Hermeneutica

Hermeneutica has moved, at least for now...

2006-05-22T11:18:00.000+12:00

Blogging will now contniue through WordPress at the new address. So, redirect you bookmarks, and lets continue the discussion!

I will keep this site up and running in case I find that WordPress is not as good as I thought it would be.

2006-05-08T14:09:00.000+12:00

So i cant handle being away from blogging....

ok maybe thats a bit of an overstatement, but if anyone comes across perhaps by accident after I said it is over, I will be picking it up again after semester is over.

partting is such sweet sorrow

2006-04-12T16:50:00.000+12:00

Did I say slowed down..? Perhaps I should have said stop. Yes, im far too busy to keep up with this. Its been fun, and I anticipate that I will return to the blogosphere later in the year. But for now I bid my fairwell.

Eddie

2006-03-01T10:42:00.000+13:00

Things have slowed down here and will continue to be slow for now as I work through some issues and sort out my life. Times are stressful, and I would appreciate your prayers for my family.

Eddie

quote - Bonhoeffer on community

2006-02-23T11:53:00.000+13:00

Every principle of selection and every separation connected with it that is not necessitated quite objectively by common work, local conditions, or family connections is of the greatest danger to a Christian community.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (London: SCM Press, 1972), 24

quote - Hauerwas and Willimon on community

2006-02-23T11:21:00.000+13:00

Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon have this to say about community:

When people are very detached, very devoid of purpose and a coherent worldview, Christians must be very suspicious of talk about community. In a world like ours, people will be attracted to communities that promise them as easy way out of loneliness, togetherness based on common tastes, racial or ethnic traits, or mutual self-interest. There is then little check on the community becoming as tyrannical as the individual ego. Community becomes totalitarian when its only purpose is to foster a sense of belonging in order to overcome the fragility of the lone individual. Christian community, life in the colony, is not primarily about togetherness. It is about the way of Jesus Christ with those whom he calls to himself. It is about disciplining our wants and needs in congruence with a story, which gives us the resources to lead truthful lives. In living out the story together, togetherness happens, but only as a by-product of the main project of trying to be faithful to Jesus.

Hauerwas, S. and Willimon, W. H., Resident Aliens (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 78

Relating to Jesus

2006-02-21T09:09:00.000+13:00

In Evangelical Christianity today, there is a rising emphasis placed upon the believer's relationship with Jesus. It is thought that at the centre of what it means to be a Christian is to have a "personal relationship with Jesus". Yet I have been wondering for some time now, why is this conviction not reflected in the New Testament? Or perhaps in my search I have just missed it?

Granting the perspective the benefit of the doubt, could it simply be that the New Testament documents (bio about Jesus and letters to churches, as well as a few to individuals), due to the "accidents of history", were not concerned with it? Should the absence of the notion caution our giving it such significance and centrality?

Now Im no stiff, and I have a growing connection with God through prayer, which I am comfortable terming a 'relationship' as both give and take. But in the desire to stay true to the New Testament, I am un-easy about granting it the centrality in both proclamation and theology that others are so happy to do. Perhaps in our following Jesus, this is something that we emulate of him. Your comments are greatly desired on this issue.

The Unattainable Authority of Scripture?

2006-02-21T08:56:00.000+13:00

Amidst contemporary debate over the authority of the Bible and how it should shape our faith, I suggest we should just get on with following Jesus, and that means reading the gospels with ears to hear (and obey).

Too often the biblical writings have been turned into vice grips and sqeezed the life out of God's people. But Jesus came to give life in God's ongoing act of renewal and re-creation. Too many rules, far too many rules.. and not enough life in the Spirit...

What do we mean by "Community"?

2006-02-13T10:06:00.000+13:00

In a Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren writes: 'Community has become a buzzword in the church in recent years. Overbusy individuals hope they can cram it into their overstuffed schedules like their membership to a health and fitness club (which they never have time to use). Churches hope they can conjure it with candles, programs, or training videos' (208). He then goes on to speak of the Anabaptists practice of 'community in creation' (208-210).

The issue I wish to raise here is What exactly do we mean by "community"? Has it simply become a word so often thrown around without careful thought as to what is being meant? And does this problem exist within the work of scholarship, the talk of the church, or both?

In contemporary everyday usage, the term refers to a group of people associated by way of some shared characteristics. Most naturaly, a community is a group of people who live within a certain proximity to one another, thus I am part of the community of Glenfield. Beyond this, shared characteristics can range from religion (e.g. the Muslim community of London) and ethnicity (e.g. the Polynesian community of South Auckland), to shared interests (e.g. the aggressive skating community of New Zealand). Even where the community is defined by something other than proximity, locality always plays a role in the defenition as seen above. If I was to make a statement about the Polynesian community, your liekly to ask which one, whereas if I was to say something about Poynesians you would not. I may speak of the skating community of Auckland, or New Zealand, but I would rarely speak of the global skating community. Even when I do, locality comes into play (hence 'global'). It seems that locality or proximity (however wide) is never truly perged from our use of the term as community is a term used to limit the scope of our reference.[1]

However, within Christian discourse I get the impression that the term is being used to point to some ideal state of human affairs or relationships. We are told that we need to 'build' community, that this is what is lacking in our church life, we are missing whatever would make it or us a community. What then characterizes community used in this sense? What are we missing?

Here we see the ambiguity of the term. Are we looking for proximity? Certain practices that we do not all yet share? Or is it some other aspect of 'community life'? If it is the latter, where do we get these characteristics from? What actual 'community' would we wish to model it on or Who would we wish to emulate as living this ideal state of affairs?[2]

If the call for community is indeed a biblical one, then we should not be looking for communities to emulate. But the term community is an english one, what we find in the New Testament is ekklesia, and perhaps what we need is not community in need of defenition but a re-worked vision of church?

E. Stegemann and W. Stegemann examine ekklesia in the NT and conclude that 'the Christ-confessing ekklesia is an assembly in which its members come together, and it is a community or group whose members are bound together even outside their actual meetings through reciprocal social interaction.'[3] Who needs the ill-defined term community when we have ekklesia, complete with instructions as to how life within this group should function (e.g. hospitality, service, assistance, etc.)??

Notes
[1] Steve Reilly protests the wide scope given the term and offers a more restricted definition: 'This abused and ill-defined term refers to associations of individuals bound together by a shared local environment, rather than by consious interests or by links defined by a single characteristic such as class or ethnicity. Its exact boundaries are unclear, but set by scale and accidents of geography rather than by choice. A community is said to be a source of identity beyond family and close personal life, but with great intimacy and more subtle obligations and and rewards than those of national identity.' 'community', 144, in Bullock, A. and Trombley, S. (eds.), The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (London: Harper Collins, 1977, [2000, Third Edition paper back])
[2] Perhaps what is being looked for is some extended involvement in each others lives, akin to what would be experienced in a small isolated town where everyone knows everyone else. But here proximity is the catalyst and what sustains the life style, something that so many Christians do not experience in regard to their fellow church goers.
[3] The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 264

2006-02-08T16:21:00.000+13:00

I feel the need to blog something, but I have nothing to blog...

Still reading through Marriane Meye Thompson's The Promise of the Father which I am finding helpful. Thank you to those who have provided suggestions for reading on evangelism.

I came across this through someones link which I now cannot find. Anyhoo, over at Heart, Mind, Sould, and Strength, Weekend Fisher reflects on Promiscuity in terms of sexual homelessness. And over at Chrisendom, Chris Tilling offers the best list of things to read before commencing theological studies to date.

Books on Evangelism

2006-02-04T10:06:00.000+13:00

This coming semester I will be taking a course on Evangelism and Church Planting. As this is largely a new area for me, I am wondering which books people have found most helpful, most inspiring, and most biblically informative and sound.

Of course a book need not meet all these criteria to be of value, but if anyone knows of any that do I would love to know!

Knowing God

2006-02-01T16:09:00.000+13:00

For those of us who spend a significant proportion of our lives seeking God in the study, here are some refreshing words that may help keep us from forsaking our first love:

Jesus has taught us that the way to know what God is like is not by determining our philosophical boundary conditions/ definitions/ delineations before departing, but rather the way to know is by embarking on an adventure of faith, hope, and love, even if you don't know where your path will lead (think of Abraham, Hebrews 11:8). The way to know God is by following Jesus on that adventure. One doesn't learn what God is like in a library or a pew and then begin to love God in real life. One begins to love God and others in real life. In the process one learns what God is like-and one might be driven to the library or pew to learn more. Anyone who doesn't embark on the adventure of love doesn't know God at all, whatever he can say or define or delineate, for God is love.

B. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, 2004), 185

Words from the Fathers

2006-02-01T12:14:00.000+13:00

Speaking of the incarnation, Ignatius of Antioch writes:

Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world; so was her child-bearing, and so was the death of the Lord. All these three trumpet-tongued secrets were brought to pass in the deep silence of God. How then were they made known to the world? Up in the heavens a star gleamed out, more brilliant than all the rest; no words could describe it's lustre, and the strangeness of it left men bewildered. The other stars and the sun and moon gathered round it in chrous, but this star outshone them all. Great was the ensueing perplexity; where could this newcomer have come from, so unlike its fellows? Eveywhere magic crumbled away before it; the spells of sorcery were all broken, and superstition recieved its death-blow. The age-old empire of evil was overthrown, for God was now appearing in human form to bring in a new order, even life without end. Now that which had been perfected in the Divine counsels began its work; and all creation was thrown into a ferment over this plan for the utter destruction of death.

Ignatius of Antioch, The Letter to the Ephesians, 19

Missional Theology

2006-02-01T11:52:00.000+13:00

Recently I've been reading Brian McLaren's A Radical Orthodoxy: Why i am a missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed-yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished christian (Zondervan, 2004).

Its packed with food for thought and here is something which I have begun to ponder. He writes, "rather than seeing missiology as a study within theology, theology is actually a discipline within Christian mission. Theology is the church on a mission reflecting on its message, its identity, its meaning." (105)

Does this defenition of theology resound with you? How would you define theology? If theology is indeed a 'missional' task, then what implications does this have for how we go about it and why? Post a comment...

quote - Marinus De Jonge, christology and theology

2006-02-01T11:42:00.000+13:00

When early Christians spoke about the nature and the effects of Jesus' mission, they had to speak, at the same time, about his relationship to God. In him God had spoken and acted; he continued to do so and was about to crown his dealings with humanity by fully establishing his rule on earth. The proper framework to keep theology and christology together, it would seem, is eschatology-eschatology in the sense of reflection on God's final, definitive intervention in human history, long expected by many in a variety of ways, and now believed by Jesus' followers to have taken place, or rather to have started taking place, in Jesus Christ.

Marinus de Jonge, God's Final Envoy: Early Christology and Jesus' on View of His Mission (Eerdmans, 1998), 111

Words from the Fathers

2006-01-31T10:18:00.000+13:00

I found this interesting:

The end of all things is near. From now onwards, then, we must bear ourselves with humility, and tremble at God's patience for fear it shuold turn into a judgment upon us. Let us either flee from His future wrath, or else embrace His present grace; no matter which, so long as we are found in Jesus Christ with our true life before us.

(Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle to the Epesians, 11)

Words from the Fathers

2006-01-31T10:08:00.000+13:00

I recently had jury service, and although I didnt end up partaking in a trial, the bus rides to and from the city and the sometimes lenghty times of simply waiting, gave me the oppertunity to do some relaxing reading. So I decided to read the works of some of the 'Apostolic Fathers' as found in Maxwell Staniforth's Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers (Penguin, 1968, 1975). Iv'e decided to post those that I found interesting or challenging.

The first is from Ignatius of Antoich's Epistle to the Magnesians. Loving each other can often be a difficult thing, especially when the Other has caused us hurt in some way. Here are some wise words, which once again point to a truly valuable sort of love, that which looks beyond oneself for the sake of the Other:

Everyone should observe closest conformity with God; you must show every consideration for one another, never letting your attitude to a neighbour be affected by your human feelings, but simply loving each other consistently in the spirit of Jesus Christ.

(Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle to the Magnesians, 6)

quote - Tom Wright on the authority of scripture

2006-01-30T16:45:00.000+13:00

To affirm the 'the authority of scripture' is precisely not to say, 'We know what scripture means and dont need to raise any more questions.' It is always a way of saying that the church in each generation must make fresh and rejuvinated efforts to understand scripture more fully and live by it more thoroughly, even if that means cutting across cherished traditions.'

N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God (SPCK, 2005), 67-8

I read this book just after completing my own research paper on the topic, and found that it said everything I was trying to say and more and but with more flare clarity. Not that im trying to make myself look good, I drew on Wright's ealier work and that of many others in my research. But its a must read for Christian leaders, and all those who grasp the importance of critically reflecting on how we use the Bible.

Sin, Rearson, and Virtue

2006-01-30T10:23:00.000+13:00

The ability to reason, to think, to contemplate, and to understand is a fundamental part of the human person. But I often hear it said that because of (S)in, our reasoining (like every other part of our humanity) is fallen. But if this is so, in what way? How does (S)in affect our reasoning? Is it fundamentally flawedbecause of (S)in? Does this make 'truth' beyond our grasp? I find the comments of Stephen C. Evans suggestive and helpful. He writes:

Insofar as sin is supposed to express itself in the desires and emotions of individuals, if reason is affected by those desires and emotions, then it is plausible that reason is affected by sin. We should be careful not to think that emotions always have a negative effect on reason... However, it is certainly true that emotions and desires can distort our rational faculties. If these emotions and desires are themselves distorted, which is atleast part of what it means to claim that humans are sinful, then it is logical to think that our reason may be distorted as well.[1]

We are all aware of the reality of presuppositions, and how these affect our reasoning. Presuppositions can determine the direction of our reasoning from the beginning, they are inevitable (but not beyond scrutiny). Yet desires and emotions can be decisive in how honest we will be in our reasoning. Dispositions such as pride and arrogance can prevent us from honestly seeking the truth. The belief that we are right and cannot possibly be wrong can result in our refusing to listen to other prespectives because we feel that we already have the truth.

Kevin Vanhoozer writes that 'the fall into noetic sin implies that our knowing is corrupt, thus necessitating the counter-measure of epistemic virtue; and sanctification implies the cultivation of one virtue in particular-humility-for "redeeming" ones interpretative claims.'[2]

In terms of interpreting texts (a significant activity in reasoning), Vanhoozer draws attention to what he refers to as 'Interpretive Virtues', 'disposition[s] of the mind and the heart that arises from the motivation for understanding, for cognitive contact with the meaning of the text.'[3] He outlines four interpretive virtues: Honesty, Openness, Attention, and Obedience.[4] Honesty consists in our being honest in acknowledging our presuppositions. Openness consists in our being 'open-minded', listening to other prespectives, being 'open' to the possibility that they are correct. Attention consists in attentiveness to details, a commitment to serious enquiry rather than jumping to quick conclusions. And obedience consists in taking what is grasped seriously, as something to act upon.

All too often we hear talk of axe-grinding, we read of how some scholars conservative or liberal background has apparently steered the course of their enquiry to confirm what they already believed. True, no-doubt it happens. But here is a call to Humility, to Honesty, and to Openness. To listen to the voices of others with the hope that what they have to say will take you beyond your present understanding, ever-closer to truth.

[1] Faith Beyond Reason: A Kierkegaardian Account (Eerdmans, 1998), 10
[2] 'The Voice and the Actor: A Pragmatic Proposal About the Ministry and Minstrelsy of Theology', 89, in Stackhouse, J. G., Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theologicl Method (Baker, 2000)
[3] Is There A Meaning In This Text? The bible, the reader, and the morality of literary Knowledge (Apollos, 1998), 376
[4] Ibid., 377

...

2006-01-06T14:44:00.000+13:00

...so, i havnt posted in a while. But I have been quite busy, just moved house over the past two days and am settling in.

Blogging WILL resume soon...

Apathy creeping in...

2005-12-06T17:43:00.000+13:00

...cant ... be ... bothered .....posting......

Seriously though. I'd rather spend my time reading than writing right now. My partner in crime is over from SA and we reading discussing all sorts of stuff.

Tackling McKnight's proposal that the phrase "This is the blood of the covenant" (Mk 14.22, and paralells with all their slight differences; Mt 26.28; Lk 22.20; 1 Cor 11.25) does not go back to Jesus himself.

Other than that, im enjoying not having the pressure of assignments and getting to read what ever the hell I like!

?

2005-11-29T11:25:00.000+13:00

Due to the lack of comments on any of the below posts of my research paper, I'm wondering if anyone is actually reading it. Cause if your not, I really cant see the point doing the work of formatting and posting.

So is anyone reading it??

