I mentioned earlier my view that the Bible as counter cultural; kt is concerned with the kingdom of God as opposed to our human kingdoms and cultures, whatever those may be. The Bible can be, and should be, an incredibly challenging document and we should be humble enough to open ourselves to its counter to our personal cultural affinities.
Yet as counter cultural as the Bible is, it is still incredibly cultured. It is a document that comes from humans and from human culture, not out of the sky and not merely through human penmanship Because of the "humanness" of Scripture its counter culturalness must often be found as it is not always often seen.
Showing posts with label biblical interpretation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biblical interpretation. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
From Morgan Guyton: Four Cringe-worthy Claims of Popular Penal Substitution Theology
I was reading up on Rachel Held Evans' superlatives blog and she quoted a post by Morgan Guyton that was reposted by Jesus Creed. I though it an interesting perspective on penal substutionary atonement theory running through conservative evangelical circles these days. Perhaps I'll write out some of my thoughts on the theory later...
Anyways, here's Morgan's post in full:
I’ve often wondered if the same thing that makes violent video games appealing is why young evangelical guys are so infatuated with penal substitution theology. I figure a scary bad-ass God is cool for the same reason that the loud wet smack of a linebacker knocking the wind out of a quarterback is cool (I was that linebacker once).
I recognize that some guys need to have a God who likes to say “RAWR!!!” but in their zeal over penal substitution, some cringe-worthy and not entirely Biblical assertions are being made. There is a theologically responsible account of penal substitution; it’s part of the mystery of the cross. But I wanted to examine four of the more obnoxious assertions that I’ve heard in what I would call popular penal substitution theology (in places like a recent Steven Furtick sermon I listened to).
1) God is allergic to sin
A pillar of popular penal substitution theology is that God cannot tolerate the presence of sin. I think it’s more accurate to say that sin cannot tolerate the presence of God. The consequence of understanding things the first way is that the cross becomes God’s inoculation for His sin allergy. Ironically, one of the main points of Jesus’ incarnation was to prove that God is not distant and untouchably pure, but rather someone who “eats and drinks with sinners.” Now this doesn’t mean that sin is not allergic to God. People reacted to Jesus’ perfect love and holiness either by repenting of their sin like Zacchaeus did or by lashing out defensively and crucifying Him like the Pharisees did.
It was not that Jesus couldn’t tolerate imperfection but rather that His perfection was intolerable. In John 3:19, Jesus summarizes the relationship between sin and God’s presence: “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” God is light; He doesn’t need the cross to protect Him from our darkness; we need the cross so we can survive entering into God’s light.
2) God sees Jesus instead of us when He looks at us
In the Steven Furtick sermon that motivated this blog post, he said that the reason God gives us His “approval” is because He doesn’t see us when He looks at us but sees Jesus instead. That’s not approval; that’s deception. I can’t understand how anyone could possibly be encouraged by that. God doesn’t need our true selves to be hidden from His view to love us infinitely. His rage against the sin that oppresses us is part of that love. It’s true that Paul tells us to “put on Christ” and says that “in Christ we become the righteousness of God,” but Jesus isn’t a mask that we wear to cover ourselves up; He’s a body in which we become ourselves.
Popular penal substitution theology perverts Paul’s theology because it cannot recognize the sacramental character of the body of Christ from its modern individualist ontology. Jesus is not just our brother who stands in for us before God; He is also the one in whom “all things hold together.” So the substitution Christ provides is really one-to-many rather than one-to-one.
The phrase “in Christ” cannot be understood correctly without recognizing that Christ was already the source of our being as the one “in whom all things were created.” We are not truly ourselves outside of Christ; we are accidental constructions of our social context. It is only when we are “swallowed up” (2 Cor 5:4) by the life that Christ has provided for us that we gain the freedom to be what God has always seen in us. God doesn’t need to see a Jesus mask over our faces to approve us; His unconditional prior approval of us is the reason He sent His Word made flesh to empower us for holy living through our incorporation into His body.
3) Since God is infinite, He is infinitely offended by the slightest of our sins
The legacy of penal substitution theology can be traced to a book called Cur Deus Homo that was written by 11th century theologian Anselm to explain why Jesus needed to be both divine and human. Being from a medieval honor-based society, Anselm thought the primary problem resolved by the cross is the offense that sin inflicts on God’s honor as a king. This became the satisfaction theory of atonement which evolved into penal substitution. Anselm reasoned that because God is infinite, someone who is also infinite (Jesus) had to become fully human to pay the debt owed to God’s honor by humans. Hence the God-man.
When I read Cur Deus Homo, I noticed an interesting phrase that Anselm used to explain why it had to be this way. He says in several places, “It is fitting.” He doesn’t say for whom it is “fitting”
that Jesus pays our debt to God. Does God need it to happen or do we? I think popular penal substitution theology conflates satisfying God’s honor with appeasing God’s anger. They are absolutely not the same thing. We need for God’s honor to be satisfied through Jesus’ blood because otherwise we would not be able to bear the shame of looking into His face.
It is not that God is infinitely unable to understand the moral complexity that is behind our sin. He sees all the mitigating circumstances; He sees the good that we tried to do even in situations where we were ultimately in the wrong. The problem is not that God is an infinitely sanctimonious doosh bag who needed His Son’s blood to get over His pickiness; then it would be a lot easier to make peace with the dishonor we have shown Him. The problem is that we will be convicted and sorrowed to the point of eternal torture to stand in the presence of perfect love and truth without the assurance of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. The peasants need the king’s honor to be satisfied; otherwise they live in terror; and that’s why the king Himself paid the price for their sin against Him.
4) God poured out His wrath on Jesus on the cross
The word wrath in Greek is οργή, the root for our word “orgy” in English. When you look at how this word is actually used in the Bible, it’s more mysterious than you might think. It’s not just a synonym for “anger.” Paul tells the Ephesians that they were “formerly by [their] nature children of wrath” (which the NIV theologically edits to say children deserving of wrath). To be a child of wrath according to Paul is to be owned by “the desires of our flesh and senses” (Eph 2:3). It has nothing to do with God being angry.
In Romans 1:18, Paul writes that the “wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness.” If wrath were simply “anger,” we could expect Paul to elaborate on this statement by cataloguing a series of natural disasters with which God responded to punish humanity’s sin. Instead what we find is an account of the degeneration of humanity through the innate consequences of their sinful behavior. God “hands them over” to their lust, idolatry, etc, but He is not actively punitive independent of these innate consequences in His response to sin. This seems to suggest that God’s οργή is the proliferation of sin itself.
