Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Biblical Decision Making

    My previous post, Does the Bible Condone Slavery?, has produced some interesting responses, and one very valid question is just how I think the Bible should be used in making decisions. I’m going to try to keep this brief, but I’m not very good at that, so bear with me!

    The most common analogy I’ve encountered for the Bible is that it is like a boy scout manual. The problem is that as far as I can see the Bible is almost totally unlike a boy scout manual. The Bible is a book containing a large number of stories, and materials from a variety of documents, often ones written from a different perspective. By assuming the kind of unity that would be expected of a scout manual, we often miss what the Bible is actually saying. For example, which attitude toward foreigners is more appropriate, that of Jonah, in which God saves them even though that makes his prophet angry, or that of Nehemiah who runs all foreigners out?

    I often use the analogy of a toolkit, though this is only one of many. My basis for this starts with Proverbs 26:4-5: “4Do not answer fools according to their folly, or you will be a fool yourself. 5Answer fools according to their folly, or they will be wise in their own eyes” (NRSV). OK, so which is it? Should one continue to forgive over and over again (Matthew 18:22), or should one take the matter to one’s congregation (Matthew 18:15-17)? It would depend on the specific circumstances. I know that I have often encountered cases in which a fool required answering (and what do I do about the command of Jesus not to call anyone a fool?), and many other cases in which the best choice was silence. I take the tool from my toolkit that seems to work best, and I hope I have wisdom to use the right one.

    Further, nobody actually keeps all the Biblical commands, especially those who are the loudest in claiming that they do. Consider the ten commandments case in neighboring Alabama. We had the odd image of Christians bowing down in front of the monument to the ten commandments (I know, they weren’t worshipping it, they were praying about it), and protesting its removal. Removing the monument was supposed to be a major blow to moral values. But the vast majority of the people who were protesting do not keep the command written on that monument to keep the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. I’m sure they have good reason to ignore or alter that command–I don’t keep Saturday as the Sabbath either–but nonetheless isn’t it interesting to place a monument to a command that most seem to agree was altered? Or how many of those people do you suppose have pictures of Jesus on their walls at home or at church? Does the word “image” come to mind? Now I really have no problem with pictures of Jesus, other than that I’ve rarely seen one that has even a prayer of looking anything like the real thing, but certainly at least the Jewish interpretation of one of those commands forbids all images.

    In the area of selective commands, what about Leviticus 18:22, “You will not lie with a man as with a woman.” Now I’ve heard this one proclaimed many times with firm tones or pulpit pounding as appropriate. But I frequently then point these individuals to Leviticus 19:33-34, which says, “33When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (NRSV). When I quote the second verse, I am always presented with plenty of reasons why this is not applicable in modern America, because the foreigners will overrun us and bankrupt the treasury when they all go on welfare. But why is one applicable and not the other?

    I present these illustrations to show that generally those who claim to follow the Bible do, in fact, pick and choose according to circumstances. The difference is that I openly acknowledge that I do it, and I think it is the right way to do things. In fact I’m frightened by people who thing they can and should keep all the commands, because they might actually try to do it! In Deuteronomy 21:18-21, we have the instructions for arranging for one’s rebellious son to be stoned. Is that applicable or not? Both the Jewish and the Christian traditions have dealt with such commands in such a way as to make them more humane, if they apply them at all. Those Christians who are about to complain about my use of references from the Hebrew scriptures should consider Acts 5 and the story of Ananias and Sapphira.

    My approach is to look at all the tools available, and make the best choice for my particular circumstances. This means that in many cases my tools may come from something other than scripture. The Bible provides me with input, but it is not the only source of input that I have. In each case, I have to consider the source of my material, and its cultural background. But the key to my approach in the Bible is simply that I use the scriptures more to teach me about listening to God than I do to discover specific principles. I think that if you can discover where God is headed in a passage, that will be a good principle to work from, but it is often very hard to discover that principle. I have a number of approaches that I use in applying scripture, but the key one is what I call the hanging principle (Hanging Your Interpretation). This simply suggests that since Jesus said that all the law and prophets could hang on two laws–love God and love your neighbor–if your application of a scripture won’t hang there, perhaps you should look elsewhere. Those two laws are widely attested in scripture and in tradition. Because the Bible contains both the ideal and the real, that approach keeps one looking to the ideal.

