Category: Theology

Biblical Interpretation, Language, and the Big Picture

Posted on

Historical/theological rant to follow…

The books I’ve been reading recently have caused me to think about how vital the big picture is. I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek because I fully admit that I don’t have the big picture on everything or the full picture on anything. But through reading books that take the time to give the broad historical and theological perspective, its hard not to get frustrated with arguments that don’t look at the big picture.

As some may recall there were some, shall we say, interesting discussions on this blog a few months back regarding Biblical interpretation. The anonymous critics were claiming that there is no such thing as Biblical interpretation and we who claim there was were all deceived by Satan. Good times. Recently as I was reading Hagar, Sarah, and their Children I was struck again by the absurdity of that claim. Besides the interpretive perspectives presented in the book on the story of Sarah and Hagar (from Christian Jewish, Muslim, Feminist, and Womanist viewpoints), the editors gave a brillant overview of the history of the interpretation of their story. Even though their story is a narrative (and supposedly straightforward history), there exists a wide variety of interpretations. Throughout the ages the motives of both Sarah and Hagar have been interpreted, reinterpreted, and then interpreted some more. Even by the Apostle Paul in Galatians. I’m sorry, but a “literal” (meaning here, the interpretation done by those who don’t believe in interpretation) reading of the story in Genesis does not give you Galatians 4:25 – “Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.” – that takes interpretation. And if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul… And it didn’t stop there. There is a whole tradition of Jewish Midrash on this story (an interpretative approach that assumes the validity of multiple interpretations). Some of the early church fathers took the Hagar and Sarah story to refer to monogamy, chastity, and asceticism. Luther and Calvin had their own assumptions about what Sarah must really have felt/meant. The list goes on. It was fascinating (and at times appalling) to read those interpretations, but what really struck me was the necessity of the historical perspective. It is so easy to get stuck in one’s own tunnel vision if one refuses to engage the big picture (and yes, that is a lesson I am still learning).

On a different topic, my recent reading of Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler has made me even less sympathetic to the English only proponents. The idea that English needs to be made a national language or passing laws to ban the use of other languages in certain towns or businesses has its own issues (racism, classism, and fear to name a few), but such views also seriously lack a grasp of the big picture. Even if one ignores the fact that we used pre-emptive war to steal this country from people whose languages we are now trying to ban, we forget what a pitifully short history English has had. It is doubted by historians if English would have ever have developed as a language in its own right is the Plague hadn’t of wiped out most of the Norman speakers in what is now England. A coincidence of the rich who lived in towns being wiped out and the poor who cobbled a language from their combined ancestors and overlords and lived isolated on farms survived. Compared to the histories of Egyptian, Sanskrit, and Chinese, English is very new to the scene.

I personally don’t get the mentality that there is pride to be had and defended in the language one was taught in the cradle. It is one among thousands. But for an egotistical society driven by competition and the need to chant mindlessly “We’re number 1! We’re number 1!”, language is just one more thing to fight about. This is of course nothing new. The Greeks despised anyone who couldn’t speak their language. The Spanish Crown (against the advice and pleading of the Priests) insisted that the natives in the “New World” learn Castilian since they couldn’t understand matters of faith and manners of life otherwise. We’ve all heard (and laughed) at the stories of French trying to keep itself pure. I was fascinated by these quotes by Ostler regarding the French language, “In the seventeenth century, French power and influence in Europe reached their height… as all nations do when they enjoy pre-eminence, the French began to look for some particular virtues that could explain their success. Increasingly, they saw evidence of excellence in their language itself.” and “It was especially in the areas of Europe with least cultural self-confidence that the elite set a high value on fluency in French: Sweden, Poland and above all Russia.. French became established as the language of polite society.” (p.409-410). And that hubris remains to this day, and has been caught by the English speakers.