When I read these texts, I wonder if we ought to think of wrath as describing the poison that fills the air and curses the ground when God is dishonored rather than an emotion experienced by a God whom we probably shouldn’t presume to have the same kinds of emotions that we do. In any case, what happened on the cross is that God the Father did not prevent God the Son from being killed by the Jewish religious authorities. He let Him drink the cup of (His/our?) wrath which He came to Earth to drink. But this in no way means that the Father was the executioner of the Son for the sake of His own anger management. When we talk about the Father “pouring out His wrath” on His son, we make Him look like a drunken child abuser.
I cannot find anywhere in scripture that makes the Father the primary agent behind the crucifixion of His Son. The closest is the Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah 52-53 in which we read that “it was the Lord’s will to crush him with pain” (53:10). First, I would contend that the Suffering Servant passage is primarily about Israel’s exile and only secondarily about Christ in His
role as the recapitulation of His people’s destiny. The description of the Suffering Servant cannot be mapped completely onto Christ without compromising Christ’s divinity and the full unity of the divine will.
Secondly, in no place does Isaiah 52-53 describe the fulfillment of God’s wrath as the purpose of the Servant’s suffering. Isaiah 53:5 says, “Upon him was the punishment that made us whole; by his bruises we are healed.” In other words, the purpose of the Servant’s punishment is our wholeness and healing . It neither serves to fulfill God’s ego needs nor some primordial cosmic free market principle of retribution that God is obligated to follow.
We are children of wrath; we are born into a world that sweeps us into degenerative cycles of pain and guilt. “But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which He loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (Eph 2:4-5). I just don’t see the cross having anything to do with God’s anger though it absolutely does rescue us from the οργη that describes the innate consequences of rebelling against God’s plan for us as creatures.
I really think that these problems in popular penal substitution theology might be a reflection of what Christianity Today has called the “juvenilization” of American evangelical Christianity. When church becomes youth group for adults, explanations that speak on a teenage level become the norm for everybody.
When I was a teenager, the purpose
of being a Christian was to avoid punishment. I expected the rules to be arbitrary and incomprehensible. So it made sense to me to accept a savior who would rescue me from the clutches of the infinitely picky and thoroughly uncompromising High School Principal of the universe. That was the salvation I received when I asked Jesus back into my heart as a 16 year old (after I had already done believer’s baptism at age 8).
But I experienced the metanoia that is true repentance when God spoke to me in 1998 through a little girl selling dolls in the square of San Cristobal de las Casas in Mexico. He told me I could never be a tourist again. That was when I gave my life to His kingdom. That was when my heart was filled with wrath against all the ways that the world dishonors a God whose image was reflected to me through a barefoot indigenous girl. I need God’s honor to be satisfied. I need the cross not only for the sake of my personal relationship with God but because I cannot live in a world where the crucified are not resurrected. Penal substitution is an important part of the rich mystery of the cross — just not in the oversimplified, canned version that has come to predominate our juvenilized evangelical church.
Anyways, here's Morgan's post in full:
I’ve often wondered if the same thing that makes violent video games appealing is why young evangelical guys are so infatuated with penal substitution theology. I figure a scary bad-ass God is cool for the same reason that the loud wet smack of a linebacker knocking the wind out of a quarterback is cool (I was that linebacker once).
I recognize that some guys need to have a God who likes to say “RAWR!!!” but in their zeal over penal substitution, some cringe-worthy and not entirely Biblical assertions are being made. There is a theologically responsible account of penal substitution; it’s part of the mystery of the cross. But I wanted to examine four of the more obnoxious assertions that I’ve heard in what I would call popular penal substitution theology (in places like a recent Steven Furtick sermon I listened to).
1) God is allergic to sin
A pillar of popular penal substitution theology is that God cannot tolerate the presence of sin. I think it’s more accurate to say that sin cannot tolerate the presence of God. The consequence of understanding things the first way is that the cross becomes God’s inoculation for His sin allergy. Ironically, one of the main points of Jesus’ incarnation was to prove that God is not distant and untouchably pure, but rather someone who “eats and drinks with sinners.” Now this doesn’t mean that sin is not allergic to God. People reacted to Jesus’ perfect love and holiness either by repenting of their sin like Zacchaeus did or by lashing out defensively and crucifying Him like the Pharisees did.
It was not that Jesus couldn’t tolerate imperfection but rather that His perfection was intolerable. In John 3:19, Jesus summarizes the relationship between sin and God’s presence: “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” God is light; He doesn’t need the cross to protect Him from our darkness; we need the cross so we can survive entering into God’s light.
2) God sees Jesus instead of us when He looks at us
In the Steven Furtick sermon that motivated this blog post, he said that the reason God gives us His “approval” is because He doesn’t see us when He looks at us but sees Jesus instead. That’s not approval; that’s deception. I can’t understand how anyone could possibly be encouraged by that. God doesn’t need our true selves to be hidden from His view to love us infinitely. His rage against the sin that oppresses us is part of that love. It’s true that Paul tells us to “put on Christ” and says that “in Christ we become the righteousness of God,” but Jesus isn’t a mask that we wear to cover ourselves up; He’s a body in which we become ourselves.
Popular penal substitution theology perverts Paul’s theology because it cannot recognize the sacramental character of the body of Christ from its modern individualist ontology. Jesus is not just our brother who stands in for us before God; He is also the one in whom “all things hold together.” So the substitution Christ provides is really one-to-many rather than one-to-one.
The phrase “in Christ” cannot be understood correctly without recognizing that Christ was already the source of our being as the one “in whom all things were created.” We are not truly ourselves outside of Christ; we are accidental constructions of our social context. It is only when we are “swallowed up” (2 Cor 5:4) by the life that Christ has provided for us that we gain the freedom to be what God has always seen in us. God doesn’t need to see a Jesus mask over our faces to approve us; His unconditional prior approval of us is the reason He sent His Word made flesh to empower us for holy living through our incorporation into His body.
3) Since God is infinite, He is infinitely offended by the slightest of our sins
The legacy of penal substitution theology can be traced to a book called Cur Deus Homo that was written by 11th century theologian Anselm to explain why Jesus needed to be both divine and human. Being from a medieval honor-based society, Anselm thought the primary problem resolved by the cross is the offense that sin inflicts on God’s honor as a king. This became the satisfaction theory of atonement which evolved into penal substitution. Anselm reasoned that because God is infinite, someone who is also infinite (Jesus) had to become fully human to pay the debt owed to God’s honor by humans. Hence the God-man.
When I read Cur Deus Homo, I noticed an interesting phrase that Anselm used to explain why it had to be this way. He says in several places, “It is fitting.” He doesn’t say for whom it is “fitting”
that Jesus pays our debt to God. Does God need it to happen or do we? I think popular penal substitution theology conflates satisfying God’s honor with appeasing God’s anger. They are absolutely not the same thing. We need for God’s honor to be satisfied through Jesus’ blood because otherwise we would not be able to bear the shame of looking into His face.
