2:3-4
Saturday, 14th
Morning: Psalm 10:10-18; John 4:31-54
Evening: Genesis 12; Romans 6:1-14; Proverbs 2:5-6
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Arabic Promo on CafeTutor
CafeTutor is almost ready to sell. I should have several purchase options up and running by Monday.
In the meantime, I thought you might enjoy the Arabic promo click pick I did:
http://www.cafetutor.com/arabicpromo.html
In the meantime, I thought you might enjoy the Arabic promo click pick I did:
http://www.cafetutor.com/arabicpromo.html
Friday, January 06, 2006
Adventures with Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson is in the news again, this time for suggesting that Sharon's brain hemorrage is God's judgment on him for giving land to the Palestinians.
On the one hand, I understand Robertson's position. Does the Bible indicate that God strikes people down when they violate His will? Sure. There's Ananias and Sapphira, Uzzah, Nebuchadnezzer (insanity for a while), the prophet who stopped at someone else's house on the way home....
Does Joel 3:2 condemn those who divided up God's land a long time ago? Sure. Does Ezekiel 47 foretell boundaries to Israel that would include Gaza and the West Bank? Sure.
But... You knew there was a but coming.
I don't think Robertson knows that this is true of Sharon. And I suspect even if he did know, this is the kind of thing he should keep to himself. Maybe it's a theoretical discussion for a class or coffee shop: "So do you think this is God's judgment..."
But perhaps the biggest reason why I think Robertson is wrong is that there are problems with his understanding of biblical prophecy. If we are to take OT prophecies about Israel's land literally, then shouldn't we take the OT comments on Davidic kingship literally? As Christians, we don't. For us, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah of Israel, the permanent anointed one. But Jesus was not the kind of king--or at least is not yet the kind of king the OT had in mind. The Davidic rule the OT had in mind was an earthy king who would rule an earthly kingdom. Maybe in the millennium, but that's not modern day Israel.
Similarly, the temple Ezekiel prophesies about in conjunction with its comments on the restored land of Israel can never be fulfilled literally. Why? Because Hebrews indicates that the glory of the LORD can never return to an earthly sanctuary (cf. Ezek. 43:4). There will be no temple in the eschaton (cf. Rev. 21:22), for Christ has made atonement in the true, heavenly sanctuary (cf. Heb. 8:1-2; 10:14).
Paul does indicate that all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26), and it is clear that he is referring to ethnic Israelites who were currently hardened (11:11, 25). So Paul predicts that most ethnic Jews will convert in the end times. He also speaks of a man of lawlessness setting himself up in the temple (2 Thess. 2:4), something very difficult when there isn't one currently standing. Can we take these comments "spiritually" when Paul probably meant them literally. The NT certainly does this with the OT, but did God intend us to interpret the NT this way as well (we often have without realizing it, I think)?
In any case, it is not clear to me that there are any end times prophecies in the Bible regarding the land of Israel. And even if there are, it is not at all clear that now is the end times, despite the fact that people have been saying it's the end times for a couple hundred years now.
In the end, Pat Robertson simply doesn't have the prophetic authority, in my opinion, to claim the death of any individual as God's judgment on him or her. Who knows the mind of God? If it had been Billy Graham, Robertson might have said it was Satan tormenting him. It just shouldn't be done.
And even more importantly, foreign policy decisions should not be made on the basis of supposed interpretations of prophecy. A tweaked Micah 6:8 seems a much better guide: "He has showed you, O nation, what is good and what the LORD requires of you: to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with your God."
On the one hand, I understand Robertson's position. Does the Bible indicate that God strikes people down when they violate His will? Sure. There's Ananias and Sapphira, Uzzah, Nebuchadnezzer (insanity for a while), the prophet who stopped at someone else's house on the way home....
Does Joel 3:2 condemn those who divided up God's land a long time ago? Sure. Does Ezekiel 47 foretell boundaries to Israel that would include Gaza and the West Bank? Sure.
But... You knew there was a but coming.
I don't think Robertson knows that this is true of Sharon. And I suspect even if he did know, this is the kind of thing he should keep to himself. Maybe it's a theoretical discussion for a class or coffee shop: "So do you think this is God's judgment..."
But perhaps the biggest reason why I think Robertson is wrong is that there are problems with his understanding of biblical prophecy. If we are to take OT prophecies about Israel's land literally, then shouldn't we take the OT comments on Davidic kingship literally? As Christians, we don't. For us, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah of Israel, the permanent anointed one. But Jesus was not the kind of king--or at least is not yet the kind of king the OT had in mind. The Davidic rule the OT had in mind was an earthy king who would rule an earthly kingdom. Maybe in the millennium, but that's not modern day Israel.
Similarly, the temple Ezekiel prophesies about in conjunction with its comments on the restored land of Israel can never be fulfilled literally. Why? Because Hebrews indicates that the glory of the LORD can never return to an earthly sanctuary (cf. Ezek. 43:4). There will be no temple in the eschaton (cf. Rev. 21:22), for Christ has made atonement in the true, heavenly sanctuary (cf. Heb. 8:1-2; 10:14).
Paul does indicate that all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26), and it is clear that he is referring to ethnic Israelites who were currently hardened (11:11, 25). So Paul predicts that most ethnic Jews will convert in the end times. He also speaks of a man of lawlessness setting himself up in the temple (2 Thess. 2:4), something very difficult when there isn't one currently standing. Can we take these comments "spiritually" when Paul probably meant them literally. The NT certainly does this with the OT, but did God intend us to interpret the NT this way as well (we often have without realizing it, I think)?
In any case, it is not clear to me that there are any end times prophecies in the Bible regarding the land of Israel. And even if there are, it is not at all clear that now is the end times, despite the fact that people have been saying it's the end times for a couple hundred years now.
In the end, Pat Robertson simply doesn't have the prophetic authority, in my opinion, to claim the death of any individual as God's judgment on him or her. Who knows the mind of God? If it had been Billy Graham, Robertson might have said it was Satan tormenting him. It just shouldn't be done.
And even more importantly, foreign policy decisions should not be made on the basis of supposed interpretations of prophecy. A tweaked Micah 6:8 seems a much better guide: "He has showed you, O nation, what is good and what the LORD requires of you: to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with your God."
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
More Schenck Philosophy
The truth doesn't care.
If something is an "objective" truth, it is true whether it is convenient to you or not. We do not know objective truth as it is objectively. We only know the world as it appears to us. But it "works" to posit that there are such truths. Reality exists, even if I only know it as it appears to me.
Only God is truly objective because He can hold all the Dinge an sich as they exist in relation to all other Dinge an sich. But it "works" to make the distinction between objective and subjective truth in practice.
Reality doesn't care. And if something really bad has happened, it can be expressed more colorfully. It doesn't matter what you believe about the consequences of jumping off the Empire State Building. The truth doesn't care. Say goodbye to life. I don't care what your perspective on getting hit by Mack trucks is. You're going to go splat.
On the other hand, all truth is God's truth.
Truth from one area of knowledge will not contradict truth from another area. Unless of course you're dealing with quantum physics where the truth is that everything is likely to contradict.
X usually marks the spot. If your construction of reality requires great feats of irrationality, it's probably wrong. It's at least not as good as someone else's.
If the evidence for God or Christianity largely did not point toward God or Christianity, then I think God would say just before He left the building, "I don't want you to believe in me if the evidence is that weak. Then I wouldn't be God." Obviously I think the evidence is quite reasonable enough to believe in God and Christianity, so the point is moot from a practical perspective.
When someone asks, "Why should I believe in God?," my first thought is, "Because He exists." If God exists, then it doesn't matter whether you are interested or benefited by His existence. It's irrelevant. If God exists objectively as a person, then He exists and your interest or disinterest in Him has nothing to do with it.
Many people, even many Christians, do not really operate their lives as if God really existed. Many Christians pray as if they are only talking to themselves or the others in the room. They are largely unaware that their god is largely a subjective contruct. The next step in Christian growth is to pray as if there is really a God out there listening and watching.
If we really understood what it means to be God, we would live our lives completely differently. For one thing, we would be scared a lot more of the time.
A lot of Christians hold beliefs on issues where the vast and overwhelming majority of those who are most informed and most intellectually capable of judging on that issue disagree with them. There's something wrong here. Someone's assumptions or emotions are at work here, and it isn't always the experts.
Most Christians use the Bible as the banner over whatever they already believe (insert Koran for Muslims or Tanakh for Jews). The Bible is a canvas on which many different meanings are painted. The idea of basing your beliefs or practices on the Bible alone is an impossibility of language. Let's acknowledge it and be conscious about the other factors rather than slipping them in unawares.
Meaning occurs in minds, not in texts.
The meaning of the Bible for humans is always a function of human minds and understandings. That is why there are over 20,000 different denominations who think they get their varying beliefs and practices from the Bible alone.
The movement of God in relation to our apprehension of it is best summarized by Gamaliel in Acts 5. If God is opposed to something that we are all saying is His will, then it doesn't matter ultimately that we are wrong. God's will be done.
Many Christians reflect their lack of trust in God by trying to monitor and catch the bad behavior or motives or others. If you really believe in God, then no one is fooling anyone. If you really believe in God, you don't have to catch the liars and "sneak-ers" for there to be consequences. Or is it that you don't actually believe there's a God there to do the repaying?
The world is big; I am small.
Travel the world, and you will see yourself better. If you have open eyes, you will realize how funny you are and how narrow your ideas.
Think the thoughts of others as they think them, not as you think them.
But the deepest things people believe usually aren't a matter of thought but of feeling. Most people will not change their viewpoints on family, religion, or politics even in the face of the most obvious evidence to the contrary.
A friend of mine once said, "People are stupid." I'm sure this is true of us all far more than we realize. "The more you know the less you know." Socrates put it well when he suggested that the wise person is the one that realizes he or she doesn't really understand much. The more you think you know, the better chance that you're really an idiot.
We are far more determined than most of us realize. If we have free will, it is a miracle of God. Are we in fact most god-like when we create "will" out of nothing.
A person is freer to believe what they believe after they know other options. You don't have to change your ideas, but you choose them more freely when you have considered others.
We find the noble and the wicked in all places and all religions. I would like to believe that God judges us all by the light we have and by our heart response. If I were God, I would give everyone a chance to choose Him. I would discard the uninterested by consigning them to oblivion, by not resurrecting them.
I am not God.
Protology and eschatology both require us to leave normal language and categories. We can discuss neither on a purely literal level.
The distance between God's thoughts and my thoughts is bound to be greater than anything I can imagine. Try to explain calculus to an ant and perhaps you'll begin to appreciate the problem.
God's revelation to humanity is baby talk. He must speak mostly by analogy.
There is probably a certain predictable amount of contradiction involved in theology, because we're talking about God. Systems that are intelligible are probably vastly wrong.
"Surely the judge of the earth will do what's right?" (Gen. 18:25). Yes, He will, even when I don't see how what's happening or will happen makes sense. Faith in the Christian God is ultimately faith that He is in control and that what He is doing or allowing to happen is right. This is the ultimate answer to the problem of evil.
You can be tolerant of the ideas of others and still believe you are more correct than they are. I can believe that other religions understand parts of God correctly without surrendering my belief that Christianity is correct.
All Christian denominations likely have some things correct and some things wrong.
One of my favorite examples of virtue from history is the Roman Cincinnatus. He was a farmer who was asked to lead the Romans into battle in the 400's BC. He led them to victory, disbanded his troops beyond the Tiber, and then went back to farming. He did the right thing as a servant of his people, then he resumed an unpretentious life of normalcy.
