Wednesday, August 19, 2009
What they didn't learn in seminary
I was sent this link today on what various people didn't learn in seminary. I will resist bragging on a newly formed seminary I've heard of...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Jamie Smith's the Bomb...
There's a Christianity Today article today on James K. A. Smith's new book, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Culture Formation. We had Smith on campus two years ago while he was working on the book. He swears that he is thoroughly Reformed in theology (he teaches at Calvin College), but he was preaching to the Wesleyan-Arminian choir. Keith Drury said, "If Wesley was a hair's breadth from Calvin, this guy shows how Calvin can be a hair's breadth from Wesley!"
The book operates with several distinctives that are very natural for Wesley: heart right with God and neighbor first, then faith seeking understanding. It is Smith's taking on of the postmodern critique and the absolute necessity of faith in knowledge that brings him to this basic destination, his "radical orthodoxy." Thus he claims that education is more about formation than information. Right on target!
Several of us have avoided the word "worldview" for a while now. Not that we disagree that there is such a thing as a Christian worldview. It's just that, like Smith's book, we recognize that most of what passes for this name is full of all sorts of smuggled in cultural and sub-cultural assumptions that bear closer scrutiny. Given the current way the word is used, some of us tend to avoid it for now.
So if I complained about a CT article last week, I'll praise one this week...
P.S. Some of us got together and hammered out what we thought were the distinctives of a truly Wesleyan educational institution's values. Here's what we came up with:
___________
The spirit and content of Wesleyan values are an expression of historic Christian faith, rooted in the Bible, proclaimed by the church and lived out in the world. The following values are emphasized in the Wesleyan tradition.
Faith First—Right relationship with God is more important than having “it all figured out.” While reason, education and scholarship are important they follow and serve one’s relationship with Christ.
Personal Transformation—Christian conversion and becoming more like Christ is central to a Wesleyan way of thinking, learning, and living. We are optimistic about the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives.
Global Transformation—Wesleyans believe God’s will can be done on earth and that we can change the world to be more like the Kingdom of God.
Others above Self—Wesleyans value the community beyond the individual. While individual pursuits and personal faith are vital they find their fullest expression through life in Christian community.
Generous Spirit—Wesleyans are welcoming to those who disagree. Loving hospitality should be expressed to all.
The book operates with several distinctives that are very natural for Wesley: heart right with God and neighbor first, then faith seeking understanding. It is Smith's taking on of the postmodern critique and the absolute necessity of faith in knowledge that brings him to this basic destination, his "radical orthodoxy." Thus he claims that education is more about formation than information. Right on target!
Several of us have avoided the word "worldview" for a while now. Not that we disagree that there is such a thing as a Christian worldview. It's just that, like Smith's book, we recognize that most of what passes for this name is full of all sorts of smuggled in cultural and sub-cultural assumptions that bear closer scrutiny. Given the current way the word is used, some of us tend to avoid it for now.
So if I complained about a CT article last week, I'll praise one this week...
P.S. Some of us got together and hammered out what we thought were the distinctives of a truly Wesleyan educational institution's values. Here's what we came up with:
___________
The spirit and content of Wesleyan values are an expression of historic Christian faith, rooted in the Bible, proclaimed by the church and lived out in the world. The following values are emphasized in the Wesleyan tradition.
Faith First—Right relationship with God is more important than having “it all figured out.” While reason, education and scholarship are important they follow and serve one’s relationship with Christ.
Personal Transformation—Christian conversion and becoming more like Christ is central to a Wesleyan way of thinking, learning, and living. We are optimistic about the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives.
Global Transformation—Wesleyans believe God’s will can be done on earth and that we can change the world to be more like the Kingdom of God.
Others above Self—Wesleyans value the community beyond the individual. While individual pursuits and personal faith are vital they find their fullest expression through life in Christian community.
Generous Spirit—Wesleyans are welcoming to those who disagree. Loving hospitality should be expressed to all.
Blackboard's not so bad...
I've ranted in the past here about Blackboard. Now I'm heavy into setting up seminary courses around it. Two things have made it turn out well.
1. upgrades--less clicking... we also have the community add on now that allows people to communicate cross cohort.
2. The fact that at some point we had the brainstorm not to set it up the way they do.
For the life of me I can't figure out what the logic is in their default set up. You have to go to one button to see your assignments for the week, then another button to do your discussions for the week, then another button to submit things for the week. What nimskull came up with that!!
We have it set up with one button per week. Under that button is the assignments document for the week, the discussions for the week, and the submissions for the week. Not rocket science but a massively easier set up for everyone. Who were these Blackboard designers, strange aliens from Clickland?
Many public thanks to our Information Technology people: Mike Robinette, Mark Alexander, and especially Dave Leitzel (also to our web guru Lorne Oke). They have been sooooo helpful!
1. upgrades--less clicking... we also have the community add on now that allows people to communicate cross cohort.
2. The fact that at some point we had the brainstorm not to set it up the way they do.
For the life of me I can't figure out what the logic is in their default set up. You have to go to one button to see your assignments for the week, then another button to do your discussions for the week, then another button to submit things for the week. What nimskull came up with that!!
We have it set up with one button per week. Under that button is the assignments document for the week, the discussions for the week, and the submissions for the week. Not rocket science but a massively easier set up for everyone. Who were these Blackboard designers, strange aliens from Clickland?
Many public thanks to our Information Technology people: Mike Robinette, Mark Alexander, and especially Dave Leitzel (also to our web guru Lorne Oke). They have been sooooo helpful!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Crucial history of the 00's...
What are the key events for Americans this decade (not meaning to be exclusive, only to prioritize)?
1. 9-11 and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2. the world economic crisis, sparked by the American housing crisis
Those are the two biggies that come to mind. A lot of other things follow or associate with these. Am I missing anything major?
1. 9-11 and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2. the world economic crisis, sparked by the American housing crisis
Those are the two biggies that come to mind. A lot of other things follow or associate with these. Am I missing anything major?
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sunday Explanatory Notes: Philippians 4:4-9
4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say again, rejoice!
This verse hearkens back to 3:1, which might as easily have started a conclusion to the letter. As we mentioned, the unexpected sidebar into Paul's Jewish credentials have led some to most of chapter 3 as an insert from another letter to the Philippians, especially since Ignatius seems to know of more than one. However, we do not seem to have an adequate basis to conclude this way, so it is best to assume that chapter 3 was part of this letter and any other letters are lost to history. Further, 4:4 would be redundant if it followed right on 3:1.
The theme of rejoicing would seem to be one of the major themes of Philippians, along with unity. As we will mention more than once as we look at the verses that follow, Paul's theme of rejoicing is all the more significant given that he is in prison possibly facing death as he writes.
4:5-6 Let your gentleness be known to all persons. Don't be anxious about anything, but in everything, with prayer and request with thanksgiving, let each make known your petitions to God.
Since the core ethic of the faith is love, a Christian should be gentle and harmless to others. This should be something for which they are known.
At the same time, they should have the kind of surrender to God's will that defuses anxiousness. This is a again a theme that will reappear in a few verses. Faith in God's love and proper honor to God, leave no reason for anxiousness as the Philippians make their needs known to God.
4:7 And the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and thoughts in Christ Jesus.
The result is peace, in the opposite category of anxiousness. One might understand a situation and accordingly be anxious about it. But trust in God yields a peace that passes all understanding. Perhaps what Paul more precisely has in mind is that the peace is beyond comprenhension, a mysterious peace. That peace should typify the Philippians' experience of life, even in hardship, like a guard protecting them.
4:8 The rest, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever are honorable, whatever just, whatever pure, whatever lovely, whatever of good report, if something is virtue and if something is praise--be thinking about these things.
Paul begins the end of these miscellaneous exhorations with a virtue list of sorts. As always, it is not an absolute list but a loose collection of good things. Anxiousness and hatefulness are not the kinds of things on which one should focus his or her mind, but good things.
Truth is an appropriate focus of thought, not lying or falsehoods. Things that are honorable, virtuous, and of good report are worthy of thought, not shameful or hidden vices. There the honor-shame dynamic of ancient culture shows through. There seems to be an assumption that core values are generally understood by all, only not practiced.
Justice and righteousness are things to think about, not getting ahead by cheating or taking advantage of others. The pure and the lovely, the beautiful, these line up with godly thought. A life of thought focused on such things is a life focused on virtue.
4:9 Also be practicing the things that you learned and received and heard and saw in me. And the God of peace will be with you.
In addition to these common values, things generally understood to be good even by non-Jews, there are the specific Christian instructions Paul has given the Philippians. It is tempting, although anachronistic, to distinguish verse 8 from 9 along the lines of natural revelation and special revelation. Perhaps there is some basic truth to the division.
Beyond common virtue are specifically Christian understandings of what to believe and how to live. Paul assumes that the Philippians are specifically under his authority. He does not tell them to obey Peter or Jerusalem, but his teaching and example. If they will do all these things, then they will be at peace.
The recurrence of language of peace in this section suggests that the Philippians might have cause to be anxious. Presumably they are anxious over Paul's fate. And they are presumably anxious over the health of Epaphroditus. Perhaps they are also anxious about the political fate of themselves as believers. Paul has been thrown into prison and potentially faced death because of his actions as a believer. Would they eventually face the same fate?
But God is a God of peace, a kind of peace that is surprising and incomprehensible given such circumstances.
This verse hearkens back to 3:1, which might as easily have started a conclusion to the letter. As we mentioned, the unexpected sidebar into Paul's Jewish credentials have led some to most of chapter 3 as an insert from another letter to the Philippians, especially since Ignatius seems to know of more than one. However, we do not seem to have an adequate basis to conclude this way, so it is best to assume that chapter 3 was part of this letter and any other letters are lost to history. Further, 4:4 would be redundant if it followed right on 3:1.
The theme of rejoicing would seem to be one of the major themes of Philippians, along with unity. As we will mention more than once as we look at the verses that follow, Paul's theme of rejoicing is all the more significant given that he is in prison possibly facing death as he writes.
4:5-6 Let your gentleness be known to all persons. Don't be anxious about anything, but in everything, with prayer and request with thanksgiving, let each make known your petitions to God.
Since the core ethic of the faith is love, a Christian should be gentle and harmless to others. This should be something for which they are known.
At the same time, they should have the kind of surrender to God's will that defuses anxiousness. This is a again a theme that will reappear in a few verses. Faith in God's love and proper honor to God, leave no reason for anxiousness as the Philippians make their needs known to God.
4:7 And the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and thoughts in Christ Jesus.
The result is peace, in the opposite category of anxiousness. One might understand a situation and accordingly be anxious about it. But trust in God yields a peace that passes all understanding. Perhaps what Paul more precisely has in mind is that the peace is beyond comprenhension, a mysterious peace. That peace should typify the Philippians' experience of life, even in hardship, like a guard protecting them.
4:8 The rest, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever are honorable, whatever just, whatever pure, whatever lovely, whatever of good report, if something is virtue and if something is praise--be thinking about these things.
Paul begins the end of these miscellaneous exhorations with a virtue list of sorts. As always, it is not an absolute list but a loose collection of good things. Anxiousness and hatefulness are not the kinds of things on which one should focus his or her mind, but good things.
Truth is an appropriate focus of thought, not lying or falsehoods. Things that are honorable, virtuous, and of good report are worthy of thought, not shameful or hidden vices. There the honor-shame dynamic of ancient culture shows through. There seems to be an assumption that core values are generally understood by all, only not practiced.
Justice and righteousness are things to think about, not getting ahead by cheating or taking advantage of others. The pure and the lovely, the beautiful, these line up with godly thought. A life of thought focused on such things is a life focused on virtue.
4:9 Also be practicing the things that you learned and received and heard and saw in me. And the God of peace will be with you.
In addition to these common values, things generally understood to be good even by non-Jews, there are the specific Christian instructions Paul has given the Philippians. It is tempting, although anachronistic, to distinguish verse 8 from 9 along the lines of natural revelation and special revelation. Perhaps there is some basic truth to the division.
Beyond common virtue are specifically Christian understandings of what to believe and how to live. Paul assumes that the Philippians are specifically under his authority. He does not tell them to obey Peter or Jerusalem, but his teaching and example. If they will do all these things, then they will be at peace.
The recurrence of language of peace in this section suggests that the Philippians might have cause to be anxious. Presumably they are anxious over Paul's fate. And they are presumably anxious over the health of Epaphroditus. Perhaps they are also anxious about the political fate of themselves as believers. Paul has been thrown into prison and potentially faced death because of his actions as a believer. Would they eventually face the same fate?
But God is a God of peace, a kind of peace that is surprising and incomprehensible given such circumstances.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
How to Mess Up Your Life 1
Not that there will be a 2...
I saw "17 Again" last night. Cute movie. Interesting genre. I have a 16 and 17 year old step daughter.
I was thinking about the concept of messing up your life. I wonder sometimes if the norm in America is pretty much for people to mess up their lives. I think children from families who are truly invested in the church have a better shot at not doing it, although it seems decreasingly so. Growing up upper middle class can really give an advantage although, again, decreasingly so it would seem to me.
For the first, oh, say 14 years of your life, you are pretty much a slave to the messing up of your parents. It's a given you just have to deal with. And let me just say I'm pretty depressed with how I perceive most of the parents in Marion to be doing, and even more depressed to think this is probably typical U.S.A. Marion is a city of quiet desperation, as are they all (although sometimes I wonder if most know their own desperation).
From 14-20 you can mess up your own life. You can get pregnant or get someone pregnant. You can drop out of high school. You can throw away going to college or getting into some sort of a job track. Of course God can redeem any less than ideal. And some are just delaying getting into a life track. Some have the luxury to do it.
But I don't think you can really mess your life up drastically until about 22 or so. That's when a person might marry foolishly or set out on the wrong course or get into trouble with the law when it counts.
I probably won't post more. I was just thinking as I drove around Marion today...
I saw "17 Again" last night. Cute movie. Interesting genre. I have a 16 and 17 year old step daughter.
I was thinking about the concept of messing up your life. I wonder sometimes if the norm in America is pretty much for people to mess up their lives. I think children from families who are truly invested in the church have a better shot at not doing it, although it seems decreasingly so. Growing up upper middle class can really give an advantage although, again, decreasingly so it would seem to me.
For the first, oh, say 14 years of your life, you are pretty much a slave to the messing up of your parents. It's a given you just have to deal with. And let me just say I'm pretty depressed with how I perceive most of the parents in Marion to be doing, and even more depressed to think this is probably typical U.S.A. Marion is a city of quiet desperation, as are they all (although sometimes I wonder if most know their own desperation).