It is not that God is infinitely unable to understand the moral complexity that is behind our sin. He sees all the mitigating circumstances; He sees the good that we tried to do even in situations where we were ultimately in the wrong. The problem is not that God is an infinitely sanctimonious doosh bag who needed His Son’s blood to get over His pickiness; then it would be a lot easier to make peace with the dishonor we have shown Him. The problem is that we will be convicted and sorrowed to the point of eternal torture to stand in the presence of perfect love and truth without the assurance of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. The peasants need the king’s honor to be satisfied; otherwise they live in terror; and that’s why the king Himself paid the price for their sin against Him.
4) God poured out His wrath on Jesus on the cross
The word wrath in Greek is οργή, the root for our word “orgy” in English. When you look at how this word is actually used in the Bible, it’s more mysterious than you might think. It’s not just a synonym for “anger.” Paul tells the Ephesians that they were “formerly by [their] nature children of wrath” (which the NIV theologically edits to say children deserving of wrath). To be a child of wrath according to Paul is to be owned by “the desires of our flesh and senses” (Eph 2:3). It has nothing to do with God being angry.
In Romans 1:18, Paul writes that the “wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness.” If wrath were simply “anger,” we could expect Paul to elaborate on this statement by cataloguing a series of natural disasters with which God responded to punish humanity’s sin. Instead what we find is an account of the degeneration of humanity through the innate consequences of their sinful behavior. God “hands them over” to their lust, idolatry, etc, but He is not actively punitive independent of these innate consequences in His response to sin. This seems to suggest that God’s οργή is the proliferation of sin itself.
When I read these texts, I wonder if we ought to think of wrath as describing the poison that fills the air and curses the ground when God is dishonored rather than an emotion experienced by a God whom we probably shouldn’t presume to have the same kinds of emotions that we do. In any case, what happened on the cross is that God the Father did not prevent God the Son from being killed by the Jewish religious authorities. He let Him drink the cup of (His/our?) wrath which He came to Earth to drink. But this in no way means that the Father was the executioner of the Son for the sake of His own anger management. When we talk about the Father “pouring out His wrath” on His son, we make Him look like a drunken child abuser.
I cannot find anywhere in scripture that makes the Father the primary agent behind the crucifixion of His Son. The closest is the Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah 52-53 in which we read that “it was the Lord’s will to crush him with pain” (53:10). First, I would contend that the Suffering Servant passage is primarily about Israel’s exile and only secondarily about Christ in His
role as the recapitulation of His people’s destiny. The description of the Suffering Servant cannot be mapped completely onto Christ without compromising Christ’s divinity and the full unity of the divine will.
Secondly, in no place does Isaiah 52-53 describe the fulfillment of God’s wrath as the purpose of the Servant’s suffering. Isaiah 53:5 says, “Upon him was the punishment that made us whole; by his bruises we are healed.” In other words, the purpose of the Servant’s punishment is our wholeness and healing . It neither serves to fulfill God’s ego needs nor some primordial cosmic free market principle of retribution that God is obligated to follow.
We are children of wrath; we are born into a world that sweeps us into degenerative cycles of pain and guilt. “But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which He loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (Eph 2:4-5). I just don’t see the cross having anything to do with God’s anger though it absolutely does rescue us from the οργη that describes the innate consequences of rebelling against God’s plan for us as creatures.
I really think that these problems in popular penal substitution theology might be a reflection of what Christianity Today has called the “juvenilization” of American evangelical Christianity. When church becomes youth group for adults, explanations that speak on a teenage level become the norm for everybody.
When I was a teenager, the purpose
of being a Christian was to avoid punishment. I expected the rules to be arbitrary and incomprehensible. So it made sense to me to accept a savior who would rescue me from the clutches of the infinitely picky and thoroughly uncompromising High School Principal of the universe. That was the salvation I received when I asked Jesus back into my heart as a 16 year old (after I had already done believer’s baptism at age 8).
But I experienced the metanoia that is true repentance when God spoke to me in 1998 through a little girl selling dolls in the square of San Cristobal de las Casas in Mexico. He told me I could never be a tourist again. That was when I gave my life to His kingdom. That was when my heart was filled with wrath against all the ways that the world dishonors a God whose image was reflected to me through a barefoot indigenous girl. I need God’s honor to be satisfied. I need the cross not only for the sake of my personal relationship with God but because I cannot live in a world where the crucified are not resurrected. Penal substitution is an important part of the rich mystery of the cross — just not in the oversimplified, canned version that has come to predominate our juvenilized evangelical church.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
organic and cruelty free: God help me.
You can view that blog post here: christians should be organic and further thoughts on it here: further thoughts on agrarian
The process has been quite a challenging one. It's just a preference for me that I want simply because it sounds nice... its far more theological for me, I guess you could say its more of a conviction that I think I, as Christian, should eat organic. It's more than just nicer and cleaner, it's also more "right." That is, I think Scripture points towards a more ethical, not economic, treatment of the earth and Creation. (notice the globe... it means my view is holistic and cares for the earth... you know, typical)
Monday, May 2, 2011
love. Osama.
I’ll admit that, as of late, I am confused by those around me who are confused over whether or not they should be joyful over the death of Osama bin Laden or remorseful.
First I’d like to point out that in being remorseful one is saying that it is better for a man to live on encouraging actions of ungodly hate.
Second I feel like such a view is pushing beyond Christians' call to love. It is through Christ we are able to fully love God as well as fully love man. However, when something happens, such as killing Osama, are we to mourn over it? We are saying that what has happened should not have happened; that is saying what is better for the world is another type of world.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Reading of Scripture and Love Wins
So having a friend who went to Rob Bell's church, I myself liking Rob Bell, being a Christian, being in seminary and being rather familiar with the conservative, evangelicalsI have been not far from the debate about Rob Bell's new book Love Wins.
Personally, I'm not much concerned about what he is saying right now; he has a new book coming out, which is sold by a publisher, a big one at that; publishers have to make money and so they hire marketing firms. If I were a marketing firm and I wanted to sell a book... I'd make controversy or get good reviews. Well, in the Christian world good reviews sell well, especially the classics, but nothing sells like an out in the open theological controversy; therefore, if I were a marketer I would make a controversy and props to HarperOne cause that's what they got and I guarantee you that everyone will either buy the book or borrow it; I mean they practically have to now if they care anything about the debate that is now in the public sphere.