RP Part 2b - Biblical Faith and the 'Narrative Shape' of the Bible

2005-11-17T09:26:00.000+13:00

Worldview, Story, and the Nature of Biblical Faith

In light of the narrative shape of the Bible we can see that biblical faith revolves around a story. As Goldingay notes, “This narrative form reflects the fundamental nature of Christian faith as a piece of news about what God has said and done in Israel and in Jesus.”[13] Due to the scope of this story and the universal significance it possess it amounts to it a comprehensive vision of reality, or a worldview.[14]

The essential concept is quite simple; a ‘worldview’ is a person’s interpretation of reality, their basic view of life.[15] They thus include ones basic assumptions about the world. They provide an interpretation of those parts of reality deemed to be the most fundamental, and hence provide the starting point for all other acts of interpretation. They form an interpretive grid or framework that we place upon reality in order to make sense of all aspects of our experience. They provide the criteria by which interpretations are weighed, and so what we accept as true,[16] and as basic assumptions, they are rarely brought into question or raised in discussion unless this is where disagreement lies. But what then do these basic assumptions specifically concern?

In their book, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian Worldview, Brian Walsh and J. Richard Middleton propose four fundamental questions that are at the heart of every worldview:

“(1) Who am I? Or, what is the nature of, task and purpose of human beings? (2) Where am I? Or, what is the nature of the world and universe I live in? (3) What is wrong? Or, what is the basic problem or obstacle that keeps me from attaining fulfillment? In other words, how do I understand evil? And (4) What is the remedy? Or, how is it possible to overcome this hindrance to my fulfillment? In other words, how do I find salvation?”[17]

All worldviews provide answers to these basic questions, and these answers then function as basic assumptions. But we must look closer at how these questions are answered, and must look further into the nature of human understanding to discover this.

The quest for understanding is the search for ‘order’. We assume that there is an inherent order in the world, that causal relationships exist and that human (and divine) actions embody intentions. We assume that the world is not constituted of utter randomness and chaos, and we seek to discover the order or ‘meaning’ inherent in states of affairs. The way we do this is by telling stories. Human experience has an irreducible “narrative quality”. That is, in making sense of experience we give it a narrative framework that involves “the organization of otherwise isolated ‘facts’ into a meaningful whole.”[18] This organization is what constitutes our understanding of the world and the events within it.

For this reason, stories, far from being mere child’s play, are “located, on the map of human knowing, at a more fundamental level than explicitly formulated beliefs, including theological beliefs.”[19] ‘Controlling stories’ are those most fundamental to worldviews and provide answers to the fundamental questions that worldviews ask. When answers to these questions are brought into question, it is by way of competing stories that vie to take the drivers seat. They possess “a kind of finality as the ultimate interpretation of all reality in all its multifaceted aspects.”[20] These stories are often considered ‘sacred’, and unite those who share them in a common way of life.

Stories then, are “a basic constituent of human life”,[21] and it is by ones controlling stories that the fundamental worldview questions are answered. Worldviews of course are not simply intellectual edifices, but direct ones life, and the common life of the society that holds them. The answers to the fundamental questions give way to praxis, “a way-of-being-in-the-world”[22] which is felt to be the appropriate response to reality.[23] By way of metaphor, if the world is a text, worldviews provide the grand hermeneutical strategy for all of life, the ‘what is’, the ‘what for’, and to a certain extent, the ‘how’.

We can now see that the ‘narrative shape’ of the Bible points to the nature of the faith as including a vision of reality (worldview) that is grounded in the over-arching story the Bible tells. But by nature worldviews are general in character, and we must therefore make a distinction between the biblical story and the Bible’s grand-narrative that is imbedded within it. The biblical story on the one hand is the over-arching narrative that runs throughout the Bible, the story of God and his people in all its details. The grand-narrative on the other is concerned with the big picture, the basic plotline that underlies this story.[24]

In terms of the biblical story, the crucial events within the story are those that set the scene, create the central problem, and bring this problem to a final resolution.[25] This three-fold structure constitutes the ‘plot’. Within the Biblical story, the plot runs from creation to re-creation and revolves around the outworking of God’s saving purposes for the world in solution to the central problem. The setting of the scene is God’s creation of the world and his privileging humankind to be its stewards. Human rebellion establishes the problem to which God’s choosing of Israel and the sending of Jesus are the solutions. Human disobedience to God’s rule resulted in an increasing relational separation between God and humankind, within humankind, and between humankind and the rest of the created world. God moved to solve this problem by defeating the Evil that then took grip of the world through Jesus death and resurrection, and the Sin that holds humankind from God by his outpouring of his Spirit. He then sent his people out into the world in order to spread this good news until the final resolution of the problem when Evil and Sin will finally be stamped out in a final act of salvation and judgment, and all creation will be brought to its original intended goal.[26]

As the ‘controlling story’, this grand-narrative provides answers to the four basic questions and gives way to a general praxis. This praxis is to respond to God’s call to participate in the outworking of his purposes for the world. But the biblical story provides more specifics than the grand-narrative encompasses. The particular history of God’s relations with his people not only records what he has done but what he has asked of his people along the way as the story has progressed. The historical movement inherent in the Biblical story has lead N. T. Wright to add a fifth question to Walsh and Middleton’s list, ‘what time is it?’[27] This highlights the important fact that at different stages in the outworking of his plan, God desired different things of his people. It further brings in the aspect of future hope that within the biblical worldview has encroached upon the present, but yet awaits fulfillment.

Biblical faith, then, is lived within a story. It is to see oneself as a character in a drama that has yet to end, and to act appropriately within the present. We now move to the prescriptive half of the paper where I take up these insights and outline the implications they have for reading the Bible.

Footnotes [continued]
[13] Goldingay, Models for Scripture, 108
[14] It has become popular as of late both among Evangelical academics and lay people to brandish the term ‘worldview’. I suspect however that because of its excess usage and the lack of clear definition that this has betrayed, the term has become somewhat unhelpful in popular discussion. Furthermore, I fear it has sometimes been used as a means of manipulation, of forcing Christians ‘into line’ by making issues that are not central to the faith (and which are often highly and justifiably debatable) appear to be so. However, if clearly defined the concept can be of great assistance. For a history of the concept and its usage, see Naugle Worldview: The History of a Concept.
[15] The metaphor of “lenses” has popularly been employed to illustrate how worldviews work. We always view the world through a set of lenses, the color of which affects how we perceive things. Thus, when wearing blue-tint lenses, what we look at takes on different shades of blue. If read lenses, then shades of red, and so on. Different colored lenses denote different worldviews. But one need not be aware of the effect that ones worldview has on how one perceives things. As with lenses, we do not usually consider them, nor do we even have to be aware that we are wearing any, we simply stare as if they don’t exist. Further, one who wears blue lenses does not doubt that the world is colored in shades of blue, as the lenses are believed to provide the most accurate, if not true perception. It is believed that without these particular lenses things would not be seen clearly, and with others things would be distorted.
It is both appropriate to speak of ‘perceiving’ and inappropriate to speak of simply ‘seeing’ because at a more fundamental level, worldviews are constitutive of the human person and hence human cognition. To extend the metaphor, we cannot use our eyes at all if we are not wearing lenses. Indeed, the lenses are our eyes. We might wish to speak of prescription lenses without which all is a blur, but when worn, things come into focus, and what was but a chaotic blur without them receives clarity and order.
[16] More strongly, they determine what we can accept as true when wishing to remain rational and logical.
[17] Walsh and Middleton, Transforming Vision, 35. N. T. Wright offers a useful corrective to the individualism within this scheme by replacing the ‘am I’ with ‘are we’ (The New Testament and the People of God, 123, n.6). This takes into account the recent emphasis on community in hermeneutics and the social sciences.
[18] Wright, T. R., Theology and Literature, 84
[19] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 38. They are infact logically prior to them, and for a belief to be challenged the story that under girds it must first be subverted and replaced with another. A belief may be may of course be challenged as not logically following from a story.
[20] Naugle, Worldview, 303
[21] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 40
[22] Ibid.
[23] Summarizing Alistair MacIntyre’s perspective, Naugle writes, “Human life is dominated by story. Narrative identity determines how one lives and conducts oneself in the world. One is oriented to life in the world by the power of stories to shape consciousness and direct behavior. The roles which people play, how they understand themselves and others, how the world itself is structured and operates are entirely a function of the narrative plots that reign in human lives and communities.” (‘Narrative and Life’, 6)
[24] It is not concerned with what might be termed the ‘sub-plots’ that arise and which find resolution within the story (e.g. exile).
[25] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 69-77
[26] This is only a very broad outline, and details from the narratives will need to be added (e.g. the goodness of creation). Bartholomew and Goheen outline the Biblical story in terms of the theme of ‘kingdom’. In creation God establishes his kingdom, there is then rebellion in the kingdom, the king then initiates redemption by choosing Israel and redemption is accomplished through the coming of the kingdom through Jesus, the Church then spreads the news of the kingdom, and finally redemption is completed with the return of the king (see The Drama of Scripture). This seems helpful, and may suggest that we broaden the scope of our grand-narrative to include all these elements. ‘Worldview’ is a descriptive concept after all, and if it is found that all these elements can form a controlling story, then it would be fallacious to rule them out. This is something that needs further exploration.
[27] Jesus and the Victory of God, 443

To Which Race of Middle Earth I Belong

2005-11-17T08:52:00.000+13:00

Numenorean

To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

What Do We Mean By 'Eschatology'?

2005-11-11T09:52:00.000+13:00

The term 'eschatology' has proved to be one of Humpty Dumpty's favourite words this century. N.T. Wright notes seven different options:

1. Eschatology as the end of the world, i.e. the end of the space-time universe;
2. Eschatology as the climax of Israel’s history, involving the end of the spacetime
universe;
3. Eschatology as the climax of Israel’s history, involving events for which endof-
the-world language is the only set of metaphors adequate to express the
significance of what will happen, but resulting in a new and quite different
phase within a space-time history;
4. Eschatology as major events, not specifically climatic within a particular
story, for which end-of-the-world language functions as metaphor;
5. Eschatology as ‘horizontal’ language (i.e. apparently denoting movement
forwards in time) whose actual referent is the possibility of moving
‘upwards’ spiritually into a new level of existence;
6. Eschatology as critique of the present world order, perhaps with proposals for
a new order;
7. Eschatology as a critique of the present socio-political scene, perhaps with
proposals for adjustments.[1]

Given this, I wish to offer yet another definition. I think the word ‘eschatological’ would be best used to indicate that Judea-Christian faith has a temporal structure, that is, it is not a timeless revelation of a religious system but is the following of a God whose actions within space and time are bringing ‘history’ towards its goal. Murray Rae writes, “History is affirmed by the biblical writers as the locus of God’s action… and the terrain upon which his purpose is worked out… It is the action of God, therefore, that is understood to give history its purpose and that directs it towards its goal. Only thus is the succession of events conceivable as ‘history’.”[2] Although religious systems such as Buddhism provide a story that makes sense of the world, they focus upon the present (correct me if I’m wrong). Judeo-Christian faith on the other hand focuses upon God’s actions and thus history. It looks back to his actions in the past and forward to his actions in the future.

Of course with this definition, the term becomes rather general, but it would include 3 and 4 above.

Footnotes
[1] Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 208

[2] Rae, ‘Creation and Promise: Towards a Theology of History’, 288, in Bartholomew, C. G., Evans, S. C., Healy, M., Rae, M., ‘Behind’ the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Cumbria: Paternoster, 2003), 267-299

RP Part 2a - Biblical Faith and the 'Narrative Shape' of the Bible

2005-11-10T17:00:00.000+13:00

Finding Direction

It goes without saying that the Bible is not your average book. For millennia, it has been treated as a revelation from God, a book of divine origin. But what sort of book is it? A quick skim through its pages reveals that it is not like most. It is neither a continuous narrative comparable in form to a novel, nor is it like a textbook or manual, with an ordered system of laws or instructions. Within the Bible we have a diverse range of genres including narratives, prayers, proverbs, songs, prophetic oracles and vision reports, and letters.[1] It is most comparable in form to an anthology, a collection of writings connected by some central feature, whether it be a single author, or a topic of discussion.

Setting aside the notion of divine origin, we can see clearly that the writings do not come from a single author. It is more appropriate to speak of the origins (plural) of the Bible because this better reflects the creation of the Bible as it manifested itself in history.[2] Yet, we can still speak of a common authorship if we envisage this in communal terms. All of the biblical writings have their origin in a single religious tradition, and as canonical, represent the ideal of that tradition.[3]

This brings into focus a further aspect that needs to be considered when formulating an answer to what we should use the Bible for and how. It is certain that we do not wish to be arbitrary in answering this question, but where then do we look for ground on which to base our answer? If there is any “objectivity” to be found in this process, I suggest that it will only lie in allowing the Bible to be itself in fulfilling its role within its religious tradition. The nature of Biblical faith must be the primary directive in determining what we use the Bible for and how, because as a product of that faith, it reflects it and is designed to sustain it.[4] It can be expected then, that the literary ‘shape’ of the Bible reflects the nature of the faith, and provides the key to unlocking the Bible.

The Narrative Shape of the Bible

If we ask as to the ‘general shape’ of the Bible, we may point out that the majority of the material is in the form of narrative, and that these narratives are concerned with history.[5] It is here that I suggest both the unity of the Bible, and the nature of Biblical faith lies.[6] At the centre of the Bible is a set of narratives that together tell a single coherent story.[7] This story is both grand in its scope, looking back to the creation of things and forward to their renewal, and particular in its focus, recounting the history of God and his people as he outworked his purposes through them. Further, this particular history is of universal significance as it concerns the outworking of God’s saving purposes for his dislocated world. What The Old and New Testaments together narrate “stretches from the creation of humanity and its turning away from God, through God’s implementation of a purpose to restore the lost blessing of creation in and by means of the Israelite people, to a climax in the Christ event, with a coda… in the story of the early church awaiting the final revealing of Christ and the new creation.”[8]

Given the presence of this ‘narrative core’, can we now speak of the Bible as having a ‘narrative shape’? Or would this be to repeat one of the shortcomings of ‘authority’, imposing a one-sided characterization once more? This need not be the case, as Trevor Hart comments: “this does not mean forcing a wide variety of different literary genres onto an interpretative bed of which Procustes would have been proud. Not all texts are “narrative” in the technical sense. But treated as “a whole,” scripture, in all its diversity of types, offers a narrative world the reader is invited to indwell, and from within which she is now expected to view things.”[9]

This “narrative world” consists first and foremost of the over-arching story, which becomes the defining characteristic of the Bible, and all non-narrative material within take their place in relation to this story. Hence, Richard Bauckham has sought to locate all of Scripture within this framework:

“The category of story includes not only biblical narratives… but also prophecy and apostolic teaching insofar as these illuminate the meaning of the story and point its direction towards its still future completion. This total biblical story is also the context within which other biblical genres - law, wisdom, psalms, ethical instruction, parables, and so on - are canonically placed. Story is the overarching category in which others are contextualized.”[10]

Not only do the prophets (witnessed to in the prophetic books) illuminate the story and point to its completion, but as characters within Israel’s history speaking into it at particular points become part of the story itself. Similarly, the New Testament letters not only contain apostolic teaching, but also belong to the history of the early Church and are thus part of the over-arching story themselves.[11] Other non-narrative materials are more clearly imbedded in the story, such as the Laws in Deuteronomy and the parables in the Gospels.

Every scriptural document, then, finds its place in relation to the over-arching story the Bible tells, as well as every piece of material including ethical instruction that is given in and directed to particular contexts.[12] The over-arching story is the frame within which all biblical material is contextualized, thus giving the Bible a ‘narrative shape’ and pointing towards its function.