From 14-20 you can mess up your own life. You can get pregnant or get someone pregnant. You can drop out of high school. You can throw away going to college or getting into some sort of a job track. Of course God can redeem any less than ideal. And some are just delaying getting into a life track. Some have the luxury to do it.
But I don't think you can really mess your life up drastically until about 22 or so. That's when a person might marry foolishly or set out on the wrong course or get into trouble with the law when it counts.
I probably won't post more. I was just thinking as I drove around Marion today...
Musings on History
Some thoughts on history.
Why do we tell history from past to present? It makes sense, of course, because that's how it happened, so we can best follow it that way.
In the process, we develop a sense of history as story. But such stories are usually more a reflection of who we think we are than of history itself. Such stories may cover significant portions of history, excerpting one little thread. The greater amount of time they cover, the more heavily they are likely constructed.
The question of God's plan through history is a special instance of history as story and requires significant faith. Differing Christian traditions have different understandings of how extensive God's direction and involvement in history is. A certain kind of Calvinist, for example, may believe that God is directing every minute thing that happens, such that nothing happens by coincidence and everything has a reason. Certainly many non-Christians have a view something like this as well.
As a particular kind of Arminian, I believe that God is much less of a micro-manager. God signs off on all that happens, but perhas isn't always involved in whether I choose strawberry or lemon ice cream (ok, maybe once in a "blue moon"). Perhaps God allows most of history to unfold according to the patterns we call cause and effect, including most human behavior, and only occasionally altering the flow of things?
At the same time, I have concluded that for Christianity to be true, it is necessary to believe that God has steadily yet patiently revealed Himself throughout history. I have to believe He has met each human being in history where they were at in their understandings. The fact that He has unfolded understandings so slowly implies He is far more interested in relationships than in understanding.
Christians must believe that there is an overarching story of salvation that is intrinsic to the flow of history, despite the fact that most of history probably does not have any flow of this sort.
Normally, it is history as immediate cause that is most real and most relevant to us at any particular moment. What are the circumstances that lead to current situations? The relevance of history diminishes drastically the further back we go. We experience points before the immediate causes of our situation through those immediate causes. And the points before those prior causes we experience only as they have passed through the prior causes into the immediate causes. Of course our interpretations of history near and far can become in themselves immediate causes, self-fulfilling prophesies of a sort.
It would be interesting indeed to write some localized history backward, an idea Keith Drury once posed. A few movies have explored this.
One final use of history, history as example, one of the most important reasons to study history. "Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it." History is the most exhaustive source of case studies in real life cause and effect. Certainly our understanding of such things is fraught with interpretation. Real life is unendingly complex and our conceptualizations of it draw on only the smallest fraction of it, implying that there is a fundamental skew to all conceptualizations of reality vis-a-vis actuality.
But nevertheless, we seem to find in history profitable example after profitable example. Those with a detailed knowledge of history have an uncanny power at their disposal.
Some thoughts...
Why do we tell history from past to present? It makes sense, of course, because that's how it happened, so we can best follow it that way.
In the process, we develop a sense of history as story. But such stories are usually more a reflection of who we think we are than of history itself. Such stories may cover significant portions of history, excerpting one little thread. The greater amount of time they cover, the more heavily they are likely constructed.
The question of God's plan through history is a special instance of history as story and requires significant faith. Differing Christian traditions have different understandings of how extensive God's direction and involvement in history is. A certain kind of Calvinist, for example, may believe that God is directing every minute thing that happens, such that nothing happens by coincidence and everything has a reason. Certainly many non-Christians have a view something like this as well.
As a particular kind of Arminian, I believe that God is much less of a micro-manager. God signs off on all that happens, but perhas isn't always involved in whether I choose strawberry or lemon ice cream (ok, maybe once in a "blue moon"). Perhaps God allows most of history to unfold according to the patterns we call cause and effect, including most human behavior, and only occasionally altering the flow of things?
At the same time, I have concluded that for Christianity to be true, it is necessary to believe that God has steadily yet patiently revealed Himself throughout history. I have to believe He has met each human being in history where they were at in their understandings. The fact that He has unfolded understandings so slowly implies He is far more interested in relationships than in understanding.
Christians must believe that there is an overarching story of salvation that is intrinsic to the flow of history, despite the fact that most of history probably does not have any flow of this sort.
Normally, it is history as immediate cause that is most real and most relevant to us at any particular moment. What are the circumstances that lead to current situations? The relevance of history diminishes drastically the further back we go. We experience points before the immediate causes of our situation through those immediate causes. And the points before those prior causes we experience only as they have passed through the prior causes into the immediate causes. Of course our interpretations of history near and far can become in themselves immediate causes, self-fulfilling prophesies of a sort.
It would be interesting indeed to write some localized history backward, an idea Keith Drury once posed. A few movies have explored this.
One final use of history, history as example, one of the most important reasons to study history. "Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it." History is the most exhaustive source of case studies in real life cause and effect. Certainly our understanding of such things is fraught with interpretation. Real life is unendingly complex and our conceptualizations of it draw on only the smallest fraction of it, implying that there is a fundamental skew to all conceptualizations of reality vis-a-vis actuality.
But nevertheless, we seem to find in history profitable example after profitable example. Those with a detailed knowledge of history have an uncanny power at their disposal.
Some thoughts...
Friday, August 14, 2009
Health Care Reform...
Ah, the title alone will make today a good visit day. :-)
I haven't taken the time to see what is being proposed. I'm an open minded guy, but I'll admit I'm very nervous about messing things up worse and especially about the national debt. I feel like it would be good to overhaul the system somehow, but am highly suspicious of politicians to be able to do it objectively.
And what's up with the townhall forums? Frankly, I'm so discouraged about the ability of the American people to have rational, civil debate where the real goal is truth rather than bully pulpiting for ideas you aren't open to changing in the light of good evidence and argument. All we do is shout at each other.
I don't usually do politics here, but I genuinely don't have a position on specific proposals, other than I do think we need change.
Anyone up for a civil discussion today?
I haven't taken the time to see what is being proposed. I'm an open minded guy, but I'll admit I'm very nervous about messing things up worse and especially about the national debt. I feel like it would be good to overhaul the system somehow, but am highly suspicious of politicians to be able to do it objectively.
And what's up with the townhall forums? Frankly, I'm so discouraged about the ability of the American people to have rational, civil debate where the real goal is truth rather than bully pulpiting for ideas you aren't open to changing in the light of good evidence and argument. All we do is shout at each other.
I don't usually do politics here, but I genuinely don't have a position on specific proposals, other than I do think we need change.
Anyone up for a civil discussion today?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Paul: A Change in Life Direction 2
I thought I'd switch with Friday's Paul post, since I'm working on getting through Philip Jenkins' Next Christendom at the same time the Contexts of Ministry class does.
So here is a second installment of chapter 2 of my writing project, Life Reflections on Paul's Writings. The first installment of the chapter is here.
_______
... Paul at some point became a Pharisee. Perhaps his family, even though out in the Diaspora, maintained some connection with Jerusalem. Perhaps he moved to Jerusalem to reconnect with that "Hebrew of Hebrews" part of his past. He begins to study with Pharisees.
Acts 22:3 says that Paul was instructed at the feet of Gamaliel. Does Acts mean that Paul apprenticed as a Pharisee with Gamaliel? We know of two principal "schools" of Pharisee at this time, the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Jewish tradition came to consider this Gamaliel to be the grandson of Hillel and thus a "Hillelite." [1]
Paul's own descriptions of his pre-Christian self, however, sound more like a Shammaite than a Hillelite. [2] Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5 sounds exactly like a Hillelite. He argues fatalistically. God will take care of the situation. The Sanhedrin need not take any action against the apostles, because God will sort it out.
This is not Paul's approach, to say the least. Paul seems to have served the Jewish ruling council in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin, in tracking down and arresting certain Christians. The apostles themselves do not seem to have been the target of Paul's persecutions. It was rather Greek speaking Jews like Stephen and Philip that seem to have been Paul's targets. It is quite possible that their understandings of Christ were more radical than those of the Aramaic speaking believers in Jerusalem. We notice that when the Hellenists were scattered in Acts 8, the apostles are able to stay put (Acts 8:1).
It has been very convenient to stereotype the Pharisees as hypocritical legalists, and quite possibly many were. This is certainly the dominant picture that we get from the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew 23 is a major critique of Pharisees who do not practice what they preach. Matthew tells its audience that the Jews should obey the Pharisees because of their authority as the bearers of Mosaic authority (23:2). But it criticizes them for not following their own teaching (23:3).
At the same time, we should bear in mind that the other gospels are not as harsh or dismissive, especially Luke-Acts. It has long been suggested that Matthew might present the Pharisees more starkly because they were hostile and in power at the time this gospel was written in the days after the destruction of Jerusalem. By contrast, Acts 15:5 speaks of Christian Pharisees and 23:6 calls Paul a Pharisee in the present tense. Thus Luke-Acts does not seem to view Pharisees as so diametrically opposed to believers.
We cannot be entirely sure of the origins of the Pharisees, although they clearly emerged in the mid-second century BC. Some consider them the heirs of the hasidim or faithful ones of the Maccabean revolt, individuals who chose to die rather than battle on the sabbath. Their name perhaps means something like "separated ones." Perhaps the goal was to keep the Jewish Law so well that God would restore Israel as a nation and usher in a golden age.
We thus need to make a careful distinction between someone who is very strict or detailed in their lifestyle and legalism. Legalism is when a person likes rules simply because a person likes rules, rules for their own sake. But someone might also live a strict life out of genuine devotion to God. We would be wrong to call such a person a legalist. Surely numerous Pharisees fell into this category, individuals like Nicodemus who lived a strict life out of true devotion to God.
It is hard to know what Paul's motivation was in persecuting these early believers. Did he think that by his zealous acts he was working toward the political restoration of Israel? Psychologically was he battling a stereotype someone might have made of him, a certain kind of "liberal," Greek speaking Jew that others might at some point have accused him of being? What exactly was it about the Hellenistic believers that he found so threatening in particular?
We do not know the answers. For example, did Paul himself detest believers for theological reasons but have authority to arrest for political reasons? Did some in power consider Hellenistic Christians subversive to their authority? It does not seem likely we will know the answers to these questions while we are on earth.
[1] It is the nature of tradition to make connections of this sort, to take what little is known of the past and connect it. A Clement in Philippians 4 might be connected to a Clement in Rome fifty years later, simply because in what little has survived from that time two people had the same name. We simply do not have sufficient evidence to know whether Gamaliel was truly the grandson of Hillel or not.
[2] One finds an excellent treatment of these issues in N. T. Wright's, The New Testament and the People of God, (Minneapolis: Fortress, **), **. And to give a third book of fifty to read on a path to master Paul, a great introduction is Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, **).
So here is a second installment of chapter 2 of my writing project, Life Reflections on Paul's Writings. The first installment of the chapter is here.
_______
... Paul at some point became a Pharisee. Perhaps his family, even though out in the Diaspora, maintained some connection with Jerusalem. Perhaps he moved to Jerusalem to reconnect with that "Hebrew of Hebrews" part of his past. He begins to study with Pharisees.
Acts 22:3 says that Paul was instructed at the feet of Gamaliel. Does Acts mean that Paul apprenticed as a Pharisee with Gamaliel? We know of two principal "schools" of Pharisee at this time, the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Jewish tradition came to consider this Gamaliel to be the grandson of Hillel and thus a "Hillelite." [1]
Paul's own descriptions of his pre-Christian self, however, sound more like a Shammaite than a Hillelite. [2] Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5 sounds exactly like a Hillelite. He argues fatalistically. God will take care of the situation. The Sanhedrin need not take any action against the apostles, because God will sort it out.
This is not Paul's approach, to say the least. Paul seems to have served the Jewish ruling council in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin, in tracking down and arresting certain Christians. The apostles themselves do not seem to have been the target of Paul's persecutions. It was rather Greek speaking Jews like Stephen and Philip that seem to have been Paul's targets. It is quite possible that their understandings of Christ were more radical than those of the Aramaic speaking believers in Jerusalem. We notice that when the Hellenists were scattered in Acts 8, the apostles are able to stay put (Acts 8:1).
It has been very convenient to stereotype the Pharisees as hypocritical legalists, and quite possibly many were. This is certainly the dominant picture that we get from the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew 23 is a major critique of Pharisees who do not practice what they preach. Matthew tells its audience that the Jews should obey the Pharisees because of their authority as the bearers of Mosaic authority (23:2). But it criticizes them for not following their own teaching (23:3).
At the same time, we should bear in mind that the other gospels are not as harsh or dismissive, especially Luke-Acts. It has long been suggested that Matthew might present the Pharisees more starkly because they were hostile and in power at the time this gospel was written in the days after the destruction of Jerusalem. By contrast, Acts 15:5 speaks of Christian Pharisees and 23:6 calls Paul a Pharisee in the present tense. Thus Luke-Acts does not seem to view Pharisees as so diametrically opposed to believers.
We cannot be entirely sure of the origins of the Pharisees, although they clearly emerged in the mid-second century BC. Some consider them the heirs of the hasidim or faithful ones of the Maccabean revolt, individuals who chose to die rather than battle on the sabbath. Their name perhaps means something like "separated ones." Perhaps the goal was to keep the Jewish Law so well that God would restore Israel as a nation and usher in a golden age.
We thus need to make a careful distinction between someone who is very strict or detailed in their lifestyle and legalism. Legalism is when a person likes rules simply because a person likes rules, rules for their own sake. But someone might also live a strict life out of genuine devotion to God. We would be wrong to call such a person a legalist. Surely numerous Pharisees fell into this category, individuals like Nicodemus who lived a strict life out of true devotion to God.
It is hard to know what Paul's motivation was in persecuting these early believers. Did he think that by his zealous acts he was working toward the political restoration of Israel? Psychologically was he battling a stereotype someone might have made of him, a certain kind of "liberal," Greek speaking Jew that others might at some point have accused him of being? What exactly was it about the Hellenistic believers that he found so threatening in particular?
We do not know the answers. For example, did Paul himself detest believers for theological reasons but have authority to arrest for political reasons? Did some in power consider Hellenistic Christians subversive to their authority? It does not seem likely we will know the answers to these questions while we are on earth.
[1] It is the nature of tradition to make connections of this sort, to take what little is known of the past and connect it. A Clement in Philippians 4 might be connected to a Clement in Rome fifty years later, simply because in what little has survived from that time two people had the same name. We simply do not have sufficient evidence to know whether Gamaliel was truly the grandson of Hillel or not.
[2] One finds an excellent treatment of these issues in N. T. Wright's, The New Testament and the People of God, (Minneapolis: Fortress, **), **. And to give a third book of fifty to read on a path to master Paul, a great introduction is Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, **).
