Letting the scriptures shape us

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-

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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-

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...

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-

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

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?

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?

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-

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

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

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?

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-

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

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.