If something is an "objective" truth, it is true whether it is convenient to you or not. We do not know objective truth as it is objectively. We only know the world as it appears to us. But it "works" to posit that there are such truths. Reality exists, even if I only know it as it appears to me.
Only God is truly objective because He can hold all the Dinge an sich as they exist in relation to all other Dinge an sich. But it "works" to make the distinction between objective and subjective truth in practice.
Reality doesn't care. And if something really bad has happened, it can be expressed more colorfully. It doesn't matter what you believe about the consequences of jumping off the Empire State Building. The truth doesn't care. Say goodbye to life. I don't care what your perspective on getting hit by Mack trucks is. You're going to go splat.
On the other hand, all truth is God's truth.
Truth from one area of knowledge will not contradict truth from another area. Unless of course you're dealing with quantum physics where the truth is that everything is likely to contradict.
X usually marks the spot. If your construction of reality requires great feats of irrationality, it's probably wrong. It's at least not as good as someone else's.
If the evidence for God or Christianity largely did not point toward God or Christianity, then I think God would say just before He left the building, "I don't want you to believe in me if the evidence is that weak. Then I wouldn't be God." Obviously I think the evidence is quite reasonable enough to believe in God and Christianity, so the point is moot from a practical perspective.
When someone asks, "Why should I believe in God?," my first thought is, "Because He exists." If God exists, then it doesn't matter whether you are interested or benefited by His existence. It's irrelevant. If God exists objectively as a person, then He exists and your interest or disinterest in Him has nothing to do with it.
Many people, even many Christians, do not really operate their lives as if God really existed. Many Christians pray as if they are only talking to themselves or the others in the room. They are largely unaware that their god is largely a subjective contruct. The next step in Christian growth is to pray as if there is really a God out there listening and watching.
If we really understood what it means to be God, we would live our lives completely differently. For one thing, we would be scared a lot more of the time.
A lot of Christians hold beliefs on issues where the vast and overwhelming majority of those who are most informed and most intellectually capable of judging on that issue disagree with them. There's something wrong here. Someone's assumptions or emotions are at work here, and it isn't always the experts.
Most Christians use the Bible as the banner over whatever they already believe (insert Koran for Muslims or Tanakh for Jews). The Bible is a canvas on which many different meanings are painted. The idea of basing your beliefs or practices on the Bible alone is an impossibility of language. Let's acknowledge it and be conscious about the other factors rather than slipping them in unawares.
Meaning occurs in minds, not in texts.
The meaning of the Bible for humans is always a function of human minds and understandings. That is why there are over 20,000 different denominations who think they get their varying beliefs and practices from the Bible alone.
The movement of God in relation to our apprehension of it is best summarized by Gamaliel in Acts 5. If God is opposed to something that we are all saying is His will, then it doesn't matter ultimately that we are wrong. God's will be done.
Many Christians reflect their lack of trust in God by trying to monitor and catch the bad behavior or motives or others. If you really believe in God, then no one is fooling anyone. If you really believe in God, you don't have to catch the liars and "sneak-ers" for there to be consequences. Or is it that you don't actually believe there's a God there to do the repaying?
The world is big; I am small.
Travel the world, and you will see yourself better. If you have open eyes, you will realize how funny you are and how narrow your ideas.
Think the thoughts of others as they think them, not as you think them.
But the deepest things people believe usually aren't a matter of thought but of feeling. Most people will not change their viewpoints on family, religion, or politics even in the face of the most obvious evidence to the contrary.
A friend of mine once said, "People are stupid." I'm sure this is true of us all far more than we realize. "The more you know the less you know." Socrates put it well when he suggested that the wise person is the one that realizes he or she doesn't really understand much. The more you think you know, the better chance that you're really an idiot.
We are far more determined than most of us realize. If we have free will, it is a miracle of God. Are we in fact most god-like when we create "will" out of nothing.
A person is freer to believe what they believe after they know other options. You don't have to change your ideas, but you choose them more freely when you have considered others.
We find the noble and the wicked in all places and all religions. I would like to believe that God judges us all by the light we have and by our heart response. If I were God, I would give everyone a chance to choose Him. I would discard the uninterested by consigning them to oblivion, by not resurrecting them.
I am not God.
Protology and eschatology both require us to leave normal language and categories. We can discuss neither on a purely literal level.
The distance between God's thoughts and my thoughts is bound to be greater than anything I can imagine. Try to explain calculus to an ant and perhaps you'll begin to appreciate the problem.
God's revelation to humanity is baby talk. He must speak mostly by analogy.
There is probably a certain predictable amount of contradiction involved in theology, because we're talking about God. Systems that are intelligible are probably vastly wrong.
"Surely the judge of the earth will do what's right?" (Gen. 18:25). Yes, He will, even when I don't see how what's happening or will happen makes sense. Faith in the Christian God is ultimately faith that He is in control and that what He is doing or allowing to happen is right. This is the ultimate answer to the problem of evil.
You can be tolerant of the ideas of others and still believe you are more correct than they are. I can believe that other religions understand parts of God correctly without surrendering my belief that Christianity is correct.
All Christian denominations likely have some things correct and some things wrong.
One of my favorite examples of virtue from history is the Roman Cincinnatus. He was a farmer who was asked to lead the Romans into battle in the 400's BC. He led them to victory, disbanded his troops beyond the Tiber, and then went back to farming. He did the right thing as a servant of his people, then he resumed an unpretentious life of normalcy.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Most Recent CafeTutor Click Pick
I've finished the third Greek "click pick": "Finishing the Alphabet." You can select it from http://www.cafetutor.com/track1.html.
I still go back and forth on how to move into the ones for sale. I think I'll just use PayPal for the next month since I'm not expecting to get too many purchases. That means I'll have to process each one individually from the secure part of my site.
Next one's 99 cents: "The Basic Greek Verb."
Ken
I still go back and forth on how to move into the ones for sale. I think I'll just use PayPal for the next month since I'm not expecting to get too many purchases. That means I'll have to process each one individually from the secure part of my site.
Next one's 99 cents: "The Basic Greek Verb."
Ken
Sunday, January 01, 2006
How to Respond to "Are there contradictions?"
Russ Gunsalus and I did a session at the area youth convention called "Ask a Genius." We figured that since they couldn't find one genius, they must have thought we two "half-wits" at least added up to one "wit" together.
One of the questions was, "What would you say to someone who said there were contradictions in the Bible?" My answer was swift: "Get a life."
My response to the question went on... "Christ has died; Christ has risen; Christ will come again." My faith rises or falls on the resurrection and divine identity of Christ, not on whether there was one blind man or two and whether Jesus performed the healing going into Jericho or coming out. "On Christ the solid rock I stand. All other ground is sinking stand."
I went on to say that some people felt called to answer questions of contradictions. I mentioned the 700 page book I have called Alleged Discrepencies. A person like Josh McDowell feels called to put out the question fires. More power to him.
But some people lose their faith in the pursuit of fire putting out. And the sad thing is, the fires aren't anywhere near the fortress. They're in Christian territory, but the faith fortress is in no danger of burning from questions like whether Jesus died on Passover or on the day before. In theory, 98 percent of the biblical stories could be historically inaccurate and the Apostle's Creed would be unscathed. (please don't read into that comment... it's an "in theory" statement)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for errors in the Bible. I am arguing that a lot of Christians have their priorities out of order when the historicity or "scientific accuracy" of the biblical text is more central to them than the real center--Christ, a real person who lived, died, and rose again from the dead to reconcile us to God.
And when you think of it, it's really silly to stake your faith on questions like whether Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed once or it crowed twice. After all, there are so many disagreements over what each text means exactly that the uncertainty of the Bible's interpretation is way bigger an issue than the particulars of whether there was one or two angels at the tomb. He is risen from the dead; he is risen indeed.
And when you're looking at the subject from the standpoint of a PhD in New Testament, then you're bound to wonder if half the things people get out of the Bible really have much to do with what it was originally about anyway. They're often hearing God, but more often through the Spirit than from some fixed meaning in the text. The "read this for the timeless message" banner is often really in practice, "read this for what our tradition believes."
Again, I'm not faulting this. I'm just pointing out what's really important is that we get the "fortress" part of the tradition straight... and it's in the Apostle's Creed.
So let's read the Bible this year, and let's increase our children's knowledge of its content and message! They gave out one year Bible's at the conference. Great! I hope every single youth reads it.
And let's make sure they know where the fortress is too! There's no need for them to have faith crises over some very nice trees in Haggai. And it's really important for them to know that Christ is risen from the dead.
One of the questions was, "What would you say to someone who said there were contradictions in the Bible?" My answer was swift: "Get a life."
My response to the question went on... "Christ has died; Christ has risen; Christ will come again." My faith rises or falls on the resurrection and divine identity of Christ, not on whether there was one blind man or two and whether Jesus performed the healing going into Jericho or coming out. "On Christ the solid rock I stand. All other ground is sinking stand."
I went on to say that some people felt called to answer questions of contradictions. I mentioned the 700 page book I have called Alleged Discrepencies. A person like Josh McDowell feels called to put out the question fires. More power to him.
But some people lose their faith in the pursuit of fire putting out. And the sad thing is, the fires aren't anywhere near the fortress. They're in Christian territory, but the faith fortress is in no danger of burning from questions like whether Jesus died on Passover or on the day before. In theory, 98 percent of the biblical stories could be historically inaccurate and the Apostle's Creed would be unscathed. (please don't read into that comment... it's an "in theory" statement)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for errors in the Bible. I am arguing that a lot of Christians have their priorities out of order when the historicity or "scientific accuracy" of the biblical text is more central to them than the real center--Christ, a real person who lived, died, and rose again from the dead to reconcile us to God.
And when you think of it, it's really silly to stake your faith on questions like whether Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed once or it crowed twice. After all, there are so many disagreements over what each text means exactly that the uncertainty of the Bible's interpretation is way bigger an issue than the particulars of whether there was one or two angels at the tomb. He is risen from the dead; he is risen indeed.
And when you're looking at the subject from the standpoint of a PhD in New Testament, then you're bound to wonder if half the things people get out of the Bible really have much to do with what it was originally about anyway. They're often hearing God, but more often through the Spirit than from some fixed meaning in the text. The "read this for the timeless message" banner is often really in practice, "read this for what our tradition believes."
Again, I'm not faulting this. I'm just pointing out what's really important is that we get the "fortress" part of the tradition straight... and it's in the Apostle's Creed.
So let's read the Bible this year, and let's increase our children's knowledge of its content and message! They gave out one year Bible's at the conference. Great! I hope every single youth reads it.
And let's make sure they know where the fortress is too! There's no need for them to have faith crises over some very nice trees in Haggai. And it's really important for them to know that Christ is risen from the dead.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Lectionary for January 1-6
This is really more for me than for anyone else, but I'm trying to "cook" my own lectionary up. I've started a separate blog for any reflections I might have on the daily readings (http://www.twoyearlectionary.blogspot.com).
The basic principles I'm trying to aim at are:
--Through the NT once a year, Gospels and Acts 1+ (some repetition given church seasons)
--Through the OT once in two years
--Through the Psalms once a year + (some repetition in particular church seasons)
--Through the Proverbs once a year
I've decided to start January with John (selections from all four gospels will appear in December), Genesis, and Romans. Even my first try didn't come out quite right.