Personally, I'm not much concerned about what he is saying right now; he has a new book coming out, which is sold by a publisher, a big one at that; publishers have to make money and so they hire marketing firms. If I were a marketing firm and I wanted to sell a book... I'd make controversy or get good reviews. Well, in the Christian world good reviews sell well, especially the classics, but nothing sells like an out in the open theological controversy; therefore, if I were a marketer I would make a controversy and props to HarperOne cause that's what they got and I guarantee you that everyone will either buy the book or borrow it; I mean they practically have to now if they care anything about the debate that is now in the public sphere.Tuesday, January 25, 2011
fear good
So I am scared of my future, it’s really no big deal.
In fact, I’m glad to say that I am, at least I’m a realist. I don’t think we are honest enough with fear. It’s like we want to cover it up, as if it’s bad. There seems to be something wrong with crying out and admitting to fear. We really are a bunch of liars; we go around showing strength and fortitude, and yet we are crying for answers and certainty.
For my Old Testament class we have to read all of the Psalms.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
cold turkey ain't good turkey
One of the things that I am really against is cold turkey evangelism. I’ve done enough times to know that I don’t like it. Of course the argument for it is that you do it with the trust that God will somehow use it for his purposes. I agree with that, and when I do evangelize I am taking that to heart.
My problem is that it is simply a bad way to evangelize. It is wrought of love. Now of course I know that even taking the time to tell them about the Lordship of Christ is loving for me to do, but honestly how loved do they feel? If all I do is come up and share the gospel with them and then leave them at that what love would they feel? Would they feel loved that I took the time to come up to them to talk to them about Jesus? Maybe… if they were already Christian, but if they don’t know Christ yet then what? If it’s without some sort of continuing relationship what love is really given?
Loving should go hand in hand with suffering, and there is no suffering in cold turkey evangelism, there is persecution, but not the long suffering that Christ experienced. He spent 3 years with his disciples only to die without them "getting it" until he rose. That’s suffering, that expending yourself and not seeing any fruit. This is the sort of suffering that relational evangelism brings, not cold turkey. We should expect, and desire, to spend time with people, watch them sin, and never get it. We should expect them to deny Christ, turn away, make grandiose statements about his divinity and then in the next second be against Christ’s work. That suffering is much worse than merely being spat upon, that suffering breaks hearts.
I’d be willing to say that that is the model of evangelism that is set up for us. The gospel isn’t about getting people to convert, it’s about the Lordship of Christ enabling us to truly love and serve God, and, if we are doing that faithfully, conversion will happen whether we want it to or not. Just going out and throwing out the Word randomly is bad stewardship to. A farmer sure as heck doesn’t just randomly scatter seed, he does it with purpose and intent, some may fall on the path, but he is sowing seed in the field where he will be sure to tend to it.
We do have to proclaim it, but it’s different proclaiming a Messiah to people who are looking for one than to people who think they are their own Messiah. And if we are to proclaim it, it should be in the community that we live amongst, that we will be around daily or weekly, not to random people on the beach or a street that we probably will never see again.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
It tastes so good, but it smells so bad.
I consider myself an evangelical, and I'm dang proud of it!
Then again, I'm not so proud of it.
I have a love hate relationship with evangelicalism, much like I have a love hate relationship with most things I love/hate... Methodism, the Bulldogs, the Falcons, technology, nature (I love nature out there, I don't love nature when it comes to a yard), etc.
The thing I love about evangelicalism is that its vibrant, in my experience evangelicalism gets it; it gets what life abundantly in Christ is like. Its not staid or lame Christianity, it inspires life in a way that I didn't get from tradition or ritual. I love how it one of its doctrines is that all knowledge is measured by Scripture; I love that it sees its purpose is to spread the gospel, not only by evangelism, but by mission work as well. It doesn't mind going against the grain on somethings that it perceives are wrong.
There are somethings that I don't like, let Evolution and the Big Bang be an example. Evolution and Big Bang theories are divisive, not because of the science, but because of the application. It has been applied by many to disprove God, or at the very least used to promote a degree of doubt and ask hard questions. However, the science itself is neutral; well, at least I see it this way. Most of evangelicalism, at least the conservative voices that seem to speak louder than the rest, see the science as the problem and the solution is to promote Creationism.
I can't blame them for wanting to counter the evolutionists; I want to as well, but I think that they're going about it in all the wrong way. The way to do it is to redeem the applications of the science, not deny it the science itself. Even if they want to deny it, they need to counter it and point out holes in the research; they then need to promote other research that they can prove is reliable, because you know its going to have a bunch of evolutionists trying to poke holes in it. Unfortunately, I have not seen either of these things done. All I am given are unfounded hypotheses that attempt to counter evolution because its "illogical" outcomes or that its wrong because "that's not what the Bible says." Well, fantastic, but the Bible can be made to say a lot of things! But I have also not seen a good counter to an allegorical interpretation of the creation account; no, the only good responses are those against reinterpretations of the length of it being longer than 6 days of 24 hours each.
Regardless, all I am saying is that the pendulum of scientific understanding swung away from the traditional Christian interpretation and understanding of the universe's origins and instead of reassessing the interpretation and understanding to see if this new scientific model could in fact be more correct, they deny that there is any science that is worth countering and call all of its adherents heretics. Reminds me of a certain Catholic Church's dealing with Galileo.
It's frustrating for me because I see how it marginalizes others and makes Christianity, much less faith in Christ, unappealing to them, as well as seemingly unattainable. It's frustrating to experience because I am made to feel guilty and told my belief system is unbiblical Christianity. Somehow I just don't think Jesus would have done this... I could go on about why I think it happens this way, but personally I'm tired of typing, haha! And I'm pretty sure it'd be a moo[t] point; you know a cow's opinion (name the reference!).
That is, of course, unless I'm begged to do so.
Oh and some other things I don't like: the evangelical love for the Republican party or Tea Party, the lack of ascetic practices, the desire to do away with tradition, and others that I could think of I'm sure.
I love evangelical Christianity, it helped me taste and see the goodness of God, but sometimes it just smells so bad...
Then again, I'm not so proud of it.
I have a love hate relationship with evangelicalism, much like I have a love hate relationship with most things I love/hate... Methodism, the Bulldogs, the Falcons, technology, nature (I love nature out there, I don't love nature when it comes to a yard), etc.
The thing I love about evangelicalism is that its vibrant, in my experience evangelicalism gets it; it gets what life abundantly in Christ is like. Its not staid or lame Christianity, it inspires life in a way that I didn't get from tradition or ritual. I love how it one of its doctrines is that all knowledge is measured by Scripture; I love that it sees its purpose is to spread the gospel, not only by evangelism, but by mission work as well. It doesn't mind going against the grain on somethings that it perceives are wrong.