I don’t even want to get into the whole KJV only English is God’s chosen language to spread His word in the end times claim. But the ignorance of people as to the brief history of this language is absurd. People really do believe that Jesus spoke English or at least think English sprung fully formed out of God’s mouth. In a discussion in one of my liguistic/intercultutral studies/missions classes about proscriptive verses descriptive grammar in English, a man actually argued that English can never change because it has never changed. I wished I could have broken out with something like – “Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum.” (the opening to Beowulf in Old English) or “How grett glorious Godd, thurgh grace of Hym seluen, And the precyous prayere of Hys prys Modyr, Schelde vs fro schamesdede and synfull werkes, And gyffe vs grace to gye and gouerne vs here, In this wrechyd werld, thorowe vertous lywynge, That we may kayre til Hys courte, the kyngdom of Hevyne.” (our lywynge in middle English poetry). No, of course English has never changed…

If people had a bit of perspective, a glimpse of the big picture, would such hateful and hurtful programs like the English only ones ever be introduced? I know I’m naive and idealistic, but I just wish people could see how small these petty arguments are in light of the big picture.

Rant over for the moment. Or perhaps, fittingly, I should end with Caliban’s words to Prospero – “You taught me language; and my profit on’t/ Is, I know how to curse.”

Read more

Sin, Discipline, and Vengeance

Posted on

In reading recently about discipline for home and school, I was struck by how our conception of sin influences how we approach discipline. Granted some sort of connection seems obvious, but I was intrigued by the difference it made in whether behavior and discipline became an individual or communal thing.

In the traditions I have been exposed to sin is viewed as an individual action. You commit a specific act – break a specific rule and you have committed a sin. Sin is a concrete thing that you (individual you) do. It is a very self-oriented/ it’s all about me sort of thing. The focus is on what I have done wrong and then on how God will either punish or forgive me. I must repent of those sins for my own sake. I choose not to sin based on the reward or punishment I will receive. I ask – Will this send me to hell? Will this hurt my prayer life? Will this get me to heaven?

If sin is viewed less as concrete acts, but more as a state of the heart the issue becomes communal instead of individual. If being in sin means having a broken relationship with God or with others (failing to love God and love others with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength), the focus is shifted away from ourselves. Instead of focusing on ourselves, we put God and others before ourselves. Their needs and feeling become what is important. We choose not to sin because we care about God and others – we don’t want to cause them pain. Caring for others is a value that is then upheld and the basis for the good things one does.

But the self-centered view of sin is what dominates our churches, homes, and schools. Children are not taught to care for others or to be aware of their needs. They are instead encouraged to make sure their own butt is covered and to tattle when others perform a wrong action. Instead of being encouraged to love misbehaving kids, understand why they acted out or made a mistake, and help them find solutions, our kids are forced to view these kids as bad examples who must be punished and ridiculed. The messages of love, humility, and compassion are ignored in a discipline structure where it’s every man for himself. Why do we ignore Philippians 2:3-4 – “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others”?

One of the worst examples of this is how our modern Christian culture has taken a Bible passage originally intended to help restore relationships and made it a mandate for personal vendetta. The whole “eye for an eye” concept severely restricted vengeance back in the day. It called for a one for one exchange instead of the typical escalation of violence common back then (you killed my friend, so I will kill your friend, then your friend kill my friends, then my friends… until whoever is bigger, more powerful, or just more numerous wins). So instead of dragging a whole tribe into a petty argument and disturbing the peace (as well as economics, agriculture, the lives of all the innocents) vengeance was restricted. But even when Jesus’ words are completely ignored (Matthew 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”), this passage is taken as justification or a mandate to harm others instead of a way to help control violence and maintain peace. It become about getting our need for vengeance satisfied and not about loving others.

So if I want to take the Great Commandment seriously (‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself) I need to examine if that is the message I am sending in how I talk about sin and in how I discipline. If my desire is for Emma to be a person who loves God and loves others, are the things I say to her and the ways I discipline her serving to achieve that end? If not, am I willing to sacrifice habits, rote responses, and what may be easy in order to change?