So this week's readings will be:
1.
Morning: Psalm 1; John 1:1-18
Evening: Genesis 1; Romans 1:1-7; Proverbs 1:1-6
2.
Morning: Psalm 2; John 1:19-34
Evening: Genesis 2; Romans 1:8-17; Prov. 1:7
3.
Morning: Psalm 3; John 1:35-51
Evening: Genesis 3; Romans 1:18-32; Prov. 1:8-14
4.
Morning: Psalm 4; John 2:1-12
Evening: Genesis 4; Romans 2:1-11; Prov. 1:15-19
5.
Morning: Psalm 5:1-6; John 2:13-22
Evening: Genesis 5; Rom. 2:12-16; Prov. 1:20-25
6.
Morning: Psalm 5:7-12; John 2:23-3:21
Evening: Genesis 6; Rom. 2:17-29; Prov. 1:26-30
7.
Morning: Psalm 6; John 3:22-36
Evening: Genesis 7; Rom. 3:1-8; Prov. 1:31-33
The basic principles I'm trying to aim at are:
--Through the NT once a year, Gospels and Acts 1+ (some repetition given church seasons)
--Through the OT once in two years
--Through the Psalms once a year + (some repetition in particular church seasons)
--Through the Proverbs once a year
I've decided to start January with John (selections from all four gospels will appear in December), Genesis, and Romans. Even my first try didn't come out quite right.
So this week's readings will be:
1.
Morning: Psalm 1; John 1:1-18
Evening: Genesis 1; Romans 1:1-7; Proverbs 1:1-6
2.
Morning: Psalm 2; John 1:19-34
Evening: Genesis 2; Romans 1:8-17; Prov. 1:7
3.
Morning: Psalm 3; John 1:35-51
Evening: Genesis 3; Romans 1:18-32; Prov. 1:8-14
4.
Morning: Psalm 4; John 2:1-12
Evening: Genesis 4; Romans 2:1-11; Prov. 1:15-19
5.
Morning: Psalm 5:1-6; John 2:13-22
Evening: Genesis 5; Rom. 2:12-16; Prov. 1:20-25
6.
Morning: Psalm 5:7-12; John 2:23-3:21
Evening: Genesis 6; Rom. 2:17-29; Prov. 1:26-30
7.
Morning: Psalm 6; John 3:22-36
Evening: Genesis 7; Rom. 3:1-8; Prov. 1:31-33
Friday, December 30, 2005
Doug Pagitt at Logos 5
Last night I attended a brief chat session with Doug Pagitt here in Grand Rapids. I guess he would qualify as a leader of the Emergent movement. I think his most recent book is BodyWorship, which seems interesting. It's about different postures you could use in prayer. I think it might be a "worth buying."
I don't think I heard or interacted with him enough to know exactly where he's coming from. I wonder if that's part of the schtick--be suggestive and vague and see what happens? Today I heard a group tried to get him to say that he was a Christian and I think he resisted. It reminded me of Barth refusing to discuss any absolute proof of the historicity of the resurrection. He believed in it, but refused to discuss proofs. Maybe Pagitt was making a similar point? You don't claim to be a Christian; you show it? Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit? Maybe he's not really that clever.
So who knows what he really thinks about anything. But I wanted to mention four "red flags." I put these under the heading of "Things emergents say that they think make them sound intelligent and prophet-like, when in fact it's, yawn, didn't-Reimarus-say-that-in-the-1700's stuff."
1. Pagitt was driving some distinction home between the kingdom of God Jesus preached and the gospel as "Jesus rose from the dead."
Again, what he meant by this, I don't know. I could put the refusal to call himself a Christian into a pot with it and conclude that he believes God is bigger than Christianity, that the kingdom of Christ is just one subset of the bigger kingdom of God. I chuckled when he said something like "not that the 'God from God, light from light' stuff of the creeds isn't important--it was some really good work they hammered out in the second [sic] and third [sic] centuries" (P.S. sic means note the error).
Observations:
a. This is as old as the hill. And of course it's true that Jesus did not primarily preach about himself. But orthodox Christianity sees the gospel that Paul and Acts preached as a more detailed and specific version of what Jesus preached, not as one valid subset among other valid subsets (e.g., Islam?).
You can take the path of the early 1800's Unitarians, the heirs of the Puritans who abandoned the Trinity. You can take the path of early 1900's liberalism and focus on Jesus the social worker, leaving off the dying for sins part. You can just ask WWJD and forget about the resurrection and incarnation part that is what is actually distinctively Christian...
... but at this point you will have to redefine what you mean when you call yourself a Christian. Maybe you will even resist using that word to identify yourself because you are now identifying with the bigger "kingdom of God" that Jesus preached and, perhaps, you think the church perverted.
2. The idea that the church establishment perverted the original teaching of Jesus is as old as the hills. I mean, I can respect you if you really believe this, but don't pretend like you're Yoda or some newly enlightened one--you're a couple hundred years late for the most recent version of this scenario.
Here the red flag words are "religious leaders" and "Constantine created the church establishment." It's the whole Da Vinci schtick. Again, good novel, but not good history. Christians who focus on Jesus' relation to the religious leaders of his day immediately set off my "Okay, this person is going to make a parable of Jesus' relationship to the religious leaders and draw an analogy to the 'true,' Erwin McManus, Barna Christian versus established denominations and churches.
Well there were authoritative bishops as early as 112 when Ignatius was making his way to Rome, so the Constantine theory is off about two hundred years. Indeed, 1 Timothy sets down rules for authoritative leaders in the church. And the parable is not a good one. The best parallel with the religious leaders of Jesus day does not focus on the leader part or the established part but on the spiritual part. Are you so focused on the letter of Scripture that you miss the Spirit? Are you so focused on how important you are that you don't think of others or that you manipulate the means at your disposal to your advantage? Hey, do you reject Jesus as the divinely sent Son of God because of your idea of the kingdom of God? Then you're approaching a good parallel to the religious leaders of Jesus' day.
3. Don't drive a wedge between the social and spiritual ministry of Jesus. I don't know that Pagitt did this. But he completely flubbed any attempt to explain why many conservatives of the early 1900's rejected the idea of a "social gospel." In the early 1900's, you had a lot of educated ministers who stopped believing in things like the divinity of Christ and the resurrection. To retain their Christian name, they changed the Christian message purely into a matter of helping the needy and the disempowered. Sound familiar? Some conservatives wrongly overreacted and completely rejected Jesus' social message (by the way, when many conservative Christians see Democratic values and socialism as anti-Christian, I think we are witnessing a "hang-over" from this earlier era).
We must not do the same thing our forebears by making the gospel purely spiritual. The gospel is for the whole person and indeed the whole world--even for the environment.
But the turn to Jesus' social teachings when you begin to doubt the resurrection bit... that's a hundred years old. It's a both/and, not an either/or.
4. The kingdom of God is "in you." There's the Gnostic twist that makes the kingdom of God an individualistic, privitized religion. Two comments:
a. This verse in Luke is a bit of an oddball among all the kingdom of God sayings in the gospels. The vast majority of them really seem to look for a real, visible kingdom at some point. To focus purely on this verse as the key to the kingdom of God language is to use the exception to make the rule. And by the way, the Jesus Seminar will love you cause that was one of their favorite verses too.
b. I actually think the phrase is better translated "among you." It fits that a modern individualist would translate it as an introspective, personal venture. I think it fits much better with Jesus' world to understand it in corporate terms.
So these are the "red flag" words and phrases.
"You know Jesus' preaching of the kingdom wasn't about his own death and resurrection."
"Jesus rejected the established church of his day. He hated religion too."
"Constantine invented Christianity."
"Jesus preached that the kingdom is inside you, not in a church building."
These are at best, half truths. At worst, they're downright perversions. Beware when you hear "enlightened ones" saying things like these. They may be perfectly innocent comments, well intentioned. Other times they may be subtle prods to push you away from orthodox Christianity.
I do respect the person who is up front in saying, "I'm not a traditional Christian."
But don't wander into something--know where you're drifting!
I don't think I heard or interacted with him enough to know exactly where he's coming from. I wonder if that's part of the schtick--be suggestive and vague and see what happens? Today I heard a group tried to get him to say that he was a Christian and I think he resisted. It reminded me of Barth refusing to discuss any absolute proof of the historicity of the resurrection. He believed in it, but refused to discuss proofs. Maybe Pagitt was making a similar point? You don't claim to be a Christian; you show it? Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit? Maybe he's not really that clever.
So who knows what he really thinks about anything. But I wanted to mention four "red flags." I put these under the heading of "Things emergents say that they think make them sound intelligent and prophet-like, when in fact it's, yawn, didn't-Reimarus-say-that-in-the-1700's stuff."
1. Pagitt was driving some distinction home between the kingdom of God Jesus preached and the gospel as "Jesus rose from the dead."
Again, what he meant by this, I don't know. I could put the refusal to call himself a Christian into a pot with it and conclude that he believes God is bigger than Christianity, that the kingdom of Christ is just one subset of the bigger kingdom of God. I chuckled when he said something like "not that the 'God from God, light from light' stuff of the creeds isn't important--it was some really good work they hammered out in the second [sic] and third [sic] centuries" (P.S. sic means note the error).
Observations:
a. This is as old as the hill. And of course it's true that Jesus did not primarily preach about himself. But orthodox Christianity sees the gospel that Paul and Acts preached as a more detailed and specific version of what Jesus preached, not as one valid subset among other valid subsets (e.g., Islam?).
You can take the path of the early 1800's Unitarians, the heirs of the Puritans who abandoned the Trinity. You can take the path of early 1900's liberalism and focus on Jesus the social worker, leaving off the dying for sins part. You can just ask WWJD and forget about the resurrection and incarnation part that is what is actually distinctively Christian...
... but at this point you will have to redefine what you mean when you call yourself a Christian. Maybe you will even resist using that word to identify yourself because you are now identifying with the bigger "kingdom of God" that Jesus preached and, perhaps, you think the church perverted.
2. The idea that the church establishment perverted the original teaching of Jesus is as old as the hills. I mean, I can respect you if you really believe this, but don't pretend like you're Yoda or some newly enlightened one--you're a couple hundred years late for the most recent version of this scenario.
Here the red flag words are "religious leaders" and "Constantine created the church establishment." It's the whole Da Vinci schtick. Again, good novel, but not good history. Christians who focus on Jesus' relation to the religious leaders of his day immediately set off my "Okay, this person is going to make a parable of Jesus' relationship to the religious leaders and draw an analogy to the 'true,' Erwin McManus, Barna Christian versus established denominations and churches.
Well there were authoritative bishops as early as 112 when Ignatius was making his way to Rome, so the Constantine theory is off about two hundred years. Indeed, 1 Timothy sets down rules for authoritative leaders in the church. And the parable is not a good one. The best parallel with the religious leaders of Jesus day does not focus on the leader part or the established part but on the spiritual part. Are you so focused on the letter of Scripture that you miss the Spirit? Are you so focused on how important you are that you don't think of others or that you manipulate the means at your disposal to your advantage? Hey, do you reject Jesus as the divinely sent Son of God because of your idea of the kingdom of God? Then you're approaching a good parallel to the religious leaders of Jesus' day.