Footnotes
[1] For a good introduction to the basic genres within the Bible, see Marshall D. Johnson, Making Sense of the Bible: Literary Type as an Approach to Understanding (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002)
[2] Rather than beginning with abstract concepts such as ‘revelation’, ‘inspiration’, or ‘Word of God’, we need to begin with the literary character of the Bible and the nature of the faith its presents. Because of the general nature of these abstract concepts, they are often treated as empty vessels and filled with what we think they must mean. If we are to make use of them, we need to let the character of the Bible shape what they mean, and this may be drastically different than usually envisaged.
[3] Goldingay terms this the ‘formal’ unity of the Old Testament: “Formally, all these writings belong to one history; they are the deposit of the historical experience of Israel in its pre-Christian period. Together they are thus also the deposit of one unified religious tradition, whose development is one aspect of that history. Further, and more specifically again, they all belong to the form of that tradition which came to have the status of a canon of normative writings in Judaism.” (The Theological Diversity of the Old Testament, 30) This notion could be extended to include the New Testament as carrying on that history and development.
[4] “There is no doubt that text and community are dialectically related, that is, that community forms text and text evokes community.” (Brueggemann, The Book that Breathes New Life, 10-11)
[5] On the difference between biblical narratives and modern history, see the many articles in Bartholomew (ed.), ‘Behind’ the Text. On the nature of Old Testament narratives, see Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narratives.
[6] Although often asserted, the unity and coherence of the Bible is rarely explained. But the claim must be given content if it is to have any real meaning. Some have claimed that the scriptures present a coherent theology, but it has been shown that this is not the case (see Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament, 1-28). Others have tried to locate its coherence and unity in a single topos such as "love", but this inevitably results in the neglect or rejection of all else that either appears to contradict it or that is not particularly related to it. Further, because 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 definition of love from (On the inadequacy of ‘love’, see Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 200-204).
[7] “Theologically speaking these longer and shorter narrative works are implicitly part of a more extensive overarching story.” (Goldingay, Models for Scripture, 23). In this paper I will not tackle the problems related to claiming that the many individual narratives within scripture form one extended narrative, as the great majority of Evangelical readers, unlike most critical scholars, have little problem with this. Bauckham argues convincingly that “the biblical texts themselves recognize and assert, in a necessarily cumulative manner, the unity of the story they tell.” see, ‘Reading Scripture as a Coherent Story’, quote from 40
[8] Goldingay, Models for Scripture, 23
[9] Hart, ‘Tradition, Authority, and a Christian Approach to the Bible as Scripture’, 197
[10] Bauckham, ‘Scripture and Authority’, 7
[11] The psalms and the wisdom literature all belong to places within the history of God’s people, even if at times they are hard to place.
[12] This frame of reference is necessary for understanding most of the biblical documents. “At the center of Scripture is a set of narratives and these narratives are the frame around which the whole of Scripture is constructed. Apart from these narratives the Prophets would not be intelligible and without the frame of the Gospel narratives it would be difficult to understand the full meaning of the parables, epistles, creeds, and hymns of the New Testament .” (Stroup, The Promise of Narrative Theology, 145)

RP Part 1- Authority and Hermeneutics

2005-11-07T13:50:00.000+13:00

Authority as assumption
The claim that the Bible is authoritative is one of the central affirmations of contemporary Evangelical Christianity.[1] Thus Carson can state, “It should go without saying that the authority of the Bible must be recognized by Christians. The church cannot exist and flourish without unreservedly embracing the Bible.”[2] This assumption impacts on all levels of engagement with the Bible. In a recently published book on ethics, an Evangelical author dismisses the important work of another scholar due to their conclusion that presupposing the authority of the Old Testament clouds the interpretive process, and does not do justice to the distance between our world and theirs.[3] According to many, the authority of the Bible is a necessary presupposition for the proper study of the Bible.

That the Bible is ‘authoritative’ then is a controlling assumption among many Evangelical scholars. It is certainly the prevailing assumption among the Evangelical laity. It is this authority, it is said, that gives it the unquestionable role of shaping our lives, intellectually, spiritually, and practically. But what exactly does it mean to ascribe authority to the Bible, to say that it is authoritative?

The concept is often linked to ‘truth’ and ‘inspiration’. The Bible as ‘inspired’ by God, is a revelation of truth.[4] Its authority then, may be compared to that of a professional who is said to be ‘the authority’ in his field because of his or her recognized experience, talent, work produced, etc., or a book that is said to be the authority on a topic because it is accepted that it has grasped the truth of the matter. Further, ‘truth’ has a claim upon my life, I am obliged to believe it and act accordingly. The Bible as revealed truth is the final rule against which all other claims must be tested.[5] At its simplest level, then, it is the affirmation that the Bible is true and from God and should therefore be given the role of shaping our lives.

At this level there are few problems. As Christians, the Bible must certainly possess this central role in our lives, without it we would be lost to the postmodern morass, we would loose all grounding, and the Church would fragment and slowly evaporate. But the concept of ‘authority’ goes beyond this basic affirmation. Tied to it are certain implications for what we should use the Bible to do and at the same time how we should do so. It is thus also a hermeneutical strategy, but in discussions of biblical authority this is habitually missed. Indeed if the strategy is challenged, it is often seen to be an assault upon the Bible itself and one is accused of rejecting the central place the Bible should have in our lives. A lot of the time this accusation is not far off the mark, there are interpretive communities that wish to revise the Bible’s function in this way. However, legitimate critique can be made of ‘biblical authority’ when the focus of this is the hermeneutical strategy and not the basic affirmation of the Bible’s general role. This critique, I believe, is well over due. But first it must be demonstrated that the notion of biblical authority is indeed a hermeneutical strategy.

Authority as a Hermeneutical strategy
Authority as a concept, is not descriptive of a quality, but refers to a status or a role that something or someone has. The president of the United States of America is in a position of authority over the citizens of those states. This implies that he is in the position to make decisions and set in motion actions that others are not. Authority then, implies status and role. It concerns the giving of commands, the ordering of states of affairs. It thus most naturally concerns orders or instructions.

Accordingly, when applied to the Bible, it is most naturally at home among instructive material. Biblical laws and commands must be obeyed because of the authority behind them. Some other material can also come under this umbrella. Doctrinal statements must be affirmed, historical testimony must be accepted. Viewing the Bible as ‘authoritative’ draws attention to the instructive material within it, and signals that we should comply. It thus constitutes a hermeneutical strategy as it tells us what the Bible should be used for and how we should do so (i.e. the following of its instructions). This is however where problems lie with the concept.

Problems with Authority as a Hermeneutical Strategy
Because the emphasis is on obedience to instruction, those parts of scripture that do not take the form of instruction are often neglected. Where this does not occur, they are often made to yield some sort of instruction. A prime example is where commentators seek to find moral principles or lessons from isolated episodes within biblical narratives. Given that this task may be legitimate on some level,[6] it does however lead to the neglect of the big picture, the greater significance these narratives possess as part of the one story that stretches from creation to the re-creation. The great majority of biblical material does not consist in laws or commands, but in narratives. Consequently, when ‘authority’ is emphasized prescriptively as the Bible’s function, large portions of the Bible are neglected and others distorted to fit the hermeneutical strategy.

But further than this, problems arise when the strategy is applied to the instructional material in the Bible. As God’s authoritative word, we are to agree with what the text tells us to believe, and obey what it commands us to do. It is held that all biblical material is authoritative; it is all equally truthful and applicable for us today. One of the supposed results of modern “critical” scholarship has been to demonstrate the presence of many contradictions and competing forms of belief and action within the scriptures. Although the methods employed to establish much of this have now come under serious question,[7] the movement has successfully highlighted the great diversity within biblical literature across matters of ethics, theology, and praxis. Although the number of contradictions between the various biblical writings (and even within them) has been exaggerated, real contradictions are present, especially between the Old and New Testaments.[8]

A clear example of this is circumcision, where a command given in one part of the Bible is annulled in another. In Genesis 17.9-14 the ritual of circumcision is instituted as a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendents. It was thus to be an important aspect of the life of God’s people.[9] However, in Galatians it is stated that if anyone receives circumcision they will be “severed from Christ” and would have “fallen from grace” (Gal 5.2-4 nrsv). In both passages what is said is of vital importance for what it means to be faithful to God, but they flatly contradict each other. Although Christians have not found it hard choosing between the two, the fact they have to do so demonstrates that the notion of ‘authority’ as flatly applied to all biblical material cannot be sustained. Selection must take place on some grounds, whether it is internal to the Bible or drawn from outside of it,[10] and this effectively negates the original principle.[11]

Further, there are many commands that Christians feel under no obligation to obey, such as the prohibition against eating pork (Lev 11.7-8), the stoning of sexual offenders (Deut 22.13-24), or the requirement that women wear veils when they pray (1 Cor 11.5, 13). As Grenz notes, this “bear[s] silent witness to the apparent inadequacy of a simple rule-book ethic. This phenomenon suggests that some deeper principle must be at work providing the criterion by means of which to differentiate between the universally applicable and the situationally conditioned laws of Scripture.”[12]

Asking the Question Afresh
We may ask as to why we should assume biblical instructions to be authoritative at all?[13] Nothing in scripture is directed to us, but to others (whether Christian or not) in a context that is not ours. Some teaching must be normative for Christians however, those whishing to follow Jesus by definition are not doing so unless they are in some way doing what he said. Following his resurrection, he declared that “all authority in heaven and on earth” had been given to him and therefore told the eleven to go out into the world and make disciples of all people by baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that he had commanded (Matt 28.18-21). Thus, as Christians, our relationship to Jesus is as a servant to a king. Yet concerning the Bible as a whole, our relationship must be different.

Given the problems with the notion of biblical authority and its various formulations, it seems helpful to abandon it as a conceptual framework from within which to work.[14] What is needed is a reappraisal of the Bible itself. Before asking how we should use it, we need to ask ‘what should we be using it for?’ And before this, ‘what is it?’

Notes:
[1] Even those wings of the Church that would not make this affirmation (e.g. extreme liberal, feminist) participate in the same activity of asking and answering the question of what to use the Bible for and how to do so. They also, therefore, would benefit from attending to the argument presented below.
[2] The Gagging of God, 151
[3] [reference to be added] Speaking of Cyril S. Rodd’s Glimpses of a Strange Land. His comments on 325, 27.
[4] So Grudem, ‘Scriptures Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture’ in Carson and Woodbridge (eds.), Scripture and Truth, 19-59
[5] These two explanations represent two different notions of authority. The first sees authority as something external, it is a status and role given to someone or something by a person or community. The second sees authority as internal, it is a quality inherent in something or someone. In the final analysis however, authority is always external. In both notions it must be recognized and accepted because the use of force equals power and not authority. See Rodd, Glimpses of A Strange Land, 325, and Bauckham, ‘Scripture and Authority’
[6] For a methodologically grounded proposal for discerning moral judgments within Old Testament narratives, see Gordon J. Wenham, Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically (Edinburgh: T&T, 2001). For cautions concerning this approach in general, see Goldingay, Models for Interpretation of Scripture, 56-70
[7] See for example, Carson, ‘Unity and Diversity in the New Testament’
[8] John Goldingay discusses the degrees of diversity and forms of contradiction within the Old Testament, and establishes four categories: (1) formal contradictions, (2) contextual contradictions, (3) substantial contradictions, and (4) fundamental contradictions. On these see Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament, 15-25
[9] Gen 17.14 “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
[10] Internal principles are those where the decision and argument is made within a biblical document. An external principle is one which is based upon larger theological systems or other considerations such as tradition, goal, etc. In this example both are present. The text of Galatians makes the argument, but the choice of Galatians over Genesis witnesses to a consideration of the historical movement within the Bible. Galatians belongs to a point in history further along the line than Genesis where certain developments have taken place, most notably the Christ event. The Christian, for whom Christ is at the center, thus privileges the writings of the New Testament over the Old. This, of course, may be grounded within biblical teaching as well.
[11] A slight alteration is to affirm that the entire Bible is authoritative, but that no one part has this quality on its own. Authority is the collective value of the canon of scriptures. The Bible is authoritative, but not all the biblical material is. This too requires selection. Certain scriptures or theological teachings/commands take the authoritative function and others do not. The grounds for which should take this place is not immediately clear, and so external considerations inevitably play a role in making the decision.
[12] Grenz, The Moral Quest, 244. Concerning people’s ‘selective weighing’ of Scripture in terms of importance and obedience to different instructions, William Loader rightly remarks, “This is not arbitrary or disrespectful, but is seen to be consistent with the approaches within scripture, itself.” (‘Approaches to Scripture’)
[13] There are no doubt other reasons for obeying biblical commands that do not rest upon the assumption of biblical authority as a hermeneutical strategy. If we understand there to be a connection between the Ten Commandments and the created order for instance, this will give us impetus to obey them.
[14] Unfortunately ‘authority’ appears to have become the “indispensable theological category” within which to understand the Bible and its function (Goldingay, Models for Scripture, 8). The recent reawakening to the diversity of literary forms in the Bible is welcomed, and has led to the aspiration to define their function accordingly. But the desire to retain the concept of authority and to build a system of functions within this framework can only distorts things. In doing so we find ourselves effectively working backwards, no longer moving from text to description and function, but from presumed function to text. In this process we end up treating the text as something it is not, distorting its actual purpose and loosing some of the Bibles richness.

formating woes

2005-11-07T10:15:00.000+13:00

Sorry for the delay, formatting is giving me grief. Im trying to copy paste from Microsoft Word but it screws with the formatting and it comes out with different fonts and sizes throughout the post. Anyone know a better way to do this?

Research Paper - Bibliography

2005-11-07T10:03:00.000+13:00

I have provided this so that people can find the resources I have quoted if they wish.

· Barr, J., The Concept f Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999)
· Bartholomew, C. G., Evans, S. C., Healy, M., Rae, M., ‘Behind’ the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Cumbria Paternoster, 2003)
· Bartholomew, C. G. and Goheen, M. W., The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004)
· Bartholomew, C. and Moritz, T. (eds.), Christ and Consumerism: A Critical Analysis of the Spirit of the Age (UK: Paternoster Press, 2000)
· Bauckham, R. J., The Bible in Politics: Reading the Bible Politically (Louisville: Westminster/John Know, 1989)
― ‘Scripture and Authority’ [http//:www.seadinternational.com/scripture_and_authority accessed 14.05.05]
― ‘Reading Scripture as a Coherent Story’ in Davies, E. F. & Hays, R. B. (eds.), The Art of Reading Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003)
· Beker, J C. ‘The Authority of Scripture: Normative or Incidental?’ Theology Today 49.3 (1992), 376-382
· Brueggemann, W., The Book that Breathes New Life: Scriptural Authority and Biblical Theology (Minneaplois: Fortress, 2005)
· Carrol, R. P., Wolf in the Sheepfold: The Bible as Problematic for Theology (London: SCM, 1997 [1991])
· Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996)
― ‘Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology’, in Carson and Woodbridge (eds.), Scripture and Truth, 65-95
· Carson, D. A., and Woodbridge, J. D. (eds.), Scripture and Truth (England: IVP, 1983)
― Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (England: IVP, 1986)
· Dulles, A., The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York: Crossroad, 1992)
· Goheen, M. W., ‘Reading the Bible as One Story’ [http://www.biblicaltheology.ca/bluearticles.htm accessed on 28.10.05]
· Goldingay, J., ‘Biblical Narrative and Systematic Theology’ in Green and Turner (eds.), Bridging Two Horizons, 123-142
― Models for Interpretation of Scripture (Toronto: Clements, 1995)
― Models for Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994)
― Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987)
· Green, J. B., and Turner, M. (eds.), Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000)
· Greenslade, P. A Passion for God’s Story: Discovering Your Place in God’s Strategic Plan (UK: Paternoster, 2002)
· Grenz, S. J., The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997)
· Harrisville, R. A., Harrisville, ‘The Loss of Authority and it’s Recovery’ in Braaten, C. E. and Jenson, R. W. (ed.), Reclaiming the Bible for the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 47-61
· Hart, T., ‘Tradition, Authority, and a Christian Approach to the Bible as Scripture’, in Green and Turner (eds.), Bridging Two Horizons, 183-204
· Hays, R. B., The Moral Vision of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996)
· Jeffrey, D. L., ‘(Pre) Figuration” Masterplot and Meaning in Biblical History’ in Bartholomew et al (eds.), ‘Behind’ the Text, 363-393
· Johnston, R. K. (ed.), The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985)
· Jones, G., ‘The Authority of Scripture and Christian Ethics’ in Gill, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2001) 16-28
· Loader, W., ‘Approaches to Scripture: Considering the Options’ [http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/scripture.htm accessed on the 19.06.05]
· Lundin, R., Walhout, C., Thiselton, A. C., The Promise of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999)
· Marshall, I. H., Beyond the Bible: Moving From Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker and Paternoster, 2004)
· Naugle, D. K., ‘Narrative and Life: The Central Role of Stories in Human Experience’ [http://www.dbu.edu/naugle/papers.htm accessed at 22.10.05]
― Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002)
· Polinghorne, J., The God of Hope and the End of the World (US: Yale, 2002)
· Rae, M. A., ‘Creation and Promise: Towards a Theology of History’ in Bartholomew et al (eds.), ‘Behind’ the Text, 267-299
· Rodd, C. S., Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics (London: T&T, 2001)
· Spohn, W. C., What Are They Saying About Scripture and Ethics, fully revised and expanded (New York: Paulist Press, 1995)
· Stroup, The Promise of Narrative Theology (London: SCM, 1981)
· Thiselton, A. C., New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992)
· Walker, A., Telling the Story: Gospel, Mission, and Culture (London: SPCK, 1996)
· Wolters, A., Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996 [1984])
· Wright, N. T., ‘How Can the Bible be Authoritative?’
― Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996)
― The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992)
· Wright, S., ‘Inhabiting the Story: The Use of the Bible in the Interpretation of History’, in Bartholomew et al (eds.), ‘Behind’ the Text, 492-519
· Wright, T. R., Theology and Literature (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988)

My Research Paper - Title and Abstract

2005-11-04T11:02:00.000+13:00

my paper is nearly finished and so im going to slowly post it in parts. Please make comments of all varieties. I'm keen to hear what you all think about the topic and my approach.

Reading Scripture Afresh: Story and the Christian Faith [1]

In this paper I offer an explorative suggestion to the question of what should we use the bible for and how do we do so? I propose that the question needs to be asked afresh due to the short falls and problems with contemporary readings and uses of the Bible that begin with the assumption of “biblical authority”. I argue that our use of the Bible must cohere both with its literary character and the nature of the faith that it presents. At the heart of this faith is a coherent story that the scriptures tell. This story is both grand in scope—stretching from the creation of all things to their renewal—and particular in focus—recording the history of God and his people as he outworks his purposes through them. This over-arching story is the frame within which all biblical documents are contextualized, giving the Bible a ‘narrative shape’ and pointing towards its function. We are to make the Bible’s over-arching story the ‘controlling story’ within our worldview, and from our place within this story, creatively appropriate the scriptures according to their context within the story.