There are somethings that I don't like, let Evolution and the Big Bang be an example. Evolution and Big Bang theories are divisive, not because of the science, but because of the application. It has been applied by many to disprove God, or at the very least used to promote a degree of doubt and ask hard questions. However, the science itself is neutral; well, at least I see it this way. Most of evangelicalism, at least the conservative voices that seem to speak louder than the rest, see the science as the problem and the solution is to promote Creationism.
I can't blame them for wanting to counter the evolutionists; I want to as well, but I think that they're going about it in all the wrong way. The way to do it is to redeem the applications of the science, not deny it the science itself. Even if they want to deny it, they need to counter it and point out holes in the research; they then need to promote other research that they can prove is reliable, because you know its going to have a bunch of evolutionists trying to poke holes in it. Unfortunately, I have not seen either of these things done. All I am given are unfounded hypotheses that attempt to counter evolution because its "illogical" outcomes or that its wrong because "that's not what the Bible says." Well, fantastic, but the Bible can be made to say a lot of things! But I have also not seen a good counter to an allegorical interpretation of the creation account; no, the only good responses are those against reinterpretations of the length of it being longer than 6 days of 24 hours each.
Regardless, all I am saying is that the pendulum of scientific understanding swung away from the traditional Christian interpretation and understanding of the universe's origins and instead of reassessing the interpretation and understanding to see if this new scientific model could in fact be more correct, they deny that there is any science that is worth countering and call all of its adherents heretics. Reminds me of a certain Catholic Church's dealing with Galileo.
It's frustrating for me because I see how it marginalizes others and makes Christianity, much less faith in Christ, unappealing to them, as well as seemingly unattainable. It's frustrating to experience because I am made to feel guilty and told my belief system is unbiblical Christianity. Somehow I just don't think Jesus would have done this... I could go on about why I think it happens this way, but personally I'm tired of typing, haha! And I'm pretty sure it'd be a moo[t] point; you know a cow's opinion (name the reference!).
That is, of course, unless I'm begged to do so.
Oh and some other things I don't like: the evangelical love for the Republican party or Tea Party, the lack of ascetic practices, the desire to do away with tradition, and others that I could think of I'm sure.
I love evangelical Christianity, it helped me taste and see the goodness of God, but sometimes it just smells so bad...
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
turn it inside out
Christmas is awesome.
I love Christmas. I love Christmas music, and I love Christmas cheer, and "the best way to spread Christmas cheer is by singing loud for all to hear"- Elf.
I also love Christmas for the fact of little baby Jesus. Yes, he is our savior and that is way totally awesome, but it is so much deeper than that. It's ridiculous when you actually think about Christmas, like what went on. It's not just that Jesus was born, but it's that Jesus was born... am I confusing you?
Let me put it like this, Jesus, Son of God and God incarnate, was born as a human. That is impressive, and I think some get it, but many people don't get it. Pithy phrases like "Jesus is the reason for the season" just don't capture it. Most have this idea of Jesus being born in a barn to ultimately die for the redemption of humanity and this other idea of Jesus being one with the Father, and they never put two and two together.
This one thing has really been sticking out more and more to me lately, the sheer contradiction of Jesus a human and God a not-human. When God comes into this world as Jesus, God essentially became not-God. Think of it, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy and glorious. Jesus is finite in everyone of those areas, he had finite power, finite knowledge, finite presence, was born and raised not by a priestly family of affluence, but by an poorer carpenter family - there's is nothing holy and glorious about that. The climax of the life of Jesus is even more ridiculous, he becomes sin; there is nothing more opposite of God than that. God came to earth as Jesus to essentially not be himself, not just be not himself, but the polar opposite.
This is not to say that Jesus couldn't have been more like a deity. Jesus most definitely had the capabilities, but Phil. 2:6 puts it like this "though being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." INCREDIBLE! Think of what Jesus could have been, but what Jesus was. He could have called on the angels to rescue him, but he didn't. He could have.... done well pretty much anything to make him more glorious, and yet he didn't. He remained a humble servant of not only God, but of humanity... the most high God became the most humble of creatures, and not only that but served them and is the sacrifice for them as well.
I just think its incredible that God turned himself inside out for us. He not only bent over backwards, but became not-God, he became opposite his nature and character just to rescue us. Why? It'd be like me becoming last so that I may be first, or leaving 99 sheep to find one. It is illogical and stupid, and yet its what God has done. God went off and got illogical; he became the very opposite of everything he was to open the gates of the kingdom for sinners like me.
I love Christmas. I love Christmas music, and I love Christmas cheer, and "the best way to spread Christmas cheer is by singing loud for all to hear"- Elf.
I also love Christmas for the fact of little baby Jesus. Yes, he is our savior and that is way totally awesome, but it is so much deeper than that. It's ridiculous when you actually think about Christmas, like what went on. It's not just that Jesus was born, but it's that Jesus was born... am I confusing you?
Let me put it like this, Jesus, Son of God and God incarnate, was born as a human. That is impressive, and I think some get it, but many people don't get it. Pithy phrases like "Jesus is the reason for the season" just don't capture it. Most have this idea of Jesus being born in a barn to ultimately die for the redemption of humanity and this other idea of Jesus being one with the Father, and they never put two and two together.
This one thing has really been sticking out more and more to me lately, the sheer contradiction of Jesus a human and God a not-human. When God comes into this world as Jesus, God essentially became not-God. Think of it, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy and glorious. Jesus is finite in everyone of those areas, he had finite power, finite knowledge, finite presence, was born and raised not by a priestly family of affluence, but by an poorer carpenter family - there's is nothing holy and glorious about that. The climax of the life of Jesus is even more ridiculous, he becomes sin; there is nothing more opposite of God than that. God came to earth as Jesus to essentially not be himself, not just be not himself, but the polar opposite.
This is not to say that Jesus couldn't have been more like a deity. Jesus most definitely had the capabilities, but Phil. 2:6 puts it like this "though being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." INCREDIBLE! Think of what Jesus could have been, but what Jesus was. He could have called on the angels to rescue him, but he didn't. He could have.... done well pretty much anything to make him more glorious, and yet he didn't. He remained a humble servant of not only God, but of humanity... the most high God became the most humble of creatures, and not only that but served them and is the sacrifice for them as well.
I just think its incredible that God turned himself inside out for us. He not only bent over backwards, but became not-God, he became opposite his nature and character just to rescue us. Why? It'd be like me becoming last so that I may be first, or leaving 99 sheep to find one. It is illogical and stupid, and yet its what God has done. God went off and got illogical; he became the very opposite of everything he was to open the gates of the kingdom for sinners like me.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
half of my heart
No I'm not thinking of the John Mayer song, but I do like it. And if you're like me once you get a thought of something in your head you just have to get that taken care of. So here, enjoy Half of My Heart by John Mayer:
I was praying through Jeremiah 29:11-14 and this idea of only seeking God with half of my heart hit me hard. Most often when you look into this passage, only verse 11 sticks out, "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." When I first started praying through it, that was what hit me too, but then I verse 13 really started sticking out to me, "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."