    But the bottom line is that I simply don’t expect the Bible to make my decisions for me. In other words, I don’t expect to find a specific command for my time and circumstances. I have to make decisions and live with the consequences. One thing that I can see happening in the Bible, in the scriptures of many other faiths, and in a broad range of human literature is that people wind up living with the consequences of their actions. One of the things we accomplish in literature is to examine potential situations, the principles by which one might live in those circumstances, and the consequences of those decisions. Note that I do not limit my study to the Bible, although it is important to me. I also don’t limit my study to literary works. The products of natural science are as likely to produce valuable information to me in my decision making process.

    In this process, I am responsible for what I choose. I reject the excuse that I’m just doing what God commanded. Even if I am doing so, I’m basing the claim on what I believe God commanded. Unless God caught you with a burning bush and told you that I’m right, I have no reason to expect you to believe my claim. When I’m making a decision in the public sphere I should be able to support it with reasoning. I think it’s important to be able to defend claims about public policy to people who disagree completely. I know a number of atheists and agnostics who are unafraid to tell me to my face that they find my belief in God somewhere between silly and incomprehensible. At the same time, I can work together with these people because we often agree on public policy goals–separation of church and state, sound science education including evolution, equal protection of the law, environmental issues, public education, and so forth. We may have come to those views from different directions, but we have learned to dialogue about them.

    So let’s make it simple. I am responsible for my decisions. I look for every form of input I can find, which in my case includes the Bible, I listen to God, I make a decision. Once I make a decision, I take responsibility for the decision.

    In this process the Bible functions in two ways: 1) It provides me with extended illustrations of how others interacted with God, and 2) Because I believe that these people interacted with God, I commonly find that if I remove cultural and time factors from the experience, I may find the ideal principle to which God is leading and thus pursue that.

  • Tradition Criticism

    Tradition criticism is an overview method that encompasses all four of the critical tools I have discussed previously, textual, form, source, and redaction criticism. Tradition criticism differs in that it is an overview process of studying the entire history of the text, looking for ways in which the expressed tradition has changed, and the circumstances that were involved in that change. It assumes an oral stage of the text, and is again not very effective in studying something that was originated in written form without a prehistory.

    In order to put tradition criticism into action, one normally begins with textual criticism, in order to have a good text from which to start the process. In some cases, such as the oracles against the nations in the book of Jeremiah that I referenced previously in my post on form criticism, textual criticism can give us some insights into the history of the tradition as well as helping us accurately discover the final text. Form, source, and redaction criticism each deal with an aspect of the history of the text, but they tend to rather arbitrarily divide the process into discrete stages, each of which is studied by a different method. Tradition criticism tries to bring these stages together, and ask questions such as what was important to the people who told these stories, why did they tell these stories and not others, and how this reflects on their culture and their understanding of history.

    In doing so, tradition critics identify motifs, such as the successful foreign courtier in the Joseph story, the threatened ancestral figure, such Sarah barren or taken by a foreign ruler, or particular types of prophetic oracles. These often combine into themes, such as the overall protection God gives to the ancestral line.

    In understanding how the culture saw its own history, we can come to understand the final product better. For example, in modern eyes, the story of the flight into Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) is either predicted by Hosea 11:1, or Matthew made an error. Now it is clear from context that Hosea 11:1 is not Messianic, and in no way intends to predict anything about the Messiah. But by understanding how traditions were shaped in telling and retelling, such as the exodus from Egypt and the exile to Babylon and return, we can add the option that Christians, in developing this tradition about Jesus, were tying their story into the continuing story of Israel’s experience. Notice here that tradition history is not concerned with determining historicity; it is only concerned with the way in which the story is told and passed on.

    Thus tradition criticism is one of those “forest” types of tools that looks at a broader picture. There is a danger in tradition criticism, just as with form, source, and redaction criticism, that one builds too much on too little evidence. A few conjectures are necessary in historical study, but when conjecture is built on conjecture, the final result can be improbable indeed! Tradition critics must be careful to admit they don’t know when they don’t know.

  • Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

    Ed Brayton, on his blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars, started a bit of an exchange over slavery and the Bible with his post Slavery and the Bible, which was answered over on In The Agora by Eric Seymour in his post Does the Bible condone slavery?. Just so you have the whole story, Ed then responded in Slavery and the Bible, Take 2.

    It seems in this exchange that Ed, who states that he “can no longer accept the Bible as the word of God,” seems to be able to read it with refreshing clarity, while its defenders seem to need to work around what the Bible actually says in order to get it to mean what they would prefer it to. The comments from those giving an “Amen” to Eric Seymour’s response are even more revealing than the original article. I hope you will read the comments as well as the article itself. One poster, John R., states: “I don’t expect, however, this Ed’s unbelief will be alleviated by the truth. When one has put his own moral authority above God’s, there’s not much room left convincing.” But assuming that what John R. has found in the Bible is God’s moral authority, John R. should realize that one can as easily put one’s own authority over that of the written message by weasel-worded interpretations as by simply rejecting a particular concept outright.

    Though my intention is not to deal with the specific interpretation in detail, I’m concerned that this particular defense of the Bible could lead to immoral behavior in itself. It distinguishes between the 19th century American variety of slavery and the Biblical variety as a reason why the Bible might not condemn slavery. That, of course, ignores the difference between slavery as practiced between Israelites (the rules they cite, as Ed correctly notes), and the practice of slavery in the Roman empire which is what Paul failed to condemn. But would Israelite style slavery, i.e. indenture for indebtedness, be a moral option today? Is this really what Christians should feel comfortable arguing? Should we be able to have a debtor sold into slavery, and provide rules to allow how much he or she can be beaten? Is this a moral position we really want to take?

    But back to the subject. If we take the basic approach to scripture that both of these arguments are taking, and accept that if something is condoned in the Bible, then the Bible condones it, then the answer is clear and obvious–the Bible condones slavery. There really is no way around this. People who are convinced that it must not be so will continue to believe that they have somehow chopped up the evidence, but it is still there. Ed can see it. Apparently some of my fellow Christians cannot.

    But let’s take another step down this path. Does the Bible condone or command things that we would consider immoral? I could go through a list of laws from the Torah that would make most modern people shudder. (There are those who think they should apply, which makes me shudder!) But there’s a pretty clear case in Numbers 31. Here the Israelites have attacked an enemy, one that they consider grossly immoral and deserving of extreme treatment. Let’s leave aside any debate about the level of guilt of the opposing party, and simply accept that the Israelites had a right to be angry at their opponents. Assuming this, let’s look at the treatment commanded, and then accorded to the enemy:

    Let’s look at the characteristics of this war (all verses from Numbers 31):

    1. They did battle to execute YHWH’s vengeance (v. 3)
    2. They killed every male (v. 7)
    3. They took the women captive (v. 9)
    4. Well, not quite all the males; they took the little ones captive (v. 9)
    5. They burned everything left (v. 10)
    6. They took the spoil and the captives to their camp (v. 12)

    If any of you are acquainted with ancient near eastern records, this is not an atypical battle. This sort of thing happened all the time. The Israelites are behaving much like their neighbors, with the exception that they seem to have killed a few more people and taken less captive, but even that difference is marginal. There is even an attribution of the authority behind the attack to their god, just as would be fairly common in other ancient near eastern inscriptions.

    Before we go on, let me ask you: Is there any enemy of the United States that you believe should morally be accorded this treatment? To be precise, an enemy whose country we could destroy completely, killing every adult male, irrespective of their specific, personal guilt or innocence and taking all the women and children captive? In modern terms, is this a moral act?

    Well, let’s see what the reaction is to the return of the warriors. Moses is indeed angry at them (v. 14), but his anger is not at how many they killed, but rather at who they left alive. They left alive all the adult women. Here comes the command of Moses:

    17Now kill every boy among the children, and every woman who has known a man by having sexual relations {sleeping with} him. 18But every girl who has not known a man by having sexual relations with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    In the end, it turned out that there was quite a number of female slaves left for the people to have “for themselves.” Continue to read to the end of the chapter to get the story.