[1] The title betrays several aspects of this thesis. Firstly, reading scripture afresh suggests that here I propose a new method and purpose for reading Scripture. Secondly, the presence of Christian faith in the sub-title shows that this fresh reading is a reading for the Christian, from within the Christian faith, that is, working with the Protestant canon. Thirdly, story highlights the importance of the category within this new approach.Now I don’t mean to say that Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are not Christian, only that my audience make use of the New Testament as well as the Hebrew Bible.
Neither do I mean to claim that what I am proposeing is revolutionary and has not been thought of before. What I have sought to do is educate myself on the whole story/worldview aproach and perhaps I have added some "objectivity" to the approach by grounding it in the nature of the Bible and its faith. I'll let you all be the judge.

blog role update

2005-11-01T11:12:00.000+13:00

I have updated the blog role, adding two new blogs, Codex by Tyler F. Williams and Brainpoo by Chris Tilling. I have found Tyler's posts on historiography to be very helpful, and Chris is always humorous and informing. I have finally got around to changing the link to Scot McKnights blog Jesus Creed (the adoption of the original URL for porn pushed me into action).

The recent drought in bloggin is due to preoccuptation with completing my research paper and finding a job for the summer break. I hope to have it finished by the end of the week and will post it in parts for all to read and rip to pieces.

Revelation or Testemony?

2005-10-19T10:06:00.000+13:00

Which concept better describes the Bible? For me, "revelation" evokes the qualities of eternal, timeless, objective, fixed, and abstract. "Testimony" on the other hand evokes the qaulities of past, involved, and presently relevant.

I have been pondering the notion of testimony lately, not just in regard to historiography, but also in regard to the picture we have of the Bible and what we should use it for. I think that it is time we reclaimed the 'Old and New Testaments' as testaments, that is, we see them as giving witness to God and his people. It witnesses to God's actions, peoples responses, his overarching plan for creation and our place within that plan.

For me, history is our playing field, and it only makes sense that any knowledge worth our knowing will be concerned with history and not those things that do not intersect with it. Of course the God of the Bible is not the God of the philososhers, he is not the uninvolved Deist God that reasoning produces. No, the God of the Bible is seen and understood because he does get involved in his creation, deeply involved. We do not have knowledge about God because he has given us a textbook, but because we have testimony to his past involvement (both words and actions) in which we can see what he is like. The Bible is not eternal and timeless, rather it developed over time. It is not objective or abstract, but embodies human perspectives as testimony and witnesses to historical happenings.

I think that the concept of "revelation" is unhelpful, atleast for me. Testament is far more accurate.

The Historians Reliance upon Testimony

2005-10-07T12:38:00.000+13:00

I will be doing a series of short posts on testimony and history. The first of these concerns the nature of testimony, and the historians reliance upon it.

Testimony is report of past happening, whether written, pictorial, or oral. There is testimony from people of the past about their own past, testimony from people of the past about the past of others, and likewise, testimony from people in the present about their own past, or about the past of others.

Now inasmuch as the historian wishes to say something about past happenings of which he/she was not involved, they have to rely upon the testimony others. Besides this, all that remains for the historian is unbridled creativity, or what some refer to as wild speculation. Thus, Provan writes that “history is fundamentally openness to acceptance of accounts from the past that enshrine other people’s memories.”[1] Without these ‘accounts from the past’, we have no means of finding out about the happenings of the past. [2] Because of his, Iain Provan suggests that the language of "knowledge" can be somewhat misleading:

“What is commonly referred to as knowledge of the past is more accurately described as faith in the testimony, in the interpretations of the past, offered by others. We consider the gathered testimonies at our disposal; we reflect on the various interpretations offered; and we decide in various ways and to various extents to invest faith in these – to make these testimonies and interpretations our own.” [3]

The second point, that testimony is interpretation, is of great significance. Because of the nature of its referent (the temporal flow of past happenings), testimony always takes the form of a narrative. It can thus be considered ‘story telling’. This highlights an important point about testimony, it always involves interpretation. The selection of what is told, the way it is told, and the explanations given regarding the relationships between events and their meaning, are all aspects of interpretation and are inevitable features of testimony. All testimony proceeds from people and is therefore told from a certain perspective or point of view, that is, given an interpretation.

But the task of the historian is more than deciding between interpretations. He/she may wish to offer an alternative interpretation to all those offered. Further, many historians see their task as that of establishing what actually happened with some sort of proof. Thus they take to the tasks of 'validation' (when a text is judged to represent historical events accurately) and 'reconstruction' (when it is not). This is what I will explore in my next post.

[1] Provan, "Knowing and Believing: Faith in the Past", 249, in Bartholomew (ed.) 'Behind the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Cumbria: Paternoster, 2003), 229-266
[2] Archaelogy may be seen as an exception. But archaelogy can tell us very little about events unless it is brought into correspondence with testimony. see ibid., 247-49
[3] ibid., 246

Foundations and Historical Criticism

2005-09-30T11:20:00.000+12:00

Should the term “critical” be reserved for the area of biblical studies that seeks to determine the truthfulness or historicity of the biblical witness? Thus, to be critical is being critical of the primary sources. Or, as I suggested below, should ‘being critical’ also include being critical of secondary sources of explanation?

Mary E. Healy makes the distinction between ‘historical criticism’ and ‘historical-critical methods’. The former consists in breaking down the text and reconstructing history from a new standpoint, the latter concerns understanding the text, including history from its standpoint.[1]

Concerning the standpoint from which historical criticism (as she classifies it) approaches its task, we may question what privileges its standpoint over that of the Evangelists, if they were indeed concerned with the past. The foundational assumptions of the discipline are open to debate, that is, the supposed “findings of modernity” upon which the discipline stands are by no means ‘assured’, as consensus has not been reached within their respective fields of origin (e.g. does science rule out the possibility of miracles).

Thus, we should not, as a matter of fact, view the Evangelists as naïve in believing that Jesus performed miracle,[2] whereas from our vantage point we know better. We could do so of course, depending upon our standpoint concerning this matter. But we cannot make this the standpoint for academic or “critical” scholarship. In as much as some sort of shared perspective is required between scholars for fruitful dialogue and investigation to take place, I do not think that naturalism should constitute part of this shared perspective. Firstly, it dismisses too much data, data that is central to most of the biblical narratives.[3] Secondly, it would need to be demonstrated that naturalist assumptions lead to the most accurate results.

It must be affirmed that both miracles and the resurrection pose real problems for historians of any standpoint. How would one go about investigating whether in a given instance they occurred or not? A historian that believes miracles to be impossible (for what ever reason) need not enter such an investigation. What they would do however is investigate an alternative explanation for the historical consequences the gospel material.[4] But a historian who brings no such assumption to the historical critical task (that of reconstructing history from their standpoint; historical criticism) will not be able to avoid the investigation. What they must do is test the written testimony (‘can it be trusted?’), and this can be done along many lines. The results of this will be decisive, not any prior convictions.

[1] Mary E. Healy, “Behind, in Front of .. or Through the Text? The Christological Analogy and the Lost World of Biblical Truth”, 187, in Bartholomew, C. G., Evans, S. C., Healy, M., Rae, M., editors, ‘Behind’ the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Cumbria: Paternoster, 2003), 181-95. We must be upfront about the fact that all history is done from a standpoint that is constituted by certain assumptions about the world and reality in general. So she comments, “The idea of an absolutely neutral observer standing on some plane outside the repercussions of history, able to judge interpretations of the past with impartial certitude, is as mythical as the Gnostic ‘Primal Man’.” (184)

[2] Or more accurately, God performed miracles through Jesus.

[3] e.g. miracles and exorcisms to the gospels. To dismiss these would be to rule out a large and significant chunk of the material we have to work with.

[4] This may be explored on along two avenues. The first being textual (is it simply authorial/communal invention), the second being actual (some “natural” explanation for the event).

One Criteria for All? Word and Resurrection under the microscope

2005-09-29T12:01:00.000+12:00

One of the points James and Rafael are discussing (as an example for a larger question I think) is whether the resurrection should be judged on the same grounds as the teachings ascribed to Jesus. I, with Rafael (see his posts), would maintain a distinction between the resurrection and sayings of Jesus in terms of assessing probable historicity. I hope I can add some clarity to the issue (although I doubt it) if any is needed.

Both Jesus' words and his resurrectionare come to us in written traditions concerned with actual happenings in Jesus life, and in this regard they are on the same level. But they do concern different happenings, and it is the possibility of these happenings which has the first say concerning historicity. Only then does probability come into play concerning whether they actually happened in a given instance.

Thus, although we are dealing with two written testimonies, this 'written' factor is put to one side for the initial judgement. This judgment works as an assumption for the discerning of probability. So, in one tradition it is claimed that Jesus speaks, in the other, that God raises Jesus to new life following his death. Most would have no trouble assuming that Jesus could speak. Many, however, would have trouble assuming that God could raise Jesus from the dead, primarily because they dont think that there is a God to do so (and if they did, some would still deny that he could "intervene" in the world like this).

Having made this initial assumption (usually sub-consciously), one would then go on to determine the probability of Jesus speaking and whether the particular tradition reflects what he actually said (the degree would range from exact replication to fiction). This stage is where one engages with the actuall text. For the second tradition, if one works with the assumption that there is a God, then one then goes about determining whether he probably did raise Jesus from the dead or not working with the evidence found in the written tradition.[1] If one assumes there is not, then one still needs to deal with the written tradition, but deems it inaccurate from the start, with no amount of argument to the contrary (concerning the written tradition) able to pursuade otherwise.

[1] Is it a reliable testimony? Given what we can establish about 'God', is it likely that he would raise Jesus? What reasons would he have for doing so?

Being Critical, the discussion continues

2005-09-29T11:26:00.000+12:00

In his continuing dialogue with James Crossley, Rafael Rodriguez has made these important comments:

"I think critical scholarship would be well served by shifting its focus to the process of biblical historiography rather than its product."

Although I previously commented that being critical should not correspond to always being skeptical, I think Rafael adds something important here. In discussion, the term "critical" is often used to categorize a certain group of scholars or the results which define this category ('critical' scholarship' over 'against conservative scholarship'). The results that fit this category are usually minimalist and reflect skepticism towards the hiistorical value of biblical narratives. In aligning "ciritical" with these results, we have made the mistake that the lecturers at my Bible college try to rule out at the very beginning of semesters, that being critical does not simply mean being dismissive. It means thinking through arguments and making informed judgements.

"But, a preference for certain sources can be the result of critical reflection (granted that, nevertheless, it frequently isn't)."

This statement coheres with what I tried to establish in my previous post, and I'd appreciate to hear your comments on it Rafael! The discussion continues and I suggest all interested check out the full posts at Rafael and James, as well as Michael Bird's blogs.

What Does it Mean to "Be Critical" in Studying the Historical Jesus

2005-09-28T10:53:00.000+12:00

In the hope of sparking some discussion over the issue, i have decided to pose the question:

What does it mean to be "critical" in histoical Jesus studies and biblical studies in general?

The major issue I see here, and which has called fourth this post, is the question whether, to be "critical" do we need to assume a "skeptical" stance towards the texts and/or the authors? Does this mean assuming historical innaccuracy? If so, do we need concrete reasons for doing so? This may, although not necessarily, concerns the issue of burden of proof.

When I think of being critical, i think in terms of not being immediately trusting of ones own or anothers understanding, but testing its truthfulness or accuracy. When this comes to studying the historical Jesus, this works on two fronts: (1) testing my own and others interpretations of the primary data (directly concerning Jesus [e.g. gospels] and background data [e.g. other Jewish Literature]), (2) testing the primary data for its truthfulness or accuracy. Both of these are vital, the circumstances surrounding the latter, however, make it a tenuous task with tentative results.

How to go about the latter, which should of course be done first, is what concerns me the most. Inasmuch as being critical means not being immediately trusting, but testing, there are many reasons that suggest this process should not be taken when approaching each and every individual tradition concerning Jesus.[1] If one wishes to assume a stance of either trust or distrust towards the traditions (in terms of historical value) before testing them, one must have reasons to do so. And what I would argue is that we should take a stance of trust towards the individual traditions in the canonical gospels. But this is a stance we should take subsequent to the first stance of not being immediately trusting, but testing. This may be clearer if I outline it in the following steps:

Our default stance is "critical", in that we do not immediately trust or distrust our sources (as wholes), but we "test" them.
The results of our testing lead us either to a stance of general trust towards each source as a whole (e.g. the gospel of Mark), or one of general distrust.
If distrust, then certain criteria need to be employed to establish the probable accuracy or authenticity of each individual tradition before it can be used in reconstructing the Jesus of the past. But if trust is established as the general stance towards a source, then the criteria need not be employed for reconstruction to take place.

Now it should be questioned what justifies the claim that we should first determine whether to trust/distrust the sources as wholes (i.e. a gospel), rather than the normal approach of judging each individal tradition indipendently. Firstly, the latter approach assumes an answer to the former, whether recognized or not. The criteria of authenticity assume various things about early Christianity, the transmission of traditions about Jesus, and hence the nature of the canonical gospels in terms of their composition, purpose, genre, etc. In using the criteria then, one is working according to these assumptions whether one desires to or not, for they undergird the criteria.[2] What I suggest, is that many of the judgments that undergird the criteria are false.[3] Building upon more probable positions concerning early Christianity, transmission of traditions, and the nature of the canonical gospels, I suggest that we may take a stance of general trust towards the gospels, and hence the individual traditions they contain.

Thus, we are being "critical", but not aligning this with extreme skepticism or distrust. It is helpful to see it in terms of an activity rather than a stance.

The objection may also be raised that there is no middle position between "trust" and "distrust", and that to test something is to betray a "distrust" for it. I do wish to suggest a middle position however, because I want to make a distinction between two stages in the process, and reserve the terms trust and distrust for the second stage.

[1] The seperating of the present tradition (i.e. each gospel) into smaller ones (i.e. sayings, events) of course reflects the conclusions regarding questions of composition and transmission.
[2] Stanley Porter points out how the efforts to develop the "criteria of authenticity" corresponded with the growth of form criticism which is on the demise for good reasons. ("Reading the Gospels and the Quest for the Historical Jesus", 35, 49-50, 53, in Porter, Reading the Gospels Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 27-55)
[3] One should consult both Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians, and Lemcio, The Past of Jesus in the Gospels, as well as Porter (ed.) Reading the Gospels Today. Particularly, McDonalds essay, "The Gospels in Early Christianity: Their Origin, Use, and Authrotiy", 150-178

Diversity and Contradiction in the Bible

2005-09-27T16:10:00.000+12:00

Some quarters of biblical scholarship have exaggerated supposed contradiction and diversity within both the Old and New Testaments. Much of the diversity however does not amount to mutual opposition. Nevertheless, genuine contradictions do occur. Given this emphasis placed upon diversity and contradiction in recent scholarship, John Goldingay provides a helpful and revealing analysis of the "degrees of diversity and forms of contradiction" in the Old Testament. He outlines a four-fold typlogy:[1]

Formal Contradiction - "Formal contradiction involves a difference at the level of words which is not a difference at the level of substance." (16)
Contextual Contradiction - "Contextual contradiction denotes a difference reflecting the variety in circumstances which different statements address." (19)
Substantial Contradiction - "Substantial contradiction involves a true divergence in viewpoint on the part of the speakers whose disagreement is neither merely verbal nor merely contextual." (21)
Fundamental Contradiction - "Fundamental Contradition denotes a dissagreement which is a matter of substance and which indicates a basic disharmony at the level of "ethical stance" or "religious outlook"." (24)

Much of the evidence for contradiction marshalled by scholars falls in the first two categories. However, all of them occur in the Old Testament.

[1] Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 15-25

bible as literature -quote-

2005-09-27T16:04:00.000+12:00

To read the Bible as literature is not to refuse to take it seriously as a revelation of God's action in history. that would be to miss the whole point of the book.

T. B. Wright, Theology and Literature (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 41-22

Exegesis as Self-Criticism

2005-09-27T09:34:00.000+12:00

Exegesis as self-criticism consiously focuses on the reader before it focuses on the text. Because knowledge (and hence understanding of texts), although concerned with objects external to the knower (e.g. texts) is never independent of the knower (it is part of their cognitive framework), the discipline of testing knowledge is first and foremost an exercise in self-criticism.

Thus, this appraoch would begin with the readers intial or current interpretation of a text and then ask questions of the origin, justification, and correctness of it. The reader will ask: Why do I read it this way? and may take a sceptical stance towards their reading, Why is may reading wrong? The reader will examine their logic and judgements, how their emotions and commitments (theological and institutional) may impinge on these, and their knowledge base of the various contexts related to the text.