Read more

Questions, Epistemology, and Late Night TV

Posted on

Last night Mike and I stayed up way too late watching one of those history channel programs (we have TiVo, so there really is no need to stay up late, it was just that interesting). This one was called Exodus Decoded. Unlike most of those type shows, I thought this one was well done and was worth a viewing. Basically the show examined extra-biblical evidence for the exodus. What I liked about it was that it took a “big picture” interdisciplinary approach to the topic. The show presented some fascinating interpretations and evidences for the Exodus. I don’t want to get into all those now (but it really was intriguing maybe I’ll comment on it later), but instead comment on what it got me thinking about. These thoughts are also sparked from the conversation about Ruth’s virtue over at Swinging from the Vine.

My question is – why are we so afraid to really question everything? Why when approaching theology or history do we set boundaries and assumptions that cannot be changed or questioned before we turn to actual research? For example, for those who believe miracles are impossible the exodus could never have occurred because it involves miraculous events. Or because we have to hold to a certain dating system for all the rest of our theology to fall into place, these facts and dates over here must be thrown out because they conflict with our presumed ideas. Or because we want to hold Ruth up as a female role model (and since we define role models as chaste/virtuous women) there is no room to even explore the question of whether Ruth had sex with Boaz when she spent the night with him at his “feet.” Or because I work in X field and you work in Y field we can’t get together and share ideas and perhaps come up with a holistic understanding of things. Or because one belongs to a different religion (Islam) and doesn’t want to strengthen another religion (Judaism/Christianity) any researchers looking into Jewish history are forbidden from doing research in our country. And yes these are vaguely stated, but it really bugs me when knowledge is stifled because people are too afraid or too prejudiced.

I know I make assumptions, you have to in order to progress in understanding. One needs to assume that the possibility of the exodus story having happened is a valid possibility in order to start looking for evidence that it did happen. There are also things that I have questioned and have chosen to believe in (like the existence of God) that become the basis for how I look at other aspects of life. But I still concede the necessity to be allowed to question those basic assumptions. My views on a lot of things have drastically changed in the last 10 years. Why? Because the pastor at my old church convinced me that it was okay to question my pre-trib/pre-mil views. I realized that true understanding requires everything to be open to being questioned (which eventually led to my being forced out of that very church). And yes, new ideas that I have formed can also be questioned (but no, to all the people who assume that I am “liberal” because I haven’t thought through things, I doubt I will return to where I have already been). But it scares me when I see people claiming that we can’t “go there” or that certain topics are off limits or that certain facts must be ignored – how is this intellectual honesty?? (and yes, I’m sure I scare some people as well with my assumptions…)

What are people afraid of? Do people still hold to foundationalist epistemology – question one thing and the whole structure crumbles? Are we just afraid of anything new or different? Will we lose our funding, our prestige, or our job? Are to just too comfortable to care? Are any or all of these things more important than the pursuit of truth?

I’m frustrated when I encounter resistance to questioning (as I’m sure some feel about me). I’m frustrated when I don’t have the knowledge or the resources to pursue my questioning fully. I’m frustrated with my stupidity and lack of training to engage in dialogue in certain fields. I know I should just deal with it and do what I can, but there are some days when it just build up…

So sorry for the postmodernish incoherent rant. This has just been on my mind all day and I had to get it out.

Tags: , , 
Read more

The Bible As A Weapon

Posted on

To rant – I find it really annoying when people use verses like bullets. They shoot them out at you as is (or with perhaps a few random words in ALL CAPS) and just leave it at that. No follow up, no argument, no reasoning – just the verses. I want to shake them and point out that they need to interpret the verses to get their point across. But the issue is that that type of person who would just throw verses in an argument is also the type person who holds a literal view of the bible which doesn’t allow for the possibility of interpretation. They assume that there is only one right way to read the bible forever and ever amen. So hurling a verse or two makes perfect sense because everyone obviously reads those verses in exactly the same way (in every denomination, in every country, in every time period, in every language…). It just gets frustrating and its impossible to continue conversations when someone starts doing that. So since its hopeless to point out to them that the world (and all theology) does not revolve around them, I thought I would rant here…

Read more

Biblical Interpretation

Posted on

Okay get ready for a long post…
In a recent discussion on women in ministry on Char’s blog I posted the following rambling thoughts about Biblical interpretation:

“I think I get caught up often in trying to determine what was going on historically in the NT church so that I can claim it as a norm for today. but when I take a step back I realize that I generally don’t agree with that sort of approach to the bible. I don’t think that the NT church was the pure and unadulterated form of being a Christian and that we just have to uncover all the facts about it in order to be the real Christians we are supposed to be. I see faith and god’s purposes in this world as being fluid rather than static.