    May I ask again, would there be an enemy group or nation against whom you would consider this a moral action, even assuming that nation to be thoroughly despicable?

    So if we ask the question, “Does the Bible condone slaughtering your enemies?” the answer must be “Yes.” Again, this is based on the same type of interpretation that has been used in defending the Bible from the charge of condoning slavery.

    At this point, many of those who are still reading will be thinking I’m about to declare that the Bible is not God’s word, and that I’m going to have nothing to do with it. But in fact I’m a Christian and a Bible teacher, and I love the Bible. What I think is going on here is that we have entirely the wrong set of expectations of the Bible and of divine revelation.

    How do we determine what it is that the Bible is supposed to be? I find that people have quite an assortment of expectations for the Bible, or for any book claiming to contain “God’s word.” Then, based often on those very expectations, they produce interpretations that cause the Bible to say what it is that they want it to say. Clearer thinkers see what the Bible is actually saying and start questioning the foundation, and then either reject the Bible because it does not fulfill expectations, or change the expectations. It’s pretty easy for the latter two groups to condemn one another. Those who reject the Bible claim that those who change the expectations are moving the goalposts, or something similar, while those who change the expectations accuse those who reject the Bible of accepting the fundamentalists’ standard.

    It’s not my intent to condemn anyone here. I think it’s easy to rationally disagree on the point. The problem is that we really don’t have any external standard by which to decide just what God’s word should contain and what it should accomplish. We make assumptions, or create lists, but these are either derived from our own hopes and dreams, or are extracted from something we already regard as scripture. An earnest, well-educated Muslim friend of mine tried to convince me that the Qur’an is God’s word. It was clear that it made him joyful. “It provides an answer for every detail of my life,” he said. I answered that I didn’t find that an attractive feature in a book of scripture. It was really very difficult to discuss from that point, because the question became just what I should want in my holy book. Without a holy book telling you that, just how do you determine what you want?

    (I’ve discussed inspiration in general quite extensively elsewhere. I’d suggest my primary essay Inspiration, Biblical Authority, and Inerrancy, and my inspiration series, which is listed in my Post Series page. This also lists series of posts on Biblical Criticism and on origins. I have found that most people who wander by to condemn me for my views don’t bother to read them in any detail, but I at least have not provided an excuse!)

    So how do I see the word of God? First, I don’t regard the Bible as the equivalent of the word of God. While it conveys the God’s messages, and is an expression of the word of God, the actual word of God is much more than that. The Biblical view is that everything is the product of God’s word.

    6By the word of YHWH the heavens were made,
    And all their host by the breath of his mouth.

    Thus the scientist doing field work is also studying God’s word, specifically a product of it. That is why I am extremely distressed to see Christians doing shoddy science and making poorly thought out claims in the name of science in order to defend some theological preconception. A Christian doing science should do the work with the awareness that he is playing with the product of God’s word. This doesn’t mean that he will discover God by the scientific method. Rather, it means that he will examine an expression of God by that means. (Intelligent design fails theologically, in my view, on precisely this point. All nature is equally the product of God. The idea of detecting God more in one place than another using the scientific method certainly is certainly not a search for the God I know.)

    In the scripture, I believe we have a record, not of God’s pronouncements on all things, though there are some pronouncements, but rather, of God’s interaction with people. There is a human/divine combination in scripture. The people are not perfect. They are not even close. Some are despicable. But God works with them, and we have the record of the interaction. We should not expect to go back to the beginning of our relationship with God and find the same moral standards that we have at a later point. More importantly, we should expect every expression in scripture to occur in a cultural matrix, and to apply to a particular situation. When Romans 13 says that the authorities are given their authority by God so we should be subject to them, we can rightly ask just what were the circumstances that brought for that declaration. In fact, this was Paul’s practical, pastoral advice to the church in Rome at a time when Christians saw Rome more as a defender than as a persecutor. Their fear, at that time, was of persecution by Jews. Later, the fear became changed.

    I use an illustration in my essay (Inspiration, Biblical Authority, and Inerrancy that I think helps to understand what I’m trying to say.