In the process of questioning the self and the interpretation, the text is examined in all of its contexts (linguistic, historical, etc.) and adjustements are made to the intial interpretation, or it is abandoned altogether and replaced with another. Although the task may seem an overly negative one, the postive side is the response to the findings. Thus, for example, if knowledge of a particular context is found to be lacking, then positive accumilation needs to take place. The reader therefore tests their interpretation by means of the text's various contexts, and the readers various contexts.

This approach acknowledges the role presuppositions play in reading and is conscious of the reception history of texts. One does not read in isolation, either from previous readings (reception history) or from ones own knowledge base and framework. not all presuppositions are hidenrances of cource, as all knowledge constitutes presupposition and factors in interpretation.

I suggest this because as I percieve the state of interpretation in current biblical studies, although the role of presuppositions are acknowledged, they are rarely factored into the intepretive process. Although one cannot "step out of them" and into another set, one can become aware of them and the affect they may have or be having on ones interpretation of a given text. Talk of them being inescapable therefore lets just ignore them honestly frustrates me.

blog role update

2005-09-27T09:03:00.000+12:00

I have added a new blog to my bogroll. It is called Verily Verily: A place for my public musings re: what it means to remember Jesus within a community of faith and a community of scholarship, and is the work of Rafael Rodriguez. Both his subtitle, and his "maiden post" have grabbed my interest.

Welcome to my blog. I'll occasionally post thoughts pertaining to my own research (social memory theory, healings/exorcisms traditions in the synoptics, and historical Jesus research), current events/cultural phenomena, and the various discussions in other blogs I frequent. Feel free to leave comments as you feel inclined.

Well worth a look. The last two blogs discuss the idea of authenticity in historical Jesus study. And he references my recent post on the topic, how flattering!

Historical Interest and the Criteria of Authenticity

2005-09-16T15:17:00.000+12:00

There are two assumptions that make the criteria of authenticity appear productive as a tool:[1] (1) The authors[2] of the gospels were uninterested in the actual happenings of Jesus life, deeming them irrelevant for their beliefs about him, or (2) the evangelists were poor historians, unreliable in the task of inquiry and presentation.

The first of these stands in contrast to the available evidence we possess concerning early Christian belief.[3] This can be quite clearly seen from passages such as 1 Cor 15, where the actuality of Jesus death and being raised back to life is foundational to the Christian hope.[4] In the opening verses to Luke’s gospel, he expresses his concern for the truth concerning Jesus (Luke 1.1-4). If the gospels embodied the conviction that Jesus actual words and actions were irrelevant in fiction, then it follows that the earliest Christian communities felt likewise, otherwise it is highly improbable that the gospel would ever have gained such a standing within the church as narratives concerning Jesus life. Indeed, they might be considered an insult?

The second assumption is unduly sceptical. Although it may gain strength from the variations[5] between the gospels, the solution seems rather to be that such variations were of no concern to the evangelists. Nevertheless, accepting that the evangelists were interested in the actual happenings of Jesus life, the second assumption assumes that they nevertheless did a poor job in gathering and presenting accurate information. In other words, they did poor history and have distorted the past as a result. The next move is then to purge the sources of inaccuracy by establishing, through the use of the "criteria of authenticity" (or at list indicate probability), what words recorded in the gospels actually came from Jesus lips (or his opponents?), or represent his words accurately,[6] and what actions he actually performed (and his opponents?). And more subtly, establishing the "original form" of these words, the actions, and the settings they most likely occurred in, given the redactional work of the evangelists and possibly the effects of oral memory, transmission, and performance upon the traditions.[7]

But working with the opposite assumption, we can see how the criteria for authenticity are of no real value for historical reconstruction. Upon examination of the criteria, we can see that the evangelists would have been in a far better position to employ them than any historian centuries removed.[8] The criteria of plausibility suggests that Jesus both fits somewhere within the variegated Judaism of the Second Temple period, and somewhere within earliest Christianity, that is, he reflects elements of continuity (and discontinuity) with both. There must be a level of continuity on both sides for a picture of Jesus to be plausible on a macro level. This criterion is also applied on a micro level, to the words placed on the lips of Jesus. Living within both the world of first-century Judaism and earliest Christianity, the evangelists would likely possess a superior understanding of both their Jewish and Christian neighbours, and so be at a far more advantageous position to test the sources by this criteria.[9] Hence it would be fair to assume that none of the material can be ruled out on the grounds that it is foreign in this respect, they would have picked up on something so out of place.

The criteria of multiple attestation is the test of whether a saying occurs in multiple sources or in multiple forms within the same or different sources. Thus, a saying is more likely authentic if it occurs in more than one of the gospels (and other early literature). The evangelists too, may have employed this criterion to their sources (whether written, but most likely received orally from people). This raises the possibility that although they have not cited their sources, they would not have made use of a saying which could not be verified by more than one source.[10] This could leave our employment of the criteria redundant and unnecessary as the job has been done at an earlier level much more effectively.

Further, whether we have any real hope of establishing the "original" or most accurate wording, setting, or place within the chronology of Jesus ministry for any one saying/event that we desire to have, and which the gospel producers were seemingly not interested in having, is highly doubtful.

If what I have argued above is correct, and the early Christians, including the producers of the gospels, were interested in the actual happenings of Jesus life to the degree that their religion was built upon them, then we can only assume that in their quest to stand true to this they did what they could to make sure of the reliability of their written testimony. We should not ascribe to them an undue gullibility, nor should we think the criteria to be too sophisticated for them, as they are obviously very simple. We are on no better grounds (in fact worse) than they were for verifying the actual words and actions of Jesus, or their settings.

The conviction that the producers of the gospels were either uninterested in the actual happenings of Jesus life and deemed them of no significance for their beliefs concerning Jesus is built not upon evidence but on an undue scepticism about the abilities or motives of the authors of the gospels and the early Christians. Consequently, the criteria of authenticity are of little value for establishing either authenticity or probable authenticity. I suppose we just need to be more trusting...

This is largely an experiment in thought and rests on establishing the early Christian conviction that their religion is rooted in history and that Jesus as he actually was is their Lord. I would appreciate your comments and criticisms.

[1] One holds either one or the other.

[2] I use the phrase “author” as a simple label without making any judgements about whether there are only one author behind each gospel.

[3] That the producers of the gospels were different in this account, and that they some how produced largely fictional works which came to be understood as historical, is unlikely, and requires some form of evidence. The simple possibility of it occurring, does not warrant us thinking that it did in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[4] That this is not simply "Paul’s thing" is clear from the fact that he appeals to it as established tradition, witnessed to by those at the heart of Christian movement from the beginning (vv.3-7). This passage of course says nothing of Jesus words and actions during his initial life. See Michael Birds blog entry, Jim West and Interest in the Historical Jesus.

[5] The variations are of three basic types: wording, narrative placement, and setting.

[6] There are other criteria than the two examples mentioned below, see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew vol.1. But the criteria of embarrassment for instance, as a purely positive criteria does not interest us. Still, a similar line of argument as applied to the two examples could follow. as being closest to the beliefs of the earliest Christians, the producers of the Gospels would be in a better position to observe what saying or actions would have actually caused difficulty or embarrassment for them, sayings or actions we may not pick up on from our perspective.

[7] These are evidenced by the variations in wording, setting, and order of the telling of the purportedly single events between the gospels.

[8] I prefer the term "teachings" here over "words" because of the distinction between ispsissima verba and ipsissima vox noted above. By “teachings” I mean to refer to all of the words ascribed to Jesus in the written sources.

[9] Even if they were unaware of all the writings of the Pseudepigrapha or those found at Qumran

[10] If a saying came from some one who claimed to be an eye witness, then if the gospel producer was satisfied by some means of criteria that they were indeed, then multiple sources may have been deemed unnecessary.

John and Jesus Making History

2005-09-16T14:32:00.000+12:00

Fllowing some recent blogging on the value of John's gospel for the study of the historical Jesus (Euangelion, Primal Subversion), I have decided to delve into the issue myself. I think the best way to start would be to understand the gospel itself, and only then ask secondary questions such as its value as a source for studying the historical Jesus. [1]

So, I have decided to do some research into the exegetical methods used in the study of John's gospel, beggining with Narrative Criticism. Following investigation into these methods I will then apply them with the due caution, and see what I find. Then, finally I will offer some suggestions concerning the fourth gospel as a source for the Jesus of history.

[1] In as much as the study of the historical Jesus is a study of his memory recorded in literature, the historian cannot simply skip over sources such as John's gospel, but must consider them all, even if the result is to deem them unhelpful as a source because they are not concerned with actual happenings or because they are too "artistic" in their representation. Nothing is irrelevant, as we are dealing with perceptions of Jesus, that is, Jesus remembered. The phrase "Jesus remembered" of course is Dunn's

If Not Pragmatism, What else?

2005-09-13T10:19:00.000+12:00

My previous quote has got me thinking. The quote is concerned with ministry on a university campus. My questions is, how much instruction have we actually recieved from God on doing ministry? By ministry I mean all that could be encompased by the word mission, that is, making disciples of everyone everywhere.

I think that to be a disciple is to be on the journey of growing to love God and love others more and more.[1] The activities that the disciple then does serve this end and include studying the scriptures, being prayed for, praying for and praying with others, telling others the goodnews about Jesus and the kingdom, looking out for peoples needs and seeing that they are taken care of.

Our official ministries (church and para-church if one is willing to make the distinction at a practical or theological level) are then to be shaped to this end, to facilitate the above. But as I asked, how much instruction have we actually recieved from God on doing this? What we see in the NT is a contextual outworking of God's purposes and will. It is an example of how to embody his purposes faithfully. I think our task is to do the same, taking these examples as suggestive guides and tests for whether our embodiment is indeed faithful to God's purposes. Hence context will play a large factor, and so this translates into being contextually pragmatic. The NT has nothing about mission on a university campus, thats our field of creative embodyment.

The real problem I think arises when we misunderstand our mission. For example, if we think our task is to convert as many people as we can, then we may seek to fill our churche services with as many people as we can so that they can hear the truth. We then shape our church services according to the best way to do this, we are pragmatic about it.

When it comes down to it, what God is seeking is transformed lives in community. The only way this is going to come about in a real and lasting way is through the power of the Spirit constantly working among us. That is pragmatic! We must always "soak" our lives and ministries in prayer, sincerely seeking the Spirit's guidence. But when the voice does not whisper, we can only go with what works.

[1] See Scot McKnight, "The Jesus Creed: what is the focus of spiritual life?" Christian Century vol.121 issue.18

unpragmatic pragmatism -quote-

2005-09-12T15:34:00.000+12:00

"Unprincipled pragmatism is in the end not only unfaithful, but also unpragamatic. We must be driven by what God calls us to do, not simply by what we think works, because God alone ultimately knows what works. We must trust him and follow his instructions."

Jenson, P. D. and Payne, T., "Church/Campus Connections: Model 1", 195, in Carson, D. A. (ed.), Telling the Truth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 195-205

Worldview and Justification

2005-08-26T19:12:00.000+12:00

When it is recognized that systems of rationality belong to worldviews themselves (what is seen to be rational is determined by the beliefs of the worldview), then it is hard to see how one may justify holding one over the other, or arguing for one over another. Though it is still often seen this way (as the modern worldview is still alive and kicking), there is nothing that privileges a secular worldview, one governed by philosophical naturalism, over any other. A simple unawareness or lack of experience concerning the spiritual, coupled with a heavy does of naturalist biology, lends credibility to the naturalist worldview. But it need not be that we must take it as our starting point, as shaping our system of rationality, and then see if we can prove or justify the Christian worldview according to its canons.

Nevertheless, we still wish to affirm that holding the Christian worldview is not simply a choice we make, or the tradition we inherit from our ‘community’. It is the Christian contention that we have the truth and that it is not just another option among the sea options offered in our pluralist society.[1] We do not hold to it because it suites us, it is not simply our preference. But the Christian worldview is adopted because Jesus Christ bursts into our “worlds” and demands that we account for him.

Indeed, it is the ability of a given worldview to make sense of all of reality that confers on it justification over rival worldviews. The worldview is thus a ‘hypothesis’ concerning the world, and is verified along the lines of its ability to take in as much data as possible, and to make sense of it in a coherent, simple, and perhaps elegant way. If it is rather weak at the above, i.e. failing to account for some crucial data, or producing an explanation that although apparently coherent, is complex and "full of hoops", then we may suspect that it needs adjusting, or even abandoning altogether in favor of another which has less trouble with the above.[2] But if it achieves a sufficient degree of the above beyond that of rival worldviews, then it seems reasonable for one to hold to it, and to live by it.[3]

And so, as noted before, all worldviews must account for Jesus Christ, both on a historical level and on a personal one when one comes into contact with the Lord of the universe himself. This may mean, indeed it will mean the abandonment of the pior held worldview and the adoption of the new. For the gospel cannot be assimilated into any prior worldview (unless of course it is a Jewish one, such as with the first Christians) because it brings with it an entire account of God, humanity, the world, and history.

[1] Nor is it just another dish at the buffet of postmodernism where one can quite rightly pick and choose aspects of this and aspects of that, to create a personal belief system. Such activity often results in a lack of coherency, a quality that is demanded by for a good worldview. A worldview encompasses all as an interpretative framework, and so isn’t in the same category.

[2] I use the phrase “less trouble” because it is not hard to recognize that no system (worldview) will immediately be worked out to the degree that it clearly explains everything. This is not a problem however, because it is principally the “ultimate things” which are of direct concern for a worldview, and it is the “consequent beliefs” and so forth that do the rest of the explanatory work. Worldviews at their basic level are “broad brush”. The ability of the consequent beliefs to provide adequate explanation is vital however. But sometimes failure to do so may merely be the failure to work out appropriate consequent beliefs.

[3] One still has the problem of what amount of evidence constitutes proof or a sense of beyond reasonable doubt.

Worldview - Draft # 1 (part 2)

2005-08-25T12:52:00.000+12:00

The centrality of story

Human experience is inextricably tied to history, that is, we live out our lives along a continuous passage of time, readily distinguishable as past, present, and future. As such experience has a ‘narrative quality’. Although we can think in terms of prepositional beliefs, these abstractions find meaning only in relation to other beliefs. [1] This web of beliefs inevitably weaves a narrative, leading us back to where they began. We can never escape the narrative context of beliefs.

The narrative or ‘story’ element of a worldview is thus central. These stories or the story provides the answers for the questions that give explanation to the world and which give identity to the person. These answers are in turn come to historical and cultural expression in symbols, and give way to a general praxis, “a way-of-being-in-the-world”. Thus, stories themselves (as narratives), far from being mere child’s play, are “located, on the map of human knowing, at a more fundamental level than explicitly formulated beliefs, including theological beliefs,”[2] “stories are a basic constituent of human life.”[3]

These stories however must not be seen as unconnected myths, tales, or histories. Only a narrative that could take in ultimate events and realities such as the origin (or eternality) of the world and the reason for suffering and evil (although some systems deny evil or redefine it), would qualify as the narrative, the grand narrative or controlling story of a worldview. Those stories or the story that provide answers to the basic questions, in other words, stories that are told to make sense of the world and to give human life purpose, meaning, or sometimes a lack of it.

This idea of a grand narrative or controlling story (I will use the two inter-changeably) is central to what I propose in this paper. The controlling story through which Christians think and live cannot be that of any old worldview, it must be the controlling story found within the scriptures. It is the stories which I will/have argued form a set, which belong to one grand narrative, that the Christian must perceive the world and their selves according to. To some up this section, “Worldviews are thus the basic stuff of human existence, the lens through which the world is seen, the blueprint for how one should live in it, and above all the sense of identity and place which enables human beings to be what they are.”[4] Story finds the central place in this, and so it is to the bibles grand narrative (alternatively ‘biblical story’) that we must look.

[1] [events]This is true not only of events of significance but those of everyday mundane life. The event of pouring a cup of tea, for example, means something only in relation to a series of prior and subsequent actions. We understand such an action because we are familiar with the ‘stories’ of how tea is primarily for drinking and that a cup is primarily a means of assisting the act of drinking and not that of storing.

[2] People, 38

[3] People, 40

[4] ibid., 125

Worldview - Draft # 1 (part 1)

2005-08-25T12:40:00.000+12:00

Here is the first draft of my section on worldview for my research paper. It must be remembered that the paper is only a measly 6000 words and so I am proposing a thesis concisely with little engagement with other positions, and little detailed discussion of any of my points. Nevertheless, its still fun and I would appreciate all the constructive criticism you guys can throw at me, from content to arrangment, flow, and wording. I will post it in two parts to make for easier reading.

Worldview

In this part I (1) define and outline the concept of worldview, and (2) discuss the centrality of ‘story’ to the concept of worldview, introducing the idea of a controlling story.

