Some very interesting points. It’s only fair that Herold Weiss, whose book Creation in Scripture I publish, would disagree with some of John Walton’s views, while affirming the broader ideas about how to read an ancient text.
(HT: Allan R. Bevere)
Category: Bible Study
-
What Could Be More Dangerous than Liberalism?
If you let your eyes wander up to the header you’ll see that my tag line includes the word “liberal” and not in a negative light. I’ve even written about being a liberal charismatic believer. So if you’re wondering how I can use both labels at once, follow the link. But in certain circles, “liberals” make good enemies, you know, the kind of enemies that you know will help make other people your friends—the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
And so Adrian Warnock points to a post by Micah Fries, titled simply Fighting with Scripture. In this post he speaks of the joys of being Southern Baptism following the conservative resurgence, and how nice it is to know that those around him embrace infallibility and inerrancy. In this portion of the universe, the old enemy, liberalism” has been laid to rest and it is easy to ridicule, at least in these sanitized domains. Now my point here is not to beat up on Southern Baptists. I do not consider those who believe in biblical inerrancy to be either worse Christians or scholars than those who do not. In fact, I hope that more moderate and liberal theologians will read and engage with conservative scholarship. I do like to make the point that those of us who see biblical inspiration differently are not the enemies, and may have something to contribute as well.
Just a couple of lines from the post:
Liberalism, of course, reduces God’s word, and in doing so attempts to make a mockery of those who would dare take that word at face value. It assumes a position of great authority, in fact it could be argued that it assumes a position of greater authority than scripture itself as it attempts to “rectify” the “errors” found in the bible.
When I see “of course” in a sentence like that I must confess that it gets under my skin a bit. You see, I don’t think I “reduce God’s word.” Rather, I attempt to understand God’s word as clearly as possible. I don’t “make a mockery of those who would dare take that word at face value,” in fact, I try to avoid mockery. (There are those who assume that disagreement, especially vigorous disagreement is mockery. I’ll just have to live with that.) But still, the issue here is not whether to take “God’s word” at face value. The question is just what that face value is.
Let’s illustrate this for a moment from Genesis, the great controversy these days. I’ve just edited, and my company has published, a book titled Creation in Scripture by Herold Weiss. It takes a look at the various ways in which creation is discussed in scripture. What it taught me as I edited it was how much more there was to the “face” of what the Bible has to say about creation than most people realize. There are major texts in scripture that are rarely part of this discussion. Many people who try to discuss creation see a “face” of God’s word that is like viewing a large mountain through the trees. You see a little bit of the mountain where light gets between all the trees. But the mountain is more than what you see in that way.
And how do I get the face value of scripture? Do I read Genesis 1 & 2 as a 21st century citizen of a scientific era? Do I try to get into the perspective of someone from the ancient world? The face looks considerably different depending on which of those perspectives I take.
My intent here is not to demonstrate what particular view is better, but rather to show that the simple statement that “liberalism reduces God’s word” is somewhere between inadequate and false. It’s inadequate in the sense that it doesn’t do justice to what moderate and liberal students of scripture do when studying. It’s false because very often the liberal interpreter is actually seeing more of the “face” from which the “value” is derived.
This reminds me of my discussions with KJV-Only advocates. They refer to any word or phrase that is present in the KJV but not in a modern version as something that has been removed from scripture. In vain does one point out that the best Greek manuscripts do not have the word or phrase in question, and that one might just as well say that the KJV added it to scripture. What are you taking as your standard? More importantly, how are you using and applying that standard?
In order to have valuable discussions of these points we need to state the questions a different way. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals understand scripture differently. We need to discuss passages on that basis, and examine our hermeneutic first. It’s often valuable to take a passage that is slightly less controversial and ask how we look at that passage. We may well continue to disagree (doubtless in many cases we will), but perhaps we would have a better understanding of why and how.
I share the concern of the authors I linked with reference to legalism, though I don’t think the accusation that it is “adding to scripture” is the best way to address it. I suspect legalism is more a matter of where we place things in our thinking and acting. Having just taught from Ephesians 2 and done preparation to teach from Ephesians 3, I see a fairly clear relationship between grace and action. It’s not that legalists do too much, though some do, it is that they place rules and their actions in the wrong place in their relationship to God. Grace, God’s grace, comes first.
In pursuing correct theology, I think we often fall into the same danger. We make theology our works and become legalistic in terms of what people should believe. But placing barriers of knowledge and belief ahead of grace is just as damaging as placing barriers of action. We can get into the position of earning God’s favor through getting things right just as easily as through doing things right, and often with even greater damage.