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
MegaChurch Seminaries
There was a piece today in Christianity Today online about the trend for some megachurches to start in house seminaries. Very interesting. I connect it with two other trends going on right now 1) the decentralization trend, away from centralized denominations and organizations and 2) the trend toward training in a ministry context.
Oops, the second one isn't actually a trend yet but I'm strongly predicting it will be. As far as I know, while other seminaries are increasingly making it possible to stay in ministry while going to seminary, we are the only ones actually capitalizing on it by requiring our MDIV students to be in ministry and fashioning our weekly assignments around it. I'm predicting that the real leaders in seminary education will soon follow our example. If any seminaries would like us to come consult with them, we'd be glad to :-)
The first, decentralizing trend is very interesting and I'm very curious to see where it ends up. However, in a very real sense, we are enabling decentralized seminary education more than a megachurch can. We have an IT, online infrastructure (about 6000 students taking classes online) that a megachurch would have difficulty matching. I suppose most seminaries end up serving subcultures anyway.
Mark Driscoll and John Piper clearly serve a different segment of the Christian scene than we will. While we would welcome anyone from their circles who will play nice, they would have trouble at their seminaries with anything but nominal Wesleyans. Someone with more than a superficial Wesleyan theology would feel like a major fish out of water in their programs, which are predestined to offer the most extreme form of Calvinist teaching. Remember when Piper, at Driscoll's church, urged truly evangelical colleges and seminaries to expunge any Arminian faculty they might have?
And since they don't believe a woman can be a senior pastor, no woman should even have a fleeting thought of going there.
Oops, the second one isn't actually a trend yet but I'm strongly predicting it will be. As far as I know, while other seminaries are increasingly making it possible to stay in ministry while going to seminary, we are the only ones actually capitalizing on it by requiring our MDIV students to be in ministry and fashioning our weekly assignments around it. I'm predicting that the real leaders in seminary education will soon follow our example. If any seminaries would like us to come consult with them, we'd be glad to :-)
The first, decentralizing trend is very interesting and I'm very curious to see where it ends up. However, in a very real sense, we are enabling decentralized seminary education more than a megachurch can. We have an IT, online infrastructure (about 6000 students taking classes online) that a megachurch would have difficulty matching. I suppose most seminaries end up serving subcultures anyway.
Mark Driscoll and John Piper clearly serve a different segment of the Christian scene than we will. While we would welcome anyone from their circles who will play nice, they would have trouble at their seminaries with anything but nominal Wesleyans. Someone with more than a superficial Wesleyan theology would feel like a major fish out of water in their programs, which are predestined to offer the most extreme form of Calvinist teaching. Remember when Piper, at Driscoll's church, urged truly evangelical colleges and seminaries to expunge any Arminian faculty they might have?
And since they don't believe a woman can be a senior pastor, no woman should even have a fleeting thought of going there.
Explanatory Notes: Philippians 4:1-3
A little late, these were started on Sunday...
______
4:1 So that, my brothers, beloved and desired, my joy and crown, be standing in this way in the Lord.
This verse could either serve as a conclusion to what has gone before or the beginning of what follows. Since what immediately follows does not seem to spell out how to stand in a general way, we think it goes more naturally with what precedes than with what follows. The particular conjunction (hoste) also seems more often to continue what precedes than to initiate new trains of thought.
Accordingly, the sense would be Paul telling the Philippians to "stand" or to live as he has just instructed, following his example, having their citizenship in heaven, waiting for the redemption of our bodies. The Philippians are his joy because they are, for the most part, models of what it means to be a believer. They are his crown perhaps in the sense that they demonstrate the success of his ministry, for which he might in one sense receive honor in the great athletic contest of faith.
4:2 I urge Euodia and Syntyche to think the same in the Lord.
We do not know anything about these two women except what is said in this and the next verse. They were Paul's "coworkers" at Philippi in some way. The passage knows nothing about fixed roles for such women. Paul simply says that they worked with him as other men did.
We have seen the idea of "thinking the same" before in Philippians. Paul urged the Philippians in 2:2 to think the same and to be of one soul and mind. He then went on to give them the example of Christ, who although he had the status of God was willing to take on the role of a servant, even to the point of death.
4:3 Yes, I ask also you, genuine yokefellow, join in helping them, who worked together with me in the gospel, also with Clement and my other coworkers, whose names [are] in the book of life.
Paul's failure to give the name of the person in question is intriguing, leading some to suggestion that the word "yokefellow" itself is actually a person's name, Syzygos. However, what a happy coincidence that would be, that a person's name fit so nicely with his function! Since we are not persuaded that Christians received new names when they were baptized at this point, it seems more likely that Paul is referring to a specific person.
However, there is one other person from the church at Philippi who has been named thus far in the letter, the person who very likely delivered Philippians back to Philippi. This is of course Epaphroditus (2:25). Therefore, it seems more likely than not that Paul is addressing Epaphroditus here. Paul is urging Epaphroditus to help Euodia and Syntyche to get along.
We have no way of knowing who the Clement mentioned in this verse might be. It seems quite doubtful that it is the same Clement who would later become bishop of Rome at the end of the century.
This is the only time in Paul's writings, indeed the only time outside the book of Revelation, that the book of life is mentioned. In Revelation 17:8, this book includes the names of those who would be saved, known and at least figuratively written down in God's mind since the creation (cf. Dan. 12:1). The obscure reference is a reminder that much that is not mentioned in any New Testament writing, including the entirety of the Pauline corpus, is at least possibly assumed. At the same time, we have no secure basis to know what those things were.
______
4:1 So that, my brothers, beloved and desired, my joy and crown, be standing in this way in the Lord.
This verse could either serve as a conclusion to what has gone before or the beginning of what follows. Since what immediately follows does not seem to spell out how to stand in a general way, we think it goes more naturally with what precedes than with what follows. The particular conjunction (hoste) also seems more often to continue what precedes than to initiate new trains of thought.
Accordingly, the sense would be Paul telling the Philippians to "stand" or to live as he has just instructed, following his example, having their citizenship in heaven, waiting for the redemption of our bodies. The Philippians are his joy because they are, for the most part, models of what it means to be a believer. They are his crown perhaps in the sense that they demonstrate the success of his ministry, for which he might in one sense receive honor in the great athletic contest of faith.
4:2 I urge Euodia and Syntyche to think the same in the Lord.
We do not know anything about these two women except what is said in this and the next verse. They were Paul's "coworkers" at Philippi in some way. The passage knows nothing about fixed roles for such women. Paul simply says that they worked with him as other men did.
We have seen the idea of "thinking the same" before in Philippians. Paul urged the Philippians in 2:2 to think the same and to be of one soul and mind. He then went on to give them the example of Christ, who although he had the status of God was willing to take on the role of a servant, even to the point of death.
4:3 Yes, I ask also you, genuine yokefellow, join in helping them, who worked together with me in the gospel, also with Clement and my other coworkers, whose names [are] in the book of life.
Paul's failure to give the name of the person in question is intriguing, leading some to suggestion that the word "yokefellow" itself is actually a person's name, Syzygos. However, what a happy coincidence that would be, that a person's name fit so nicely with his function! Since we are not persuaded that Christians received new names when they were baptized at this point, it seems more likely that Paul is referring to a specific person.
However, there is one other person from the church at Philippi who has been named thus far in the letter, the person who very likely delivered Philippians back to Philippi. This is of course Epaphroditus (2:25). Therefore, it seems more likely than not that Paul is addressing Epaphroditus here. Paul is urging Epaphroditus to help Euodia and Syntyche to get along.
We have no way of knowing who the Clement mentioned in this verse might be. It seems quite doubtful that it is the same Clement who would later become bishop of Rome at the end of the century.
This is the only time in Paul's writings, indeed the only time outside the book of Revelation, that the book of life is mentioned. In Revelation 17:8, this book includes the names of those who would be saved, known and at least figuratively written down in God's mind since the creation (cf. Dan. 12:1). The obscure reference is a reminder that much that is not mentioned in any New Testament writing, including the entirety of the Pauline corpus, is at least possibly assumed. At the same time, we have no secure basis to know what those things were.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Wesleyan Spirit
Mark Schnell asked a good question about a comment I made in the last post--one particularly pertinent to him since he is doing MDIV work at Gordon Conwell. He/you asks, "Are you saying that you don't want the legitimate cohesion that takes place between Wesleyanism and Calvinism to happen at the new seminary?"
What I want is for more to take place at the Wesleyan seminary than just those possible cohesions. Let me be more specific.
1. What I don't want to typify this seminary is the very restrictive and combative boundary patrol that I think sometimes typifies some Calvinist institutions and still often surfaces in ETS. The tone is one of who doesn't belong here rather than what points of commonality can I find with those outside my tradition.
2. So to word it positively, we want a generous spirit toward people of non-Wesleyan traditions who want to study with us, including Calvinists themselves. I would like to think that Baptists will feel very welcome at our seminary. We have two Anglicans who have just started our MA program. We have a significant number of African American students in our MA program who are everything from Pentecostal to Baptist to African Methodist Episcopal (MDIV).
By contrast, I have known Wesleyan students at conservative Calvinist institutions to be asked very seriously why in the world they had come there.
This generous spirit and freedom to explore the boundaries means that we welcome cohesion between Calvin and Wesley for those who feel led in this direction. The difference I am pushing is not "no Calvin allowed." It is "much more than some Calvinized Wesley" allowed. Conservative Calvinists themselves are very welcome if they'll play nice. In my thinking, the difference between the kind of Calvinized Wesleyan I am thinking of and a more ideal Wesleyan has more to do with narrowness of mind rather than specific positions themselves.
3. So not only men, but women fully included. If you don't believe women can be senior pastors, you are welcome to come through our program, if you play nice. We will treat you with respect and let you have your full voice. But don't bother applying to teach here.
4. not only the original meaning, but the Christian one. We will teach the tools of reading the Bible in context to be sure. But we will focus more on the Bible as God's word to His Church today, and we will do it fully conscious of the fact that we may at times be reading the Bible theologically as well as historically. And we will be very open to the voice of the Spirit through Scripture, whether it has anything to do with what the text meant originally or not.
5. heart and life before ideas. We will emphasize heart and life change and a godly life first and then ideas. We are interested in ideas. We'll try to determine what the right ideas are and we will start with the assumption that the common understandings of Christians everywhere are right. But we'd rather you be faithful in your life than know for sure what the right stance on the precise nature of the atonement is.
6. not afraid of postmodern critique... We will welcome those who think they have it all figured out ideologically if they'll play nice. We believe in absolute truth and absolute morals. But we are open to those who have concluded we know far less than we think and that there is a lot more gray than others are comfortable with. Those who focus on (head) propositions more than a relationship with God and a godly life are welcome, if they play nice.
7. inerrancy, yes, but not rigidly defined. Those who insist on the narrowest interpretation of the Chicago statement are welcome if they play nice. I have no doubt that the majority of students and professors will operate with that as a default. But as David McKenna insisted as president of Asbury in the 80s, we will not get into the divisiveness of the particulars of this issue like so many Calvinist institutions have. And we welcome those who have a more liberal understanding as well, as long as they play nice too.
8. a broad understanding of atonement. Those who insist on a very narrow sense of penal substitution are welcome, as long as they play nice. But we will not ostracize or excommunicate those who understand Christ's representation and satisfaction of justice in a more general way or who focus more on other aspects of atonement like the victory of Christ over evil powers, the reconciliation of an alienated world, or the expression of God's love.
Basically, by the Wesleyan spirit I mean an optimistic, welcoming, loving spirit that puts a primacy on a relationship with God and our neighbor as the first order of business and getting our ideas sorted out second. Ideas? Yes, for sure. But first things first!
And of course it goes without saying that our professors will take those positions all Wesleyans have in common: a belief in the possibility that anyone might be saved, the importance of a godly life after conversion essential for final salvation, the possibility that God can give consistent even exceptionless victory over conscious temptation, and so forth.
The bullets above relate to those aspects of theology on which there is not a single Wesleyan position. On these, I am arguing it is more Wesleyan to allow for a spectrum of possibilities, while a more Calvinized Wesleyan might insist you can only take one of the positions and be legitimately Christian, let alone Wesleyan.
What I want is for more to take place at the Wesleyan seminary than just those possible cohesions. Let me be more specific.
1. What I don't want to typify this seminary is the very restrictive and combative boundary patrol that I think sometimes typifies some Calvinist institutions and still often surfaces in ETS. The tone is one of who doesn't belong here rather than what points of commonality can I find with those outside my tradition.
2. So to word it positively, we want a generous spirit toward people of non-Wesleyan traditions who want to study with us, including Calvinists themselves. I would like to think that Baptists will feel very welcome at our seminary. We have two Anglicans who have just started our MA program. We have a significant number of African American students in our MA program who are everything from Pentecostal to Baptist to African Methodist Episcopal (MDIV).
By contrast, I have known Wesleyan students at conservative Calvinist institutions to be asked very seriously why in the world they had come there.
This generous spirit and freedom to explore the boundaries means that we welcome cohesion between Calvin and Wesley for those who feel led in this direction. The difference I am pushing is not "no Calvin allowed." It is "much more than some Calvinized Wesley" allowed. Conservative Calvinists themselves are very welcome if they'll play nice. In my thinking, the difference between the kind of Calvinized Wesleyan I am thinking of and a more ideal Wesleyan has more to do with narrowness of mind rather than specific positions themselves.
3. So not only men, but women fully included. If you don't believe women can be senior pastors, you are welcome to come through our program, if you play nice. We will treat you with respect and let you have your full voice. But don't bother applying to teach here.
4. not only the original meaning, but the Christian one. We will teach the tools of reading the Bible in context to be sure. But we will focus more on the Bible as God's word to His Church today, and we will do it fully conscious of the fact that we may at times be reading the Bible theologically as well as historically. And we will be very open to the voice of the Spirit through Scripture, whether it has anything to do with what the text meant originally or not.
5. heart and life before ideas. We will emphasize heart and life change and a godly life first and then ideas. We are interested in ideas. We'll try to determine what the right ideas are and we will start with the assumption that the common understandings of Christians everywhere are right. But we'd rather you be faithful in your life than know for sure what the right stance on the precise nature of the atonement is.
6. not afraid of postmodern critique... We will welcome those who think they have it all figured out ideologically if they'll play nice. We believe in absolute truth and absolute morals. But we are open to those who have concluded we know far less than we think and that there is a lot more gray than others are comfortable with. Those who focus on (head) propositions more than a relationship with God and a godly life are welcome, if they play nice.
