Thinking about love

Been thinking about love a bit lately, not least because im getting married in 24 days! But aside from that, last night at Access (my cell group) we discussed love and it has got my mind wandering...

In a discussion about love, it was once asked, 'What good is mere sentiment if it does not move one to serve another?'

This question assumes two things and implies another. Firstly, it assumes that love involves sentiment (although the statement could be percieved as downplaying the aspect of sentiment). That is, it is an emotional inolvement with something or someone. The rhetorical force of the question implies that love is no 'good' (it has no positive moral value and is of no use to anyone) unless it involves action. The character of this action rests upon the second assumption, that it must take the shape of 'service' to the one felt for. If love is to be truly love, if it is to be worth anything, then it must be all the above.

But is this so? Certainly most people would affirm that love involves sentiment, but can love be love without it? Can action alone be considered love? And if so, what is the normative characteristic by which an action can be considered love? The utterer of the above statement (if he would affirm love apart from entiment) would say that for an action to be 'loving' it must be an act of 'service'. It must be something beneficial for the one to whom it is done. This i think is true as things go. As Christians with a mandate to seek good for all, we sometimes lack the 'care' for a person but still act for their good. When someone has treated us badly or we just find them offensive for whatever reason, our acts of 'service' toward them is certainly to be considered love.

But can love exist without action? Can sentiment alone, no matter how strong be rightly considered love? The above statement implies that it cannot, that it is incomplete, lacking the aspect that makes it of any 'good'. If love consists of only sentiment, then what good is love to anyone? And I tend to agree.

But what about love that does flow from sentiment, is 'sentiment' really a suitable foundation for action? In acting out of affection for someone, are we not acting for ourselves? Yes, our action will be beneficial for them because we truly do feel for them, however, we do so only because of our feelings. What if they were to fade away? Would we then cease to love them? What if our concern for ourself was stronger than our concern for them? Would we then not assist them?

The question then, is wat should the proper motivation for action be? As I understand things, relationships naturally begin along selfish lines. We begin them (whether they are of a romantic nature or not) because they give us something. This always kick starts things, as a friend of mine Pete said about romance. But if these relationships are to grow to be of real value (in my opinion), then the selfishness with which they started must be relinquished, and a mutual serving must take its place. In a way it is only safe to do so once a relationship is firmly established, once there is a level of trust and a strong bond. Otherwise there is no guarantee that the service will indeed be reciprocal. But this is the goal, this is what love is made a 'full love' is made of, both sentiment and action for the sake of the other.

But I believe that as part of God's 'new creation' we are to operate in a different way. Within the Christian community we are called to follow the example of Jesus Christ, to "lay down our lives for one another" as Jesus "laid down his life for us" (1 John 3.11-24). We to have the same mind as that of Christ, to do nothing out of selfishness but to look to the interests of others (Philippians 2.1-11). Further, we are to live by the rule of love for our neighbor (Luke 10.25-37) and to seek good for even our enemies (Matthew 5.44). This life is truly radical, something that I that I do not think possible without the power of God's Spirit (Romans chs.7-8). Yet we have that Spirit with us, he is in us (John chs.14-17).

So our task is this, to have the same mind and hence acion as that of Christ, we are to be servants. We are not to waite to be loved first, Christ has done that! we are now to love all others for their sake and for God's. And we are to seek to do so not alone, but by the power of God's Spirit. So let's stay close to the Spirit in prayer and in fellowship, and seek to love in all areas of our life.

The Nature of Scriptural Faith

In search of a method to use Scripture as a basis for Christian theology, ethics and praxis, many Scholars have sought a defining model to describe it (the model of course then shows how one should use it). Others have looked at the individual literary genres and have established an appropriate use according to genre. These approaches have yielded important results and there is something to say for them both. But i wish at this stage to persue another avenue.