Legalism will not be defeated by making sure people’s theology of grace is thoroughly correct and orthodox. Legalism is defeated by grace in action. God’s grace, and yes, God’s grace displayed through God’s people.
-
Brannon Howse and Justin Peters Dissing Visions
The following video comes from Worldview Weekend, and is a conversation between Brannon Howse and Justin Peters. What’s interesting about this post is that pretty much every accusation they make against modern people who claim visions of or visits to heaven could be made against various Bible writers.
In fact, they run into this difficulty in the middle of the video, just after 8:00, when they are criticizing Jess Duplantis for referring to God as having fingers. Suddenly they remember that the Bible also refers to God as having body parts, so they bring out the metaphor defense. Of course, that is a very good defense — it is metaphorical language. But why can’t Jesse Duplantis use metaphorical language?
They refer to Paul’s statement that he heard things he couldn’t speak of when he was taken up into the third heaven, and thus suggest no modern person should do so. Can anyone say, “Revelation?” Yes, they notice Revelation as well, but apparently don’t notice the problem.
The fact is that if you want to find weird things, you can find plenty of them in the Bible itself. My intent isn’t to defend everyone who claims a vision of heaven. I just don’t see any reason to exclude such modern visions if one accepts, as these men do, that such visions were ever possible.
I’m putting the video below the fold to keep it from autostarting on views of the home page.
-
On Camping: Do Errors Result from Lack of Theological Education?
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Seminary California, says that it does, according to the Christian Post. Dr. Godfrey, who was in the youth group taught by Camping at Alameda Christian Reformed Church, says that Camping reads the Bible like an engineer, lacks knowledge of the original languages, and doesn’t know how to read literature, especially ancient literature.
I would have to disagree–with the conclusion, not the facts. Indeed Camping does not read Greek and Hebrew, lacks formal training and theology, and to some extent reads the Bible like an engineer. On the last point it seems to me that a competent engineer should be able to discern when he is not reading an engineering text, i.e., the pieces just don’t fit together as and engineer would expect them to. There’s something else going on that causes him to force the Bible to fit a certain mold.
I’d suggest it’s a combination of a belief in inspiration–a high view of scripture, in fact–combined with a 20th century modernism in which scientific, mathematically precise knowledge is the best kind of knowledge there is. The Bible is the best book, so it must produce the best kind of knowledge. With that mindset carried to its extreme, the Bible must produce the kind of information Camping extracts from it. If it didn’t, it couldn’t be inspired, an unthinkable result.
As I noted earlier with regard to time setting, though Camping carries this to extremes, other interpreters are guilty of similar errors, such as trying to force biblical texts to produce advanced scientific knowledge they were never intended to convey. Dissatisfied with the spiritual message of the Bible–challenging enough in itself!–they search for “better” knowledge.
But are Camping’s errors the result of a lack of formal education? Certainly he makes calculations that seem nonsensical to those who read the Bible in its original languages with knowledge of its historical and literary context. So yes, there are errors that result from a lack of knowledge. But one can find plenty of errors committed by people with doctoral degrees as well. Different errors, yes, but still errors.
I think the headline (both mine and the one at the Christian Post) does a disservice to what Dr. Godfrey said. He comments later in the article that Camping “refused to learn from Bible scholars” and adopted a “proud individualism.” I’d say that a refusal to learn from others, not just from Bible scholars, would be the most basic problem.
There are plenty of sources from which one can get historical and literary information about the Bible. Doubtless such information was available to Camping. Yet he did not submit his work to testing and critique by others and listen to what they had to say.
In the participatory study method (described in my book Learning and Living Scripture, co-authored with Geoffrey Lentz), the final step in Bible study is sharing. By sharing, Geoffrey and I do not mean going out and letting everyone know what brilliant insights you have gained from your study. Rather,
You do this both to give others the benefit of what you have learned and to benefit from their comments and perhaps corrections.
As you study and question, find something to share. Remember that sharing can be in the form of a question. For example, one might ask others how they understand a particular word, such as “incarnation,” “poverty,” or “atonement.” Take notes on their answers, and bring that information back to your study.
Then ask yourself what your neighbors will hear when you make particular statements, such as “I must be bold for Jesus!” or “Jesus is the only way to receive atonement.” Do those statements mean something to them? Do they mean the same thing to them as they do to you?
This is part of contemplatio, as you try to be and do the text. We often think of sharing primarily as telling someone things that we have learned. But if what you learned is that God loves prisoners, for example, you might find that the best way of sharing that lesson is to become active in prison ministry.
Sharing demonstrates that you don’t believe the text is your private possession. It is God’s gift to the Christian community (p. 14, emphasis added).