3. Don't drive a wedge between the social and spiritual ministry of Jesus. I don't know that Pagitt did this. But he completely flubbed any attempt to explain why many conservatives of the early 1900's rejected the idea of a "social gospel." In the early 1900's, you had a lot of educated ministers who stopped believing in things like the divinity of Christ and the resurrection. To retain their Christian name, they changed the Christian message purely into a matter of helping the needy and the disempowered. Sound familiar? Some conservatives wrongly overreacted and completely rejected Jesus' social message (by the way, when many conservative Christians see Democratic values and socialism as anti-Christian, I think we are witnessing a "hang-over" from this earlier era).
We must not do the same thing our forebears by making the gospel purely spiritual. The gospel is for the whole person and indeed the whole world--even for the environment.
But the turn to Jesus' social teachings when you begin to doubt the resurrection bit... that's a hundred years old. It's a both/and, not an either/or.
4. The kingdom of God is "in you." There's the Gnostic twist that makes the kingdom of God an individualistic, privitized religion. Two comments:
a. This verse in Luke is a bit of an oddball among all the kingdom of God sayings in the gospels. The vast majority of them really seem to look for a real, visible kingdom at some point. To focus purely on this verse as the key to the kingdom of God language is to use the exception to make the rule. And by the way, the Jesus Seminar will love you cause that was one of their favorite verses too.
b. I actually think the phrase is better translated "among you." It fits that a modern individualist would translate it as an introspective, personal venture. I think it fits much better with Jesus' world to understand it in corporate terms.
So these are the "red flag" words and phrases.
"You know Jesus' preaching of the kingdom wasn't about his own death and resurrection."
"Jesus rejected the established church of his day. He hated religion too."
"Constantine invented Christianity."
"Jesus preached that the kingdom is inside you, not in a church building."
These are at best, half truths. At worst, they're downright perversions. Beware when you hear "enlightened ones" saying things like these. They may be perfectly innocent comments, well intentioned. Other times they may be subtle prods to push you away from orthodox Christianity.
I do respect the person who is up front in saying, "I'm not a traditional Christian."
But don't wander into something--know where you're drifting!
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Messiah 2
No Expectation
As we look through Jewish literature from the latest books of the Jewish Bible/OT to the time of Christ, we find that a significant portion betrays no sense of a coming king. For example, we find no clear expectation of a messiah in any of the so called Apocrypha, books that are in the Roman Catholic but not most Protestant Bibles.<1> Some of their authors may have had such expectations and simply not have brought up the subject. In other cases they may have content with the form of governance they had at the time.
Thus Tobit expects the return of Jewish captives from afar to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of a splendid Jerusalem with a glorious house of God (14:5; cf. 13:10). But in all these predictions nothing is said of a new king for that city. It is of course possible that such a king was part of the deal at the end of the age (14:5). Of course, the Jerusalem of Tobit's day had no king, and this fact alone may be enough to explain why no king is mentioned in its prophecies.<2>
Similarly, Baruch and Sirach give no indication of a coming king. Baruch has high expectations of the return of Israel from all over the world (e.g., 4:37; 5:5-6), but mentions no restored king.<3> Sirach, written about 200BCE, seems perfectly content with its ruling high priests in the absence of a king.<4> Its list of praises understandably focuses on Aaron rather than Moses, because Aaron started the lineage of priests. No doubt because the high priest was the dominant political figure in Jersualem at the time, David receives a scant mention in one verse (45:25) and even that verse quickly returns to speak of Aaron. So we find no mention of a Messiah in either of these books of the Intertestamental Period.
At first we might be a little surprised to find that the books of Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees have no clear conception of a coming king. These books all relate to the Maccabean crisis in which guerrilla fighters of Israel successfully defeated the dominant Syrians until they allowed Israel to keep the laws and practices of the Jewish Bible/OT.<5> On the other hand, it seems likely that these books were all written during the time that the descendants of the Maccabees were in control of Jerusalem. Since Aristobulus actually took the title "king" in 104BCE, Israel in effect had a king at the time. Accordingly, we would not expect to find a mainstream writing of this time expecting a different anointed one to come.<6>
It is also little surprise to find that few Jewish writings from outside Palestine have any clear expectation of a Messianic king. Thus neither the Wisdom of Solomon, 3 nor 4 Maccabees have any real sense of a coming messiah. Most of the Diaspora writings that have survived come from Alexandria in Egypt. Here we can find such strange things as Sibylline Oracle 3 which actually speaks of one of the kings of Egypt in messianic terms, the "King from the Sun."
Probably the most important witness on this topic is none other than Philo of Alexandria, who lived at the same time as Jesus and Paul (ca. 20BCE-50CE). His treatise on Rewards hopes that the nations will come to their senses and realize that Israel has a corner on the truth but believes God will give victory in battle if they refuse (Rewards 79-97). Part of this expectation involves a king (Moses 1.290; Rewards 95).<7> There can be no doubt but that what he has in mind is a human, earthly king. He has no expectation of some heavenly figure to come to earth or for God to become human. Still less does he expect such a king to die on a cross. Quite the opposite, it is possibly the humilation of the Jews during Caligula's reign that sparks some of Philo's rhetoric here.<8>
Messianic expectation is thus something that largely flourished when the Jews or a particular group of Jews were particularly disaffected with the current political state of Israel. For example, we can imagine that most of the high priests and Sadducees of Jerusalem did not particularly look for any Jew to ascend to the throne of Israel. While some Jews no doubt preferred someone from Herod's family to rule over a Roman procurator,<9> it is doubtful that many thought of any Herod as a continuation of David's royal line.
<1> The Roman Catholic Old Testament includes not only expansions of Esther and Daniel (Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Azariah) but seven other books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees.
<2> Here we remember that Tobit is broadly written from the perspective of the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom that took place in 722/21 BCE. But Tobit was actually written in the Persian (539-332BCE) or early Hellenistic Period (ca. third century). Its author thus knows that the rebuild temple of 516BCE would "not be like the former one" (*14:5).
<3> Again, we might simply explain Baruch's failure to mention a restored king from the fact that Baruch knew there would not be one in Israel for the foreseeable future. Although the setting of Baruch is the Babylonian captivity that began in 587/86BCE, Baruch itself was written much later.
<4> E.g., Sirach 50 praises the high priest Simon at the end of a long list of heroes from Israel's past. This Simon is probably Simon II who served around 219-196BCE.
<5> The date of Judith is somewhat debatable, but many if not most would date it to the Maccabean period.
<6> On the other hand, we are not surprised to find such expectation among the disaffected of the time, such as the disempowered sect at the Dead Sea.
<7> For the debate over what precisely Philo had in mind, see Tobin****
<8> I refer here first to the persecution of the Jews in the city of Alexandria in the year 38CE and then the attempt of Caligula to set up a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple, probably in the year 40CE.
<9> Perhaps the "Herodians" of Mark * are such individuals. See J. P. Meier***, JBL...
As we look through Jewish literature from the latest books of the Jewish Bible/OT to the time of Christ, we find that a significant portion betrays no sense of a coming king. For example, we find no clear expectation of a messiah in any of the so called Apocrypha, books that are in the Roman Catholic but not most Protestant Bibles.<1> Some of their authors may have had such expectations and simply not have brought up the subject. In other cases they may have content with the form of governance they had at the time.
Thus Tobit expects the return of Jewish captives from afar to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of a splendid Jerusalem with a glorious house of God (14:5; cf. 13:10). But in all these predictions nothing is said of a new king for that city. It is of course possible that such a king was part of the deal at the end of the age (14:5). Of course, the Jerusalem of Tobit's day had no king, and this fact alone may be enough to explain why no king is mentioned in its prophecies.<2>
Similarly, Baruch and Sirach give no indication of a coming king. Baruch has high expectations of the return of Israel from all over the world (e.g., 4:37; 5:5-6), but mentions no restored king.<3> Sirach, written about 200BCE, seems perfectly content with its ruling high priests in the absence of a king.<4> Its list of praises understandably focuses on Aaron rather than Moses, because Aaron started the lineage of priests. No doubt because the high priest was the dominant political figure in Jersualem at the time, David receives a scant mention in one verse (45:25) and even that verse quickly returns to speak of Aaron. So we find no mention of a Messiah in either of these books of the Intertestamental Period.
At first we might be a little surprised to find that the books of Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees have no clear conception of a coming king. These books all relate to the Maccabean crisis in which guerrilla fighters of Israel successfully defeated the dominant Syrians until they allowed Israel to keep the laws and practices of the Jewish Bible/OT.<5> On the other hand, it seems likely that these books were all written during the time that the descendants of the Maccabees were in control of Jerusalem. Since Aristobulus actually took the title "king" in 104BCE, Israel in effect had a king at the time. Accordingly, we would not expect to find a mainstream writing of this time expecting a different anointed one to come.<6>
It is also little surprise to find that few Jewish writings from outside Palestine have any clear expectation of a Messianic king. Thus neither the Wisdom of Solomon, 3 nor 4 Maccabees have any real sense of a coming messiah. Most of the Diaspora writings that have survived come from Alexandria in Egypt. Here we can find such strange things as Sibylline Oracle 3 which actually speaks of one of the kings of Egypt in messianic terms, the "King from the Sun."
Probably the most important witness on this topic is none other than Philo of Alexandria, who lived at the same time as Jesus and Paul (ca. 20BCE-50CE). His treatise on Rewards hopes that the nations will come to their senses and realize that Israel has a corner on the truth but believes God will give victory in battle if they refuse (Rewards 79-97). Part of this expectation involves a king (Moses 1.290; Rewards 95).<7> There can be no doubt but that what he has in mind is a human, earthly king. He has no expectation of some heavenly figure to come to earth or for God to become human. Still less does he expect such a king to die on a cross. Quite the opposite, it is possibly the humilation of the Jews during Caligula's reign that sparks some of Philo's rhetoric here.<8>
Messianic expectation is thus something that largely flourished when the Jews or a particular group of Jews were particularly disaffected with the current political state of Israel. For example, we can imagine that most of the high priests and Sadducees of Jerusalem did not particularly look for any Jew to ascend to the throne of Israel. While some Jews no doubt preferred someone from Herod's family to rule over a Roman procurator,<9> it is doubtful that many thought of any Herod as a continuation of David's royal line.
<1> The Roman Catholic Old Testament includes not only expansions of Esther and Daniel (Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Azariah) but seven other books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees.
<2> Here we remember that Tobit is broadly written from the perspective of the Assyrian captivity of the northern kingdom that took place in 722/21 BCE. But Tobit was actually written in the Persian (539-332BCE) or early Hellenistic Period (ca. third century). Its author thus knows that the rebuild temple of 516BCE would "not be like the former one" (*14:5).
<3> Again, we might simply explain Baruch's failure to mention a restored king from the fact that Baruch knew there would not be one in Israel for the foreseeable future. Although the setting of Baruch is the Babylonian captivity that began in 587/86BCE, Baruch itself was written much later.
<4> E.g., Sirach 50 praises the high priest Simon at the end of a long list of heroes from Israel's past. This Simon is probably Simon II who served around 219-196BCE.
<5> The date of Judith is somewhat debatable, but many if not most would date it to the Maccabean period.
<6> On the other hand, we are not surprised to find such expectation among the disaffected of the time, such as the disempowered sect at the Dead Sea.
<7> For the debate over what precisely Philo had in mind, see Tobin****
<8> I refer here first to the persecution of the Jews in the city of Alexandria in the year 38CE and then the attempt of Caligula to set up a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple, probably in the year 40CE.
<9> Perhaps the "Herodians" of Mark * are such individuals. See J. P. Meier***, JBL...