The word translated as heart in the original Hebrew is lebab; it means something far more than what we mean when we speak of heart. Heart to us is a strong feeling of emotion, some might call it soul, but it does not connote much more than strong feelings and desires. "I give you my heart," is an example where we are giving all of our emotions and feelings to someone. Lebab on the other hand is far more than that; it is more along the lines of whole being, heart, soul, emotions, thoughts, mind, etc. Everything that someone is is their lebab.
Luckily, I knew this fact going in and it really opened my eyes. I often speak of the pride I find in my knowledge, and it yet again rears its ugly head here. I am only throwing half of my heart in my quest for God more often than not. I find that when I seek, it is mostly a thought processes: a question of why or how something is, concluding in understanding. Rarely is it a emotive or physical process, and when it is those, rarely is it ever holistic, it's always either/or. This enlightenment frustrates me. One of my greatest strengths is even more so one of my greatest faults.
This does have a silver lining though; in seminary, I am at a place where thinking takes a high priority, and so when I am wanting to meet God I simply don't want to do a study or think more. I am already exhausted of thinking. What I find myself wanting to do is rest and enjoy - a very physical and emotional thing I have found. And thankfully my prayer life in this and for this is being blessed.
I wonder though if this is something that will stick with me or if I will default back to my faulty asset. This is a fear of mine I admit. I do not want to keep seeking God with half of my heart, because I simply will not fully find him. I want to seek God with everything so that I can truly enjoy everything of him. There is a delight that I am finding right now in seeking God with more than my mind through some sort of Scripture study. This is something that I want to maintain, and whereas I have my fears I also know that God is faithful.
I was praying through Jeremiah 29:11-14 and this idea of only seeking God with half of my heart hit me hard. Most often when you look into this passage, only verse 11 sticks out, "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." When I first started praying through it, that was what hit me too, but then I verse 13 really started sticking out to me, "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."
The word translated as heart in the original Hebrew is lebab; it means something far more than what we mean when we speak of heart. Heart to us is a strong feeling of emotion, some might call it soul, but it does not connote much more than strong feelings and desires. "I give you my heart," is an example where we are giving all of our emotions and feelings to someone. Lebab on the other hand is far more than that; it is more along the lines of whole being, heart, soul, emotions, thoughts, mind, etc. Everything that someone is is their lebab.
Luckily, I knew this fact going in and it really opened my eyes. I often speak of the pride I find in my knowledge, and it yet again rears its ugly head here. I am only throwing half of my heart in my quest for God more often than not. I find that when I seek, it is mostly a thought processes: a question of why or how something is, concluding in understanding. Rarely is it a emotive or physical process, and when it is those, rarely is it ever holistic, it's always either/or. This enlightenment frustrates me. One of my greatest strengths is even more so one of my greatest faults.
This does have a silver lining though; in seminary, I am at a place where thinking takes a high priority, and so when I am wanting to meet God I simply don't want to do a study or think more. I am already exhausted of thinking. What I find myself wanting to do is rest and enjoy - a very physical and emotional thing I have found. And thankfully my prayer life in this and for this is being blessed.
I wonder though if this is something that will stick with me or if I will default back to my faulty asset. This is a fear of mine I admit. I do not want to keep seeking God with half of my heart, because I simply will not fully find him. I want to seek God with everything so that I can truly enjoy everything of him. There is a delight that I am finding right now in seeking God with more than my mind through some sort of Scripture study. This is something that I want to maintain, and whereas I have my fears I also know that God is faithful.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Further thoughts on agrarian
So I have had a particularly interesting discussion with my brother, of course, I don't know if you can't have an uninteresting discussion with him...
He made the comment that agrarian is fine and all, but that I shouldn't expect it to feed the world. I think its a good point, if I am going to propose a way that is a more ethical treatment of the land, it should also be an ethical treatment of the people the land feeds. In this case, ethical in that it actually does feed everyone and not force people into starvation simply for the sake of ethical land practices.
I agree with that, and if agrarian farming can't feed the world then we have a whole different ethical issue on our hands... which I'd love to, but won't, get into... right now.
I do disagree with him on the facts that he's using and the land ethic such a conclusion comes from. No one can claim that agrarian farming can't feed the world. We have no model to judge it by, agrarian farming is completely different from small scale, family farming. It is an ethical practice that informs farming practices, it is not a farming operation type. Agrarian farming can cut across all sorts of operation sizes and produce; therefore we have no agrarian model to compare to the current corporate farming model. The green revolution wasn't changing an agrarian system that couldn't feed populations to a corporate system that could; it was the import of technology that enabled the small farmers to get bigger and produce more. Any one that argues that agrarian farming can't feed the world is coming from the same place as I am when I say it can, a reasoned hypothesis. I do not doubt that corporate farming looks like it can feed the world, but I also do not doubt that it looks that way simply because it is the way that we have known for so long that we don't know how any other way would work.
I am not an advocate of getting back to the "good ole days" of farming prior to corporate take over. That won't work, because the purpose then was the same purpose as now, and that's evident of the dust bowl. The dust bowl was the result of unagrarian farming practices: using the land to get produce. I could be able to say that most of human history has farmed in similar ways, but I don't want to because I don't want to justify the statement! So instead I will go on... Corporate farming is just fine, I have no problem with the ideas of corporations owning and running big farms, I do have a problem with how they run them, and why. This is where agrarianism, at least as I see it, cuts across all farming operations, a corporate farm can be agrarian, it can farm the land ethically, it can treat the land as God's gift to man and rule over it as God rules.
Perhaps agrarian farming can't feed the world, but I would also say that neither can corporate farming. Agrarianism might not be able to do it because its practice won't produce enough yield; Corporatism won't be able to do it because it is unsustainable and will eventually farm the land to a point to where it simply can't produce enough yield. But I think the underlying issue here is the idea of the land's purpose to serve us. So long as the world views land in that selfish light it will never be able to feed the world; the population will continue to live beyond its means by way of over-population with the idea that they can force the land to keep up, leading to over-production. This is why I mention the creation story's idea that humanity is created to exercise dominion how God does, and the perfect picture of how God does that is Christ. There is nothing selfish about God, he does not demand things from us, instead he seeks only to do everything for us. There is a difference between how God desires fellowship with humanity, and how humanity demands produce from the land so that it can live how it wants to.