7. inerrancy, yes, but not rigidly defined. Those who insist on the narrowest interpretation of the Chicago statement are welcome if they play nice. I have no doubt that the majority of students and professors will operate with that as a default. But as David McKenna insisted as president of Asbury in the 80s, we will not get into the divisiveness of the particulars of this issue like so many Calvinist institutions have. And we welcome those who have a more liberal understanding as well, as long as they play nice too.
8. a broad understanding of atonement. Those who insist on a very narrow sense of penal substitution are welcome, as long as they play nice. But we will not ostracize or excommunicate those who understand Christ's representation and satisfaction of justice in a more general way or who focus more on other aspects of atonement like the victory of Christ over evil powers, the reconciliation of an alienated world, or the expression of God's love.
Basically, by the Wesleyan spirit I mean an optimistic, welcoming, loving spirit that puts a primacy on a relationship with God and our neighbor as the first order of business and getting our ideas sorted out second. Ideas? Yes, for sure. But first things first!
And of course it goes without saying that our professors will take those positions all Wesleyans have in common: a belief in the possibility that anyone might be saved, the importance of a godly life after conversion essential for final salvation, the possibility that God can give consistent even exceptionless victory over conscious temptation, and so forth.
The bullets above relate to those aspects of theology on which there is not a single Wesleyan position. On these, I am arguing it is more Wesleyan to allow for a spectrum of possibilities, while a more Calvinized Wesleyan might insist you can only take one of the positions and be legitimately Christian, let alone Wesleyan.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Monday update...
I've started several of my normal posts (Paul, explanatory notes...), but launching the seminary has been all consuming. See the seminary update on my seminary blog. We had our first seminary convocation yesterday (it was great!) and so I may have a little time to do some catch up this week.
It may sound strange, but I have been increasingly thankful to Asbury Seminary as we have continued designing the program. Because the Wesleyan Church has not had its own seminary, our leaders have inevitably gone to many different places for further training. John Wesley was only a hair's breadth from Calvin, and so there is a legitimate cohesion that can take place between elements of Calvinism and Wesleyanism, and there has been a good deal of grass roots cohesion between fundamentalism and Wesleyanism. I call this element in the Wesleyan Church "Calvino-Wesleyan" or "Calvinized Wesleyans."
I didn't get that at Asbury, and I doubt those who went to Nazarene Theological Seminary did either. We didn't read D. A. Carson or Grant Osborne there (of course Osborne hadn't written his book yet) but did pure inductive Bible. I had no sense at Asbury that I had any reason to want to join the Calvinist dominated Evangelical Theological Society.
I'm hoping we can keep to an Asbury-NTS trajectory at IWU's seminary... we'll see.
It may sound strange, but I have been increasingly thankful to Asbury Seminary as we have continued designing the program. Because the Wesleyan Church has not had its own seminary, our leaders have inevitably gone to many different places for further training. John Wesley was only a hair's breadth from Calvin, and so there is a legitimate cohesion that can take place between elements of Calvinism and Wesleyanism, and there has been a good deal of grass roots cohesion between fundamentalism and Wesleyanism. I call this element in the Wesleyan Church "Calvino-Wesleyan" or "Calvinized Wesleyans."
I didn't get that at Asbury, and I doubt those who went to Nazarene Theological Seminary did either. We didn't read D. A. Carson or Grant Osborne there (of course Osborne hadn't written his book yet) but did pure inductive Bible. I had no sense at Asbury that I had any reason to want to join the Calvinist dominated Evangelical Theological Society.
I'm hoping we can keep to an Asbury-NTS trajectory at IWU's seminary... we'll see.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Explanatory Notes: 1 Peter 2:11-17
I started this on Sunday since I preached on the text. Since I'm also teaching 1 Peter this Fall, it was hard to resist. Thought I'd finish it today.
_________
2:11 Beloved, I urge [you] as aliens and foreigners, to abstain from fleshly desires, which are warring against the soul,
With this verse 1 Peter begins a new section of the letter, a section that we believe continues through 4:11. This section generally has to do with living good lives in a society that is hostile toward the people of God. In general, we should read all of 1 Peter against the understanding that judgment has begun with the house of God (4:17) and will eventually lead to judgment on the rest of the world.
We have already discussed the description of the audience as "foreigners" in 1:1, and they were also called "aliens" in 1:17. The idea again is of someone who is not native or indigenous to a particular place, someone who is not a citizen of a location. There are connotations of being in the minority, of being in the "out" group. One always has a sense of not truly belonging because your true home is elsewhere. In the next verse, 1 Peter will distinguish the audience from the Gentiles, which adds an additional layer of foreignness, ironically despite the fact that most of the audience was probably Gentile by birth!
Since 1 Peter finishes the thought by telling the audience to refrain from giving in to the desires of the flesh, it would seem that the body (in its current weak state in relation to the power of Sin) is part of what is meant by being aliens and foreigners. Many interpreters have difficulty with this suggestion, as we alluded back in 1:1. But the idea that "in the body" we are in some ways in a context foreign to our truly "spiritual" identity would seem to be part of the imagery of 1 Peter. Such an understanding renders the train of thought here most intelligible and need not be forced further into some Gnostic or Platonic framework.
The similarity to Pauline thought here is striking. Indeed, it is at the very least intriguing to think that the flesh-spirit dichotomy would roll from Peter's categories as naturally as it did from Paul's. Certainly we do not have enough evidence to say how widespread such ways of thinking were among the early Christians. The similarity to Paul's categories does fit nicely with our hunch that Silas had as much to do with the writing of 1 Peter as Peter himself (cf. 1 Pet. 5:12).
Although it may not seem so at first, mention of "soul" is somewhat ambiguous. The idea of an immaterial soul largely arose in the 1600s. The idea of a detachable soul existed at the time of the New Testament, but the New Testament generally thinks more of a separable spirit. And those few places where the New Testament might refer to a separable soul are not actually very clear.
For example, 1 Peter 3:20 uses the word soul in its more normal Hebrew sense of a whole living person. Although nothing would keep this letter from using the same word in different ways, the usage later in the letter pushes us at least to try to understand the soul in 2:11 in reference to one's life. Fleshly passions war against one's life.
On the other hand, the use here does not seem quite the same as in 3:20. The mention of fleshly desires and alienation from one's true identity at least seem to fit better with the soul here as some part of a person. And the sense that we have an "inner person" in 3:4, along with the body-spirit dualism of 3:18-19, perhaps tip the scales toward soul here having to do with an inner, spiritual part of a person in some way.
2:12 ... having your good conduct among the Gentiles, so that--though they are slandering you as wrongdoers--looking on your good works, they might glorify God on the Day of Oversight.
This in our opinion is the key verse of the section that goes from 2:11 to 4:11. The instructions that follow are instructions on how slaves, wives, and those under Roman rule in general, might live respectable first century lives. The strategy is one of endurance under suffering, not one that looks to change the social structures of society. As in most of Paul's writings, there seems to be an underlying expectation that the Lord will return soon. 1 Peter takes no thought for changing social institutions but assumes them.
Given that the primary audience of 1 Peter would seem to be Gentile, it is striking that the audience is addressed as non-Gentiles. They are "foreigners" among Gentiles, with the connotation that they are no longer such. As 1:10 has indicated, they have gone from not being in the people of God to being in the people of God. Although it is not said that they have become a part of Israel, this is the underlying connotation. 1 Peter knows nothing of Christians as some "third race."
We best understand the thought assumptions of 1 Peter, then, if we think of the Gentile audience as transplants into the people of God in some sense. At the same time, this assumption comes through very weakly, far more weakly than in Paul's writings. While we are prone to miss this fact, it is a striking feature of the letter, especially if we are hearing Peter in his natural categories. On the other hand, it might fit better with a Silas as principal composer (5:12), especially if he were a Diaspora Jew who was raised with a much weaker sense of his Jewish identity.
As we have already seen, 1 Peter pictures widespread hostility in Asia Minor toward believers. And as we have mentioned, it is hard to infer concretely what accusations of wrongdoing or evildoing might have applied. The immediate mention of human authorities, including the empire, might suggest that Christians were perceived to be politically subversive. Certainly confessing a supreme Lord and king who was not Caesar would seem to fall into that category.
The later the writing of 1 Peter, the more likely that Christian Jews might be seen as politically subversive. It would be anachronistic, however, to think that the Roman Empire had some standing policy about Christianity being illegal. This was not even the case in the early second century. There was no official list of legal religions, nor was there a hard and fast understanding that Judaism was a religio licita, a "legal religion." Any persecution of Christians was situational and cultural, not official or empire wide.
The fact that 1 Peter goes on to give advice about slaves and wives bespeaks the possibility of persecution based on a sense that Christianity was socially subversive. Perhaps letters like Colossians, 1 Peter, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy all belong to a layer of early Christian tradition where an initial social freedom was undergoing a certain retrenchment because of the resultant social turmoil.
1 Peter does not anticipate that the surrounding society will be won over by good conduct. Rather, it is on the "Day of Overseeing," the day of judgment, that they will have to admit that they had no legitimate basis for accusation. If they follow 1 Peter's admonition, Christians will have respected all human authority; slaves will have submitted to their masters, and first century women will have obeyed their husbands.
2:13-14 Be subject to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the king as ruler, or to governors as being sent by Him for the punishment of wrongdoers and for praise of those who do good,
Part of the "live good lives" theme is a life that gives no legitimate basis for emperors or governors to find cause for concern in Christians. It is quite possible that Paul has already died before Nero by the time these words were written, as well as that the persecution of Christians in Rome around 64-65 had already taken place. If 1 Peter were pseudonymous, written after Peter's death, then we would even have the ironic situation where Peter himself was put to death by the emperor. Mention of "Babylon" in 5:13 would then evoke the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome as well.
Whatever the answers to these questions, the admonitions to be good people under Roman rule have a richness because no Christian would have suffered under the illusion that it was always just and fair. 1 Peter urges submission to human authorities who do not as people merit such submission. At the same time, this instruction is still arguably part of the defensive strategy to fly as much as possible below the radar of hostile powers. The manner of Acts' presentation arguably also flows from this concern for Christians not to be seen as troublemakers or subversive.
These verses evoke a picture of government as one of rule to maintain social order (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). Those who do wrong, understood in general terms with which most in society would agree, must be restrained. Those who do right, again, apparently based on common understanding, should be rewarded. 1 Peter reinforces this kind of general sense of right and wrong without any apparent reference to the Jewish Law at this point.
2:15 ... because the will of God is thus: for those who do good to muzzle the ignorance of foolish people.
Such muzzling is not understood as the active pursuit of justice by God's people. Human authorities outside the household of God enact justice and reward. Rather, the message of this section seems more "passive aggressive." Those who ignorantly malign Christians will be shown to be ignorant because the good living of such believers will be beyond reproach. The good lives they live among the nations will "muzzle" the foolish slander of their detractors--if not in this life, on the Day of Overseeing.
2:16-17 As free individuals yet not using the freedom as a cover for wickedness, but as slaves of God, honor all people. Love the family [of Christian brothers and sisters]. Be fearing of God. Honor the king.
Wickedness and fleshly desires again in this section seem to be connected directly with matters of social order. Striking familiar Pauline themes, the audience is to live as free without that freedom leading to evil action (cf. Gal. 5:13). The difference from Paul is the fact that such statements do not engage the Jewish Law as Paul's do. This would be quite striking if we were only hearing Peter's voice in his most natural categories, since from all appearances he was more "conservative" than Paul on such matters. On the other hand, we might expect such an abstracted Paul from a Silas (cf. 5:12), whose categories were perhaps less concretely enmeshed in Palestinian Jewish thought.
Living as slaves of God ironically means to honor human authorities. It means to show respect for all people, even if they are unbelievers, and of course it implies loving the family of God. Once again, the injunction to honor the king is deeply ironic and/or profound, given that it was the emperor Nero who likely had Peter crucified. If 1 Peter were written after Peter's death, the implication of the injunction would be deeply profound. On the other hand, one might argue that 1 Peter would not so commend emperors as punishers of those who do wrong if in fact Peter had died at the hands of the emperor.
_________
2:11 Beloved, I urge [you] as aliens and foreigners, to abstain from fleshly desires, which are warring against the soul,
With this verse 1 Peter begins a new section of the letter, a section that we believe continues through 4:11. This section generally has to do with living good lives in a society that is hostile toward the people of God. In general, we should read all of 1 Peter against the understanding that judgment has begun with the house of God (4:17) and will eventually lead to judgment on the rest of the world.
We have already discussed the description of the audience as "foreigners" in 1:1, and they were also called "aliens" in 1:17. The idea again is of someone who is not native or indigenous to a particular place, someone who is not a citizen of a location. There are connotations of being in the minority, of being in the "out" group. One always has a sense of not truly belonging because your true home is elsewhere. In the next verse, 1 Peter will distinguish the audience from the Gentiles, which adds an additional layer of foreignness, ironically despite the fact that most of the audience was probably Gentile by birth!
Since 1 Peter finishes the thought by telling the audience to refrain from giving in to the desires of the flesh, it would seem that the body (in its current weak state in relation to the power of Sin) is part of what is meant by being aliens and foreigners. Many interpreters have difficulty with this suggestion, as we alluded back in 1:1. But the idea that "in the body" we are in some ways in a context foreign to our truly "spiritual" identity would seem to be part of the imagery of 1 Peter. Such an understanding renders the train of thought here most intelligible and need not be forced further into some Gnostic or Platonic framework.
The similarity to Pauline thought here is striking. Indeed, it is at the very least intriguing to think that the flesh-spirit dichotomy would roll from Peter's categories as naturally as it did from Paul's. Certainly we do not have enough evidence to say how widespread such ways of thinking were among the early Christians. The similarity to Paul's categories does fit nicely with our hunch that Silas had as much to do with the writing of 1 Peter as Peter himself (cf. 1 Pet. 5:12).
Although it may not seem so at first, mention of "soul" is somewhat ambiguous. The idea of an immaterial soul largely arose in the 1600s. The idea of a detachable soul existed at the time of the New Testament, but the New Testament generally thinks more of a separable spirit. And those few places where the New Testament might refer to a separable soul are not actually very clear.
For example, 1 Peter 3:20 uses the word soul in its more normal Hebrew sense of a whole living person. Although nothing would keep this letter from using the same word in different ways, the usage later in the letter pushes us at least to try to understand the soul in 2:11 in reference to one's life. Fleshly passions war against one's life.
On the other hand, the use here does not seem quite the same as in 3:20. The mention of fleshly desires and alienation from one's true identity at least seem to fit better with the soul here as some part of a person. And the sense that we have an "inner person" in 3:4, along with the body-spirit dualism of 3:18-19, perhaps tip the scales toward soul here having to do with an inner, spiritual part of a person in some way.