Jewish Views of the Messiah 1
Readers of the New Testament often assume that everyone in Jesus' day expected a Messiah to come. And many assume that all Jews had the same basic view of what that Messiah would be like. For example, Matthew 2 presents us with religious leaders who know that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Given the barrage of prophetic verses that the New Testament sees fulfilled in Jesus, it is easy to get the impression that all the Jews in Palestine knew--or at least should have known--exactly what their Messiah was going to be like. And of course, Christians believe that Messiah should have looked just like Jesus.
But here we must remember that the New Testament primarily gives us the early Christian perspective on what the true Messiah should look like. The ideas that the Messiah would come from heaven (John) or that the Messiah would suffer for sins (Mark, Paul) were almost completely unique perspectives in Jesus' day. Indeed, Paul presents the idea of a suffering Messiah as a stumblingblock to the Jews, who were scarcely expecting such a Messiah (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:8).
And we must also remember that the New Testament authors largely interpreted the Jewish Bible (or Old Testament, for Christians) "spiritually." That is, they did not read the words of the Bible with a view to what those words meant originally when they were first written. They read them with a view to what God might be saying to them through through those words in their "true" meaning. Most of the words that Matthew finds fulfilled in the life of Jesus would not have meant the same things to his contemporaries. Most of them are interpretations unique to Matthew among ancient Jewish writers.
The Jewish Bible/Old Testament
In context, the most relevant passages of the Jewish Bible/OT on this topic are those that relate to Israel having a king. The word "Messiah" is the English version of meshiach, the Hebrew word for "anointed." A king is thus an "anointed one," anointed with oil when he becomes king and thus considered approved and empowered by God to rule. The Greek word for Messiah is christos. So "Christ" means the same thing as "Messiah." When Christians refer to "Jesus Christ," they are calling Jesus the Messiah, the anointed king.
Several passages in the Jewish Bible/OT clearly hold that a descendant of King David would continue to rule forever. To be sure, comments like these probably did not have 1000's of years in the future in mind when they were first written. But they are a clear basis for why some Jews at the time of Christ expected God eventually to send them a king. For example, Psalm89:29 says "I will establish his [David's] line forever, and his throne as long as the heavens endure." Whenever the Jews did not perceive themselves to be in power--or did not think the correct individuals were in power--such a time was ripe for some group to look to a coming "anointed one" to restore Israel's national fortunes.
But perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Jews did not always expect such a political figure to arise. And at times groups might vary in what types of individuals they expected God to anoint. Thus the community at the Dead Sea expected God not only to anoint a king, but a true priest as well. The majority of scholars on this topic currently agree that there was no single expectation of what a Messiah might be at the time of Christ. But when Jews did expect one, the dominant picture was that of a human, earthly king who would restore Israel as a nation. Such expectations flow neatly from those parts of the Bible that expect David's descendants to rule Israel forever.
But here we must remember that the New Testament primarily gives us the early Christian perspective on what the true Messiah should look like. The ideas that the Messiah would come from heaven (John) or that the Messiah would suffer for sins (Mark, Paul) were almost completely unique perspectives in Jesus' day. Indeed, Paul presents the idea of a suffering Messiah as a stumblingblock to the Jews, who were scarcely expecting such a Messiah (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:8).
And we must also remember that the New Testament authors largely interpreted the Jewish Bible (or Old Testament, for Christians) "spiritually." That is, they did not read the words of the Bible with a view to what those words meant originally when they were first written. They read them with a view to what God might be saying to them through through those words in their "true" meaning. Most of the words that Matthew finds fulfilled in the life of Jesus would not have meant the same things to his contemporaries. Most of them are interpretations unique to Matthew among ancient Jewish writers.
The Jewish Bible/Old Testament
In context, the most relevant passages of the Jewish Bible/OT on this topic are those that relate to Israel having a king. The word "Messiah" is the English version of meshiach, the Hebrew word for "anointed." A king is thus an "anointed one," anointed with oil when he becomes king and thus considered approved and empowered by God to rule. The Greek word for Messiah is christos. So "Christ" means the same thing as "Messiah." When Christians refer to "Jesus Christ," they are calling Jesus the Messiah, the anointed king.
Several passages in the Jewish Bible/OT clearly hold that a descendant of King David would continue to rule forever. To be sure, comments like these probably did not have 1000's of years in the future in mind when they were first written. But they are a clear basis for why some Jews at the time of Christ expected God eventually to send them a king. For example, Psalm89:29 says "I will establish his [David's] line forever, and his throne as long as the heavens endure." Whenever the Jews did not perceive themselves to be in power--or did not think the correct individuals were in power--such a time was ripe for some group to look to a coming "anointed one" to restore Israel's national fortunes.
But perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Jews did not always expect such a political figure to arise. And at times groups might vary in what types of individuals they expected God to anoint. Thus the community at the Dead Sea expected God not only to anoint a king, but a true priest as well. The majority of scholars on this topic currently agree that there was no single expectation of what a Messiah might be at the time of Christ. But when Jews did expect one, the dominant picture was that of a human, earthly king who would restore Israel as a nation. Such expectations flow neatly from those parts of the Bible that expect David's descendants to rule Israel forever.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Despiser 3: Talking Hermeneutics
Let me start this third and final post by affirming Gary's first three presentations at OWU as intelligent and informed attempts to grapple with the nature and function of Scripture from a largely modernist evangelical perspective. His position is not a stereotypical straw man but is a real position. He acknowledges the incarnational nature of biblical revelation.
He accepts that there are matters to be solved with the traditional affirmation of inerrancy and at least seems to affirm considerations such as 1) the careful definition of exactly what is and is not an error and 2) making distinctions between exactly what the point of a given passage is or is not. He theoretically factors into the equation matters like ancient worldview and expressions not meant to be taken scientifically (e.g., sunrise and sunset). He even allows for interpreting the OT in the light of Christ to some extent and affirms the Christian order of the OT vis-a-vis the Jewish way (thus incidentally favoring the church's order for the books over and against the way they were categorized in Christ's day!!! see Luke 24:44).
At the same time, Gary is extremely conservative in his exercise of these allowances. For example, he stops short of accepting the Septuagint as the Scriptural OT, even though it is the text used by the majority of NT authors (and one of his arguments is that Jesus used it! He thus ironically gives the historical Jesus precedent over the Scriptural text!). He would reject any use of genre to allow for significantly lessened historicity (e.g., in the gospels or Acts). He would reject a combination of sources or process of book development that would result in too much deviation from a "what you see is what you get" behind any biblical text (e.g., the standard Pentateuch or Isaiah development theories). He would reject pseudonymity in the Bible. He also argues strongly that inerrancy has always been part and parcel of the holiness tradition.
As I think about Gary's argument, I can't help but think of Thomas Kuhn and scientific revolutions. Every paradigm has "naughty data" that does not fit as easily with the paradigm. Normal science can spend a good deal of its time trying to modify and "complexify" the basic paradigm to accommodate the dominant paradigm. I see Gary's work as largely reactionary, attempts to plug holes in a leaky ship. His plugins are good, I think. In fact, I think they are so good that they might make a mighty good starting point for a new dominant paradigm.
Those of you who've heard me blather on about hermeneutics will have some sense of what that new paradigm might be. And if I might co-opt a Scripture verse... "which is not a new paradigm, but the paradigm you had from the beginning." Gary seems to be aruging that inerrancy has always been a part of the holiness tradition. I would present Gary's argument in the following way. The holiness tradition has always affirmed the accuracy of the biblical witness, particularly in the face of challenges from Deist, modernist, or naturalist circles. The [traditional] idea of inerrancy is thus in complete harmony with the holiness tradition.
At the same time, he implicitly acknowledges in his comments that it did not appear in the Wesleyan Methodist polity until 1955. He does not mention the Pilgrim Holiness Church, the other half, which did not have this term in its polity. He also implicitly acknowledges that the actual term rose within fundamentalism in response to the challenges of biblical criticism in the latter part of the 19th century. He also implicitly acknowledges (citing none other than our own Steve Lennox) that many late 1800's holiness individuals sought escape from these rational challenges in an experiential focus on the Spirit and entire sanctification.
OK, now I have all the ingredients on the table. Let's cook.
I would argue that there is a slight of hand at work in Gary's presentation in which the word inerrancy takes on slightly different nuances. One the one hand, he is clearly operating primarily with a definition of inerrancy that affirms the historicity of the Bible in the face of questions raised by biblical criticism. He acknowledges that the real rise of this fundmentalist term was after the late 1800's. He acknowledges that most of the late 1800's holiness authors resorted to experientialism rather than intellectualism in reaction. And he acknowledges that the term did not become a part of the Wesleyan tradition until the 1950's, and then only in half of it (not the Pilgrim side).
So I would put the story this way. What we are looking at here is the tension that has arisen as the modern era has thrust a sense of "original meaning" on us. Most Christians throughout the ages, indeed most Christians today, read the Bible primarily in a pre-modern way. The text is read as God's word to us and historical features of the text are only engaged with to flesh out application for us. Hans Frei has argued profoundly that without the rise of modernism, people not only assume the historicity of the text--but the possibility that the stories did not occur doesn't even occur to them. They see themselves as part of the story and the potential distinction between story and history is not made.
Modernism has raised questions of historicity and scientific accuracy about the text. Those who engage with it are changed simply by the raising of the question--the distinction between story and history is made even when a person is defending historicity. And it is true that the Wesleyan tradition, to the extent that it has engaged with such things, has generally taken the fundamentalist side of the argument when the distinction has been made.
But I think Gary implicitly acknowledges that those who have done so have stood on the perpiphery of the holiness movement. The holiness movement itself (and we must remember that it is more the holiness movement than John Wesley that is the forebear of the current Wesleyan church) has historically been more experientially oriented than rationally oriented. We have always had individuals like Gary who were heavily rationalist in orientation. But the bulk of Wesleyans--the people who do most of the living and dying around here--have always been pietists. And they have always been pre-moderns--and thus pre the inerrancy debate in its proper terms. In its history, most Wesleyans have not even engaged the question of whether the Bible is historical. It has not been a part of their engagement with Scripture.
Modernist evangelicalism stands incoherently between two Scriptural paradigms. On the one hand, it recognizes that the original audience of 1 Thessalonians were ancient Thessalonians and not some modern reader. It recognizes that the meaning of a martyros is not a martyr, what the word suggests to us, but a witness, what the word meant to them. It understands that when Psalm 74:13 speaks of God breaking the heads of dragons (KJV, RSV) it was alluding to a mythical creation story of the ancient near east.
Well, that last one will set off the "circuit breakers" of many modernist evangelicals. It's a little too close for comfort. Like Gary, modernist evangelicalism will only "read in context" so far, then it falls back on its pre-modern heritage. To be fair to Gary, he really does try to listen to the text even when it makes him uncomfortable. He even acknowledges in a footnote that Jude may actually have thought 1 Enoch to be Scripture. And I should clarify that I think Psalm 74 is only using the image of the mythical creation stories, not that the author actually believed them (my circuit breakers?).
The pre-modern paradigm is the other Scriptural paradigm. The pre-modern paradigm reads the text as a direct word from God to us. Forget the Thessalonians, or more accurately, the Thessalonians don't even occur to us because we read the words as God's word to us without a second thought. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:10--"Is it for oxen that God is concerned [when he says not to muzzle the ox when its treading the grain] or it is written for our sake." The other option largely doesn't occur to the pre-modernist--Scripture is for us and was written for our sake! Without even thinking about it, we assume that the Bible was written for us rather than the oxen (the original addressees). Check out any prophecy program on TBN for confirmation.