But that does not mean that the attempt to discover how things were in the NT (as much as that can actually be done) is not a worthwhile attempt. I fully acknowledge that our views of the NT (especially in regards to women) are heavily influenced by our culture. We are looking at the bible through the lenses of years and years of male dominance – there are a lot of agendas that are at stake in the discussion. There see to be many present Christians who are literally afraid to even address the topic thoughtfully(just look at the knee-jerk reaction to the Da Vinci Code..). I think we have gotten it wrong about women in the early church and that needs to be made known, but I don’t see then that we should necessarily copy whatever we determine what it was that was going on.

I personally prefer the concept of trajectory. If through history God was asking his people to give more love and freedom to oppressed groups (women, slaves, gentiles, children…), and if in different ages his people were pushing what was the norm for their culture, we need to look at where the general approach was pointing and follow that trajectory to where it leads. It took centuries for people to finally grasp the revolutionary things that Paul wrote about releasing slaves and treating them as equals. And it was the Christians who led the abolitionist cause because it was fulfilling the plans God had. No one today says that its okay for some to read the bible and think that black people are lesser or cant serve god as well as whites, but that was the norm among Christians at one point. perhaps someday people in the church will be just as scandalized to hear people talking about women being lesser and not being able to serve as well as men…”

So then I was slowing making my way through N.T. Wright’s The New Testament and the People of God and came across this really cool analogy he wrote about Biblical interpretation and the authority of scripture. I’m posting the part about what he compared it to and I think it has some interesting things to say about how we act/live/teach as Christians today. –

“Suppose there exists a Shakespeare play, most of whose fifth act has been lost. The first four acts provide, let us suppose, such a remarkable wealth of characterization, such a crescendo of excitement within the plot, what it is generally agreed that the play ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt inappropriate actually to write a fifth act once and for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and commit Shakespeare as it were to being prospectively responsible for work not in fact his own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who could immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.

Consider the result. The first four acts, existing as they did, would be the undoubted ‘authority’ for the task at hand. That is, anyone could properly object to the new improvisation on the grounds that some character was now behaving inconsistently, or that some sub-plot or theme, adumbrated earlier, had not reached its proper resolution. This ‘authority’ of the first four acts would not consist – could not consist!- in an implicit command that the actors should repeat the earlier parts of the play over and over again. It would consist in the fact of an as yet unfinished drama, containing its own impetus and forward movement, which demanded to be concluded in an appropriate manner. It would require of the actors a free and responsible entering into the story as it stood, in order first to understand how the threads could appropriately be drawn together and then to put that understanding into effect by speaking and acting with both innovation and consistency. … part of the initial task of actors chosen to improvise the new final act will be to immerse themselves with full sympathy in the first four acts, but not so as to merely parrot what has already been said. They cannot go and look up the right answers. Nor can they simply imitate the kinds of thing that their particular character did in the early acts. A good fifth act will show a proper final development, not merely a repetition, of what went before. Nevertheless, there will be a rightness, a fittingness, about certain actions and speeches, about certain final moves in the drama, which will in one sense be selfauthenticating, and in another gain authentication from their coherence with, their making sense of, the ‘authoritative’ previous text.”