It has become popular both among evangelical academics and evangelical lay people, to brandy the term “Christian worldview”. I fear however that because of its great usage and the lack of clear definition that this has betrayed, the term has become somewhat unhelpful in popular discussion. Indeed I fear it has become a tool of oppression, a way of forcing beliefs and praxis upon Christians that is far from central to their faith, and which is often highly, and justifiably debatable. However, if defined clearly, the concept can be of great assistance. Hence I will outline a very clear and limited definition.

"Worldviews" are the presuppositional, normally pre-cognitive, framework through which we perceive external reality. Firstly, they are presuppositional. Worldviews as ‘belief systems’ are the taken for granted ‘facts’ about the world we live in. Thus when we enter dialogue about an issue (e.g. ecology), the beliefs that are constitutive of our worldview are assumed to be true, and built upon in the discussion. They constitute the perspective from which we look at the issue. Secondly, they are precognitive. They are rarely raised in dialogue because, being so central to our beliefs and being assumed to be true, we simply build upon them. Nor do we consciously seek to bring them to mind when we are ‘building upon them’, we simply make the move without any mental strain. And thirdly, worldviews are the framework through which we perceive reality. As a ‘belief system’, they form the beliefs most central to the interpretive process. It is through a worldview that we make sense of (interpret) the world.

The metaphor of “lenses” has popularly been employed to illustrate their function: we view the world through a particular set of lenses.[1] We do not look at the lenses themselves but through them onto the world, nor do we usually consider them but stare as if they don’t exist. Further, it is the color of the lenses that dictate how we perceive. In this sense they are presuppositional, pre-cognitive, and provide a perspective (worldview).[2]

In his insightful discussion of worldview, N. T. Wright outlines four elements to a worldview: (1) they provide the stories, particularly a controlling story, through which humans perceive reality, (2) these stories then provide the answers to a set of “basic questions that determine human existence” (who are we, where are we, what is wrong, what is the solution, what time is it?), (3) these beliefs are expressed in cultural symbols, and (4) give way to a praxis, “a way-of-being-in-the-world”.[3]

The beliefs that constitute part of a worldview concern the ultimate questions of life, those which all other intellectual and practical pursuits build upon. They are in this sense “foundational”, grounding and conferring justification on our thinking and living. They are not uninvolved beliefs however. They provide both an identity (who are we), and a general praxis (where are we, what is wrong, what is the solution, what time is it?).

[1] The illustration can be somewhat misleading, as worldviews cannot simply be “taken off” and exchanged for a moment, as a pair of lenses might be.

[2] It is both appropriate to speak of ‘perceiving’ and inappropriate to speak of simply ‘seeing’ because at a more fundamental level, worldviews are constitutive of the human person and hence human cognition. To extend the metaphor, we cannot use our eyes at all if we are not wearing lenses. Indeed, the lenses are our eyes. We might wish to speak of prescription lenses without which all is a blur, but when worn, things come into focus.

[3] The New Testament and the People of God, 124-5

the historical uniqueness of Christianity -quote-

2005-08-23T11:14:00.000+12:00

"The uniqueness and the scandal of the Christian religion rests on the mediation of revelation through historical events. Christianity is not just a code for living or a philosophy of religion. It is rooted in real events of history. To some people this is scandalous because it means the truth of Christianity is inexplicably bound up with the truth of certain historical facts. And if those facts should be disproved, Christianity would be false. This, however, is what makes Christianity unique because, unlike other world religions, modern man has a means of actually verifying Christianity's truth by historical evidence.”

George E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection (Downers Grove: Eerdmans, 1975), quoted in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (Baker, 1998), p. 24 [im not sure which book this page number is from...]

Letting the scriptures shape us

2005-08-23T10:57:00.000+12:00

Another lenghty post, brace yourself...

“What one already believes tends to make one disposed to accept what agrees with it or to reject what conflicts with it” [1], such is the nature of understanding. We can only understand events and objects in relation to other events and objects. Thus when confronted with new sensory experience or cognitive information, we attempt to fit it into what we already believe, specifically about other events and objects we deem relevant. Understanding is ‘assimilation’; we assimilate new information into our already existing belief system in order to make sense of it. If however we find that the new piece of data cannot fit adequately within our prior understanding, it may be arrogantly rejected or it may call aspects of our prior understanding into question. It may have to be reshaped to make adequate sense of the new data.

If a new piece of information (including experience) does not agree with what I already believe, there are two moves I can make: (1) I can reject it as false, or (2) Accept it as true. If I make the first move, (a) I can either just plain reject it cause I don’t want to believe it, (b) reject it on the basis of my confidence in the strength of my prior beliefs, or (c) reject it because I believe it is a misunderstanding, this is effectively to deny that the aspect or passage in question is actually making a claim at all.

When it comes to an aspect to text such as the Bible, we must adjust the two moves slightly, (1) rejecting that is has a claim on me, and (2) accepting that it has a claim on me, and acting accordingly. The Christian who wishes to be guided and shaped by Scripture is not likely to reject a certain aspect it on the basis of (a) alone. One may call (b) in for support, but even to do this leaves questions unanswered and would be inadequate for someone who is strongly set on of living by the Bible. Thus option (c) appears to be the only adequate option.

There is however a fourth option when the Bible is concerned, (d) account for it within my already existing set of beliefs. For this all manner of hermeneutical or interpretive moves can be made. I may claim that God no longer requires this sort of action (e.g. OT purity regulations), possibly appealing to a subsequent passage. I may consider a command to be specific to a culture or a situation that is not the case for me now (e.g. Paul’s command that women not be permitted to speak in church), or that subsequent scientific findings have shown a belief or attitude to be grounded in misconception (e.g. commands against homosexual practice).

(c) is problematic however when (a) is the motivation behind it. I may simply select the interpretation of the passage that effectively neutralizes the threat it poses to my prior belief and action. The only solution to this is a transformation of my character and understanding of Scripture. I must develop intellectual integrity, a desire to live by truth and not settle with anything else, and I must not see Scripture as a “threat” to myself, but as a gracious gift designed to bless. (d) can also fall to the same problem as (c). Numerous hermeneutical strategies are invented to justify the rejection of aspects of Scripture.

The impetus of course does not always come from a desire to reject; findings from biblical studies have shown that previous interpretation have been mistaken, and that certain commands do seem to be closely tied to the cultural context. Much fruitful work has no doubt been produced because of a dislike for a particular aspect of Scripture, but for the Christian who seeks to be shaped and guided by Scripture, a dislike should never motivate one to reject it or explore different interpretations. Any hermeneutical strategy must be developed with the desire to be faithful to God and what he has given us in Scripture.

But we are not to make move (2) naively. We are not t accept everything in Scripture at its face value. We need the careful, honest work of interpretation to discover what is actually being said and desired. We must also develop hermeneutical strategies, a flat agreeing with everything it says and doing everything it says to do does not work, nor is it appropriate to the nature of Scripture. Thus move (2) can be made in two ways. (a) Unquestioningly assent to the action or belief, or (b) through careful exegetical and hermeneutical work, establish what is said and in what sense it has or has not a claim on us here today, in our situations and contexts.

source critical dig -quote-

2005-08-18T15:21:00.000+12:00

Biblical critics frequently assume, out of some dim preconception about the transmission of texts in “primitive” cultures, that the redactors were in the grip of a kind of manic tribal compulsion, driven again and again to include units of traditional material that made no connective sense, for reasons they themselves could not have explained.

Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (London, Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1981) p.20

"worldview" in dialogue

2005-08-18T09:03:00.000+12:00

Over at Faith and Theology Myer has given some further thoughts in response to Jim. It is his comment about the gospel that interests me:

"I think this is partly right. Yes, Christian faith should speak about “the world, reality, life, eternity and death.” But is it our role to draw these things together into a “worldview”? Or is our role rather to speak of such things from the standpoint of faith, i.e., to speak the gospel? Should we be offering a cosmology (a “perception of the world”) or a metaphysic (a “perception of reality”) or even a religion (a “perception of eternity”)? If we did all this, would we have fulfilled our task and calling? Or would we in fact still have neglected our true task and calling—namely, to speak the gospel?"

My contention is that if we believe certain things about "the world, reality, life, eternity and death", then these will inevitably constitute our worldview, if we truly believe them. They will then inform our praxis (but not those listed above alone). The gospel encapsulates a cosmology, metaphysic, and a religion. The gospel, I would claim, makes little sense without them. For if we view the gospel through a cosmology, metaphysic, or religion foreign to it, we will not see it clearly, nor understand it aright. Indeed the gospel offers (as part of a larger narrative) a "perception of the world" and a "perception of eternity". No doubt our calling is to speak the gospel, but it is also to be shaped by it and to have others shaped by it. If theology stands in service of this task, then it cannot ignore worldview. The transformation and change that the gospel demands is at the deep level of worldview.

Thoughts please..??

Is there a "Christian Worldview"? I think so...

2005-08-16T12:08:00.000+12:00

When people start talking about 'worldview' I cant help but join in the discussion. Benjamin Meyrs has asked the question Is there a "Christian Worldview"? He notes how it has become fashionable to speak of a "Christian worldview", but that the concept itself "drastically undermines the nature of faith". He states that the faith can exist "alongside and within a great diversity of worldviews", while at the same time reamining "something wholly other, something radically distinct from any such worldviews."

Jim West has followed on with a post affirming that there needs to be a "Chrsitian center" and it that "the failure to recognize a "worldview" and its inherent necessity is the most profound weakness of present day theology". I am inclined to agree with him.

What I think is happening though is that the term "worldview" is being used by all and sundry with no agreed upon defenition of what it actually is, which might be the reason for Jim's apparent hesitancy to use the term "Christian worldview"). What constitutes a worldview? I essentially follow N. T. Wright's outline in The New Testament and the People of God.

And so to offer a defenition in the hope of some clarity - "Worldviews" are the presupositional, normaly pre-cognitive framework through which we percieve external reality:

“There a four things which worldviews characteristically do, in each of which the entire worldview can be glimpsed…worldviews provide the stories through which human beings view reality… from these questions one can in principal discover how to answer the basic questions that determine human existence: who are we, where are we, what is wrong, and what is the solution? (p124; he later added a fifth, 'what time is it?') …[these stories and answers] are expressed… in cultural symbols… worldviews include a praxis, a way-of-being-in-the-world.” (p125) “Worldviews are thus the basic stuff of human existence, the lens through which the world is seen, the blueprint for how one should live in it, and above all the sense of identity and place which enables human beings to be what they are.” (p125)

Taking this defenition of worldview, it is clear that Christianity constitutes a worldview. Myer asks further however:

"Even if we did suppose for a moment that there is such a thing as a “Christian worldview,” how would we decide what kind of worldview this is? Is it the primitive worldview of ancient Israel? Or the apocalyptic worldview of the historical Jesus? Or the more Hellenistic worldviews of Paul and John? Or the Neoplatonic worldview of the fourth century? Or the Aristotelian worldview of the medieval church? What would be the criteria for choosing one of these worldviews over others?"

What I propose (and this will be part of my paper) is that the biblical story is to act as our controlling story or "worldview-story" (p135). In this way we dont have to arbitrarily choose between the worldviews of the various authors/characters and are able to still affirm the bible's place in defining the Christian worldview.

This worldview-story must be distinguished from all the other stories we tell ourselves, as the story which which gives a prespective and meaning to all of history and life. As Richard Bauckham explains:

“To accept the authority of this story is to enter into it and inhabit it. It is to let this story define our identity and our relationship to God and others. It is to read the narratives of our own lives and of the societies in which we live as narratives which take their meaning from this metanarrative that overarches them all.” (Scripture and Authority)

The "Christian worldview", I propose, at its most fundamental level is defined by the biblical story, which in turn provides answers to the five fundamental questions concerning life and the world. The details which constitute this story are of course open to varying degrees of debate. This I leave for another post. But we must be clear that beliefs about whether homosexuality is right or wrong (for instance), or the structure of church leadership, are not part of the worldview as such. It is when issues such as these are said to part of the "Christian worldview" that the confusion emerges. And I suspect that "worldview" has sometimes been used as a tool to force positions upon people or to condemn people over issues which arent truly so central and intergral to Christianity as supposed, and which are genuinely debatable.

Preaching Hermeneutics

2005-08-16T11:29:00.000+12:00

To understand how Scripture is being used at the “grass roots” level, one need only look to the pulpit. This is often where creativity is stimulated forming new trends, and where strategies with a longer history are affirmed and kept in play. The Sunday sermon also shapes the way the congregation will read and use their Bible. We often uncritically pick up our strategies from the preacher.

For those of us who preach, this highlights a function that we will all inevitably fulfill. In expounding, reading, and applying the scriptures, we are teaching others how to. Is this perhaps a reason for making the process more transparent and viewable in our preaching? It is certainly a warning to us that we need to do so responsibly and well, and not to search for the quick application.

Truth and Propositions

2005-08-16T11:23:00.000+12:00

An emphasis on the Bible as “truth”, I suspect, has led to the mining of it for theological propositions, the content of its “truth” that we can affirm and stand upon. This has in turn led to the neglect of the natural function of genres such as narrative, psalm, and apocalypse. Each is treated as a source for prepositional data, a treasure trove of theological truth to be abstracted and systematized. I do not deny that there are many theological prepositions presented as such in scripture, even within these larger genres. But the focus upon propositional truth has lead to the neglect of the scriptures other rich and varying functions.

Justification and systems of thought

2005-08-16T11:16:00.000+12:00

Because answers to individual theological questions/issues belong to and obtain their rationality within larger systems of thought (theological, philosophical, and hermeneutical), to understand them and their justification we have to understand the systems to which they belong. Only then can we engage with the individual answers. However, if we do not agree with the system that gives them their rationality/justification, then the dispute lies with the system and discussion will get nowhere if it is restricted to the individual answer. It is essential to establish on what level the fundamental disagreement lies in order for any progress to be made.

Our first task then is to understand, then comes critique and retrieval.

reading against your grain

2005-08-14T14:19:00.000+12:00

On Primal Subversion, Sean comments that we should "Read books by people that make you think, rethink and almost get mad because you can't stop thinking about their arguments, statements and positions."

I think this is of extreme importance. I often learn the most from those I disagree with. Why? because it is only then that I learn how strong my positions, and those whom I have read and taken on board, really are. It is then that I can nuance, or sometimes change my position altogether. But it always makes me humble, and treat the evidence fairly.

commited to the quest -quote-

2005-08-14T13:35:00.000+12:00

Anyone who believes that in the life and teaching of Christ God has given a unique revelation of his character and purpose is committed by this belief, whether he likes is or not, whether he admits it or not, to the quest for the historical Jesus. Without the Jesus of history the Christ of faith is merely a docetic figure, a figment of pious imagination. The Christian religion claims to be founded on historic fact, on events which happened sub Pontio Pilato; and having appealed to history, by history it must be justified.

George B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewsih Nation, pg. 3

where books should not go...

2005-08-12T12:08:00.001+12:00

A number of blogger's have been posting pictures of their desks, the most entertaining so far has been Michael Birds "interim office". Reading through the comments, Brandon Wason mentioned an episode of Sienfeild where an expensive book is taken into the bathroom and it looses its value.

And so I wondered how many of you out there share my opinion that taking a book into the bathroom to read as you do your business is simply wrong! How could you possibly take one of your precious books there?? What if one was to read something that would prove to be a significant turning point in your thinking, the memory would be forever tied to the crapper! And whats even worse, is when someone you lend a book to takes it to the bathroom, and then you see it waiting there for their next visit!!

There has to be some law against it...

fatih and the Jesus of history -quote-

2005-08-12T12:01:00.000+12:00

As I perceive the theological scene today, we have far too many who want to agree that in Jesus Christ, that is, in history, God has acted definitively for the salvation of all people, far too many who think we do have faith in history, but who for various reasons are unwilling to subject history to a careful examination because it might tip their boat of faith. I am contending that such people believe in faith, not Jesus, not in what God did for salvation in Jesus, but in faith. Their creed then is: “I believe in faith, faith in the Christian interpretation of life.”

Scott McKnight, 'The Hermeneutics of Confessing Jesus as Lord', p. 14, Ex Auditu 14 (pp.1-17)

Top Ten book on my shelf

2005-08-11T09:40:00.000+12:00

Since so many of the blogs I read have done a top ten book list for various subjects, I thought I'd do one of my own. But on a slightly different note, I'll give the top ten from my book shelf that if I had to choose between all of them, these are the ones I would keep. So if I was going overseas for instance, and I was on an extemely tight bugdet, heres what I would take:

The New Testament and the People of God by N.T. Wright
Jesus and the Victory of God by N.T. Wright
The Dead Sea Scrolls by Wise, Abegg & Cook
Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans edited by Feldman & Reinhold
The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century by Stegemann & Stegeman
The Parables of Jesus by David Wenham
Old Testament Theology, Volume One: Israel's Gospel by John Goldingay
The Theology of the Book of Revelation by Richard Bauckham
Models for Interpretation of Scripture by John Goldingay
New Horizens in Hermeneutics by Anthony Thiselton

I have listed some primary sources here that I do not read as much as I should. But I figure that if I put them on this list, then it will put my mind in perspective. I unfortunately dont have a copy of either the NT Apochripha or the OT Pseudepigrapha.

