Morality? Part 2

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

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

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-

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

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-

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Scriptural Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Unity and Coherence" of Scripture

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

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

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

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

The Doctrine of Inspiration

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

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

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

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

2 Timothy 3.15

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

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

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

First post in nearly a month!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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