2:12 ... having your good conduct among the Gentiles, so that--though they are slandering you as wrongdoers--looking on your good works, they might glorify God on the Day of Oversight.
This in our opinion is the key verse of the section that goes from 2:11 to 4:11. The instructions that follow are instructions on how slaves, wives, and those under Roman rule in general, might live respectable first century lives. The strategy is one of endurance under suffering, not one that looks to change the social structures of society. As in most of Paul's writings, there seems to be an underlying expectation that the Lord will return soon. 1 Peter takes no thought for changing social institutions but assumes them.
Given that the primary audience of 1 Peter would seem to be Gentile, it is striking that the audience is addressed as non-Gentiles. They are "foreigners" among Gentiles, with the connotation that they are no longer such. As 1:10 has indicated, they have gone from not being in the people of God to being in the people of God. Although it is not said that they have become a part of Israel, this is the underlying connotation. 1 Peter knows nothing of Christians as some "third race."
We best understand the thought assumptions of 1 Peter, then, if we think of the Gentile audience as transplants into the people of God in some sense. At the same time, this assumption comes through very weakly, far more weakly than in Paul's writings. While we are prone to miss this fact, it is a striking feature of the letter, especially if we are hearing Peter in his natural categories. On the other hand, it might fit better with a Silas as principal composer (5:12), especially if he were a Diaspora Jew who was raised with a much weaker sense of his Jewish identity.
As we have already seen, 1 Peter pictures widespread hostility in Asia Minor toward believers. And as we have mentioned, it is hard to infer concretely what accusations of wrongdoing or evildoing might have applied. The immediate mention of human authorities, including the empire, might suggest that Christians were perceived to be politically subversive. Certainly confessing a supreme Lord and king who was not Caesar would seem to fall into that category.
The later the writing of 1 Peter, the more likely that Christian Jews might be seen as politically subversive. It would be anachronistic, however, to think that the Roman Empire had some standing policy about Christianity being illegal. This was not even the case in the early second century. There was no official list of legal religions, nor was there a hard and fast understanding that Judaism was a religio licita, a "legal religion." Any persecution of Christians was situational and cultural, not official or empire wide.
The fact that 1 Peter goes on to give advice about slaves and wives bespeaks the possibility of persecution based on a sense that Christianity was socially subversive. Perhaps letters like Colossians, 1 Peter, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy all belong to a layer of early Christian tradition where an initial social freedom was undergoing a certain retrenchment because of the resultant social turmoil.
1 Peter does not anticipate that the surrounding society will be won over by good conduct. Rather, it is on the "Day of Overseeing," the day of judgment, that they will have to admit that they had no legitimate basis for accusation. If they follow 1 Peter's admonition, Christians will have respected all human authority; slaves will have submitted to their masters, and first century women will have obeyed their husbands.
2:13-14 Be subject to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the king as ruler, or to governors as being sent by Him for the punishment of wrongdoers and for praise of those who do good,
Part of the "live good lives" theme is a life that gives no legitimate basis for emperors or governors to find cause for concern in Christians. It is quite possible that Paul has already died before Nero by the time these words were written, as well as that the persecution of Christians in Rome around 64-65 had already taken place. If 1 Peter were pseudonymous, written after Peter's death, then we would even have the ironic situation where Peter himself was put to death by the emperor. Mention of "Babylon" in 5:13 would then evoke the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome as well.
Whatever the answers to these questions, the admonitions to be good people under Roman rule have a richness because no Christian would have suffered under the illusion that it was always just and fair. 1 Peter urges submission to human authorities who do not as people merit such submission. At the same time, this instruction is still arguably part of the defensive strategy to fly as much as possible below the radar of hostile powers. The manner of Acts' presentation arguably also flows from this concern for Christians not to be seen as troublemakers or subversive.
These verses evoke a picture of government as one of rule to maintain social order (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). Those who do wrong, understood in general terms with which most in society would agree, must be restrained. Those who do right, again, apparently based on common understanding, should be rewarded. 1 Peter reinforces this kind of general sense of right and wrong without any apparent reference to the Jewish Law at this point.
2:15 ... because the will of God is thus: for those who do good to muzzle the ignorance of foolish people.
Such muzzling is not understood as the active pursuit of justice by God's people. Human authorities outside the household of God enact justice and reward. Rather, the message of this section seems more "passive aggressive." Those who ignorantly malign Christians will be shown to be ignorant because the good living of such believers will be beyond reproach. The good lives they live among the nations will "muzzle" the foolish slander of their detractors--if not in this life, on the Day of Overseeing.
2:16-17 As free individuals yet not using the freedom as a cover for wickedness, but as slaves of God, honor all people. Love the family [of Christian brothers and sisters]. Be fearing of God. Honor the king.
Wickedness and fleshly desires again in this section seem to be connected directly with matters of social order. Striking familiar Pauline themes, the audience is to live as free without that freedom leading to evil action (cf. Gal. 5:13). The difference from Paul is the fact that such statements do not engage the Jewish Law as Paul's do. This would be quite striking if we were only hearing Peter's voice in his most natural categories, since from all appearances he was more "conservative" than Paul on such matters. On the other hand, we might expect such an abstracted Paul from a Silas (cf. 5:12), whose categories were perhaps less concretely enmeshed in Palestinian Jewish thought.
Living as slaves of God ironically means to honor human authorities. It means to show respect for all people, even if they are unbelievers, and of course it implies loving the family of God. Once again, the injunction to honor the king is deeply ironic and/or profound, given that it was the emperor Nero who likely had Peter crucified. If 1 Peter were written after Peter's death, the implication of the injunction would be deeply profound. On the other hand, one might argue that 1 Peter would not so commend emperors as punishers of those who do wrong if in fact Peter had died at the hands of the emperor.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Membership Case Study: The Wesleyan Church
Thinking of how to set up a discussion for a seminary course that contrasts what churches require for membership and what God requires for a person to be in His Church. What do you think about this set up? ... thought it might be helpful to get feedback before it went any further.
________
Protestant groups make a strong connection between their beliefs and the Bible. The sixth of the 39 articles of the Anglican Church (1563) reads that "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any one, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Methodist tradition followed suit in its Disciplines (e.g., the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1784; the African Methodist Episcopal Church of 1816; etc.). And this statement made its way into the The Discipline of The Wesleyan Church as well.
In practice, however, the "reading" and "proving" of things in Scripture has resulted in an immense variety of beliefs and practices among Protestant groups. This last century has suggested some fundamental reasons why. The default mode of reading the Bible seems to be a strange mixture of anachronistic interpretation, failing to recognize differences between how the words strike us and how they would have struck their original audiences, and this largely without realizing it. A person might think they are simply believing or requiring things that can be "proved" from Scripture when in fact they may be "contemporizing" the meaning, seeing things in the text that were not originally there. Alternatively, they might apply Scriptures to today that arguably do not apply directly to our context.
The second potential misstep is one of application. For example, the Wesleyan Discipline has some general statements in relation to modesty. Although these are stated generally, fifty years ago they would have kept from Wesleyan membership a woman who did not wear long enough dresses or who cut her hair short. In conservative groups that separated from Wesleyan and other holiness churches, such requirements remain at least implicit and sometimes explicit membership requirements even today.
Can a requirement that a woman should not cut her hair or should not adorn herself with fine gold be required on the basis of Scripture? Yes, arguably they can, if one applies 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Peter 3 directly to today. But does long hair on women or the absence of any jewelry mean the same thing today that it did in the first century? Most American and European Christians would say it does not, as is evident from the way most Christian women dress today. These are, then, potential instances where not taking into account the cultural distance between ourselves and the biblical texts has at least potentially led to misapplication of Scripture in relation to membership, even though requirements could in theory be "proved" from Scripture.
But far more requirements, ones that are considered very important to believe or do, are very difficult to prove from Scripture. The second potential misstep is one of interpretation. For example, the Wesleyan Church has struggled of late over the issue of whether to require all its members to abstain completely from alcohol. In years past, reading modern concerns into the ancient words, Wesleyans had argued that the Bible, properly understood, did not in fact allow for any drinking of alcohol. This is the dynamic we mentioned above, practiced by Christians throughout church history, of "contemporizing" the meaning of the biblical text to reinforce and embody what a particular group senses to be its identity at a particular point in time--or its sense of how the gospel plays out at a given place or time.
We do find verses that rail against the evils of drunkenness. So my forefathers and mothers extended such passages to the first drink. After all, you can never get drunk if you never take a first drink. Then they reinterpreted "naughty verses" that did not easily fit into their paradigm. We say that wine back then wasn't like the strong drink we have in our supermarkets. And maybe, just maybe, the Greek word oinos referred to unfermented wine. We find a group of people we consider scholars to go to work to see if they can finesse the evidence to support the conclusion we want them to reach.
When these sorts of dynamics first come into view, the first impulse is to adjust membership requirements to the real list, the boiled down, absolute list. So we will allow our women to cut their hair and follow their consciences as to what modesty might mean today. Perhaps we start a movement to allow our members to drink alcohol as long as they do so in moderation.
But perhaps we have still missed the underlying principle. Even if there were some bottom line set of principles that we can abstract from the concrete admonitions of Scripture, they would still have to be played out concretely in the varied contexts of today. We are often open to the idea that some biblical injunctions do not apply to today because of cultural differences--so our women may not veil themselves any more as in 1 Corinthians 11. But it is a virtual certainty that there will also be things we cannot do today that they could do in biblical times, playing out the cultural principle. It is thus possible that there are modern contexts where it is not appropriate for Christians to drink, even though believers could in Bible times. There will likely be things that Christians in New Zealand or Nicaragua should not do that American Christians can... and visa versa.
Our goal cannot be, in the end, to model church membership on all the exact specifics of the way some portion of those in the Bible looked or even believed! They differed from each other in how they looked and believed, in terms of all the specifics (not denying that we might find a common core among New Testament believers). By the same token, the transfer of biblical requirements to the many different contexts of today will also result in varied expectations, not only meaning the differences between Singapore, Moscow, and New York City, but also the differences between New York City and a place like Marion, Indiana.
No doubt some will object strongly to the notion of membership at all. Does not God decide who is in His Church? Who are we to put requirements on others once we recognize that any list we create is bound to be laden with the idiosyncrasies of passing culture?
In many respects, this is a great thought. Would we really turn away anyone from our doors who was truly seeking God with all their heart? Don't we want to recognize humbly that we do not have a corner on God's mind and, indeed, that our tradition may not be correct on everything?
On the other hand, whoever preaches, whoever teaches, whoever has a "word from the Lord" is going to make truth claims. At some point, we will find disagreement among those who call themselves God's children. Groups meet together because they have some common vision or understanding, something that binds them. A group that was non-committal on everything about which Christians disagree would be a truly bland group indeed, with little to teach and little to do. Church groupings embody a kind of vitality that a vanilla, boiled down core could never have.
And in practice, few of us are going to go start--or attend--a house church. That means we are stuck with existing churches and denominations. And even non-denominational churches stand within traditions. They will almost certainly baptize in a certain way, preach that you should or should not do certain things. Do they believe in speaking in tongues or not? Do they believe in eternal security or not? What do they think evangelism means? How is the church's leadership structured? Answers to these sorts of questions identify the influences of Christian traditions on a church, whether it is connected to other churches or not.
So if there are clear limits to the churches in which we find ourselves, then in practice we simply do not have the authority to decide fully who can be a member of our church and who cannot. These are more givens. The vast majority of believers are located in specific churches in specific denominations and traditions with specific understandings. This will never go away, no matter how much momentum the house church movement gains.
A second practicality has to do with leadership. It is a wonderful theory to consider anyone in your church a member who attends and makes some sort of confession of Christian faith. But who do you allow to lead the church? Who can bring a word to the congregation and who will steer those words when they seem to go off track? If a group holds certain beliefs or practices dear as central to their identity, how will they keep them from disappearing when individuals from other traditions start worshipping with them or broader cultural influences take hold? Should they even be worrying about such things?
The title of this piece proclaimed it a case study in local church membership, based on The Wesleyan Church. This church has been wrestling with these sorts of issues now for a couple decades. On the one hand, it was earlier a denomination of relatively small churches, and small churches hold their unique identities well. Membership requirements were extensive, delving into the minutia of a believer's life and playing out various artifacts of its nineteenth century origins, things like prohibitions on dancing or playing cards.
The last few decades have seen a pruning of some of these many particularities, sometimes because the general populace--including church leaders--had come to ignore them. What is the point of having a statement about not going to movies when your general officials themselves go to movies? It trivializes the instructions we do value. At some points changes were made because of increased maturity in biblical understanding. For example, the New Testament does not equate the Jewish Sabbath with Sunday, so there is no biblical basis for prohibiting a Christian from buying and selling on Sunday (though ironically we might have been justified in forbidding it on Saturday).
In recent times, however, a point of real growth has taken place because of the dynamics of our larger churches. These churches have attracted many believers from other traditions. They worship with us. They give tithes and offerings to us. They are clearly believers. Will we really tell them that they are not members of our church because they drink moderately, which is clearly allowed biblically? Will we keep them from voting on whether to start a Christian school because they believe a person cannot lose their salvation--especially when they want to give $10,000 toward that new wing?
This tension has caused some changes in the way The Wesleyan Church structures its membership. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is impossible to claim that only those who look, believe, and behave the way we do are truly Christians. Clearly there are many believers out there who are our brothers and sisters but who simply disagree with us on the particulars of our faith and practice. They are part of God's Church, but history has left it difficult for them to be members of my church. How can a tradition, embodied in a local church, remain true to its identity as a witness to a certain understanding, and yet acknowledge all those who truly confess faith within its halls to be Christians?
The Wesleyan Church has struggled with this tension. Its current solution is not perfect, but it is an honorable attempt to be faithful to these two principles. On the one hand, it has what it calls "community" membership. In theory, anyone who confesses faith in Christ and manifests the most basic common understandings of what that means in belief and practice, can be such a member. These individuals fully participate in the life of the local congregation as members.
On the other hand, we have another category called "covenant" membership. It is identification with the Wesleyan tradition and the conglomeration of churches that form The Wesleyan Church. It pertains to the highest level of leadership in the local church as well as representation to bodies beyond the local church.
The matter of alcohol is a case in point. There are many American Christians who have a vibrant faith yet drink moderately. The Wesleyan Church, however, has historically chosen to be abstinent as a statement against the consequences that often result from drinking in broken lives and uncontrolled actions. And so we now have community members who drink moderately, while Wesleyan leadership binds itself--beyond the biblical requirements--not to drink at all.