Of course in practice most people read the words of the Bible somewhere on a continuum between the two. Most Bible readers today will have a good deal of awareness of the ancient world. People like Gary and (I hope) myself have quite a large awareness of the ancient context in which the Bible was created. And yet, at the same time, we are all unaware of our glasses and assumptions, blind spots that make the way we read the Bible different from the way they did.
The new paradigm I am suggesting, one that I think is emerging, affirms both ways of reading the text while keeping them distinct.
We can read the original meaning of the Bible as God's word to them, and let the text be fully incarnated into their paradigms and worldviews. Yet we can acknowledge that the Bible as Scripture, as God's word to us, has always taken the words a little out of context in the sense that the pre-modern hermeneutic--and now post-modern because we are doing it consciously--applies the words to us out of context.
I believe that if we are honest with ourselves, we have always read the Bible with certain rules behind the scenes, what I just called "circuit breakers." When we read 1 Peter 3:19-20 about Christ preaching in the Spirit after he died to the spirits of those who sinned in the days of Noah, we immediately sense that this verse is "weird." It doesn't fit our paradigm. Many a modernist scholar will begin to play dodge ball. No, it can't allude to the story in 1 Enoch of angels having sex with human women and being chained until the day of judgment in consequence.
My point is that pre-modern believers and modernist evangelicals both have circuit breakers in terms of what they will or won't let the biblical text actually mean. Much of the time, these circuit breakers are related to orthodoxy and tradition. I fully affirm this orthodoxy, as well as orthopraxy. I am arguing that these are the appropriate circuit breakers when it comes to applying the Bible to what we believe or do.
But not for determining what the original meaning was! What I don't affirm is twisting the original meaning of the Bible to make it fit with this orthodoxy. I see that as setting yourself up for a crisis of faith the more you learn and ponder. Let the original meaning be the original meaning, truth incarnated in a particular time and place. Let Genesis 1:1 picture a pre-creation chaotic formless mess of primordial waters, cause that's what everyone else in the world thought until at least the 1st century BC (cf. 2 Peter 3:5). But then let's read the text Scripturally as well with the consensus of the church in mind. In that sense it wouldn't matter if Paul did not fully understand Christ's pre-existence (although most scholars think he did), because the issue was fully settled in the church.
In that sense we begin every discussion with the Bible. But as I have written previously, it cannot end there because the Bible itself has not reached a final answer on many very important issues (e.g., the relationship between Christ as Son of God and God the Father; the creation of the world--is it out of nothing; is Christ's death the end of the sacrificial system, as Hebrews indicates, but surely James in Acts 21 might question).
With regard to women in ministry, the booklet was not meant to be an academic piece. It was a sermon. I consider the movement to affirm women in every way as a prophetic movement in the church much as the Protestant Reformation was. It is the cutting edge of the Spirit in the world today. It is the working out of the gospel in the church (this aspect of the gospel has actually worked itself out partially in the world before the church, much to our shame). Those who oppose it will be shamed by the Christians of coming generations, much as we now look at the "fundamentalists" of the 1800's who argued pro-slavery. Those who argue for artificial roles for women because of their anatomy are the heirs of those who used the Bible a 100 years ago to argue for slavery as a biblical institution.
Gary himself is pro-women in ministry, so I consider him a person of the Spirit on this issue. I just think his head is getting in the way as he tries to work "what the Spirit inside him is saying" through his own paradigms and worldview. I do consider it a rather large failure of judgment on his part to use this booklet as the "whipping boy" of his hermeneutical argument on a campus that I hear already leans against women in all roles of ministry. I wonder if he left the campus feeling, "Yep, women in ministry is wrong"--even though that's not what he said.
So let the discussion continue...
I believe we know where God is leading the process (for I am far from alone--we are a growing movement in the church). Although I do not at all believe we are wrong on the issue, I believe strongly that God will get the church where it needs to go. I don't think for one minute that our misunderstandings will somehow foil God's plans! God is in control.
He accepts that there are matters to be solved with the traditional affirmation of inerrancy and at least seems to affirm considerations such as 1) the careful definition of exactly what is and is not an error and 2) making distinctions between exactly what the point of a given passage is or is not. He theoretically factors into the equation matters like ancient worldview and expressions not meant to be taken scientifically (e.g., sunrise and sunset). He even allows for interpreting the OT in the light of Christ to some extent and affirms the Christian order of the OT vis-a-vis the Jewish way (thus incidentally favoring the church's order for the books over and against the way they were categorized in Christ's day!!! see Luke 24:44).
At the same time, Gary is extremely conservative in his exercise of these allowances. For example, he stops short of accepting the Septuagint as the Scriptural OT, even though it is the text used by the majority of NT authors (and one of his arguments is that Jesus used it! He thus ironically gives the historical Jesus precedent over the Scriptural text!). He would reject any use of genre to allow for significantly lessened historicity (e.g., in the gospels or Acts). He would reject a combination of sources or process of book development that would result in too much deviation from a "what you see is what you get" behind any biblical text (e.g., the standard Pentateuch or Isaiah development theories). He would reject pseudonymity in the Bible. He also argues strongly that inerrancy has always been part and parcel of the holiness tradition.
As I think about Gary's argument, I can't help but think of Thomas Kuhn and scientific revolutions. Every paradigm has "naughty data" that does not fit as easily with the paradigm. Normal science can spend a good deal of its time trying to modify and "complexify" the basic paradigm to accommodate the dominant paradigm. I see Gary's work as largely reactionary, attempts to plug holes in a leaky ship. His plugins are good, I think. In fact, I think they are so good that they might make a mighty good starting point for a new dominant paradigm.
Those of you who've heard me blather on about hermeneutics will have some sense of what that new paradigm might be. And if I might co-opt a Scripture verse... "which is not a new paradigm, but the paradigm you had from the beginning." Gary seems to be aruging that inerrancy has always been a part of the holiness tradition. I would present Gary's argument in the following way. The holiness tradition has always affirmed the accuracy of the biblical witness, particularly in the face of challenges from Deist, modernist, or naturalist circles. The [traditional] idea of inerrancy is thus in complete harmony with the holiness tradition.
At the same time, he implicitly acknowledges in his comments that it did not appear in the Wesleyan Methodist polity until 1955. He does not mention the Pilgrim Holiness Church, the other half, which did not have this term in its polity. He also implicitly acknowledges that the actual term rose within fundamentalism in response to the challenges of biblical criticism in the latter part of the 19th century. He also implicitly acknowledges (citing none other than our own Steve Lennox) that many late 1800's holiness individuals sought escape from these rational challenges in an experiential focus on the Spirit and entire sanctification.
OK, now I have all the ingredients on the table. Let's cook.
I would argue that there is a slight of hand at work in Gary's presentation in which the word inerrancy takes on slightly different nuances. One the one hand, he is clearly operating primarily with a definition of inerrancy that affirms the historicity of the Bible in the face of questions raised by biblical criticism. He acknowledges that the real rise of this fundmentalist term was after the late 1800's. He acknowledges that most of the late 1800's holiness authors resorted to experientialism rather than intellectualism in reaction. And he acknowledges that the term did not become a part of the Wesleyan tradition until the 1950's, and then only in half of it (not the Pilgrim side).
So I would put the story this way. What we are looking at here is the tension that has arisen as the modern era has thrust a sense of "original meaning" on us. Most Christians throughout the ages, indeed most Christians today, read the Bible primarily in a pre-modern way. The text is read as God's word to us and historical features of the text are only engaged with to flesh out application for us. Hans Frei has argued profoundly that without the rise of modernism, people not only assume the historicity of the text--but the possibility that the stories did not occur doesn't even occur to them. They see themselves as part of the story and the potential distinction between story and history is not made.
Modernism has raised questions of historicity and scientific accuracy about the text. Those who engage with it are changed simply by the raising of the question--the distinction between story and history is made even when a person is defending historicity. And it is true that the Wesleyan tradition, to the extent that it has engaged with such things, has generally taken the fundamentalist side of the argument when the distinction has been made.
But I think Gary implicitly acknowledges that those who have done so have stood on the perpiphery of the holiness movement. The holiness movement itself (and we must remember that it is more the holiness movement than John Wesley that is the forebear of the current Wesleyan church) has historically been more experientially oriented than rationally oriented. We have always had individuals like Gary who were heavily rationalist in orientation. But the bulk of Wesleyans--the people who do most of the living and dying around here--have always been pietists. And they have always been pre-moderns--and thus pre the inerrancy debate in its proper terms. In its history, most Wesleyans have not even engaged the question of whether the Bible is historical. It has not been a part of their engagement with Scripture.
Modernist evangelicalism stands incoherently between two Scriptural paradigms. On the one hand, it recognizes that the original audience of 1 Thessalonians were ancient Thessalonians and not some modern reader. It recognizes that the meaning of a martyros is not a martyr, what the word suggests to us, but a witness, what the word meant to them. It understands that when Psalm 74:13 speaks of God breaking the heads of dragons (KJV, RSV) it was alluding to a mythical creation story of the ancient near east.
Well, that last one will set off the "circuit breakers" of many modernist evangelicals. It's a little too close for comfort. Like Gary, modernist evangelicalism will only "read in context" so far, then it falls back on its pre-modern heritage. To be fair to Gary, he really does try to listen to the text even when it makes him uncomfortable. He even acknowledges in a footnote that Jude may actually have thought 1 Enoch to be Scripture. And I should clarify that I think Psalm 74 is only using the image of the mythical creation stories, not that the author actually believed them (my circuit breakers?).
The pre-modern paradigm is the other Scriptural paradigm. The pre-modern paradigm reads the text as a direct word from God to us. Forget the Thessalonians, or more accurately, the Thessalonians don't even occur to us because we read the words as God's word to us without a second thought. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:10--"Is it for oxen that God is concerned [when he says not to muzzle the ox when its treading the grain] or it is written for our sake." The other option largely doesn't occur to the pre-modernist--Scripture is for us and was written for our sake! Without even thinking about it, we assume that the Bible was written for us rather than the oxen (the original addressees). Check out any prophecy program on TBN for confirmation.
Of course in practice most people read the words of the Bible somewhere on a continuum between the two. Most Bible readers today will have a good deal of awareness of the ancient world. People like Gary and (I hope) myself have quite a large awareness of the ancient context in which the Bible was created. And yet, at the same time, we are all unaware of our glasses and assumptions, blind spots that make the way we read the Bible different from the way they did.
The new paradigm I am suggesting, one that I think is emerging, affirms both ways of reading the text while keeping them distinct.
We can read the original meaning of the Bible as God's word to them, and let the text be fully incarnated into their paradigms and worldviews. Yet we can acknowledge that the Bible as Scripture, as God's word to us, has always taken the words a little out of context in the sense that the pre-modern hermeneutic--and now post-modern because we are doing it consciously--applies the words to us out of context.
I believe that if we are honest with ourselves, we have always read the Bible with certain rules behind the scenes, what I just called "circuit breakers." When we read 1 Peter 3:19-20 about Christ preaching in the Spirit after he died to the spirits of those who sinned in the days of Noah, we immediately sense that this verse is "weird." It doesn't fit our paradigm. Many a modernist scholar will begin to play dodge ball. No, it can't allude to the story in 1 Enoch of angels having sex with human women and being chained until the day of judgment in consequence.