    How the Bible impacts our understanding

    The point here is that the primary method of extracting data from the Bible in modern, conservative Christianity is the picture on the right. The Bible stands between the person and God, mediating what God has said. I’m advocating the approach on the left in which one listens to God directly, as well as through all available avenues, while the experience of scripture enlightens one’s own process of doing God’s will. Dr. Alden Thompson discusses some similar ideas (though he’s somewhat more conservative than I am) in his essay God’s Word: Casebook or Codebook. He also discusses some of these same issues in his book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?.

    Now some are still going to ask how I handle the really nasty material I pointed out from Numbers 31, which is certainly not the only nasty occasion in the Bible. I have no problem there. The actions described are morally wrong. I think our expectations can change over time, and that we need to avoid judging something from the 2nd millenium BCE from our 21st century CE standards. But if you’re looking to the Bible to contain a codebook of good things to do and bad things to avoid, then Numbers 31 is a problem for you, because it involves a command to do a bad thing. For me this says that the Israelites acted in accordance with their culture and time, and that God led them in some ways, while in others they were not ready to be led.

    And to be blunt, I see Paul’s advice on slaves as a practical matter. I certainly don’t expect Paul to advocate a slave revolt. For revolution, you need the possibility of success. A slave revolt in the 1st century would have been a bad idea. The underground railroad in the 19th century was a good idea. Unfortunately when we nitpick through the Biblical commands in order to make them fit a pattern, things don’t work so well. What the folks who started and maintained the underground railroad had to do was discover a moral imperative in their own time and place, using their own minds, and carry it out.

    Again, does the Bible condone slavery? By my view and method of interpretation, “The Bible” doesn’t do anything of the sort. It provides examples of someone condoning slavery. But the Bible is not a substitute for the human mind reading it, or the Spirit of Truth guiding that mind. The Bible can provide light. It doesn’t make moral decisions. Pretending it does will only bring trouble.

  • Redaction Criticism

    After discussing Form Criticism and Source Criticism, Redaction Criticism is really quite easy to deal with. Redaction is simply another term for editing. It is the study of how an editor works the sources he has into a final document, the document that we would commonly refer to as the autograph. Again, it is important to remember that there is no necessity to assume that the final copy of a document as we have it in scripture went through a stage of redaction. The epistles of the New Testament are good examples of documents that would require either no redaction, or would only involve minimal redaction.

    In the Parable of the Sower, elements introduced by the redactor–in this case the gospel writer–include the setting of the parable, the place where Jesus is said to have related the parable, and possibly the interpretation. It is commonly thought that Jesus did not include interpretations with his parables. I would suggest that the form of the parables gives some support to this theory. They are best suited to use in stimulating thinking, without long explanations. But in my opinion that doesn’t mean that Jesus and his disciples never discussed the meaning. Thus multiple applications of a parable could legitimately have arisen during the lifetime of Jesus. The placement of all the interpretations, and some of the interpretations themselves then would be redactional elements. It is unlikely that Jesus immediately followed parable with interpretation in his normal style of teaching.

    Another example comes from Matthew 5:3 and Luke 6:20. Luke 6 reads “Blessed are the poor . . . ” but Matthew reads “Blessed are the poor in spirit . . .” Because of the form of this saying in the Gospel of Thomas, v. 54, which also reads just “poor” it is likely that Luke’s is the more common, and possibly more original form of the saying. Thus the addition of “in spirit” by Matthew (as redactor) indicates something about his theology and his intention in writing his gospel. (Note that use of the Gospel of Thomas is controversial here, because there is some debate on its date and whether it constitutes an independent witness to the sayings of Jesus.)

    To look at an example of sources and redaction, see my essays The Two Flood Stories and Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship.

  • The Locus of Biblical Inspiration

    I was doing my morning reading a couple of days ago from the book of Hebrews. One of the verses that caught my eye this time was Hebrews 2:6-9, and particularly verse 7, quoted from Psalm 8:5 (all verse numbers from the English Bible, Psalm 8:5 is 8:6 in Hebrew). Now this quotation is an excellent example of a couple of translation problems, and though that is not my purpose here, I need to outline them in support of my major point.