What is the Quest about for you?

2005-08-10T13:58:00.000+12:00

For those engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus, what is it about for you?

For me its about understanding Jesus within his historical context. Understanding his words, actions, and intentions and how they were likely recieved by his contemporaries. For others it may be getting behind the sources to get back to the real Jesus. Or perhaps to authenticate Jesus' words and actions, vindicating the canonical gospel portraits in light of critical questioning?

Another interesting question to ponder is what you think the public perception of the quest is. How about in your church? What are the attitudes of students on your University or Seminary campus towards it?. I remember when the quest was mentioned once in a lecture. It was virtually dismissed through a not so flattering poke at how the Jesus seminar use marbles to decide whether or not a saying of Jesus was authentic. I knew their method, and the characteture was somewhat misleading. This incident just shows how one sided the quest is often seen to be.

For those who know little about it (or who are perhaps put off by what they have heard about it) but are interested, Jesus and the Quest by Tom Wright is a good place to start. It offers a concise introduction to its history and its possible future aswell as pointing out its importance for the Christian faith.

come now, share...

Is the Quest doomed to plurality?

2005-08-10T13:43:00.000+12:00

Stiumulated by some comments Richard Hays made when discussing the place the "historical Jesus" should have in doing New Testament ethics (Moral Vision, pp.158-61), I wonder whether he is correct in assessing the results of the quest as highly subjective. [1] Yes, there is a great pluraility of portraits of Jesus, and yes, there does not seem to be an emerging agreement (consensus?) between scholars, most seem to like sticking to there guns.

But the great majority of disagreement arises, in my opinion, because of methodological differences. This is most clearly the case between radically differing portraits, such as the cynic sage and the restoration prophet. The pluarlity in this case doesnt really demonstrate an inescapable subjectivity or the near impossibility of the task. Rather it demonstratese plurarlity in historical method. One could always retort that this plurality demonastates an inescapable subjectivity, and that we cannot hope to gain agreement on this either. But I see no reason for this, other than the refusal or laziness that neglects engaging with other scholarship at not only a exegetical level, but more importantly at a methodological level.

So theres hope as far as im concerned. What do you think?

[1] I hope im not misrepresenting him here!

an ambiguous messiah -quote-

2005-08-10T13:30:00.000+12:00

Whether it was his intention or not, his proclamation of the kingdom of God was inevitably heard as a revolutionary manifesto; the whole Gospel tradition is full of evidence for this. People wanted to make him king (John 6:15), and Peter's confession (Mark 8:29) means nothing other than this. it was this popular perception that finally proved his undoing: the inscription on the cross proves that he was executed as one who claimed to be "king of the Jews." And indeed, it would appear that he refuses to get himself off the hook by denying the charge. Thus, we have a situation pregnant with ambiguity. The whole shape of the tradition indicates that Jesus--in contrast to other figures in Jewish history of the era, such as Ar Kochba--persistently refused to claim that he was the Messiah (cf. John 10:24). His whole message entailed a rejection of violence and nationalism implied in the popular understanding of that title. Yet his words and deeds incited in the people a vivid expectation that he might, after all, be the one who would deliver Israel.

Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), p.164

A Coherent and Consistent Hermeneutic

2005-08-09T07:51:00.000+12:00

If we are not applying a hermeneutical strategy consistently throughout the scriptures (will all the problems that applying scripture throws up from various texts), then it makes it easier to confirm our what we already believe/do or want to believe/do by selecting a method for a problem that will lead to our desired outcome.

A single method will probably not be able to deal with all the problems encountered, but there nevertheless must be a foundational hermeneutic upon which all subsequent moves must be established or be compatible with. Even by doing this, however, we cannot guarantee that bias will not interfere. But it does make it harder for us to do so, harder for us to adopt which ever method may result in the desired outcome.

Further, the over-arching method which I propose is grounded within the nature of scriptural faith, and so recieves justification from this. One cannot claim that the hermeneutical strategy is adopted merely to sidestep a challenge or to dismiss parts of the scriptures.

A note on "scriptural faith": By this I mean not an amalgam or harmonization of all teaching within the sriptures, nor all the beliefs of the authors of the scriptures. Rather, It is what ties them all together, the central/foundational beliefs, what they all to a degree share (some on the level of authors beliefs, some on the surface of the writing). By this I mean their following of the God as he acts with and for his creation within history. And so although I say "beliefs" i mean not only beliefs, but their enactment, because a set of beliefs alone does not constitute a "faith" or "religion".

Coherence and Contingency

2005-08-05T11:17:00.000+12:00

Christiaan Beker proposes a two-part model for understanding the authority of the NT: Coherence-Contingency, and Catalytic. [1]

In the first part he posits that Scripture can be understood as containing elements of “coherence” and “contingency”. The coherent are the “normative elements of the gospel, which focus on the apocalyptic-eschatological interpretation of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ”. [2] The contingent “concerns those elements of Scripture that comprise the time-bound, culturally specific situations into and for which the gospel is addressed”. [3] There is a “dynamic interrelation” between the coherent and the contingent, and this is a necessary aspect of the gospel itself, “it is the very essence of the gospel that it inserts itself into the particularities of every human situation”. [4] As the nature of the gospel, this provides the key to how Scripture should act authoritatively. “The Word of Scripture can only be a lively word, a word on target, when we realize that its central message must speak to us within the particularity of our diverse situations”, [5] hence “Scripture is only authoritative when we obey its command to engage in the same risks of interpreting the gospel that it is itself engaged in all its parts”. [6] Scripture thus serves a “catalytic” function, the second part of the model. The Biblical text must undergo a “transferal” to our time, but in doing we must remain faithful to the normative coherence of he gospel. [7]

While Beker develops this model with the New Testament in mind (although to conclude his article he suggests how it could be extended to cover the entirety of Scripture, I do not follow him in how he does so), I believe that his proposal can helpfully be extended to the whole of Scripture by positing the grand narrative as the coherent factor. This can be done because the gospel is a part of and only makes sense within this grand narrative. Contingency is then extended to include not only cultural and historical specificity, but specificity within stages of the grand narrative. It’s catalytic function works in the same way, but now with the extra qualification found in contingent.

Notes
[1] Beker, J C. ‘The Authority of Scripture: Normative or Incidental?’ Theology Today 49.3 (1992), pp.376-382. This model of ‘coherence and contingency’ was originally developed inregard to Paul’s hermeneutic. See his Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
[2] Beker, ‘Authority’, p.81
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid., p.82
[6] ibid., p.81
[7] ibid., p.82

Scriptures: Calvinist and Arminian?

2005-08-05T10:57:00.000+12:00

I came across this interesting question in McKnights post Post-Calvinism: So what?

"is it possible that some biblical writers are more Arminian and some more Calvinist? If so, we'd have to ask in what the unity of Scripture consists. Does it consist in a systematic theology that somehow is behind everything said or does it consist in the essence of the gospel and the summons to live before God in the community of faith? That's for another time, but this is an area that deserves to be explored."

This struck me as interesting. I have had many debates over predestination and related issues, but never once considered that there may be a diversity in opinion among the biblical authors on this issue. I am of the opinion that scripture contains much theological diversity, and that we should not seek to locate unity "in a systematic theology that somehow is behind everything said". Rather it lies in the story the scriptures tell and follow. I wonder what implications this has for systematic theology??

The suggestion that unity lies in the essence of the gospel has much merit. But as I see it, the gospel encapsulates the entire biblical grand-narrative (in its bare borns) although possibly emphasizing the Jesus event. The Jesus event, Jesus himself, only makes sense within the greater story.

personal change -quote-

2005-08-05T10:48:00.000+12:00

Many of us who grew up in the church heard conflicting things about personal change. On the one hand, we heard that we were miserable sinners and that sin would haunt us our entire lives. But we also heard that we should be perfect--that the Christian life is one of constant improvement. How do we reconcile those messages?
The Christian faith demands change, but it never begins in change. It begins in the devastating experience of God's graciousness toward us. The message of the cross is that God takes us before we change. Christians have found that we can't be in the presence of such sacrificial love and not change. The same is true for other relationships, including marriage.

Maudlin, Michael G., ‘Why Marriage Makes us Different and Why it’s Scary’, Marriage Partnership, Spring90, Vol. 7.2

Morality? Part 3

2005-08-04T14:13:00.000+12:00

So how do we define morality? Our defentition will lead to how we decide what is morally "right" and "wrong". The answer I can give is that morality is grounded in the created order. But I do not think this is something that we can uncover by reason alone. Something is "right" if it agrees with God's design plan, and "wrong" if it does not. This plan can only be discovered through divine revelation because humanity has beem seperated from God. It is thus grounded both in the will of God and in creation itself.

This may pose an interesting answer to the question of whether violence is morally wrong. If it is contrary to the created order, which I believe it is as it resulted from humanities fractured relationsihp with God (see Gen 2-4), then one may say that it is morally wrong. But what of God commanding armies? It was in the wise service of the created order and purpose was it not? God is no arbitrary despot, but a merciful redeemer. Is violence inherently wrong? According to this train of thought, no. Not when used in wise service of the creation.

Morality? Part 2

2005-08-04T14:12:00.001+12:00

Assuming that there is a distinction, [1] we may distinguish three factors that guide us when making decisions. [2] These can be illustrated through a situation:

Having just woken up from a good nights sleep, I wander into the kitchen to get some breakfast. Upon opening the fridge I discover that I am out of milk and need to go to the store to get some. So I make myself semi-presentable and wander towards the door. But do I take the car or just walk? My reasoning may go something like as follows.

Perhaps I should walk to the store because it is within walking distance and I do need to save gas (practical reasons). However, it is still dark, and I do live in Beachaven. Im more than a little worried that I might come home without wallet, shoes, or milk (emotional reasons). On the other hand, I dont really want to be unnecessarily pumping exhaust into the environment, that wouldn't be right (ethical reasons). In the end I decide not "skip" breakfast.

In any given situation we may consider only one of these or all of them and reasons within each may contradict each other. The factors may overlap each other, such as if I was to do something that I feel is immoral then this may result in emotional harm. But nevertheless, the distinction does exist between practical, emotional, and ethical factors.

We may postulate a person who does not hold ethical stances on anything, indeed who does not believe that we can make the moral/amoral distinction. Such a person would work within the practical and emotional alone. But does such a person exit? Can such a person exist?

Can we locate moral issues in their ability to pull at our heart-strings. When we do something we know is wrong, we feel guilty, when right, we feel good. The argument could run that moral issues are those that have an emotional factor attached. But not all people are emotionally attached to the same issues. It is the belief that something is a moral issue that then creates the emotional factor. When someone feels morally strong about something, they feel emotionally strong about it also. Morality comes before emotion.

Notes
[1] Although there need not be. Whether or not the distinction corresponds with reality, people still make decisions sefl-consiously for moral reasons, as the below illustration makes clear.
[2] I have taken these from Gareth Jones, 'The Authority of scripture in Christian ethics', p.16, in Gill, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge, 2001), pp.16-28

Morality? Part 1

2005-08-04T13:13:00.000+12:00

What makes something moral? Indeed, what is "morality"?

I find this mind-boggling to ask as the answer is so clear. Morality concerns "right" and "wrong". But right and wrong about what? We odviously here dont mean right and wrong in the same sense that we mean true and false, so what do we mean?

When it comes to an actual issue, such as murder, it is clear to us that it is a "moral" or "ethical" issue. We can be quick to respond that murder is morally wrong. But when we say that this is morally wrong, do we mean that the action itself is wrong or that it would be a bad decision to make for whatever other reasons? More often than not I suspect that people intend the first, but this raises the problem.

Where does the line between a moral action and an amoral action breakdown or meet? [1] Can we make such a distinction between moral and amoral, indeed, do we pen the line? [2]

Notes
[1] We should also add states of affairs and attitudes of the heart and/or mind.
[2] I suspect that for some, this line will be much thicker than for others. Those who affirm a sharp distinction and those that are not so sure.

"Truth" and grammatical confusion

2005-08-04T12:39:00.000+12:00

Some time ago I came to realise that much confusion occurs in discussions about "truth" because of bad grammar. People attempt to define "truth", they ask whether "truth" exists, whether we can know "truth", and whether there is "ultimate truth" or just preference, each having their own "truth". But to use the word truth in these ways is to abuse it grammatically [1].

Things become clearer when we look at the adjective true. Only statements that are making claims about reality can be deemed true or false. Thus, I am a male is 'true', it is a true statement. But if someone was to claim that I am a women, then their statement, their claim, would be 'false'. 'Truthfulness' and 'falsity' are linguistic phenomena alone. The problem occurs when people begin to use truth as a synonym for reality. To say that "reality is truth" may sound cool but it is problematic grammatically. Reality cannot be true, it just is. Only statements about reality can be true or false. You cannot point to something (a non-descriptive action of communication) and say "that is true" [2].

Notes
[1] I now face the problem of arguing that we should follow some proper grammar and not just move with the times, accepting the new usage. I find the new usage unhelpful however, which is why I wish to return to its tradition grammatical use.
[2] Unless you point to a statement of course.

A defenition of hermeneutics -quote-

2005-08-04T09:44:00.000+12:00

This is my favourite defenition of hermeneutics proper.

Hermeneutics entails critical reflection on the basis, nature and goals of reading, interpreting and understanding communicative acts and processes. This characteristically concerns the understanding of texts, especially biblical or literary texts, or those of another era or culture. However, it also includes reflection on the nature of understanding human actions, sign-systems, visual data, institutions, artefacts or other aspects of life. In biblical studies it applies traditionally to the interpretation of texts, but also the interweaving of language and life both within the horizon of the text and the within the horizons of traditions and the modern reader.

Anthony Thiselton, ‘Biblical studies and theoretical hermeneutics’, p.95, in John Barton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1998) pp.95-113

addition to blogroll

2005-08-03T17:18:00.000+12:00

I have added another blog to my blogroll, namely, Benjamin Myers Faith and Theology. I simply love his blog and my favourite posts so far have been Creation and the beginning of the universe, Speaking matter-of-factly about God: Robert W. Jenson, and his two posts on resurrection. He also has some extremely helpful and resouce(full) links.

Subsequent to being added to Alan Bandy's blogroll, Michael Bird has now added me to his at Euangelion. So my thanks to both of you for taking an interest in my thoughts and getting me some exposure. Its a privilege.

Carson on Jesus' words -quote-

2005-08-03T09:51:00.000+12:00

I have decided to start posting the many interesting and important quotes that I have collected and continue to collect over the course of my studies. Donald Carson gets the privilege of being the first. I would appreciate any thoughts concerning them.

In what other field of historical research would the most influential sayings of an extraordinary influential individual be denied on the ground that because they were believed and repeated by the individual’s followers they could not have been authentic?

D.A. Carson, ‘New Testament Theology’, in (eds.) R.P. Martin and P.H. Davids, The Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997), p.800

a hearing

2005-08-03T09:15:00.000+12:00

I have to say, im excited! Alan Bandy from CafeApocalypsis has placed my blog on his blogroll. Now this is probably just because I posted some comments on his blog, but nevertheless, perhaps now he will read my blog every now and then, and perhaps even comment! This is encouraging as my enthusiasm has been waning. I plan to increase blogging!

Research paper

2005-07-28T12:34:00.000+12:00

I have settled on a framework for my paper. It will be entitled Reading Scripture Afresh: Story and the Christian Faith. Heres the abstract:

ABSTRACT: In this paper I offer an explorative suggestion to the question of what should we use the bible for and how do we do so? I propose that the question needs to be asked afresh due to the short falls and problems with contemporary “grass-root” level readings and uses of the Bible that begin with the assumption of “biblical authority”. I argue that the nature of the Christian faith and the ‘shape’ of the Bible provide the way forward. The Biblical Christian faith is rooted in a grand-narrative, the story of God and the world from creation to new creation, which the scriptures tell. We are to make this grand-narrative the controlling-story within our worldview, and from our place within the story, creatively appropriate the scriptures according to their literary forms.

The title betrays several aspects of this thesis. Firstly, reading scripture afresh suggests that here I propose a new method or purpose for reading Scripture. Secondly, the presence of Christian faith in the sub-title shows that this fresh reading is a reading for the Christian, from within the Christian faith, and that being positioned within the Christian tradition is central to the method of this fresh reading. Thirdly, story highlights the importance of the category within this new approach.

Im happy with this and now begin the task of tranforming all my notes into the first draft, doing some more research when needed.

A moment of pause...

2005-07-19T11:54:00.000+12:00

I've hit a moment of pause in my research. Not because I havnt been studying (although I have been very busy), but because I am unsure where to go from this point. Up to now my paper has been focused upon developing a hermeneutic of story for appropriating scriptures commands.