As the world "flattens," it becomes increasingly hard for Christian traditions to separate themselves from one another and go off to their own little enclaves. The result is that our children know Christians from other denominations and fellowships. Indeed, they know people from other religions. We will increasingly have to defend our specific identities in ways we did not fifty years ago. And each group will have to work out how to be who they are without denying that there are other believers out there with significantly different understandings and practices--with all of us looking at the same Bible.
________
Protestant groups make a strong connection between their beliefs and the Bible. The sixth of the 39 articles of the Anglican Church (1563) reads that "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any one, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Methodist tradition followed suit in its Disciplines (e.g., the Methodist Episcopal Church of 1784; the African Methodist Episcopal Church of 1816; etc.). And this statement made its way into the The Discipline of The Wesleyan Church as well.
In practice, however, the "reading" and "proving" of things in Scripture has resulted in an immense variety of beliefs and practices among Protestant groups. This last century has suggested some fundamental reasons why. The default mode of reading the Bible seems to be a strange mixture of anachronistic interpretation, failing to recognize differences between how the words strike us and how they would have struck their original audiences, and this largely without realizing it. A person might think they are simply believing or requiring things that can be "proved" from Scripture when in fact they may be "contemporizing" the meaning, seeing things in the text that were not originally there. Alternatively, they might apply Scriptures to today that arguably do not apply directly to our context.
The second potential misstep is one of application. For example, the Wesleyan Discipline has some general statements in relation to modesty. Although these are stated generally, fifty years ago they would have kept from Wesleyan membership a woman who did not wear long enough dresses or who cut her hair short. In conservative groups that separated from Wesleyan and other holiness churches, such requirements remain at least implicit and sometimes explicit membership requirements even today.
Can a requirement that a woman should not cut her hair or should not adorn herself with fine gold be required on the basis of Scripture? Yes, arguably they can, if one applies 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Peter 3 directly to today. But does long hair on women or the absence of any jewelry mean the same thing today that it did in the first century? Most American and European Christians would say it does not, as is evident from the way most Christian women dress today. These are, then, potential instances where not taking into account the cultural distance between ourselves and the biblical texts has at least potentially led to misapplication of Scripture in relation to membership, even though requirements could in theory be "proved" from Scripture.
But far more requirements, ones that are considered very important to believe or do, are very difficult to prove from Scripture. The second potential misstep is one of interpretation. For example, the Wesleyan Church has struggled of late over the issue of whether to require all its members to abstain completely from alcohol. In years past, reading modern concerns into the ancient words, Wesleyans had argued that the Bible, properly understood, did not in fact allow for any drinking of alcohol. This is the dynamic we mentioned above, practiced by Christians throughout church history, of "contemporizing" the meaning of the biblical text to reinforce and embody what a particular group senses to be its identity at a particular point in time--or its sense of how the gospel plays out at a given place or time.
We do find verses that rail against the evils of drunkenness. So my forefathers and mothers extended such passages to the first drink. After all, you can never get drunk if you never take a first drink. Then they reinterpreted "naughty verses" that did not easily fit into their paradigm. We say that wine back then wasn't like the strong drink we have in our supermarkets. And maybe, just maybe, the Greek word oinos referred to unfermented wine. We find a group of people we consider scholars to go to work to see if they can finesse the evidence to support the conclusion we want them to reach.
When these sorts of dynamics first come into view, the first impulse is to adjust membership requirements to the real list, the boiled down, absolute list. So we will allow our women to cut their hair and follow their consciences as to what modesty might mean today. Perhaps we start a movement to allow our members to drink alcohol as long as they do so in moderation.
But perhaps we have still missed the underlying principle. Even if there were some bottom line set of principles that we can abstract from the concrete admonitions of Scripture, they would still have to be played out concretely in the varied contexts of today. We are often open to the idea that some biblical injunctions do not apply to today because of cultural differences--so our women may not veil themselves any more as in 1 Corinthians 11. But it is a virtual certainty that there will also be things we cannot do today that they could do in biblical times, playing out the cultural principle. It is thus possible that there are modern contexts where it is not appropriate for Christians to drink, even though believers could in Bible times. There will likely be things that Christians in New Zealand or Nicaragua should not do that American Christians can... and visa versa.
Our goal cannot be, in the end, to model church membership on all the exact specifics of the way some portion of those in the Bible looked or even believed! They differed from each other in how they looked and believed, in terms of all the specifics (not denying that we might find a common core among New Testament believers). By the same token, the transfer of biblical requirements to the many different contexts of today will also result in varied expectations, not only meaning the differences between Singapore, Moscow, and New York City, but also the differences between New York City and a place like Marion, Indiana.
No doubt some will object strongly to the notion of membership at all. Does not God decide who is in His Church? Who are we to put requirements on others once we recognize that any list we create is bound to be laden with the idiosyncrasies of passing culture?
In many respects, this is a great thought. Would we really turn away anyone from our doors who was truly seeking God with all their heart? Don't we want to recognize humbly that we do not have a corner on God's mind and, indeed, that our tradition may not be correct on everything?
On the other hand, whoever preaches, whoever teaches, whoever has a "word from the Lord" is going to make truth claims. At some point, we will find disagreement among those who call themselves God's children. Groups meet together because they have some common vision or understanding, something that binds them. A group that was non-committal on everything about which Christians disagree would be a truly bland group indeed, with little to teach and little to do. Church groupings embody a kind of vitality that a vanilla, boiled down core could never have.
And in practice, few of us are going to go start--or attend--a house church. That means we are stuck with existing churches and denominations. And even non-denominational churches stand within traditions. They will almost certainly baptize in a certain way, preach that you should or should not do certain things. Do they believe in speaking in tongues or not? Do they believe in eternal security or not? What do they think evangelism means? How is the church's leadership structured? Answers to these sorts of questions identify the influences of Christian traditions on a church, whether it is connected to other churches or not.
So if there are clear limits to the churches in which we find ourselves, then in practice we simply do not have the authority to decide fully who can be a member of our church and who cannot. These are more givens. The vast majority of believers are located in specific churches in specific denominations and traditions with specific understandings. This will never go away, no matter how much momentum the house church movement gains.
A second practicality has to do with leadership. It is a wonderful theory to consider anyone in your church a member who attends and makes some sort of confession of Christian faith. But who do you allow to lead the church? Who can bring a word to the congregation and who will steer those words when they seem to go off track? If a group holds certain beliefs or practices dear as central to their identity, how will they keep them from disappearing when individuals from other traditions start worshipping with them or broader cultural influences take hold? Should they even be worrying about such things?
The title of this piece proclaimed it a case study in local church membership, based on The Wesleyan Church. This church has been wrestling with these sorts of issues now for a couple decades. On the one hand, it was earlier a denomination of relatively small churches, and small churches hold their unique identities well. Membership requirements were extensive, delving into the minutia of a believer's life and playing out various artifacts of its nineteenth century origins, things like prohibitions on dancing or playing cards.
The last few decades have seen a pruning of some of these many particularities, sometimes because the general populace--including church leaders--had come to ignore them. What is the point of having a statement about not going to movies when your general officials themselves go to movies? It trivializes the instructions we do value. At some points changes were made because of increased maturity in biblical understanding. For example, the New Testament does not equate the Jewish Sabbath with Sunday, so there is no biblical basis for prohibiting a Christian from buying and selling on Sunday (though ironically we might have been justified in forbidding it on Saturday).
In recent times, however, a point of real growth has taken place because of the dynamics of our larger churches. These churches have attracted many believers from other traditions. They worship with us. They give tithes and offerings to us. They are clearly believers. Will we really tell them that they are not members of our church because they drink moderately, which is clearly allowed biblically? Will we keep them from voting on whether to start a Christian school because they believe a person cannot lose their salvation--especially when they want to give $10,000 toward that new wing?
This tension has caused some changes in the way The Wesleyan Church structures its membership. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is impossible to claim that only those who look, believe, and behave the way we do are truly Christians. Clearly there are many believers out there who are our brothers and sisters but who simply disagree with us on the particulars of our faith and practice. They are part of God's Church, but history has left it difficult for them to be members of my church. How can a tradition, embodied in a local church, remain true to its identity as a witness to a certain understanding, and yet acknowledge all those who truly confess faith within its halls to be Christians?
The Wesleyan Church has struggled with this tension. Its current solution is not perfect, but it is an honorable attempt to be faithful to these two principles. On the one hand, it has what it calls "community" membership. In theory, anyone who confesses faith in Christ and manifests the most basic common understandings of what that means in belief and practice, can be such a member. These individuals fully participate in the life of the local congregation as members.
On the other hand, we have another category called "covenant" membership. It is identification with the Wesleyan tradition and the conglomeration of churches that form The Wesleyan Church. It pertains to the highest level of leadership in the local church as well as representation to bodies beyond the local church.
The matter of alcohol is a case in point. There are many American Christians who have a vibrant faith yet drink moderately. The Wesleyan Church, however, has historically chosen to be abstinent as a statement against the consequences that often result from drinking in broken lives and uncontrolled actions. And so we now have community members who drink moderately, while Wesleyan leadership binds itself--beyond the biblical requirements--not to drink at all.
As the world "flattens," it becomes increasingly hard for Christian traditions to separate themselves from one another and go off to their own little enclaves. The result is that our children know Christians from other denominations and fellowships. Indeed, they know people from other religions. We will increasingly have to defend our specific identities in ways we did not fifty years ago. And each group will have to work out how to be who they are without denying that there are other believers out there with significantly different understandings and practices--with all of us looking at the same Bible.
Monday, August 03, 2009
MDIV Seminary Classes Begin!
July 1st was the legal beginning. October 2 is the public beginning. Today is the practical beginning! The first MDIV class begins today with 30 students, which was our goal for this first class.The first class is called Pastor, Church, and World. It is, first of all, an orientation to the degree and the unique way we are going about the MDIV. On Wednesday morning, for example, several of us (Bible, theology, and church history profs) are going to dramatize the process for the iconic Integration Paper, which runs throughout each of the courses. You take a pastoral issue and run it through the Bible, theology, and church history to end up with a pastoral theology of the issue.
The course also includes a number of pastoral self-assessments and addresses the pastor as a person. They're reading books like
- William Willimon, Pastor: The Theology and practice of Ordained Ministry
- Henri Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together
- Stephen Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God
- Reggie McNeal, Practicing Greatness
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Sermon Starters: "Sticky Christians"
Preaching tomorrow. Here are some notes others can improve on, if they feel led.
[Now it was yesterday. Here's the podcast if you're interested in listening]
Supporting Text: Genesis 41:1-16
Key Text: 1 Peter 2:11-17
Introduction
[Now it was yesterday. Here's the podcast if you're interested in listening]
Supporting Text: Genesis 41:1-16
Key Text: 1 Peter 2:11-17
Introduction
- People like me shouldn't be allowed to own houses.
- I don't mean that Christians should be irritating (several church members mentioned by name as examples... just kidding ;-).
- Larry Osborne's Sticky Church
- God made Joseph a sticky person of God.
- Key Text: "Live such good lives among the nations that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us" (mostly TNIV).
- Context of 1 Peter: "though they accuse you"
- 3:15-16, not about apologetics but testifying to faith while on trial
- Scot McKnight: a "defensive strategy"
- Be careful about applying the specifics of 1 Peter to today.
- 1 Peter 4:17-19--judgment begun with the household of God...
- 1 Peter--slave masters who don't stick; husbands who don't stick
- Not everyone will stick, and it's a mystery why some do and some don't.
- Movies where it doesn't all work out...
- Our job is to be faithful.
- What in the world is a sticky wicket?
- "Abstain from fleshly desires" (2:11)
- DeNeff has been preaching on this topic, so I'd better not say much.
- Cover the pitch at night so it doesn't get wet in the first place (stay out of sticky situations)
- KJV of 1 Thess. 5:22 "abstain from all appearance of evil"--the old timers were wrong on the meaning of the verse but mostly right in the application--don't play with fire
- Pray!
- Practice Batting (just say no)
- Reset the wicket
- Practice Bowling (Virtue as a habit, practicing the virtue--footnotes to DeNeff)
- Respect everyone (you know the drill)
- Love fellow believers (not necessarily "like")
- Fear God
- Submit to human authority (including the emperor)
- This last admonition is all the more striking since Peter died at the hands of the emperor.
- Pray!
- Practice batting
- Reset the wicket
- Practice bowling
4. Conclusion
- Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt
- What am I going to do about it?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
1 Faith, Evidence, and Biblical Scholarship
The potential beginning of this possible booklet is coming into view. Here's my thought for the first section. Drafts of subsequent sections include...
2. Biblical Hermeneutics
3. The Old Testament Canon
4. Genres in the Pentateuch
5. Critical Issues in the Pentateuch
6. Critical Issues in the Historical Books
7. The Poetic Sub-Genre
8. Critical Issues in the Psalms
9. Critical Issues in Wisdom Literature
10. Critical Issues in Isaiah
11. Critical Issues in the Other Prophets 1
12. Critical Issues in the Other Prophets 2
__________
The issues of this booklet have been the source of great controversy in the past. Interestingly, the controversy has died down quite a bit these last thirty years or so, even in evangelical circles. The focus among evangelicals turned much more to soul winning and growing the church in the eighties and nineties. Then this decade has seen a resurgence of interest in serving the world, ministering to the poor and needy worldwide.
To many of our youth, perhaps even our pastors, these issues may seem very foreign, things they've never heard about. In some ways, they seem so tangent to doing the work of the ministry. I personally find them largely tangential to hearing God speak through the Bible. It seems to me a minister should have heard of them, but should not spend too much time worrying about them. In those instances where these issues have come up, young ministry students often say things like, "Who cares who the author was--the message is true."
Hiatuses of this sort provide rare opportunities for reflection and potential reassessment. Was the fervor and zeal of past evangelicals warranted? If it was for its time, is it still warranted? Why did they respond so vigorously? What was going on historically and sociologically at the time? A few decades can potentially bring a clarity those in the middle of battle did not have at the time.
On the other hand, of late we have also seen a revived defense of traditional evangelical concerns in some circles as well. While evangelicalism was busy growing the church, some of its children went to seminary and got doctorates in a context where they were not as pressured to come to a particular conclusion on these issues. In the context of that freedom, some of them found ways to reconcile their faith with certain elements of broader biblical scholarship. Some traditional evangelicals have suddenly found scholars in their midst who are evangelicals but who do not draw as rigid boundaries as were sacrosant in some circles at one time.
My goal in this booklet, in addition to making sure ministers have at least heard of these issues, is to try to find a middle way of faith that respects both what the late Robert Webber called "traditional" and what he called "younger" evangelicals (The Younger Evangelicals 2002). Obviously there are many younger evangelicals with traditional views and there are older evangelicals who hold broader views than some of their contemporaries. Indeed, it is clear that these categories are biased toward the younger evangelicals, one of which I would consider myself.