My theory is that what will provide the key is not an understanding of Scripture itself, but of Scriptural faith. The notion of "Scriptural faith" of course implies canonical unity and thus I presuppose what needs to be established. But this is not a problem as the sort of unity presupposed is soon varified (this unity is found in a 'story', and that both the Old Testament and the New bear witness to a single faith which is attatched to this story, albiet one that undergoes significant developments at various stages in the story). What then do I mean by "Scriptural faith"? I can mean two different things, and hope that context will make clear which one in each instance. I can mean either the Christian faith as seen in the NT, rightly understood (the story from as far as it has gone), or a specific place in the story to which a specific work in Scripture belongs, when it originated.

An understanding of this "Scriptural faith" (from the end), I propose, will show what role Scripture should play within that faith to which we wish to align ourselves. Scripture is itself a product of the faith (at its various stages), although it subsequently acts to sustain it. The reality to which it points and the faith that is a response to this reality are necessarily prior to Scripture. And so if we are to understand what role Scripture should play, what role it was meant to play, then we must understand the faith. This of course means that a peice of Scripture from a different stage in the story than our own may not fulfill the same role it did during its own stage. This of course depends on its purpose, and what subsequent developments have taken place in the story. So attention to the genre of texts remains integral even in the basic framework of this method. For example, an Old Testament narrative that witnessed to a significant evet (e.g. Gen 12 Abrahams call), still does so, lathough perhaps with less significance. But Instruction such as that given at Mt Sinai (Exodus 18 the Law), is no longer binding (Gal; Rom).

Scriptural faith of course can only be accessed in Scripture, and so almost ironically, an understanding of the nature of Scripture provides the key to undertanding the faith. The literary forms that it takes will be appropriate to the nature of the faith that it witnesses to and sustains. Thus the many narratives that we find show that the faith which Scripture sustains (at all its stages) is one in which these stories are important, if not integral.

And this proves to be true. The faith of the New Testament (and of the Old) is characterized by a story, a story which makes sense of all reality. But this is not mere myth; this story is rooted in history, Gods actions in the world to redeem his fallen creation. As such, the content of the faith cannot be reduced to propositions, to timeless truths. It has an irreducible ‘narrative core’, reflected in the centrality of narrative to the Canon.

That this faith is characterized by story means that first of all we must embrace this particular story. Because it is a story which explains all of reality, gives meaning to the world and to history, to embrace this story is to 'live within it', to understand the world according to it. Secondly it means that this story mst remain central to our faith, we cannot settle for statements of faith that strip 'truth' and 'meaning' from their historucal framework where they are truly real. Finally it means that we must live from within our stage in the story, and make use of the works of Scripture according to our relation to there stage and role within that stage.

The "Unity and Coherence" of Scripture

That the Bible possesses a coherence and that as a whole it is unified, is commonly asserted. That it is, is of course of vital importance. If Scripture is not coherent and not unified, then how can it possibly take the place of the guiding factor in our lives?

But what do we mean when we state that the Scripture is coherent and unified? Without some sort of qualification, the claim remains without any real meaning. We need to be clear in what sense(s) Scripture is "coherent" and "unified". This has been done in a number of ways. Some have located it in Scriptures theology, but it has been shown that the Old Testament alone throws up diffuculties for such a claim.[1] Others have tried to locate its coherence or unity in a single topos such as "love", but this innevitably results in the neglect or rejection of all else that either appears to contradict it or that is not particularly reslated to it. As this approach does not provide any real framework for reading the Bible theologically, there is also the problem of where in Scripture to draw a defenition of love from.

It is my contention that ‘story’ is what gives Scripture its coherence and unity. There is an over-arching story, a grand narrative which is the ground of its unity, and in relation to which each piece of Scripture finds meaning. Scripture's coherence and unity is defined by this factor, that it all relates to the same God and his plan of redemption as it unfolds in history. This story is constructed from various narratives in Scripture and from various commentaries on the story (e.g. parts of the prophets, Paul's letters). Parts of the story are also recounted at several points. However, , for it contains many different genres. The story is the sum of many narratives and is distinct from the many narratives although it encompasses them all. Hence it would be misleading to say that Scripture (as a whole) tells a single story in the sense that a novel or a movie would and equally misleading, therefore, to describe the Bible as 'a story' alone. Three reasons commend such as approach: (1) It takes the dominent genre of Scripture (narrative) seriously; (2) it provides a framework for appropriating the Bible today; (3) it is grounded in the faith to which the Bible is a witness and a sustainer. This last point is what i am currently exploring in my research and my next blog will be on it.