My point is that pre-modern believers and modernist evangelicals both have circuit breakers in terms of what they will or won't let the biblical text actually mean. Much of the time, these circuit breakers are related to orthodoxy and tradition. I fully affirm this orthodoxy, as well as orthopraxy. I am arguing that these are the appropriate circuit breakers when it comes to applying the Bible to what we believe or do.
But not for determining what the original meaning was! What I don't affirm is twisting the original meaning of the Bible to make it fit with this orthodoxy. I see that as setting yourself up for a crisis of faith the more you learn and ponder. Let the original meaning be the original meaning, truth incarnated in a particular time and place. Let Genesis 1:1 picture a pre-creation chaotic formless mess of primordial waters, cause that's what everyone else in the world thought until at least the 1st century BC (cf. 2 Peter 3:5). But then let's read the text Scripturally as well with the consensus of the church in mind. In that sense it wouldn't matter if Paul did not fully understand Christ's pre-existence (although most scholars think he did), because the issue was fully settled in the church.
In that sense we begin every discussion with the Bible. But as I have written previously, it cannot end there because the Bible itself has not reached a final answer on many very important issues (e.g., the relationship between Christ as Son of God and God the Father; the creation of the world--is it out of nothing; is Christ's death the end of the sacrificial system, as Hebrews indicates, but surely James in Acts 21 might question).
With regard to women in ministry, the booklet was not meant to be an academic piece. It was a sermon. I consider the movement to affirm women in every way as a prophetic movement in the church much as the Protestant Reformation was. It is the cutting edge of the Spirit in the world today. It is the working out of the gospel in the church (this aspect of the gospel has actually worked itself out partially in the world before the church, much to our shame). Those who oppose it will be shamed by the Christians of coming generations, much as we now look at the "fundamentalists" of the 1800's who argued pro-slavery. Those who argue for artificial roles for women because of their anatomy are the heirs of those who used the Bible a 100 years ago to argue for slavery as a biblical institution.
Gary himself is pro-women in ministry, so I consider him a person of the Spirit on this issue. I just think his head is getting in the way as he tries to work "what the Spirit inside him is saying" through his own paradigms and worldview. I do consider it a rather large failure of judgment on his part to use this booklet as the "whipping boy" of his hermeneutical argument on a campus that I hear already leans against women in all roles of ministry. I wonder if he left the campus feeling, "Yep, women in ministry is wrong"--even though that's not what he said.
So let the discussion continue...
I believe we know where God is leading the process (for I am far from alone--we are a growing movement in the church). Although I do not at all believe we are wrong on the issue, I believe strongly that God will get the church where it needs to go. I don't think for one minute that our misunderstandings will somehow foil God's plans! God is in control.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Cultured Despiser 2: Relativizing the Text
Gary identified four errors with the thought of my booklet on women in ministry:
1. Failing to interpret Galatians 3:28 in its immediate context.
2. Failing to interpret it in the light of the broader Pauline context.
3. Drawing sweeping conclusions from very small data.
4. Relativizing clear NT teaching as merely first century culture.
I partially addressed 1, 2, and 3 in my previous post. With regard to number 3, connecting the wording of Galatians 3:28 with Genesis 1:27, I made my position clear. I think it is a plausible and arguable connection but admittedly without sufficient evidence to conclude beyond doubt. But I suggested that it is at least as likely as a reading that sees no connection between the two.
With regard to the broader Pauline context, I indicated that Gary had actually misunderstood my position somewhat. I do not believe that Paul applied Galatians 3:28 toward some abolition of existing social structures. However, I do strongly affirm that sonship for Paul had a strong eschatological element. By seeing no distinction between male and female in terms of being a part of the kingdom, Paul sets up certain principles that are very relevant to the social structures of this world, even if Paul did not apply them fully to his world. These are hermeneutical issues well beyond questions of Paul's original meaning, and I will address them in my final post.
That leaves this post to discuss the charge of relativizing the text. Here I want to turn a weakness into a strength--I think that the entire Bible was relevant to its world and that the overwhelming majority of its meaning was originally understood relative to that world. Even prophecies were almost always (in their "near" meaning) relative to current circumstances. In that sense, every word of the Bible in its original meaning was relative to its world. In terms of original meaning, scarcely a word of the Bible was written to anyone alive today (to press the paradigmatic nature of our reading of Scripture, even John 17:20 likely referred originally to the Johannine community that the Gospel of John addressed).
But, when I say these things, I am not saying it is irrelevant to us! Not at all! Both in its original meaning and as the living Word, the Bible is for us and speaks to us. We have two choices. First, we can discern its meaning for us indirectly, by reading its words in context and applying them to today with integrity by taking the differences between our worlds genuinely into account. Or we can apply them directly to ourselves today by taking them out of context as the Spirit or the Church has and continues to dictate. I have thought about these issues for over a decade and cannot see any other valid option outside these two.
One of my main critiques of modernist evangelicalism is that it is intelligent and informed enough to realize that the Bible was written two thousand years ago and in quite different historical and social consequences. Yet it is still pre-modern enough to want to apply the words directly to today. The classic pre-modernist reads the words of the Bible out of context and applies the meaning directly to today. The classic modernist evangelical is incoherent in that he (and I use the masculine pronoun with a smile) knows in principle how to read the words of the Bible in context, but still wants to apply the words directly to today.
The after-modernist evangelical makes the distinction and considers both paths potentially valid, although separate ways of applying the text: 1) the original meaning as God's word to varied ancient situations within their paradigms and worldviews--thus indirectly applicable to us as we connect the worlds; 2) out of context readings of these words as the Spirit or the Church applies them. These latter readings need not be vastly out of sync with the original ones, but they can be. I'm getting ahead of myself. I will provide the reasoning in the next post for why these options are the only valid ones.
Now back to my "patent non-sense." The women in ministry book points out that Aristotle, some four hundred years before Paul, held that the husband was the head of the wife. I claimed that Paul was "talking like any non-Christian" when he said that the husband was the head of the wife. Let me put it more academically: there was nothing uniquely Christian in Paul's world to claim that a husband should be the head of his wife. Since Aristotle says this--husband...head...of wife--I don't see how this point is debatable. Paul says nothing uniquely Christian in the claim itself that the husband is the head of the wife.
But Gary takes this comment to a different place with a slight jump in logic. He presumes that I am claiming that Paul is saying something non-Christian. Of course this is a jump in logic that is not a fair representation of what I said. To say that Paul is not saying something uniquely Christian is not to say that he is saying something unChristian.
I would agree with what he is thinking, namely, that Paul's spin on this common idea is "thoroughly Christian." Ephesians presents the relationship against the backdrop of Christ's relationship with the church. That's a massive upgrade to Aristotle!
But it doesn't change the fact that Paul did not come up with the basic relational structure. Would Gary suggest that God had therefore made clear to the ancient world and humanity throughout the ages--by natural revelation?--that husbands should be heads of wives? Would he claim that this is a truth intrinsic to the creation or directly revealed to Aristotle? The Greeks had the idea long before Paul. Did God reveal it completely independently to Paul, and it is just a coincidence that this was commonly said in the ancient world? If you'd have told Paul that Aristotle had said this years before he'd respond: "Wow, imagine that. God just revealed that to me too and I had no idea"?
Or would Gary say that God started with where Paul was at in his ancient context and sanctified that paradigm with specific Christian content? That is, of course, what I am saying, and it seems to me the only sensical conclusion. God took an idea Paul had from his world--that husbands are normally the heads of their wives--and steered this understanding in a specifically Christian direction.
But this raises the question--is the headship of the husband part of the incarnated revelation or the clothing in which the revelation comes (Gary used the word incarnational in his presentations, but I imagine he would be hesitant to apply it in this way). In my next post, I will show that we cannot reject the question. Like it or not, God revealed the truth of the Bible through the paradigms and worldviews of the original authors. This forces the question on us when we begin to reflect maturely on matters of hermeneutics.
By the way, I want to clarify that I really believe in common sense leadership in the home of today. If the husband is more gifted at a particular point in time on a particular issue to take leadership, by all means let him lead. If on another occasion the woman is more gifted on a particular issue, it at least seems stupid not to let her lead. God is not stupid. There is perhaps a time when we say, "It doesn't make sense, so it must just be a test of our obedience." I'm not convinced at all that this is such a time.
If a woman has a pilot's license, the pilot of our little plane has gone into a coma, I have no piloting experience whatsoever, and the plane's going to crash... should I say, "Step aside, ma'am. I'll handle this because I have male genitalia." That's how stupid we Christians appear sometimes. I personally believe that if the Dobsonians are right on the headship issue, then this is an issue requiring Kierkegaardian blind faith, because it is irrational. I believe it is unchristlike and unspiritual.
Further, I would argue that even Paul's world had room for what I would call the "deviant woman." Even Aristotle acknowledges that there are occasionally women who are unnaturally suited to command. The command for the husband to head the home in Aristotle's mind was based on the premise that men are simply the naturally gifted ones to lead and women aren't.
Similarly, I believe the absolutist position of so many conservative Christians today--a woman can never head the home--is a misinterpretation of the original scope of Paul's comments even in their original meaning. I have little serious doubt but that Paul understood the phrase "the husband is the head of the wife" to apply to most homes. But there was always room for the "deviant" like Deborah or Huldah, etc...
Well, this is long enough. My final post will address a very important question that Gary raises: "who gives me the privilege of identifying part of its [the Bible's] teaching as non-Christian." I reject the non-Christian part of this question. I believe Paul's comments were fully Christian for his context. Let me reword the question: "On what authority might we say that a portion of Scripture was appropriate for "that time," but not God's perfect will for "our time." This is an incredibly important question!! In anticipation, note that I've changed the question from the typically modernist Protestant "I" to the more appropriate "we."
Next post...
1. Failing to interpret Galatians 3:28 in its immediate context.
2. Failing to interpret it in the light of the broader Pauline context.
3. Drawing sweeping conclusions from very small data.
4. Relativizing clear NT teaching as merely first century culture.
I partially addressed 1, 2, and 3 in my previous post. With regard to number 3, connecting the wording of Galatians 3:28 with Genesis 1:27, I made my position clear. I think it is a plausible and arguable connection but admittedly without sufficient evidence to conclude beyond doubt. But I suggested that it is at least as likely as a reading that sees no connection between the two.
With regard to the broader Pauline context, I indicated that Gary had actually misunderstood my position somewhat. I do not believe that Paul applied Galatians 3:28 toward some abolition of existing social structures. However, I do strongly affirm that sonship for Paul had a strong eschatological element. By seeing no distinction between male and female in terms of being a part of the kingdom, Paul sets up certain principles that are very relevant to the social structures of this world, even if Paul did not apply them fully to his world. These are hermeneutical issues well beyond questions of Paul's original meaning, and I will address them in my final post.
That leaves this post to discuss the charge of relativizing the text. Here I want to turn a weakness into a strength--I think that the entire Bible was relevant to its world and that the overwhelming majority of its meaning was originally understood relative to that world. Even prophecies were almost always (in their "near" meaning) relative to current circumstances. In that sense, every word of the Bible in its original meaning was relative to its world. In terms of original meaning, scarcely a word of the Bible was written to anyone alive today (to press the paradigmatic nature of our reading of Scripture, even John 17:20 likely referred originally to the Johannine community that the Gospel of John addressed).