However, developing a hermeneutic to deal with scriptures commands builds on the assumption that they are all authoritative in some sense, something that I now wish to move away from. Although my hermeneutic arrose because of the apparent need the assumption created, it ends up undermining the assumption itself by exposing the nature of the scriptures and scriptural faith. And so although it has eliminated the need for developing the hermeneutic, I found this to be so only after doing the work. So what do I do? Do I write the paper and note at the end that this has pointed out a fault in the original assumption? Or do I change the focus of the paper away from a specific hermeneutic to an understanding of the Bible and Scriptural faith?

I also wish to move away from understanding the Bible in terms of one function, purpose, or nature, and towards appropriating scriptures diversity according to its kinds. I wish to think in terms of "scriptures" which implies multiple works allowing for literary diversity rather than "bible" that implies a single work and tends to encourage a "flat" or single approach to reading, theology, ethics, and praxis. And so I wonder whether attempting to develop a doctrinal description of the Bible is a good idea. Should I change my paper to discuss the nature of Scriptural faith and how this should shape our use of the scriptures? Maybe I should use my paper to argue against a "flat" understanding and reading of the sriptures?

If anyone does read this blog, now would be a good time to comment...

new link

2005-07-18T10:42:00.000+12:00

Well im back from my honeymoon which was great! This will be my fiest post as a married man!

I have added Biblical Theology to my links. It is designed to accompany The Drama of Scripture by Goheen and Bartholomew which I am currently reading. I will give more details in a coming post.

more updates

2005-07-08T17:36:00.000+12:00

I have updated the links, adding a number of sites. I added the Old Testament Gateway to go alongside the NT Gateway as essential stops. The Paul page as it is a good bibliographical source as well as online articles for studying Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles. I added the N.T.Wright Page because im a fan of his work and because alot of his articles, sermons, and lectures can be accessed through there. Early Christian Writings is a good source for primary sources, as does Early Jewish Writings (Primary sources are a scholar's best friend! There is no substitute). I am constantly using Review of Biblical Literature to info on books that im interested in using. And the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society have articles from 1996-2004 published online in PDF format.

I also updated the Blogroll with Blogs that I now visit regularly.

Researching the historical Jesus

2005-07-08T16:09:00.000+12:00

And grasping hold of my new found freedom, here are the three books I think are the most important for establishing a foundation in studying the historical Jesus:

Jesus and the Victory of God - N.T. Wright
A New Vision for Israel - Scot McKnight
The Aims of Jesus - Ben F. Meyer

Sadly I dont own a copy of the latter two although I have read McKnight's book twice, and the majority of Meyer's. Wright's The New Testament and the People of God should also be made use of because of its discussion on the nature of knowledge, history, and theology. It is crucial to get a grasp of the task one wishes to persue and how to best go about doing so if one is not to drown in the sea of studies, whose plurality is as much a result of method as it is research.

These books should only be treated as "foundational" and not the final word for several reasons. Firstly, everyone has to start somewhere and I think the general picture they paint is on target. Secondly, the proposals of each need to be tested through careful exegesis of the primary sources they build upon. Thirdly, the field is forever moving forward (although I would consider some moves more sideways or backwards) and it would be lazy not to keep up with the play. Fourthly, those scholars whose proposals conflict with the above need to be engaged honestly, and the useful aspects of their work taken hold of. It may seem a bit arrogant how I just assume that they will not prove more convincing than the proposed foundation, so call me arrogant if you will, but the three I have recomended I did for the very reason that out of all the material read, I have found them to be the most convincing.

some renovations

2005-07-08T14:35:00.000+12:00

Just overhauled the look of the site by giving it a new template. A big improvement I think. I have also changed the subtitle to reflect what is really going on. I will focus on hermeneutics and biblical interpretation, but will happily grasp hold of the freedom bestowed upon me by the web to post on what ever the hell i like :P

There will be a break from posting for the next few weeks as i am getting married tomorow! Her name is Tracy and she rocks my little world. Its so exciting, and if nothing else, it calls for a resounding HALLELUJAH!

Thank you Lord for gifting me such a treasure.

quote on form and content

2005-07-01T14:35:00.000+12:00

Just read a short article by Eugene Peterson entitled 'Living Into God's Story'. Its barely three pages long (PDF), but is worth the read if you take the time to dwell on what he says. Here is a nice quote from the article which I think is releveant to my last post.

The form in which language comes to us is as important as its content. If we mistake its form, we will almost certainly respond wrongly to its content. If we mistake a recipe for vegetable stew for a set of clues for finding buried treasure, no matter how carefully we read it, we will end up as poor as ever and hungry besides. If we misread a highway road sign, "60 miles per hour," as a randomly posted piece of information rather tan as stern imperative, we will eventually find ourselves pulled over on the side of the road with a police officer correcting our grammar. ordinarily, we learn these discriminations early and well and give form and content equal weight in determining meaning.

But when it comes to Scripture we don't do nearly as well. Maybe it is because Scripture comes to us so authoritatively, "God's Word," that we think all we can do is submit and obey. Submission and obedience are part of it, but first we have to listen. And listening requires hearing the way it is said (form) as well as what is said (content)."

You can find the article at www.biblicaltheology.ca. The Site has a number of useful articles pertaining to reading the Bible as a coherent and unified story. It also has teaching material and slides which are meant to accompany the reading and teaching of the book, The Drama of Scripture. The site is maintained by the authors, Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen. Im reading the book at present and it is very nice. I hope that the impression I have gained so far of its potential usefulness as an introduction not only for the Bible, but for the Christian faith, will be confirmed upon my completion. Michael Goheen and Al Wolters will be coming to Carey Baptist College in Auckland, New Zealand where i currently studying for a Bachelor in Apllied Theology. The conference is entitled 'WOrlds Collide: how does a biblical worldview engage the world'. I cant wait!!

Controlling models and images

2005-07-01T10:03:00.000+12:00

“Doctrinal thinking commonly involves the use of models. The task of doctrine is to aid our understanding of key realities of Christian faith such as God, salvation, the church, and the Bible. Many of these realities are by their very nature formidably deep or complex. A model is an image or a construct that helps us grasp aspects of these realities by providing us with something we can understand that has points of comparison with the object we wish to understand, thus helping us t get our mind round its nature.” [1]

Here John Goldingay highlights the usefulness, in fact necessity of the use of models for doctrine. When the right models are used, they are most useful for grasping aspects of biblical truth. [2] Models can also be employed to grasp the nature of Scripture, and this is what Goldingay attempts in his book.

He alerts us to the problem of using models to describe the whole of Scripture. Scripture consists of a diversity of literary types and models often employed such as “authority”, “revelation”, and “inspiration”, do not naturally correspond with all these types. [3] “To speak in terms of the authority of scripture, of scripture as God’s revelation, or of scriptural inspiration is not so much untrue as a not especially plausible way to go about crystallizing a scriptural way of understanding scripture.” [4].

Although the models come Scripture, in the attempt to use them to characterize the whole from within, they have been lifted out of Scripture only to be reshaped and imposed back upon it, forcing it to be and do what it is not and was not meant to. In the attempt to touch base with the text once more, the models take their shape not from Scripture itself but from abstract philosophical and linguistic debate over what “authority” is or how the term can be used. For instance, when the model of “authority” is applied to the whole Bible, when it “is treated as an indispensable theological category” (p8) for understanding Scripture, we find ourselves effectively working backwards. We are no longer moving from Scripture to description and function, but from presumed function (“authoritative”) to Scripture. In this process in end up treating Scripture as something it is not. [5]

Because of this, we should avoid treating “authority” or any other model as the ‘indispensable theological category’ and then seeing how Scripture may fit it. We must not proceed from the assumption that the Bible is in some sense “authoritative” and then seek to discover how.

It must be made clear that in my research I am not seeking to establish “story” as a model to “over-arch the whole”. The story that underlies Scripture and that can rightly be said to be the centre of the Christian faith, is not a model in the sense discussed above. It is not a description of the nature of the scriptural documents, [6] but of the faith that unifies them. It is the content and ground of the faith. However, I do see the need for a controlling concept through which to view the Bible as a whole and propose that “story” is most appropriate to fill the position. As the controlling concept it is not intended to highlight the nature or function of any one set of documents or literary forms within Scripture (as Goldingay’s models do, see n3). Nor is it meant to be used in the way “authority” often has either, being a function imposed upon all scriptural forms and documents. Rather, it acts more like an image and serves to orient the reader.

As mentioned in a previous post, Images of the Bible, the images or metaphors we use to describe and understand the Bible have a profound effect on how we approach it. This is true for models also. When we hold to the model of authority, we see the Bible as a source of teaching that must be conformed to. We thus neglect aspects of Scripture that are not teaching to be believed or instructions to be obeyed, or we distort them in our attempts to use them as such. Hence, the ideas we have about the Bible and its purpose when we come to Scripture can creates problems.

All of us come to Scripture with some set of preconceptions about it, what is in it, what its for, and how we should use it. These are often summed up or flow from an image or model that we take to be the controlling model, the one that best describes Scripture. Although not all approaches and understandings are completely off, the wrong aspects are often over emphasized. If not out of inescapability, we need a controlling concept for simplicity and orientation. I find that often peoples understanding of Scripture shapes their understanding of Christianity, the two coincide. And so they should, it is only logical. But what this shows is how important our understanding of Scripture truly is.

By proposing story as the controlling concept, I am suggesting that it be used as our controlling image. What I am seeking is a critical realist approach that consciously seeks to avoid employing Scripture for an agenda foreign to itself, but which apprehends Scripture’s own various natures and purposes and aligns our use of it with these. Thus I propose story because it lies at the centre of Scripture and scriptural faith. It strikes at the heart of what the Christian faith is, that God loves, and is acting in and with this world for its salvation. To be a Christian is to be part of the ‘with’, to participate in this work of salvation both as an agent and as a patient. But in order to do so well, we need to understand Scripture, so lets get to work!

[1] Models for Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), p.7
[2] This task is different than describing the theologies of the biblical documents using their own categories and concepts.
[3] Thus, in his book he makes use of four models that reflect the variety of scriptural forms: witnessing tradition (narrative), authoritative canon (command material in Torah and elsewhere), inspired word (prophecy), and experienced revelation (Psalms, apocalypses, wisdom books, and letters). In each section he does go on to “stretch” these models to cover the whole of Scripture.
[4] Models, p.5
[5] There are of course forms within Scripture where the concept of ‘authority’ is appropriate. E.g. The Law given at Mt Sinai.
[6] I reserve the term ‘narrative’ for the stories in Scripture in an attempt to avoid confusion.

Thinking about love

2005-06-16T12:31:00.000+12:00

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

2005-06-06T12:09:00.000+12:00

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

2005-06-06T11:22:00.000+12:00

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

2005-06-02T10:48:00.000+12:00

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!

2005-06-01T16:56:00.000+12:00

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.

Authority and Story

2005-04-23T17:39:00.000+12:00

It is axiomatic for evangelical Christians that the Bible is authoritative. But what does this mean in practice? The concept of authority applies most readily to commands or doctrines, i.e., they are to be obeyed or believed. But the Scripture contains many commands that Christians feel under no obligation to obey, and that voices within Scripture itself even sideline. With such conflicting voices, to which do we listen? Simply re-stating the Bibles authority does not help in these situations, we need to know how it is authoritative.

Furthermore, the majority of Scripture consists of narrative or stories, not instructions. The concept of authority does not seem immediately applicable to stories. So how do we stand in relation to these stories? What claims do they make upon us?

Richard Bauckham (‘Scripture and Authority’) joins a number of others in identifying “story” as the key to the problem:

The one comprehensive category within which we can locate all the biblical materials is that of story, meaning the total biblical story of the world and God's purposes for it, stretching from creation to new creation.

What we have in Scripture is a story, a plot-line that spans all of history. All the pieces of the Scripture, whether narrative, prophecy, wisdom or letter, have their place in this great plot-line:

The category of story includes not only biblical narratives - the many smaller narratives, many of them relatively self-contained, but canonically placed within the Bible's total story - but also prophecy and apostolic teaching insofar as these illuminate the meaning of the story and point its direction towards its still future completion. This total biblical story is also the context within which other biblical genres - law, wisdom, psalms, ethical instruction, parables, and so on - are canonically placed. Story is the overarching category in which others are contextualized.

But what of the category of authority in regard to the rest of Scripture, or Scripture as a whole? Bauckham suggests, “If we are to think of the Bible as authoritative, we must think primarily of the authority of this story,” and that to treat this story as authoritative is to “enter it and to inhabit it. It is to live in the world as the world is portrayed in this story. It is to let this story define our identity and our relationship to God and to others…. to privilege it above all other stories. It is to find our own identity as characters in that story, characters whose lives are an as yet untold part of the story.”

Taking these two insights, we can then suggest how to deal with the problem of the profusion of commands and their sometimes conflicting natures. Bauckham sees the problem as having arisen out of an emphasis upon “authoritative commands apart from the biblical story”, and that if “they are read within their context in the biblical story, then the story defines their authority contextually.” Thus some commands are found not to apply to us at our juncture in Gods story, and others are. However we can always learn from those that do not when they are understood contextually.

This approach has much to commend it as it offers a solution to both our problems noted above, and it does so in a very simple and elegant way.

I have unfortunately been unable to locate a copy of the article online, as i have used an online copy that i pasted into a word document from a while back. This is why there are no page references. This paper may however be identicle to the Grove Booklet entitled Scripture and Authoruty Today. I read this quite some time ago and recall it had very similar content, although i cannot be sure that it is the same.

Symbol and Counter-Action

2005-04-23T13:36:00.000+12:00

Reading over the latest post from Primal Subversion ‘The Counter Imperial Cross’, I wonder (assuming that the significance is rightly grasped) how this would translate into a 21^st century western setting. Are there any cultural symbols that hold the same feelings of domination, power and of violent suppression, and at the same time can be picked up (no pun intended) to indicate an antithetical protest against such a power?

And further, what would it mean to stand in protest to it? What praxis might the metaphorical ‘picking up and carrying’ imply or require? Is it simply to ‘follow him [Jesus]’? And thus to pick up ones cross is synonymous to following him as the true King rather than Caesar (or any other claimant), and his proposed praxis rather than Imperial order (or any other order)?

Images of the Bible

2005-04-22T15:42:00.000+12:00

How we picture the Bible, the images we use to understand it or metaphors we use to describe it, obviously have a pro-found effect on how we approach the Bible. This is so because they are meant to. What they do is juxtapose the Bible with some other piece of literature and suggest that it functions in a similar fashion.

Thus it is often said that the Bible is a handbook for living. This brings to mind things such as instruction manuals for appliances or computer software, or certain professions. What is assumed in this sort of literature is that clear instructions are provided, which if followed, the desired and proper effect will be achieved. If one has the right handbook for the job, then one has the right answers. It is suggested that this is how the Bible functions, it provides clear instructions and is the right handbook for living.

However, most of Scripture is in the form of narrative or story, rather than clear instruction. This image leaves in the dark how to approach this aspect of scripture (along with others such as prophecy and poetry) and can lead to its neglect or treating it along the same lines as instruction. There is instruction of course (in the letters, the gospels, and dispersed among the narratives of the OT), but even here we have the to deal with the fact that the instruction is not given directly to us here and now, but to specific people(s) in a different times and places, asking different questions, facing different situations, and at different junctures in Gods plan and activity. Thus even the clear instruction is not always straight forwardly transferable to us.

The image of a handbook does rightly emphasize that the Bible is our guide when it comes to life, but it can mislead us in how it is to achieve this task. It can also lead to us missing so much else of what scripture has to offer, such as the rich spirituality in the Psalms, of which we can be a part through praying the prayers ourselves. The Bible is not meant merely to instruct and but some images encourage us to think only in those terms.

Another image is Gods letter to you. This rightly recognises that God can and does sometimes speak directly to us and our situations through the text. But what is sought and gained their is something different from what is desired when it comes to matters of ethics and theology. Once again this can fall to the problem of seeing scriptural teaching as being directed straight to us.

Now these images are not bad in themselves, in fact they are extremely helpful, but a problem arises if anyone of these comes to dominates our understanding of Scripture. The image that I have come to adopt as primary (not exclusive) is that of God’s Story. This is helpful on a number of levels and I will be exploring it in more detail soon.

Why the blog?

2005-04-22T14:26:00.000+12:00

Well basically a friend of mine just got one of his own up and runing (see Links), and seeing how easy it actually is to create one, i decided too... well... create one.

This venture will have direction however. I am currently doing research in the field of hermeneutics which deals with the issues of the intepretation of texts and how we are to read and use the Bible. In this blog i intend to air my thoughts as they develop throughout the course of my research. This will not only assist me to clarify them but it will also mean that i can get some serious feedback on them (assuming that anyone will actually read this blog) and hopefully it will be of some help to those of you who are interested in the whole topic.

My research is currently focused on various scholar's approaches to developing theology from the Bible. However i soon hope to be moving towards a more general approach, seeking to understand the nature of the Bible itself with the hunch that a proper understanding of this should set the agenda for what we should use the Bible for, and that it will also provide the conceptual framework needed to do do so. But we will see...

So i invite you to join me and hopefully engage with me on the issues by leaving comments and even emailing me responses and thoughts.

eddie