Footenotes
[1] See for instance John Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament

The Doctrine of Inspiration

The assumption that the Bible is the ‘Word of God’ or that it is ‘inspired by God’ gets us nowhere hermeneutically. It entails Scriptures truthfulness, but not the truthfulness of any subsequent interpretations, including decisions regarding genre.[1] That Scripture is ‘inspired by God’ further entails that it is from God in some sense, whether in terms of a guiding or controlling hand in content, or simply in terms of a gift which God “commissioned”. But to what degree he participated in its production (whether overwhelmingly or just ensuring its truthfulness), and whether it somehow possesses “deeper” meaning than what its physical authors were aware of, or whether it contains inexhaustible truth or meaning, cannot be known for sure, and so can provide no basis for a hermeneutical strategy.

Moreover, that Scripture is both truthful and from God (in what ever sense) implies that it is given for a purpose and that in regard to this purpose it is ‘authoritative’,[2] but it cannot be determined on that basis of the above what this purpose is, and hence how Scripture is meant to be used.

This is why we need to pay close attention to the particularities and the characteristics of the biblical documents themselves. How we are meant to use Scripture, how it is to be authoritative, cannot be assumed prior to engagement with the texts themselves. For Hebrew narrative, we need an appropriate approach, for gospel narrative we need another, for psalm, for prophecy, for law, for letter, we need appropriate approaches. And we need more than general guidelines for different genres, for they come at different places in God’s actions with his people and the world, and were produced within and were directed to a largely different looking and functioning world than the one we inhabit.

I don’t think that the doctrine of divine inspiration is at all helpful other than to assure us that the Bible is highly important because it is from God, and that we need not fear being deceived because no falseness precedes from God. It is relatively useless for instructing us hermeneutically, for what ever we deduce that it implies for our use of Scripture will largely be arbitrary, determined by how we suppose God should communicate and guide us.

2 Timothy 3.15

Appeal is often made to 2 Tim. 3.15 upon which the doctrine is based:
“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3.15, NRSV).

Does the author mean that every passage of Scripture is rightly used for all four activities? Or does he mean all types of Scripture meaning story, law, prophets, etc. Although he does not explicitly say “types”, it is common for us to leave it out in a similar way in English and so it is not unthinkable. This may have been the obvious meaning for them back then. Would Timothy, who may not have had ready access to the Scriptures, and who certainly did not have a personal copy with chapters and verses, think every verse (sentence) of Scripture? It seems to me unlikely. Rather, within the context of the letter (3.10-4.5), what the author is trying to do is remind Timothy not to neglect the Scriptures, as they are a useful and important resource. Apart from this, we also have the ridiculous problem that the author must have been referring to the Old Testament alone, (although he most likely refers to apostolic tradition in v.14, he does not refer to it as written or as Scripture), and that this was most likely the Septuagint, Greek translations of the Hebrew upon which our Bibles are based.[3]

Footnotes
[1] We need knowledge of ancient literature to understand the various conventions, types, and purposes. This is part of the exegetical task. As I Howard Marshall has commented, “Although the assumption that Scripture is the Word of God and therefore truthful is crucial for evangelicals, it cannot be postulated in advance what this assumption means in detail. Does it, for example, [mean?] that a story that appears to us to be told as if it is a narrative of what actually happened is a historical account in the sense that every detail occurred exactly as it is related? What about the story of Jonah, which perhaps is a short story making important theological points rather than a historical account? And when it is said that the biblical account as a whole is coherent, harmonious, and veracious, is this true at the surface level or perhaps only at a deeper level? In what ways are apparent contradictions to be solved?” (Beyond the Bible, p.30)
[2] To the degree that anything is true, it lays a claim upon us and thus has authority over us. But what I mean here is that Scriptures authority is a corollary of its purpose, and so it has authority to achieve what it is meant to achieve, and that how it does so is appropriate to this. Thus, if the nature (in the sense of how it achieves its purpose) and purpose of Scripture is not to control but to free, then its authority must be employed to a similar end in a similar fashion. I owe this insight to N. T. Wright. See his ‘How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?’. The article can be accessed from The N. T. Wright Page.
[3] Although we can be certain about a number of writings being in their Scriptures, we cannot be certain about many others (e.g. parts of the Apocrypha and the Pseudopigrapha), or whether they were all treated as having the same degree of “authority”. Although it is most probable that the early Christians read Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, it is not clear that there was a clearly formed canon which may be referred to as the Septuagint in the 1st century AD, nor that there was a clearly formed canon of Hebrew Scriptures.