But, when I say these things, I am not saying it is irrelevant to us! Not at all! Both in its original meaning and as the living Word, the Bible is for us and speaks to us. We have two choices. First, we can discern its meaning for us indirectly, by reading its words in context and applying them to today with integrity by taking the differences between our worlds genuinely into account. Or we can apply them directly to ourselves today by taking them out of context as the Spirit or the Church has and continues to dictate. I have thought about these issues for over a decade and cannot see any other valid option outside these two.
One of my main critiques of modernist evangelicalism is that it is intelligent and informed enough to realize that the Bible was written two thousand years ago and in quite different historical and social consequences. Yet it is still pre-modern enough to want to apply the words directly to today. The classic pre-modernist reads the words of the Bible out of context and applies the meaning directly to today. The classic modernist evangelical is incoherent in that he (and I use the masculine pronoun with a smile) knows in principle how to read the words of the Bible in context, but still wants to apply the words directly to today.
The after-modernist evangelical makes the distinction and considers both paths potentially valid, although separate ways of applying the text: 1) the original meaning as God's word to varied ancient situations within their paradigms and worldviews--thus indirectly applicable to us as we connect the worlds; 2) out of context readings of these words as the Spirit or the Church applies them. These latter readings need not be vastly out of sync with the original ones, but they can be. I'm getting ahead of myself. I will provide the reasoning in the next post for why these options are the only valid ones.
Now back to my "patent non-sense." The women in ministry book points out that Aristotle, some four hundred years before Paul, held that the husband was the head of the wife. I claimed that Paul was "talking like any non-Christian" when he said that the husband was the head of the wife. Let me put it more academically: there was nothing uniquely Christian in Paul's world to claim that a husband should be the head of his wife. Since Aristotle says this--husband...head...of wife--I don't see how this point is debatable. Paul says nothing uniquely Christian in the claim itself that the husband is the head of the wife.
But Gary takes this comment to a different place with a slight jump in logic. He presumes that I am claiming that Paul is saying something non-Christian. Of course this is a jump in logic that is not a fair representation of what I said. To say that Paul is not saying something uniquely Christian is not to say that he is saying something unChristian.
I would agree with what he is thinking, namely, that Paul's spin on this common idea is "thoroughly Christian." Ephesians presents the relationship against the backdrop of Christ's relationship with the church. That's a massive upgrade to Aristotle!
But it doesn't change the fact that Paul did not come up with the basic relational structure. Would Gary suggest that God had therefore made clear to the ancient world and humanity throughout the ages--by natural revelation?--that husbands should be heads of wives? Would he claim that this is a truth intrinsic to the creation or directly revealed to Aristotle? The Greeks had the idea long before Paul. Did God reveal it completely independently to Paul, and it is just a coincidence that this was commonly said in the ancient world? If you'd have told Paul that Aristotle had said this years before he'd respond: "Wow, imagine that. God just revealed that to me too and I had no idea"?
Or would Gary say that God started with where Paul was at in his ancient context and sanctified that paradigm with specific Christian content? That is, of course, what I am saying, and it seems to me the only sensical conclusion. God took an idea Paul had from his world--that husbands are normally the heads of their wives--and steered this understanding in a specifically Christian direction.
But this raises the question--is the headship of the husband part of the incarnated revelation or the clothing in which the revelation comes (Gary used the word incarnational in his presentations, but I imagine he would be hesitant to apply it in this way). In my next post, I will show that we cannot reject the question. Like it or not, God revealed the truth of the Bible through the paradigms and worldviews of the original authors. This forces the question on us when we begin to reflect maturely on matters of hermeneutics.
By the way, I want to clarify that I really believe in common sense leadership in the home of today. If the husband is more gifted at a particular point in time on a particular issue to take leadership, by all means let him lead. If on another occasion the woman is more gifted on a particular issue, it at least seems stupid not to let her lead. God is not stupid. There is perhaps a time when we say, "It doesn't make sense, so it must just be a test of our obedience." I'm not convinced at all that this is such a time.
If a woman has a pilot's license, the pilot of our little plane has gone into a coma, I have no piloting experience whatsoever, and the plane's going to crash... should I say, "Step aside, ma'am. I'll handle this because I have male genitalia." That's how stupid we Christians appear sometimes. I personally believe that if the Dobsonians are right on the headship issue, then this is an issue requiring Kierkegaardian blind faith, because it is irrational. I believe it is unchristlike and unspiritual.
Further, I would argue that even Paul's world had room for what I would call the "deviant woman." Even Aristotle acknowledges that there are occasionally women who are unnaturally suited to command. The command for the husband to head the home in Aristotle's mind was based on the premise that men are simply the naturally gifted ones to lead and women aren't.
Similarly, I believe the absolutist position of so many conservative Christians today--a woman can never head the home--is a misinterpretation of the original scope of Paul's comments even in their original meaning. I have little serious doubt but that Paul understood the phrase "the husband is the head of the wife" to apply to most homes. But there was always room for the "deviant" like Deborah or Huldah, etc...
Well, this is long enough. My final post will address a very important question that Gary raises: "who gives me the privilege of identifying part of its [the Bible's] teaching as non-Christian." I reject the non-Christian part of this question. I believe Paul's comments were fully Christian for his context. Let me reword the question: "On what authority might we say that a portion of Scripture was appropriate for "that time," but not God's perfect will for "our time." This is an incredibly important question!! In anticipation, note that I've changed the question from the typically modernist Protestant "I" to the more appropriate "we."
Next post...
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Lectionary Bible: Catching Up with Advent
Week 2 (December 8-14)
Sunday: Isaiah 5:1-7; 2 Peter 3:11-18; Luke 7:28-35; Psalm 110
Monday: Isaiah 5:8-12; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11; Luke 21:20-28
Tuesday: Isaiah 5:13-25; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-28; Luke 21:29-32
Wednesday: Isaiah 6:1-13; 2 Thessalonians 1:1-12; John 7:53-8:11; Psalm 132
Thursday: Isaiah 7:1-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Luke 22:1-13
Friday: Isaiah 7:10-25; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-3:5; Luke 22:14-30
Saturday: Isaiah 8:1-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-18; Luke 22:31-38; Psalm 2
Week 3 (December 15-21):
Sunday: Isaiah 13:6-13; Hebrews 12:18-29; John 3:22-30; Psalm 45
Monday: Isaiah 8:16-9:1; 2 Peter 1:1-11; Luke 22:39-53
Tuesday: Isaiah 9:1-7; 2 Peter 1:12-21; Luke 22:54-69
Wednesday: Isaiah 9:8-17; 2 Peter 2:1-10a; Mark 1:1-8; Psalm 89
Thursday: Isaiah 9:18-10:4; 2 Peter 2:10b-16; Matt. 3:1-12
Friday: Isaiah 10:5-19; 2 Peter 2:17-22; Matt. 11:2-15
Saturday: Isaiah 10:20-27; Jude; Luke 3:1-9; Psalm 110
Sunday: Isaiah 5:1-7; 2 Peter 3:11-18; Luke 7:28-35; Psalm 110
Monday: Isaiah 5:8-12; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11; Luke 21:20-28
Tuesday: Isaiah 5:13-25; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-28; Luke 21:29-32
Wednesday: Isaiah 6:1-13; 2 Thessalonians 1:1-12; John 7:53-8:11; Psalm 132
Thursday: Isaiah 7:1-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Luke 22:1-13
Friday: Isaiah 7:10-25; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-3:5; Luke 22:14-30
Saturday: Isaiah 8:1-15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-18; Luke 22:31-38; Psalm 2
Week 3 (December 15-21):
Sunday: Isaiah 13:6-13; Hebrews 12:18-29; John 3:22-30; Psalm 45
Monday: Isaiah 8:16-9:1; 2 Peter 1:1-11; Luke 22:39-53
Tuesday: Isaiah 9:1-7; 2 Peter 1:12-21; Luke 22:54-69
Wednesday: Isaiah 9:8-17; 2 Peter 2:1-10a; Mark 1:1-8; Psalm 89
Thursday: Isaiah 9:18-10:4; 2 Peter 2:10b-16; Matt. 3:1-12
Friday: Isaiah 10:5-19; 2 Peter 2:17-22; Matt. 11:2-15
Saturday: Isaiah 10:20-27; Jude; Luke 3:1-9; Psalm 110
The Lectionary Bible
Another idea to tuck away for eternity. One year Bibles are great ideas, but I have two suggestions:
1. It's an aweful lot to read every day. It's a real challenge--great thing, very difficult. Even my Mom and Dad often find themselves doing catch up, and they're seriously retired.
2. Because the readings are simply put in order--a little Genesis, a little Matthew, a psalm and proverb--the readings don't necessary fit together.
Suggestion: the Lectionary Bible, a two year read through the Bible where the readings are arranged in relation to the Christian calendar and thus have a topical dimension. I've heard there are lectionary devotionals. Could incorporate something of that sort as well.
Advent
The lectionary Bible certainly begins with the first Sunday of Advent. Not sure if it should be linked to a specific starting date--not preferable, but perhaps practically important. Maybe have the possibility of both, listing readings primarily by the Christian week but perhaps offering a starting date of December 1 for those who want to follow a concrete date.
So I'm a little behind (21 days in theory).
Here are the BCP readings for the first week of Advent, I'm assigning Dec. 1-7:
Sunday: Isaiah 1:1-9; 2 Peter 3:1-10; Matt. 25:1-13; Psalm 2
Monday: Isaiah 1:10-20; 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10; Luke 20:1-8;
Tuesday: Isaiah 1:21-31; 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Luke 20:9-18;
Wednesday: Isaiah 2:1-11; 1 Thessalonians 2:13-20; Luke 20:19-26; Psalm 45
Thursday: Isaiah 2:12-22; 1 Thessalonians 3:1-13; Luke 20:27-40
Friday: Isaiah 3:8-15; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12; Luke 20:41-21:4
Saturday: Isaiah 4:2-6; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Luke 21:5-19; Psalm 89
1. It's an aweful lot to read every day. It's a real challenge--great thing, very difficult. Even my Mom and Dad often find themselves doing catch up, and they're seriously retired.
2. Because the readings are simply put in order--a little Genesis, a little Matthew, a psalm and proverb--the readings don't necessary fit together.
Suggestion: the Lectionary Bible, a two year read through the Bible where the readings are arranged in relation to the Christian calendar and thus have a topical dimension. I've heard there are lectionary devotionals. Could incorporate something of that sort as well.
Advent
The lectionary Bible certainly begins with the first Sunday of Advent. Not sure if it should be linked to a specific starting date--not preferable, but perhaps practically important. Maybe have the possibility of both, listing readings primarily by the Christian week but perhaps offering a starting date of December 1 for those who want to follow a concrete date.
So I'm a little behind (21 days in theory).
Here are the BCP readings for the first week of Advent, I'm assigning Dec. 1-7:
Sunday: Isaiah 1:1-9; 2 Peter 3:1-10; Matt. 25:1-13; Psalm 2
Monday: Isaiah 1:10-20; 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10; Luke 20:1-8;
Tuesday: Isaiah 1:21-31; 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Luke 20:9-18;
Wednesday: Isaiah 2:1-11; 1 Thessalonians 2:13-20; Luke 20:19-26; Psalm 45
Thursday: Isaiah 2:12-22; 1 Thessalonians 3:1-13; Luke 20:27-40
Friday: Isaiah 3:8-15; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12; Luke 20:41-21:4
Saturday: Isaiah 4:2-6; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Luke 21:5-19; Psalm 89
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