But my goal is not to try to convert either "traditional" or "younger" evangelicals to a particular position on specific issues. The middle way I seek is not a particular position on these issues but a general attitude toward them in relation to faith. First, I am urging honesty in relation to the evidence. Most of us, including myself, usually think we are more objective than we actually are. Objectivity is often best found in the conflict of opposing views. Although the internet age has made it more and more difficult, it has often been easy enough for "conservative" and "liberal" alike to surround themselves with those who agree with some supposed party line. Objectivity is difficult to find in such enclaves.
Whatever we might disagree with in postmodern trends, the overall climate has drawn our attention to the fundamental role faith inevitably plays in our understanding of reality. X does not always mark the spot. In a world where we admit the evidence is less conclusive than the previous age assumed, we realize it is not irrational to take a faith position even when the evidence does not currently seem in our favor.
This situation potentially gives us great freedom. We do not need to skew the evidence in order to take a position that is more possible than probable. Although others may disagree, I have long felt that scholars of both conservative and liberal stripe sometimes confuse what it is possible to argue for and what is a more probable reading of the evidence. In a postmodern age, we can be up front about our presuppositions and need not pretend that the evidence is always in favor of the positions we take.
An even more important development in twentieth century thinking is the realization that, regardless of the origins and history of a text, meaning is ultimately a function of a person hearing or reading it. If we reflect on this phenomenon a while, it may eventually transform our perspective on these sorts of issues. Why has scholarship these last two centuries, both conservative and liberal alike, spent so much time arguing over meanings the text had in the past when in order for it to be God's word today, it must have an inspired meaning today?
What a tremendous irony! Certainly Christianity will not have much credibility if it claims the Bible was not also God's word in the past. New religions that claim to have timeless truth but that only started a few years ago have never been very credible. But it seems peculiar that we have expended so much time and energy questing after meanings of the past when we need a word from God today.
So we hope in the next few pages to cover some of the basic issues that have been raised these last two centuries in biblical scholarship. We believe a minister should at least be aware that they exist. We wish to respect those who take varied positions on them, while trying to be as honest as we can be about the way the issue seems to lie evidentially. We presuppose Christian faith, but do not insist that faith necessarily requires a specific position on every issue.
Again, we believe that what is important to hear the books of the Bible as Christian Scripture is to read them with Christian eyes. It is not necessarily to read them in their original meanings, although these meanings were also surely God's speakings to ancient peoples and situations too. It is thus Isaiah read through Christian eyes, assisted by the Holy Spirit, that is God's word for us today. The process by which Isaiah reached its current form, whatever it was, was surely filled with inspiration as well, perhaps with God speaking to more than one ancient individual along the way. But coming to a firm conclusion on these sorts of issues will not necessarily help us hear God's word in this text.
And so it is with a spirit of faith that we proceed through these issues. These sorts of issues have been called "critical" issues in the past. No doubt some in the past used this term to suggest that other scholarship was uncritical, that is, not objective. The historical critical method was thus promoted as an approach that was really interested in the truth, as opposed to those who disagreed. That sort of hostile bias was no doubt part of the reason fundamentalists and evangelicals fought so vehemently against such claims that very often were hostile to faith. As we said earlier, we hope that the current climate and hiatus from such battles might make it possible for us to be critical thinkers about these issues and full of faith, regardless of our specific conclusions.
2. Biblical Hermeneutics
3. The Old Testament Canon
4. Genres in the Pentateuch
5. Critical Issues in the Pentateuch
6. Critical Issues in the Historical Books
7. The Poetic Sub-Genre
8. Critical Issues in the Psalms
9. Critical Issues in Wisdom Literature
10. Critical Issues in Isaiah
11. Critical Issues in the Other Prophets 1
12. Critical Issues in the Other Prophets 2
__________
The issues of this booklet have been the source of great controversy in the past. Interestingly, the controversy has died down quite a bit these last thirty years or so, even in evangelical circles. The focus among evangelicals turned much more to soul winning and growing the church in the eighties and nineties. Then this decade has seen a resurgence of interest in serving the world, ministering to the poor and needy worldwide.
To many of our youth, perhaps even our pastors, these issues may seem very foreign, things they've never heard about. In some ways, they seem so tangent to doing the work of the ministry. I personally find them largely tangential to hearing God speak through the Bible. It seems to me a minister should have heard of them, but should not spend too much time worrying about them. In those instances where these issues have come up, young ministry students often say things like, "Who cares who the author was--the message is true."
Hiatuses of this sort provide rare opportunities for reflection and potential reassessment. Was the fervor and zeal of past evangelicals warranted? If it was for its time, is it still warranted? Why did they respond so vigorously? What was going on historically and sociologically at the time? A few decades can potentially bring a clarity those in the middle of battle did not have at the time.
On the other hand, of late we have also seen a revived defense of traditional evangelical concerns in some circles as well. While evangelicalism was busy growing the church, some of its children went to seminary and got doctorates in a context where they were not as pressured to come to a particular conclusion on these issues. In the context of that freedom, some of them found ways to reconcile their faith with certain elements of broader biblical scholarship. Some traditional evangelicals have suddenly found scholars in their midst who are evangelicals but who do not draw as rigid boundaries as were sacrosant in some circles at one time.
My goal in this booklet, in addition to making sure ministers have at least heard of these issues, is to try to find a middle way of faith that respects both what the late Robert Webber called "traditional" and what he called "younger" evangelicals (The Younger Evangelicals 2002). Obviously there are many younger evangelicals with traditional views and there are older evangelicals who hold broader views than some of their contemporaries. Indeed, it is clear that these categories are biased toward the younger evangelicals, one of which I would consider myself.
But my goal is not to try to convert either "traditional" or "younger" evangelicals to a particular position on specific issues. The middle way I seek is not a particular position on these issues but a general attitude toward them in relation to faith. First, I am urging honesty in relation to the evidence. Most of us, including myself, usually think we are more objective than we actually are. Objectivity is often best found in the conflict of opposing views. Although the internet age has made it more and more difficult, it has often been easy enough for "conservative" and "liberal" alike to surround themselves with those who agree with some supposed party line. Objectivity is difficult to find in such enclaves.
Whatever we might disagree with in postmodern trends, the overall climate has drawn our attention to the fundamental role faith inevitably plays in our understanding of reality. X does not always mark the spot. In a world where we admit the evidence is less conclusive than the previous age assumed, we realize it is not irrational to take a faith position even when the evidence does not currently seem in our favor.
This situation potentially gives us great freedom. We do not need to skew the evidence in order to take a position that is more possible than probable. Although others may disagree, I have long felt that scholars of both conservative and liberal stripe sometimes confuse what it is possible to argue for and what is a more probable reading of the evidence. In a postmodern age, we can be up front about our presuppositions and need not pretend that the evidence is always in favor of the positions we take.
An even more important development in twentieth century thinking is the realization that, regardless of the origins and history of a text, meaning is ultimately a function of a person hearing or reading it. If we reflect on this phenomenon a while, it may eventually transform our perspective on these sorts of issues. Why has scholarship these last two centuries, both conservative and liberal alike, spent so much time arguing over meanings the text had in the past when in order for it to be God's word today, it must have an inspired meaning today?
What a tremendous irony! Certainly Christianity will not have much credibility if it claims the Bible was not also God's word in the past. New religions that claim to have timeless truth but that only started a few years ago have never been very credible. But it seems peculiar that we have expended so much time and energy questing after meanings of the past when we need a word from God today.
So we hope in the next few pages to cover some of the basic issues that have been raised these last two centuries in biblical scholarship. We believe a minister should at least be aware that they exist. We wish to respect those who take varied positions on them, while trying to be as honest as we can be about the way the issue seems to lie evidentially. We presuppose Christian faith, but do not insist that faith necessarily requires a specific position on every issue.
Again, we believe that what is important to hear the books of the Bible as Christian Scripture is to read them with Christian eyes. It is not necessarily to read them in their original meanings, although these meanings were also surely God's speakings to ancient peoples and situations too. It is thus Isaiah read through Christian eyes, assisted by the Holy Spirit, that is God's word for us today. The process by which Isaiah reached its current form, whatever it was, was surely filled with inspiration as well, perhaps with God speaking to more than one ancient individual along the way. But coming to a firm conclusion on these sorts of issues will not necessarily help us hear God's word in this text.
And so it is with a spirit of faith that we proceed through these issues. These sorts of issues have been called "critical" issues in the past. No doubt some in the past used this term to suggest that other scholarship was uncritical, that is, not objective. The historical critical method was thus promoted as an approach that was really interested in the truth, as opposed to those who disagreed. That sort of hostile bias was no doubt part of the reason fundamentalists and evangelicals fought so vehemently against such claims that very often were hostile to faith. As we said earlier, we hope that the current climate and hiatus from such battles might make it possible for us to be critical thinkers about these issues and full of faith, regardless of our specific conclusions.
11 Critical Issues in the Other Prophets 2
And now the second installment to finish out critical issues in the other prophets. Previous posts in this series include:
1. Faith, Evidence, and Biblical Scholarship
2. The Old Testament Canon
3. Genres in the Pentateuch
4. Critical Issues in the Pentateuch
5. Critical Issues in the Historical Books
6. The Poetic Sub-Genre
7. Critical Issues in the Psalms
8. Critical Issues in Wisdom Literature
9. Critical Issues in Isaiah
10. Critical Issues in the Other Prophets 1
And now, the other prophets, again...
_______
Christian Interpretation
From the time of the exile on, we are not surprised to find an increasing expectation that, one day, God would restore the fortunes of Israel. One day, a king from the line of David would rise again. Not all Jewish literature in the centuries after exile necessarily had such an expectation, but some of the post-exilic material in the prophets understandably does.
One critical issue in the prophets is material about such a coming king that appears in the writings of prophets who lived prior to the exile (e.g., Micah 5:2; Isa. 23:5-6). Some scholars see this material as part of the post-exilic editing of the prophet, since such predictions would have made little sense when there was actually a king ruling on the throne. Traditionally, of course, such statements have been read as centuries long anticipations of Jesus. Certainly one's presuppositions about the supernatural can come into play in one's conclusions--is it possible for a person to see the future so far in advance? At the same time, one might believe in prophecy and yet still conclude that it is more likely this material comes from after the exile.
The Christian belief that Jesus is enthroned as cosmic Lord at God's right hand in heaven is a significant upgrade from the prophetic sense that a great human king would once more assume Israel's throne. For example, Micah 5:2-4 predicts the return of a presumably human descendant of David who will restore the boundaries of Israel. It does not seem likely that anyone prior to the first century AD would have understood this verse in relation to a Messiah who had come to Bethlehem from heaven.
Indeed, the imagery in Micah of a ruler arising from Bethlehem need not even be taken originally in reference to the location of the king's birthplace. One might easily read it as a statement of the lineage of the king. In that case we find at least two possible shifts in the Christian reading of this passage in Matthew 2:6 from its original meaning. The one is its application to Jesus, who at least initially is a far different kind of king that Micah had in mind (suffering, cosmic). The second is taking the verse as an indication of birth location rather than general lineage.
Those New Testament authors who quote from the prophetic writings thus continue to read verses at varying removes from their original contexts. One of the easiest examples of this dynamic is Matthew 2:15's use of Hosea 11:1. Hosea 11:1 in its original context talks about how God brought Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus but that Israel then turned to other gods and did not serve Yahweh. Matthew strikingly lifts the words "out of Egypt I called my son" out of the verse and reads it in relation to Jesus returning from Egypt as a child after those seeking to kill him had died.
A reading of prophetic texts in greater continuity with the original meaning is Hebrews' and Paul's use of the new covenant concept in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (38:31-34 in the Greek Old Testament). The passage originally is a somewhat poetic prediction of the eventual restoration of Israel after its captivity in Babylon. Hebrews and Paul's understanding is in continuity with this anticipation but it is also "fuller" and richer. For Hebrews, the law written on our hearts is mediated by the Holy Spirit dwelling inside us, and in Paul and Luke the new covenant is inaugurated by Jesus' blood. Jeremiah knows none of these specifics, but provides a general framework into which the "fuller sense" of these early Christians fit easily.
Composition
We encounter the same sorts of issues with sources and editing in the other prophets as we do in Isaiah and other books. Did, for example, Jeremiah undergo some editing by "Deuteronomists," similar hands that supposedly edited Deuteronomy and the historical books? Did Amos and Hosea get edited in the southern kingdom after being directed toward the northern kingom? The reasoning behind such suggestions, whether they be true or not, are tensions between material that obviously fits the situation of the prophet and then other material that seems anachronistic or in tension with other things the prophet says.
For example, some scholars suggest that Micah 4-5 date to the period after the exile and 6-7 even later. Micah himself lived in the 700s BC. Zechariah 1-8 are sometimes called "First Zechariah," since it seems to go together as a coherent book. Then the tone and subject matter changes significantly in chapters 7-8, again leading some scholars to consider it from a different setting. Each individual will have to decide what they think of such suggestions.
Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi seem to be in a slightly different situation from other suggestions about sources and such. This material appeared at the end of scrolls of "The Twelve," which we think of as the Minor Prophets. But it is debated whether the name of a prophet actually appears in any of these chapters. Malachi in Hebrew simply means "my messenger," and Zechariah is not mentioned anywhere in what now appears as Zechariah 9-14.
Some scholars thus suggest that the prophecies from Zechariah 9 to Malachi 4 were originally a somewhat miscellaneous collection of prophecies at the end of scrolls containing the so called minor prophets. At the same time, the material of Malachi does hang together under the heading "oracle of the Lord to Israel through my messenger" (or through Malachi). Since the New Testament never references any of this material by the names Zechariah or Malachi, it would seem as if nothing would keep a person from any of these options if one so concluded, except for tradition.
Historical Issues
One of the big issues in the prophets is whether one believes that God exists and tells people the distant future. One of the criticisms that has often been made of scholarship on the Old Testament is that some scholars do not even believe prophecy is possible. In such cases, it is little surprise they think material is late, since they do not believe someone can predict the future in the first place. Undoubtedly there is truth to this criticism. At the same time, a person might believe in the possibility of true prophecy and yet still conclude it most likely that certain material was written much later.
Another historical issue in prophecy has to do with predictions that, at least on the surface, do not seem to have come true. On the one hand, the Jews would scarcely have preserved the prophetic writings if they did not believe they had largely turned out to come to pass. Most prophetic material had to do with the immediate situation of the prophet. So in those instances when predictions were made, they were soon either verified or discounted, and Jeremiah indicates that this is the way one distinguishes a true prophet from a false one (cf. Jer. 28:8-9; Deut. 18:22). Of course, not all prophecy was predictive--much of it indicted current practices like idolatry and mistreatment of the poor, orphans, widows, and so forth.