Whether you lack a high school diploma or have multiple PhDs, humility, and teachability, is your best protection from getting stuck in error(s).
-
Book Notes – Revelation: The Way It Happened
When I encountered Lee Harmon in cyberspace, or more precisely he encountered me, and I learned that he’d written a book about Revelation, I was immediately hooked. Besides, Revelation – The Way it Happenedis such an interesting and suggestive title. Let me warn you that, as usual, this will be less a review and more thoughts and notes on the book and on the topic.
I grew up on Revelation. Well, Daniel and Revelation. As a young Seventh-day Adventist I would hear a new series of evangelistic sermons on the topic at least once a year. We’d all go, because we obviously didn’t want to have the venue (often a tent) be empty.
And each year I heard an updated message. Revelation meant something just a bit different as all the charts and events were rearranged to suit the current news, and the evangelist would explain how precisely current events fit the right moment in the prophecy.
It took me a few years, but I began to notice the problem. When I decided to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church, eschatology was one of the key issues, along with the doctrine of the remnant which in turn derives from SDA eschatology.
There are four major streams of interpretation of Revelation: preterism, historicism, futurism, and allegorical. Preterism holds that all or most of Revelation was fulfilled at the time (or failed of fulfillment). Historicism sees long periods of history represented by the main portions of the book (churches, seals, and trumpets especially). Futurism hold that most or all of the book remains to be fulfilled. The allegorical view comes in a variety of forms, but generally holds that the symbols in Revelation may be used to represent events at many times and places, but are not predictive of specific times and events for the most part.
SDAs keep historicism alive. The problem is that when the scheme used was first produced, it led nicely through history up to that time (the “great disappointment of 1844), with a relatively short “time of the end” coming immediately afterward. Even after the great disappointment, when SDAs took the position that they had been wrong to set a date and time, but still assumed that the end would come very soon. (To get a more detailed rundown on this issue, in fact a very detailed one, see Edward W. H. Vick, The Adventists’ Dilemma.)
A similar issue is present for futurists, in that the various players and the details of end time events change as time moves forward, even though they don’t have the problem of a timeline that stretches from the 1st century to the present, and must in turn be stretched further to accommodate continuing history. Futurists nonetheless have to contend that John the Revelator (whoever that was) had a vision of far future events which was attached to a short letter about current events written to contemporary churches, and that there was a gap of at least a couple of millenia between the two. Though Revelation 10:6 proclaims “no more delay” this interpretation proposes a great deal of delay indeed. Of course, once one places the declaration that there will be no further delay into the context of a much delayed prophecy chart, one can avoid the contradiction, provided one is flexible enough.
So that leaves us with preterism, which has most of the book refer to events contemporary to its author, and the allegorical view, which often doesn’t attach the material to much of anything.
My own bias is in favor of an allegorical view, but one that is rooted in 1st century events. Thus I see Revelation 12 as an excellent depiction of spiritual (and political) conflict no matter when it happened, but I also accept a historical grounding in the birth of Jesus and the church.
Having rambled thus far, let’s get to the book. I usually list strengths first and then weaknesses, but so I can get on with the fun, I’m going to list weaknesses first.
If you pick up this book thinking you’re going to get a scholarly dissertation, complete with full examination of all the views and plenty of footnotes, you’ll be disappointed. It’s a presentation of its author’s interpretation with a few references to other views, and very little in the way of footnotes. There’s a good extra reading section, though I’ll confess it doesn’t match what I’d recommend in many cases. It’s still a good listing. There are many books on Revelation, and it would be shocking if two lists coincided completely.
On the other hand, if you pick up the book thinking you’re going to be carried gently into understanding the book via light fiction, you’ll also be disappointed. There are multiple threads, one of them a contemporary story within a story (a father telling his son a story), interspersed with commentary and some historical narration. Font and style indicators guide you through all of this, but you’ll probably feel a little bit scattered in the early stages.
Having said all of that, let’s get to the strengths. The writing is clear and direct. It’s really easy to follow the story lines once you get them straight in your head, and despite my note about a lack of footnotes, there is no lack of references to biblical and other literature from the time.
One of the great errors Bible students make is that they expect to be able to go read Revelation on its own and come to some sort of understanding. The book is filled with quotations and allusions, some very close, some more distant. But there are very few words in the book that don’t connect somewhere. Harmon does a good job of referencing much of this material.
I was especially gratified to see the extensive use of the connections with Ezekiel, which often don’t get enough attention from modern futurist commentators. Of course Daniel is also important as is Zechariah but so are many other books. Getting a feel for the symbolism also requires use of other apocalyptic literature, and Harmon provides quite a number of references.