    First, there is the issue of translation in Psalm 8:5. Translations split between reading “a little lower than the angels/heavenly beings” or “a little lower than God/the gods/a god.” It’s interesting that mainstream to liberal translations such as the NRSV and REB find themselves in at least partial agreement with the very conservative NASB on this issue. (The NASB’s “than God” is a little less jarring to Christian ears than the REB’s “little less than a god,” perhaps, but both tend in the same direction.)

    In Hebrews, you will find the quotation consistently translated as “lower than the angels” or something quite close to that. The reason for the consistency in Hebrews is quite simple. The quotation is from the LXX (Septuagint), which translated this passage as “angels.”

    The other translation issue of note is whether to translate the Greek “brachu” as “for a little while” or “a little.” The Greek word could possibly handle either interpretation, but the context and grammar tends to suggest “a little while.” Some translations, such as the NIV, try to accommodate the two translations, using “a little lower” in Hebrews 2:7, and keeping the translation as consistent as possible with Psalm 8:5, but adding a footnote to the alternate translation. Others, such as the NASB and the NRSV again simply translate the text of Hebrews without concern for consistency with Psalm 8:5.

    Note here that I’m justing making note of these translation choices, not criticizing any of them. With very little work I could justify the actions of each translation team, and considering that alternatives are indicated in footnotes in many cases, I have no problem. What I do what you to see is that there are a couple of differences between the LXX text as quoted by the author of Hebrews, and the Hebrew text as we have in our Old Testaments. And that’s why this particular verse caught my eye this time through.

    I’ve been writing about Biblical criticism in a number of recent posts. (This isn’t part of that series, but it does relate.) One of the things that got me thinking when I first started looking at the tools of Biblical criticism, especially form and source criticism, was that an author would grab hold of his favorite tool and apply it to every scripture in sight willy-nilly, and with interesting results. Many times the main objections to the use of a critical tool could be eliminated by carefully defining the tool itself and the types of texts on which it could be effective, and then carefully applying that tool only in those places.

    But there was a further problem. Even in the case of texts in which a particular tool applied, many students would use just the one tool and then be done with it. For example, in studying Isaiah, one might use form criticism to define the boundaries and structure of a prophetic oracle, then define it down to a subcategory of oracle, place it in the appropriate setting, and come up with a plausible (hopefully!) understanding of what Isaiah intended when presenting that oracle orally to its original audience. A person dedicated to form criticism as a method of interpretation would stop there. The study of the book of Isaiah was simply a study of a series of oracles. The book of Isaiah itself tended to disappear.

    Another example comes from Genesis 1 & 2, which have some contradictions or apparent contradictions (I don’t care which for the moment) in terms of the chronology of creation. (I mentioned these in my previous post on source criticism.) A source critic may simply respond to these problems by stating that the two chapters come from different sources, and consider the question answered. But we are left with the question of why an apparently intelligent person (and anyone who has studied the literary structure of Genesis must concede that its author is intelligent) would put the two chapters together with such obviously (to us) contradictory content. The fact that he did put the two chapters together suggests that to him they are not contradictory, and that if we understand them as contradictory, perhaps we are missing the point. That doesn’t mean that he may not have had two creation story sources or traditions in front of him as he wrote. It does mean that he understood those sources as compatible and thought that each had a necessary message.

    Many of these problems have been alleviated considerably by the use of such methods as canonical and genre criticism. A good example of the use of canonical criticism is Brevard Childs’s commentary on Isaiah (OTL). This is one I’m studying right now, and it has grown on me as I use it. Childs is really a remarkably good commentator. I would note, however, that this canonical approach to criticism has by no means won the field. Much of the work on the historical Jesus, especially that of the Jesus Seminar, is heavily based on the approach of form criticism, whether that is admitted or not. The starting point for Jesus Seminar material is in breaking the text into blocks on which the analysis is performed to determine just how authentic that saying is. As oral material–Jesus himself didn’t write it down–the sayings of Jesus are well suited to study through form criticism. My topic here, however, is whether such study is all we need to do here. Compare The Five Gospels with Darrell Bock’s Jesus According to Scripture to see both methods in action clearly.