Read more

Cleaning Out the Idols

Posted on

So I was reading in 2 Kings the other night and read the part about Josiah discovering the book of the law. Here was a culture that claimed to follow God, but they had essentially lost the scriptures as they collected dust in the temple. So of course they had let in all kinds of strange ideas and interpretations of following God. One thing that I found interesting about this passage is who they had to go to to explain what it was they had found. The priests no longer knew what the law was about, so the King found a prophetess named Huldah the wife of the grandson of the keeper of the wardrobe. So in all of Jerusalem only a young woman knew enough about the supposed faith of the people to explain it to the King and was the prophet appointed by God to deliver the message about what he was to do now. Interesting.
So Huldah basically tells the King that God will bring disaster on his people and stuff. Then Josiah read the book of the covenant aloud to all the people and renewed the covenant. Then he went about clearing out the idols from the land and from in the temple. He removed the idols to Baal, Asherah, and the starry hosts from the temple and tore down the quarters of the male prostitutes that were in the temple.
Jerusalem still got their butts kicked by God, but this event should have some implications for today. Many in the emerging church are attempting to read the scriptures anew and to see the idols we have let creep into our faith. The call is to do what we can to remove those idols (while humbly acknowledging that there will always be lenses of our culture through which we view the faith and therefore give us a proclivity towards idols).
So what idols do we worship in the church? Besides the ubiquitous greed/consumerism/capitalism that is the bane of the American church – I see dangers in upholding reason above God and faith, in pledging worship to a flag of a political entity in our church (or schools for that matter), and in pursuing power and not caring for justice, mercy, and humility. Just a few thoughts here… anyone else care to comment or add to the list?

Read more

Marriage

Posted on

So recently I have had a number of conversations among different groups about the nature of sex and marriage. Most of the conversations are with people that make certain assumptions about the two and call those assumptions biblical. While I agree for the most part with the general conclusions that are reached, it troubles me when people assume that their 21st century, American, evangelical ideas are the true biblical ones or “the way it has always been.” How we view marriage today (a loving covenant between a man and a woman that implies longevity, commitment, submission, and love)is a fairly recent concept. For most of Western history marriage was based more on political and economic forces than personal choice. To assume that what we mean by marriage is what the bible means by marriage disrespects history and the context of the biblical writers.

For a brief and interesting overview of the history of marriage in western society check out this article.

As a tangent, one of the historical facts I discovered that fascinated me was the existence of compulsory marriage in Imperial Rome. Augustus imposed fines on single people and thus made marriage a political and economic transaction. So when Paul talks about remining single, he is not just referring to sexual and spiritual issues, but taking a stand against the empire.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Read more

Random Thoughts on Scripture

Posted on

I was reflecting the other day about how I felt more free to enjoy and learn from the Bible these days. I know a good part of that is due to changes in my theological approach to it, but I also realized that growing to see it as a book full of various genres that are all equally important plays a huge role.

Let me explain. It seems that for most of my Christian experience I was around groups that were very into choosing specific verses to apply to things. You had one verse to explain a theological concept, you had one verse to prove an apologetic point, and above all you had one verse that was your favorite or life verse or the one that was really speaking to you at the moment. All the Bible was good, but once you graduated out of grade school anything except the letters of Paul (from which it was easy to grab a verse here and there) wasn’t really considered all that important. This was never explicitly stated, just a feeling that seemed to be given. But while I was good to the whole awana style memorizing scattered verses, it never really worked for me the way it seemed to for others.

But over the last few years, I have felt the freedom to move away from the single verse approach to the Bible and start reading it as a whole. Verses don’t stand alone, but are part of a larger context and must be seen in that light. Also I have felt the freedom to not just read Paul, but to return to the Gospels and the Old testament. It is there that I really connect and find deep personal meaning. And while I was beginning to appreciate the whole of the Bible, I still felt that I should be connecting best with the letters and their theology. It wasn’t until I was at the Emergent Convention this past spring that I really consciously began to think differently. And it was due to a silly mixer game. To reorganize the room our discussion group leaders had us break up into groups according to what part of scripture we connected best with. The listed off various types and pointed to what areas of the room each group would gather in. It forced me to think about it honestly for the first time. I really connect with the old testament narratives – and so do other people – and it okay.

I know this isn’t some huge big deal and I am sure most people would think I’m crazy for not thinking about this before…. but it really took to this point for me to be willing to appreciate that how God speaks to me personally is as valid as how he speaks to others. Anyway, like I said these are random thoughts.

Read more