He made the comment that agrarian is fine and all, but that I shouldn't expect it to feed the world. I think its a good point, if I am going to propose a way that is a more ethical treatment of the land, it should also be an ethical treatment of the people the land feeds. In this case, ethical in that it actually does feed everyone and not force people into starvation simply for the sake of ethical land practices.
I agree with that, and if agrarian farming can't feed the world then we have a whole different ethical issue on our hands... which I'd love to, but won't, get into... right now.
I do disagree with him on the facts that he's using and the land ethic such a conclusion comes from. No one can claim that agrarian farming can't feed the world. We have no model to judge it by, agrarian farming is completely different from small scale, family farming. It is an ethical practice that informs farming practices, it is not a farming operation type. Agrarian farming can cut across all sorts of operation sizes and produce; therefore we have no agrarian model to compare to the current corporate farming model. The green revolution wasn't changing an agrarian system that couldn't feed populations to a corporate system that could; it was the import of technology that enabled the small farmers to get bigger and produce more. Any one that argues that agrarian farming can't feed the world is coming from the same place as I am when I say it can, a reasoned hypothesis. I do not doubt that corporate farming looks like it can feed the world, but I also do not doubt that it looks that way simply because it is the way that we have known for so long that we don't know how any other way would work.I am not an advocate of getting back to the "good ole days" of farming prior to corporate take over. That won't work, because the purpose then was the same purpose as now, and that's evident of the dust bowl. The dust bowl was the result of unagrarian farming practices: using the land to get produce. I could be able to say that most of human history has farmed in similar ways, but I don't want to because I don't want to justify the statement! So instead I will go on... Corporate farming is just fine, I have no problem with the ideas of corporations owning and running big farms, I do have a problem with how they run them, and why. This is where agrarianism, at least as I see it, cuts across all farming operations, a corporate farm can be agrarian, it can farm the land ethically, it can treat the land as God's gift to man and rule over it as God rules.
Perhaps agrarian farming can't feed the world, but I would also say that neither can corporate farming. Agrarianism might not be able to do it because its practice won't produce enough yield; Corporatism won't be able to do it because it is unsustainable and will eventually farm the land to a point to where it simply can't produce enough yield. But I think the underlying issue here is the idea of the land's purpose to serve us. So long as the world views land in that selfish light it will never be able to feed the world; the population will continue to live beyond its means by way of over-population with the idea that they can force the land to keep up, leading to over-production. This is why I mention the creation story's idea that humanity is created to exercise dominion how God does, and the perfect picture of how God does that is Christ. There is nothing selfish about God, he does not demand things from us, instead he seeks only to do everything for us. There is a difference between how God desires fellowship with humanity, and how humanity demands produce from the land so that it can live how it wants to.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Christians should be organic.
This is a relatively new view for me. I mean I've always leaned toward the green perspective due to my parents leaning that way, but I've always kind of seen the whole organic thing as a healthy diet type of thing, not really as a way of viewing the world. And so discredited it.
Perhaps a better way to say it isn't so much Christians should be organic, but be agrarian. Scripture, Culture and Agriculture has opened my eyes more to this perspective. I've been telling everyone that I have been wanting to read a book like this; one that looks at Scripture with an environmental hermeneutic, not simply pulling out verses here and there and then pulling them together for some sort of exhortation. Finally in this book I have it! Also, in some of my classes is an individual who majored in organic farming and shed light on the fact that its not about a healthy diet but how to treat the land, unfortunately most people don't look at it this way.
Like I said, I've always leaned green; I've viewed the creation story in Genesis 1 as saying, among other things, that we should take better care of this planet. God has given us the task to "subdue the earth" and "rule over" all of the animals, but just before that it tells how God created humans in his own image. It says quite obviously that we are to subdue and rule in the way that God would. So the question I ask is, "How does God rule?" And the place that am brought to most easily is how God exercises dominion over humans... by serving them, doing everything he can for them to give them all of his glory and riches by going to the cross and suffering in their place.
The amazing thing about this book is that it goes way beyond that, it gets into Leviticus, among others books, and all the dietary laws and other laws that seem haphazardly put together and looks at them through this agrarian perspective. Most of what I have read so far I have really enjoyed reading. I'll admit in some places I feel like she's stretching the analogies and perhaps reading into something that's not there, but the overall view really works well. I would and I am recommending this book to people to gain a new perspective or develop one they already have.
The view that we should be living on this earth, by ensuring its well being and not ours. After all the world is God's and he has entrusted us to take care of it, unfortunately we mostly look at it as full of resources to be had, which s reflected in the way we farm, raise cattle, mine, etc. Christians should be intent on caring for this world better. Let's just thank God that he exercise dominion over us far better than we do over creation.
Perhaps a better way to say it isn't so much Christians should be organic, but be agrarian. Scripture, Culture and Agriculture has opened my eyes more to this perspective. I've been telling everyone that I have been wanting to read a book like this; one that looks at Scripture with an environmental hermeneutic, not simply pulling out verses here and there and then pulling them together for some sort of exhortation. Finally in this book I have it! Also, in some of my classes is an individual who majored in organic farming and shed light on the fact that its not about a healthy diet but how to treat the land, unfortunately most people don't look at it this way. Like I said, I've always leaned green; I've viewed the creation story in Genesis 1 as saying, among other things, that we should take better care of this planet. God has given us the task to "subdue the earth" and "rule over" all of the animals, but just before that it tells how God created humans in his own image. It says quite obviously that we are to subdue and rule in the way that God would. So the question I ask is, "How does God rule?" And the place that am brought to most easily is how God exercises dominion over humans... by serving them, doing everything he can for them to give them all of his glory and riches by going to the cross and suffering in their place.
The amazing thing about this book is that it goes way beyond that, it gets into Leviticus, among others books, and all the dietary laws and other laws that seem haphazardly put together and looks at them through this agrarian perspective. Most of what I have read so far I have really enjoyed reading. I'll admit in some places I feel like she's stretching the analogies and perhaps reading into something that's not there, but the overall view really works well. I would and I am recommending this book to people to gain a new perspective or develop one they already have.
The view that we should be living on this earth, by ensuring its well being and not ours. After all the world is God's and he has entrusted us to take care of it, unfortunately we mostly look at it as full of resources to be had, which s reflected in the way we farm, raise cattle, mine, etc. Christians should be intent on caring for this world better. Let's just thank God that he exercise dominion over us far better than we do over creation.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Hypothesis: The Documents
So I just finished taking my first Old Testament exam in seminary; the documentary hypothesis factored into it heavily. And I have been wanting to get my thoughts down on something, be it paper or computer screen, about it for a while.