    But back to Hebrews 2:6-9. I think it is clear that the author of Hebrews is getting a somewhat different point from Psalm 8 than was actually intended. Psalm 8 celebrates God, and the position of humanity in God’s creation. Hebrews 2 uses that passage either as a prophecy or a type of Jesus, who is made lower than the angels for his earthly ministry, and then crowned with glory and honor afterward. My modern mind can get a little twisted with that. After all, the author is not doing exegesis, at least not such as would get an ‘A’ grade in seminary. He’s using the wording of the text in a slightly different way than it was intended. What’s more, assuming that since he seems to translate loosely himself in some places, and may well have had the Hebrew text available to him, he is cherry picking his translation to suit his message! What gives?

    In my view, what gives is that he was inspired. We are heavily trained both by a modern worldview to look for the source, for the original meaning, for the oldest form. (However much we talk about postmodern, most of the public still has more “modern,” I believe.) Because of this bias we are quite susceptible to the claims of certain critical methods. Form and source criticism will get us closer to the original. Who wouldn’t want that? The methods are challenged primarily on the basis of results–they didn’t get us to where we thought they would–but not on the goal itself.

    Where did God act?

    I think that’s the wrong question. Perhaps we should more be asking “Where didn’t God act?”

    I’m confident that Isaiah made prophetic utterances orally. I’m confident that they were later written down and collected, and that they were finally shaped into the book as we have it today. As authority in the church, we accept the book of Isaiah, because that is canonical, i.e. that is what we have officially made authoritative. But from the historical point of view, and also based on my interest in knowing how God has worked with people throughout history, I’m interested in the whole process, because that tells me something about God.

    I don’t mind the search for the historical Jesus. I’m interested in precisely what Jesus said. But from the practical point of view isn’t it somewhat odd to try to filter out the voices of the first century Christians who wrote down and collected what Jesus said, and those who shaped the result into gospels, in favor of filtering purely through my own mind? While I do want to know precisely what Jesus said (though I’ll have to wait until the kingdom to actually know), I suspect the filter of the early Christians is actually more reliable than my own. It’s interesting to hear people claim that the early Christians quickly corrupted the teachings of Jesus and at the same time assume that they can extract the true story.

    I think it’s perfectly valid for the author of Psalm 8 to make one point, and the author of Hebrews to use his words to make another. In fact, I think those points are typologically related. Where did God speak? Well, he spoke in Genesis, which was probably in the mind of the Psalmist as he wrote. He spoke in Psalms 8, which is a wonderfully encouraging passage. He spoke again through both the words and deeds of Jesus, especially his death, resurrection, and exaltation at the side of the Father. He spoke again through the author of Hebrews who points us to the change of status that Jesus accepted, and who provides an interpretation of those actions for us.

    I believe God speaks in all these things, and that we can get valuable insights from the whole experience of God’s action in the world. Hebrews 2:6-9 gives us a snapshot of inspiration in action.

    (I ran across this text again because I’m preparing to teach a series on the book of Hebrews from my study guide, To The Hebrews: A Participatory Study Guide. One of the 13 lessons in that volume invites students to look at the use of Old Testament passages in the book of Hebrews.)

  • Identifying Your Gifts and Service

    Identifying Your Gifts and Service is a workbook that I wrote, which is published by my publishing company, Energion Publications. I’m going to write here about how to use that workbook effectively in helping church members understand their spiritual gifts and put them to use in support of the church’s mission.

    Identifying Your Gifts and Service provides the materials for a six session (50-60 mins) Spirit-guided program of exploring spiritual gifts. It can be used in a small group or a whole congregation, but will be most effective when used with the support of the congregation’s leadership. One element of the program is an opprotunity for each student to discuss his or her gifts and calling with appropriate representatives of the church leadership in order to find a place of service in the local congregation.

    The program works in the following stages:

    Introduction: Depending on the prior preparation of the congregation, it may be useful or even necessary to conduct a basic class in spiritual gifts prior to starting the program. A good procedure for this is to study 1 Corinthians 12-14 (don’t skip chapter 13!) along with parallel material in Romans 12:6-8 and Ephesians 4:9-16. There are handouts on the major scriptural spiritual gifts provided in the manual. These are useful for review whether or not you choose to precede the gifts program with a study of the gifts.