I have been attracted to the 70s or 80s dating that Harmon uses myself, but I remain unconvinced. I think it’s a possible dating, but my main criticism of the interpretation provided may be an excessively close tie between the imagery and real world events. It’s possible, but I think it is a bit of a stretch.
Overall, I’d say that while I find several specific theses in the book questionable, it’s a good read and it provides enough references to primary literature to help set you on your way to some rewarding study. My hope would be that readers of this book will turn to those primary sources and help change the way Christians speak about Revelation.
The fact is that we’ve been proclaiming “soon,” in the
sendsense of “just around the corner” for so long, that it no longer sounds very convincing. If people did this in any field other than religion, we’d call them liars. There’s a way to understand “soon,” but this isn’t it. If the futurist interpretation of Revelation is correct, one would have to suppose that God lied to those who first heard the words. We need to rethink the way we teach prophecy, and do it less as prediction and more as admonition.The purpose of apocalyptic is encouragement at a time of trouble. There is encouragement there that can apply at any time and place. There is also an ultimate hope. But the reason to carry out our mission as Christians, Christ’s body in the world, is not that Jesus may come and end it all at any moment, but rather that Jesus is already near and our own end is always near. And because Jesus is near we can face our own hardships and ultimate passing from this world with hope.
I believe in the “resurrection of the body and the life everlasting” as the creed says. But I don’t believe that the passage of time is the main issue. Whatever the length of time until the end, God is present.
In the meantime, you could do much worse with your time than read this book and let it challenge you to further study.
-
Life Application Study Bible (NLT) Giveaway
I have had this on my Participatory Bible Study blog for a few days and so far there is only one entry. Contest ends Monday. Check it out!
-
William Barclay Commentaries Dangerous
So declare the Catholic bishops of Vietnam. I find it hard to see why, but that’s because I don’t think books that teach doctrine different from my own “dangerous.” I would call a couple of paragraphs in Barclay less than fully accurate, but there are some paragraphs that are positively brilliant, which is all one can expect from a popular, largely devotional book. If you’re wondering what I might call inaccurate, I do think he smooths the rough edges of some of the more difficult passages, and not always in full accord with the intent.
But my point here is neither to criticize the Catholic church, nor to criticize or praise Barclay and his series of commentaries, but rather to note that this isn’t about any one denomination. Despite a slogan that includes “open minds,” I’ve encountered a number of cases in United Methodist churches where material from other denominations was deemed dangerous. In one case curriculum material written by a Baptist was deemed dangerous, because it, well, it was hard to tell. Mostly because it was Baptist.
In another case, a young adult class was disbanded because they were reading and discussing dangerous books. A replacement class was formed that would hold the young people to the straight and narrow. The result? The class went from a full room to an empty room (yes, zero attendance) in less than a month.
What I would say is dangerous in Christianity is a mindset that would consider Barclay’s commentaries dangerous. Debate the views, consider some of them wrong–absolutely. That’s good experience in discerning (Hebrews 5:11-14).
-
Wesleyan-Arminian vs Calvinist Self-Identification
I found this interesting article at Baptist Press via the Methoblog’s Twitter feed. The article discusses an apparent divide between the Southern Baptist Convention and other denominations on how many pastors, particularly young pastors, are identifying themselves as Calvinists. One interesting note is that while identification as Calvinist outside the SBC is not increasing, identification as Wesleyan or Arminian is decreasing over this same time period.
Now I have to confess that my first question regarding such a report is just what the methodology was. Usually when you dig down to the actual questions, you find out that a survey doesn’t produce quite as much information, or at least the type of information that reports indicate.
In this case the human tendency is to say that this indicates there are more Calvinists and less Wesleyans or Arminians around today. And that may indeed be true, especially including all denominations. But it’s important to realize that this report didn’t define any of its terms; it simply asked about self-identification.
That’s important. I’m wondering how many of those questioned are knowledgeable enough to properly classify themselves. I’ve encountered a few United Methodist pastors who couldn’t identify all of the five points of Calvinism, and thus would have a hard time determining whether they were Calvinist or not. And considering that there are five points of Arminianism, which actually predate the five points of Calvinism (as a form of expression, not as theological beliefs), I have to wonder how many pastors (not to mention lay members) could actually tell an interviewer just what it means to be Arminian.
I have found even more in the charismatic and pentecostal streams who don’t acknowledge any connection to their Wesleyan roots, if they are actually aware of them. This results in some interesting theological mixes in charismatic and pentecostal thinking. One that I find most interesting is that eschatology derived from dispensationalism is quite popular, while other views associated with dispensational theology, such as cessationism, are excluded.