First post in nearly a month!

My research is coming along nicely, and its time to blog once more! I have just been reading over some of my notes (which I will soon post) and decided to blog the thoughts that are going through my mind at this point in my research.

I think that if we are going if we are going to respect what God has gifted us in Holy writ, this means letting it be what it is and do what it was meant to do, in all of its variety. Not everything is instruction, not everything is formulaic theology. This may mean that we take the ‘nature’ of the Bible as a whole as the key to what we should use it for and how we should use it. The specific works of Scripture[1] should also be used according to their ‘nature’.

Our need to ground every bit of instruction, advice, and theology in Scripture (whether in various texts or on a ‘biblical trajectory’), I suspect betrays a certain insecurity, a ‘felt need’ to be absolutely certain about all things especially those pertaining to the Christian life. Although we must take our efforts to follow Jesus in the church and in the world (if we can make such a distinction) with utmost seriousness, the above activity leads to endless debates and arguments over Scripture and hermeneutical strategies. The felt need to ground all things in Scripture is also seen in our tendency to find what we have learnt elsewhere, our experience, reflected or talked about in the text. This activity often suppresses the texts own voice and we lose something of value.

As I wrote previously, near the beginning of my research but never blogged:
Does not our ‘raiding’ of the entire canon for principals and practice demonstrate our uncourageousness when it comes to loving one another? Does it not show our lack (or fear) of consulting, or I should rather say seeking the divine Spirit’s guidance on issues? What is the root of our desire which results in our “clawing” after passages for absolute certainty on all manner of theological, practical, and ethical issues? What are we afraid of? Are we becoming slaves to ‘law’ once again?

In the last sentence I am alluding to the apostle Paul’s discussion of the Mosaic Law and the Spirit. Although my position is shifting on what Paul was getting at in his discussion, at the time of writing I understood part of his argument (part. Gal. 5 & Rom.7-8) to be that those ‘in Christ’ should no longer be placed under the burden of the ‘written law’, but that through life in the Spirit, through ‘keeping in step with the Spirit’, they would fulfill the law anyway. I imagined that this line of thinking could be picked up and extended in relation to our use of Scripture. We have much instruction in Scripture, but we are plagued by problems of situational and cultural specificity. Taking a cue from Paul, we are not to put ourselves under all the instructions in Scripture in an authoritarian way, we are not to see every command as something we ‘must do’, and then tell people to do so. But rather by keeping close to God’s Spirit, we will end up acting along similar lines, but in ways appropriate to our situations and cultures. Paul himself seemed to possess a number of ‘governing principals’ such as love that he appropriated in different ways for different situations. At this point I am not sure that this reading of Paul can be sustained, so I let the thought rest for now.

Because of the above considerations however, I conclude that there are no shortcuts. We need: (1) the work of careful exegesis; (2) an understanding of Scripture as a whole, which I take to be a grand narrative; (3) and creative appropriation. I will say more about what I think is involved in ‘creative appropriate’ in a coming blog.

Footnotes
[1] I consciously use the word ‘works’ rather than ‘books’ because the latter reinforces the attitude that we can treat them all in the same way. They are not all books in the conventional sense. Although it is true that one can have a book of poetry (which may be used to refer to the Psalms), or a book of prophecy (with various collections of prophecy), possibly in the sense of an anthology, the NT letters (including the apocalypse) cannot rightly be referred to as books. To do so risks bringing to them various connotations which the word ‘book’ possesses, and which should not be imposed on these works.