So my thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis: Whatever. Ha! I guess that's just cause I'm a product if the last 5th of the 20th century. But in all seriousness, whatever. I don't think the documentary hypothesis is really that big of a deal, considering it wasn't until later, like the last half of the 20th century, that the literary approach to Scripture made any headway. If there wasn't an emphasis on a literary approach to reading Scripture in academia before that, then the hypothesis is working in a vacuum. I would think that working in such a vacuum gave it a lot more power and influence than had it been working alongside other theories, like now for instance. Not to mention that one of it main proponents was an anti-semite, anti Roman Catholic, so I would assume such a bias throws a little speculation into what he was actually trying to accomplish. Lets not forget as well that the documentary hypothesis is exactly that a hypothesis, it can most definitely be proven wrong, and with other theories about the formation of the Pentateuch circulating one has to pick which one they want, or how they want it. The biggest point with the fallibility of a hypothesis is that if it is wrong your interpretation based on that will be wrong as well, and if your interpretation is wrong then your application of that would be wrong. So essentially your theological framework is "at risk". (Although I must say, it might be at risk, but I doubt a significant portion would be at risk, and even still its an interpretation based on Scripture. So I would say there is an element of protection there by Providence, or so I would hope.)
Don't get me wrong, though. The theory has its strong points. It gives us a way to look at the world behind the writings. If the first creation account was written by the Priestly source, and the Priestly source was mainly a product of the exile, then we get a glimpse into the thought behind it, and an intended purpose to it. Or if the Elohist source was a product of the Northern Kingdom it can gives a picture into the why Aaron is cast in such a bad light. If the hypothesis is wrong though, then of course all the interpretations therein are wrong too.
I would prefer Brevard Child's approach of biblical theology. It's more of a canonical criticism, we have the Scripture as a whole, and that's how I think it should be dealt with. Sure insight can be made by the source backgrounds, but ultimately the sources are now together, they are a unified whole and should be interpreted through that lens as much, if not more so than any other. We have two creation accounts, one from the P source and another from the J, but we don't have them separately we have them together, what does that mean for our interpretation? We have Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of the land of Canaan and what some call genocide, but we also have the prophets, epistles and Jesus, so how do we put these things together in the grand story without becoming Marcionist/ites? (That is saying that the Old Testament God is one of wrath and completely different from the New Testament God of universal love. Marcion created his own canon and it was essentially Luke and Paul's Epistles.)
Ultimately, in the interpretation of the Scriptures I think its helpful to start from a firm foundation of belief and then pull from many different sources to fill out one's view. To limit oneself to one criticism or approach would really prevent one from growing and developing new views, or strengthening their own view. Its really a practice in formal operations, I would think, to put yourself in another hat, or pair of shoes and fully live that out for just a second. Such a practice can help one to grow in their theological understand, as well as their faith. Interpreting Scripture should be a challenge, and it should seem dangerous and uncomfortable, God is far bigger than one theological thought, or biblical studies approach can handle.
If we really dig into Scripture and only do so to affirm what we already believe what then are we doing? We are simply using Scripture as a dictionary or encyclopedia, a reference source for our knowledge, is that what we should do? I do not think so, not if we want to be corrected, trained, rebuked, and taught in righteousness.
One may have their own bias on theology and approach, I for instance like the canonical approach, and prefer Covenant Theology, but I must at least allow all that to be challenged. I may argue those views to be right, but I must allow the discussion to happen.
So my thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis: Whatever. Ha! I guess that's just cause I'm a product if the last 5th of the 20th century. But in all seriousness, whatever. I don't think the documentary hypothesis is really that big of a deal, considering it wasn't until later, like the last half of the 20th century, that the literary approach to Scripture made any headway. If there wasn't an emphasis on a literary approach to reading Scripture in academia before that, then the hypothesis is working in a vacuum. I would think that working in such a vacuum gave it a lot more power and influence than had it been working alongside other theories, like now for instance. Not to mention that one of it main proponents was an anti-semite, anti Roman Catholic, so I would assume such a bias throws a little speculation into what he was actually trying to accomplish. Lets not forget as well that the documentary hypothesis is exactly that a hypothesis, it can most definitely be proven wrong, and with other theories about the formation of the Pentateuch circulating one has to pick which one they want, or how they want it. The biggest point with the fallibility of a hypothesis is that if it is wrong your interpretation based on that will be wrong as well, and if your interpretation is wrong then your application of that would be wrong. So essentially your theological framework is "at risk". (Although I must say, it might be at risk, but I doubt a significant portion would be at risk, and even still its an interpretation based on Scripture. So I would say there is an element of protection there by Providence, or so I would hope.)
Don't get me wrong, though. The theory has its strong points. It gives us a way to look at the world behind the writings. If the first creation account was written by the Priestly source, and the Priestly source was mainly a product of the exile, then we get a glimpse into the thought behind it, and an intended purpose to it. Or if the Elohist source was a product of the Northern Kingdom it can gives a picture into the why Aaron is cast in such a bad light. If the hypothesis is wrong though, then of course all the interpretations therein are wrong too.
I would prefer Brevard Child's approach of biblical theology. It's more of a canonical criticism, we have the Scripture as a whole, and that's how I think it should be dealt with. Sure insight can be made by the source backgrounds, but ultimately the sources are now together, they are a unified whole and should be interpreted through that lens as much, if not more so than any other. We have two creation accounts, one from the P source and another from the J, but we don't have them separately we have them together, what does that mean for our interpretation? We have Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of the land of Canaan and what some call genocide, but we also have the prophets, epistles and Jesus, so how do we put these things together in the grand story without becoming Marcionist/ites? (That is saying that the Old Testament God is one of wrath and completely different from the New Testament God of universal love. Marcion created his own canon and it was essentially Luke and Paul's Epistles.)
Ultimately, in the interpretation of the Scriptures I think its helpful to start from a firm foundation of belief and then pull from many different sources to fill out one's view. To limit oneself to one criticism or approach would really prevent one from growing and developing new views, or strengthening their own view. Its really a practice in formal operations, I would think, to put yourself in another hat, or pair of shoes and fully live that out for just a second. Such a practice can help one to grow in their theological understand, as well as their faith. Interpreting Scripture should be a challenge, and it should seem dangerous and uncomfortable, God is far bigger than one theological thought, or biblical studies approach can handle.
If we really dig into Scripture and only do so to affirm what we already believe what then are we doing? We are simply using Scripture as a dictionary or encyclopedia, a reference source for our knowledge, is that what we should do? I do not think so, not if we want to be corrected, trained, rebuked, and taught in righteousness.
One may have their own bias on theology and approach, I for instance like the canonical approach, and prefer Covenant Theology, but I must at least allow all that to be challenged. I may argue those views to be right, but I must allow the discussion to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)