I’m not saying one cannot produce a similar eschatology without resort to dispensationalism, but I certainly have not seen it done very well in most Wesleyan, charismatic, or pentecostal writing or teaching. (Caveat: I have not done a thorough survey of the literature. That’s something I’d like to do at some point. This is anecdotal.) It is nonetheless interesting to watch people grab random pieces of Daniel, Isaiah, Joel, and other books, mix them with 1 Thessalonians, Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, and mix them with Revelation, without any real framework for just how the text should be interpreted in its original context, and what is the proper framework to use in connecting them. While I do not accept classical dispensationalism (more modern progressive dispensationalism seems hard to reject outright–it says so little!) I must admit that it does provide a fairly stable framework on which to hang these various texts.
I recall one class I was teaching on Revelation, in which the students insisted I dedicate a class to teaching about the tribulation. While I do believe there will be troubled times before the end, I do not believe in a “Tribulation” in the sense of a seven year period. In any case, I made my best effort at bringing in the texts while not actually lying about what I thought of the relationship between them, and the class got pretty glassy eyed as we looked at each one. I would note that most of them still accepted the tribulation at the end. They were well steeped in the “Left Behind” series.
But I must reign myself in and return to topic, or at least somewhere in the vicinity of the topic. I’m wondering what others have experienced. Is self-identification accurate in terms of Calvinism and Arminianism? How many people who identify themselves as “neither” might simply not know enough about the roots of their current theology? How many are identifying with more modern movements derived from one or the other? (I think this latter idea would be more likely for Wesleyan-Arminians than for Calvinists.)
Finally, how many think they have transcended this debate in some way? I’d be interested in comments or links to blog posts on the subject.
-
On Character, Discontent, and the Old Testament
I have somewhat of a tradition of reflecting somewhere on my blogs about books I am about to publish. So today I want to look at Allan R. Bevere’s new book The Character of Our Discontent.
Allan is a primarily New Testament trained preacher who has decided to take on some major passages in the Old Testament in preaching to his congregation. In turn, he has collected them to share with others.
My friend Alden Thompson, who is author of Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?, also from my company, generally leads off weekends of discussion of the Old Testament with a litany of the reasons that people don’t like the Old Testament. He then takes a look at the Old Testament in the New, and especially in the teachings of Jesus and then he’ll say something like: “So you may not like the Old Testament, but Jesus did!” Now he says it so nicely that nobody is offended, but he certainly catches people’s attention.
I specialized in Hebrew and ancient near eastern literature, so I tend to lean toward the Old Testament in my own study and teaching. But amongst those who teach outside the seminary, that is all too rare.
I had a conversation just days before I accepted this manuscript for publication. A pastor with many years of experience lamented the lack of collections of good sermons, sermons that could provide an example to new preachers. I had to agree with him. In my experience, many people end up as pastors with much too limited knowledge and experience in some of the basics. I think preaching is better taught in most seminaries than subjects such as prayer, spiritual gifts, or even church management, but nonetheless there is a great value in having more material that covers some of the basics. So I found this combination irresistible, even though sermon collections often have poor track records for sales.
There are two values in this collection that I want to emphasize. First, these sermons introduce some Old Testament characters and situations in a way that is easy to understand. They are worth reading on their own. This book isn’t heavy reading. You could read one of these sermons for a quite reasonable devotional. Second, they provide examples for people who may be afraid to start preaching from the Old Testament because they didn’t specialize in it. Now these are not sermons that come from hasty or light preparation. What they are is solid sermons that come from a non-specialist who put in the time to produce a good sermon on each topic.
The presentation is easy to follow. The illustrations are good and to the point. You’ll find yourself directed to some good resources as you read. Allan doesn’t try to solve all the problems of Old Testament interpretation. What he does is apply some of the principles and lessons of these passages to the people found in the pews today.
I’ve mentioned some books that I agonized over before publishing. I’ve even had some I expected would offend some folks. I didn’t have to agonize over this one. I was certain almost from the start that I was going to publish it. Oh, it might offend you in some places, though if so I’d take it as conviction. Some of those Old Testament characters provide quite a challenge to our very un-heavenly way of life here in the American church.
So if you’ve been neglecting the Old Testament, here’s a chance to remedy that situation. My wife tells me that she feels that before she started getting involved in reading and studying the Old Testament she feels she was missing out on half the power God had for her in his Word.
Or, as Dave Black said in commenting on the release of The Character of Our Discontent:
An Old Testament-neglecting Christian is a contradiction in terms.