At the same time, we do encounter instances that seem hard to reconcile with other historical material from the ancient world. Such circumstances sometimes led later interpreters to take predictions allegorically or figuratively. Another possibility is to take such predictions in relation to an age yet to come, the "end times." For example, it is difficult to reconcile Ezekiel's prediction of the fall of Tyre or that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt (Ezek. 29:8-12) with the evidence from elsewhere. Haggai 2 seems to adjust the prophecy about the splendor of the rebuilt temple in light of the fact that the temple did not turn out to be as grand as pictured in Haggai 1.
Ezekiel 40 and following similarly looks to a wondrously rebuilt temple, a prediction that we presumably need to take symbolically if we consider it still in force. The temple rebuilt in 516BC was nothing of this caliber, nor was Herod's refurbishment that began in 20BC. Given Hebrews' sense that no more animal sacrifice should take place and that the true tabernacle is in heaven, it is difficult for us as Christians now to believe that God's glory could again return to an earthly temple (cf. Ezek. 43:1-5) and thus that this prophecy could come to pass in a literal sense. Daniel 11 reads like a history of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV until verse 40, where his downfall and death in the land of Israel is seemingly predicted. Again, all the indications from elsewhere are that he died elsewhere under different circumstances. Some interpreters thus relate that part of the chapter to the end times and an "antichrist" of a different age.
These are difficult issues and no doubt ingenious solutions have been offered to explain them. They raise the possibility not least that God might change His mind in response to human action, such as we see in Jonah 3-4 when Nineveh repents. However, many of these instances seem much less profound. One must either simply take by faith that there are explanations for the seeming anomalies or adjust one's sense of what inspiration entails or what the inspired meaning of Scripture is.
Jonah presents its own issues. Many interpreters suggest the story of Jonah itself was a parable or novella that was never meant to be taken as a depiction of history. At first glance it is hard to object to this suggestion, since no one would then be accusing Jonah of lying or being wrong. Jesus never suggests that the prodigal of his parable was ever a real person or that he really knew of an incident with a Samaritan near Jericho. This approach to Jonah would put it in a similar category, true but not historical
There are features of Jonah's story that are difficult from a historical standpoint. We have no record of a mass repentance and turn to Yahweh in the extensive annals and records of Nineveh from this period, capital of the Assyrian empire at the time (the same kingdom that destroyed the northern kingdom in 722BC). The idea that it would take three days to cross Nineveh also seems quite a shocking claim from an archaeological perspective (Jonah 3:3). Again, if we believe we must take Jonah historically, we are justified in believing by faith that there are explanations for such things, even if we do not know them at this point. No doubt many ingenious explanations have already been offered.
On the other hand, if a person is inclined to take the story as a parable of sorts, we have once again to deal with the fact that Jesus seems to refer to the story as historical event. Jesus in Matthew and Luke offers the sign of Jonah as the principal sign he had to offer to his detractors. Matthew 12:38-41 and Luke 11:29-32 both seem to take the Jonah story literally and historically. We thus face the same issue with Jonah that we face with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Davidic authorship of the Psalms, and the Isaianic authorship of chapters 40-66. Of course even if Jonah were novelistic in nature, it is possible that the historical Jonah did have a tussle with a fish and preached with success in Nineveh.
Lamentations
Although Lamentations appears in the Writings of the Hebrew Bible (among the "five scrolls" or Tefillim), it is couched between Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the Christian Bible. It is traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah, although technically it is anonymous. Lamentations never mentions its author, although it is clearly a lament over the destruction of Jerusalem. Confer with 2 Chronicles 35:25 for the possible connection between Lamentations and the prophet Jeremiah.
Lamentations is a lovely example of artfulness in the Bible. It consists of five poems, each of which is shaped by the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The first, second, and fourth poems are acrostics with twenty-two stanzas, each of which begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet (which has 22 letters). The third has three stanzas per letter. The fifth has twenty-two stanzas, but they are not alphabetical. Psalm 119 is also an acrostic psalm.
1. Faith, Evidence, and Biblical Scholarship
2. The Old Testament Canon
3. Genres in the Pentateuch
4. Critical Issues in the Pentateuch
5. Critical Issues in the Historical Books
6. The Poetic Sub-Genre
7. Critical Issues in the Psalms
8. Critical Issues in Wisdom Literature
9. Critical Issues in Isaiah
10. Critical Issues in the Other Prophets 1
And now, the other prophets, again...
_______
Christian Interpretation
From the time of the exile on, we are not surprised to find an increasing expectation that, one day, God would restore the fortunes of Israel. One day, a king from the line of David would rise again. Not all Jewish literature in the centuries after exile necessarily had such an expectation, but some of the post-exilic material in the prophets understandably does.
One critical issue in the prophets is material about such a coming king that appears in the writings of prophets who lived prior to the exile (e.g., Micah 5:2; Isa. 23:5-6). Some scholars see this material as part of the post-exilic editing of the prophet, since such predictions would have made little sense when there was actually a king ruling on the throne. Traditionally, of course, such statements have been read as centuries long anticipations of Jesus. Certainly one's presuppositions about the supernatural can come into play in one's conclusions--is it possible for a person to see the future so far in advance? At the same time, one might believe in prophecy and yet still conclude that it is more likely this material comes from after the exile.
The Christian belief that Jesus is enthroned as cosmic Lord at God's right hand in heaven is a significant upgrade from the prophetic sense that a great human king would once more assume Israel's throne. For example, Micah 5:2-4 predicts the return of a presumably human descendant of David who will restore the boundaries of Israel. It does not seem likely that anyone prior to the first century AD would have understood this verse in relation to a Messiah who had come to Bethlehem from heaven.
Indeed, the imagery in Micah of a ruler arising from Bethlehem need not even be taken originally in reference to the location of the king's birthplace. One might easily read it as a statement of the lineage of the king. In that case we find at least two possible shifts in the Christian reading of this passage in Matthew 2:6 from its original meaning. The one is its application to Jesus, who at least initially is a far different kind of king that Micah had in mind (suffering, cosmic). The second is taking the verse as an indication of birth location rather than general lineage.
Those New Testament authors who quote from the prophetic writings thus continue to read verses at varying removes from their original contexts. One of the easiest examples of this dynamic is Matthew 2:15's use of Hosea 11:1. Hosea 11:1 in its original context talks about how God brought Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus but that Israel then turned to other gods and did not serve Yahweh. Matthew strikingly lifts the words "out of Egypt I called my son" out of the verse and reads it in relation to Jesus returning from Egypt as a child after those seeking to kill him had died.
A reading of prophetic texts in greater continuity with the original meaning is Hebrews' and Paul's use of the new covenant concept in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (38:31-34 in the Greek Old Testament). The passage originally is a somewhat poetic prediction of the eventual restoration of Israel after its captivity in Babylon. Hebrews and Paul's understanding is in continuity with this anticipation but it is also "fuller" and richer. For Hebrews, the law written on our hearts is mediated by the Holy Spirit dwelling inside us, and in Paul and Luke the new covenant is inaugurated by Jesus' blood. Jeremiah knows none of these specifics, but provides a general framework into which the "fuller sense" of these early Christians fit easily.
Composition
We encounter the same sorts of issues with sources and editing in the other prophets as we do in Isaiah and other books. Did, for example, Jeremiah undergo some editing by "Deuteronomists," similar hands that supposedly edited Deuteronomy and the historical books? Did Amos and Hosea get edited in the southern kingdom after being directed toward the northern kingom? The reasoning behind such suggestions, whether they be true or not, are tensions between material that obviously fits the situation of the prophet and then other material that seems anachronistic or in tension with other things the prophet says.
For example, some scholars suggest that Micah 4-5 date to the period after the exile and 6-7 even later. Micah himself lived in the 700s BC. Zechariah 1-8 are sometimes called "First Zechariah," since it seems to go together as a coherent book. Then the tone and subject matter changes significantly in chapters 7-8, again leading some scholars to consider it from a different setting. Each individual will have to decide what they think of such suggestions.
Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi seem to be in a slightly different situation from other suggestions about sources and such. This material appeared at the end of scrolls of "The Twelve," which we think of as the Minor Prophets. But it is debated whether the name of a prophet actually appears in any of these chapters. Malachi in Hebrew simply means "my messenger," and Zechariah is not mentioned anywhere in what now appears as Zechariah 9-14.
Some scholars thus suggest that the prophecies from Zechariah 9 to Malachi 4 were originally a somewhat miscellaneous collection of prophecies at the end of scrolls containing the so called minor prophets. At the same time, the material of Malachi does hang together under the heading "oracle of the Lord to Israel through my messenger" (or through Malachi). Since the New Testament never references any of this material by the names Zechariah or Malachi, it would seem as if nothing would keep a person from any of these options if one so concluded, except for tradition.
Historical Issues
One of the big issues in the prophets is whether one believes that God exists and tells people the distant future. One of the criticisms that has often been made of scholarship on the Old Testament is that some scholars do not even believe prophecy is possible. In such cases, it is little surprise they think material is late, since they do not believe someone can predict the future in the first place. Undoubtedly there is truth to this criticism. At the same time, a person might believe in the possibility of true prophecy and yet still conclude it most likely that certain material was written much later.
Another historical issue in prophecy has to do with predictions that, at least on the surface, do not seem to have come true. On the one hand, the Jews would scarcely have preserved the prophetic writings if they did not believe they had largely turned out to come to pass. Most prophetic material had to do with the immediate situation of the prophet. So in those instances when predictions were made, they were soon either verified or discounted, and Jeremiah indicates that this is the way one distinguishes a true prophet from a false one (cf. Jer. 28:8-9; Deut. 18:22). Of course, not all prophecy was predictive--much of it indicted current practices like idolatry and mistreatment of the poor, orphans, widows, and so forth.
At the same time, we do encounter instances that seem hard to reconcile with other historical material from the ancient world. Such circumstances sometimes led later interpreters to take predictions allegorically or figuratively. Another possibility is to take such predictions in relation to an age yet to come, the "end times." For example, it is difficult to reconcile Ezekiel's prediction of the fall of Tyre or that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt (Ezek. 29:8-12) with the evidence from elsewhere. Haggai 2 seems to adjust the prophecy about the splendor of the rebuilt temple in light of the fact that the temple did not turn out to be as grand as pictured in Haggai 1.
Ezekiel 40 and following similarly looks to a wondrously rebuilt temple, a prediction that we presumably need to take symbolically if we consider it still in force. The temple rebuilt in 516BC was nothing of this caliber, nor was Herod's refurbishment that began in 20BC. Given Hebrews' sense that no more animal sacrifice should take place and that the true tabernacle is in heaven, it is difficult for us as Christians now to believe that God's glory could again return to an earthly temple (cf. Ezek. 43:1-5) and thus that this prophecy could come to pass in a literal sense. Daniel 11 reads like a history of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes IV until verse 40, where his downfall and death in the land of Israel is seemingly predicted. Again, all the indications from elsewhere are that he died elsewhere under different circumstances. Some interpreters thus relate that part of the chapter to the end times and an "antichrist" of a different age.
These are difficult issues and no doubt ingenious solutions have been offered to explain them. They raise the possibility not least that God might change His mind in response to human action, such as we see in Jonah 3-4 when Nineveh repents. However, many of these instances seem much less profound. One must either simply take by faith that there are explanations for the seeming anomalies or adjust one's sense of what inspiration entails or what the inspired meaning of Scripture is.
Jonah presents its own issues. Many interpreters suggest the story of Jonah itself was a parable or novella that was never meant to be taken as a depiction of history. At first glance it is hard to object to this suggestion, since no one would then be accusing Jonah of lying or being wrong. Jesus never suggests that the prodigal of his parable was ever a real person or that he really knew of an incident with a Samaritan near Jericho. This approach to Jonah would put it in a similar category, true but not historical
There are features of Jonah's story that are difficult from a historical standpoint. We have no record of a mass repentance and turn to Yahweh in the extensive annals and records of Nineveh from this period, capital of the Assyrian empire at the time (the same kingdom that destroyed the northern kingdom in 722BC). The idea that it would take three days to cross Nineveh also seems quite a shocking claim from an archaeological perspective (Jonah 3:3). Again, if we believe we must take Jonah historically, we are justified in believing by faith that there are explanations for such things, even if we do not know them at this point. No doubt many ingenious explanations have already been offered.
On the other hand, if a person is inclined to take the story as a parable of sorts, we have once again to deal with the fact that Jesus seems to refer to the story as historical event. Jesus in Matthew and Luke offers the sign of Jonah as the principal sign he had to offer to his detractors. Matthew 12:38-41 and Luke 11:29-32 both seem to take the Jonah story literally and historically. We thus face the same issue with Jonah that we face with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Davidic authorship of the Psalms, and the Isaianic authorship of chapters 40-66. Of course even if Jonah were novelistic in nature, it is possible that the historical Jonah did have a tussle with a fish and preached with success in Nineveh.
Lamentations
Although Lamentations appears in the Writings of the Hebrew Bible (among the "five scrolls" or Tefillim), it is couched between Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the Christian Bible. It is traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah, although technically it is anonymous. Lamentations never mentions its author, although it is clearly a lament over the destruction of Jerusalem. Confer with 2 Chronicles 35:25 for the possible connection between Lamentations and the prophet Jeremiah.
Lamentations is a lovely example of artfulness in the Bible. It consists of five poems, each of which is shaped by the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The first, second, and fourth poems are acrostics with twenty-two stanzas, each of which begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet (which has 22 letters). The third has three stanzas per letter. The fifth has twenty-two stanzas, but they are not alphabetical. Psalm 119 is also an acrostic psalm.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Elmer Towns here at IWU's seminary
I can now say it! The seminary at IWU has Elmer Towns here this week teaching a class of 45 students. We now have over 200 students in the new seminary. I think the median number of students in the Association of Theological Schools is 176 or so.
He's teaching the class on, you guessed it, prayer. Lesser known is the fact that he was one of the founders of Liberty Baptist Seminary, now one of the largest seminaries in the world. A couple of side comments of advice from him were funny but that I should probably soften a bit. Basically, he said not to let traditional academics run the thing. :-)
He's teaching the class on, you guessed it, prayer. Lesser known is the fact that he was one of the founders of Liberty Baptist Seminary, now one of the largest seminaries in the world. A couple of side comments of advice from him were funny but that I should probably soften a bit. Basically, he said not to let traditional academics run the thing. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