    The program itself can be divided into six sessions:

    1. Spirit Led Ministry
      This session introduces the concept of Spirit led ministry, unified under the guidance of the one Spirit. You will revisit 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Galatians 6:22-26 and learn about fruit, gifts, and offices. There is a handout in the manual based on a Power Point presentation. This session can be split based on time, depending on how long it takes to present and discuss the material. (All Power Point presentations are available on CD from Energion Publications.)
    2. Identifying Your Gifts
      This session deals with listening to the Holy Spirit and the role of the Spirit in giving and revealing gifts. The importance of listening is emphasized. A Power Point presentation is available, and the slide handouts are included in the manual.
    3. Small Group Sessions I – Gifts:
      Two exercise involve the students in helping one another identify their spiritual gifts.
    4. General or Small Group Session – Gifts Survey:
      This survey is designed to stimulate thinking about gifts and the ministries in which one can use them. This is not a scientific gifts survey to be used to determine what gifts each person has, but a “thinking tool.”
    5. Small Group Sessions II – Service:
      The students discuss in a structured way how their gifts and calling can fit into the mission of the church. Members are urged to keep the church’s mission statement handy to remind themselves of the vision of their congregation.
    6. Christian Mentoring:
      Optional, but strongly recommended. This session deals with how to guide others into the use of their gifts in service and do so in a Christlike way. The emphasis is on empowering others to work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in unity with the body of Christ. A Power Point presentation is provided and slide handouts are in the book.

    The book includes the contents of a number of the Participatory Study Series pamphlets on spiritual gifts. Before I prepared this workbook, I used to use these pamphlets as handouts. It is much more convenient to have a single manual that contains all handouts in addition to adequate space to take notes. So that you can review the philosophy on which the manual was based, here are the links to online versions of the pamphlets that are included.

    As noted on the Participatory Study Series web site, all of these pamphlets are available to download free of charge and permission is given there for you to print copies as you need them. If you don’t have a printer, you can order them from us, but that is not normally the most economical way to get them.

    Also, at the moment we are offering this class at Gonzalez United Methodist Church. Reports are on the Pacesetters Bible School news blog, and the most recent report is from 3/22/06.

  • Source Criticism

    [Note, 3/25/06 — the original post was truncated due to a syntax error I made in the HTML. This is the corrected version.]

    (Continuing my series on Biblical criticism, from my last post From Criticism.)

    If Form Criticism can properly be called a “tree method” rather than a forest view, Source Criticism might be said to be a “grove method.” It looks at a broader swath of the text than Form Criticism, but still is not looking at the passage as a whole. To see the relationship between these various forms, look at my chart in the pamphlet What is Biblical Criticism?.

    Again, I must emphasize that this tool assumes certain stages of the text, that is a point in time when various literary elements were gathered together into larger documents, which were in turn gathered into the larger document that we have before us. In many cases this textual history will not be true. In a prophetic book such as Isaiah, for example, the prophet made certain proclamations of God’s word. These proclamations were then gathered into a larger document. It’s possible that there were a number of larger documents that were smaller than the final book of Isaiah (1-35, 36-39, 40-55, 56-66, for example), though in the case of Isaiah we discover these documents through literary study of the text itself.

    In Jeremiah, on the other hand, we have direct internal and external evidence of a process such as would be expected by Source Criticism, and so would be studied by this tool. In Jeremiah 36:4ff, Baruch receives some of Jeremiah’s prophetic oracles and writes them into a book. Note, in addition, that this copy of Jeremiah’s work was destroyed, and then was recreated (Jeremiah 36:32). The individual oracles that Jeremiah dictated would be of the general form of “prophetic oracles” (there are many types of prophetic oracle), and the document that Baruch wrote would constitute one of the source documents of the book of Jeremiah. How do I know this was not the actual book of Jeremiah as we have it today? Because Jeremiah ministered for some years after this incident (see 36:1-3 for dating), and we have a record of those incidents.

    Further evidence of sources in Jeremiah comes from the differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic text of the book. I’m not here discussing the differences in length between the two texts, but rather the position of the oracles about foreign nations, which is chapters 46-51 in the Masoretic Text, but is instead located at chapter 26 and following in the LXX. This is not proof that this is a source, but it strongly suggests that we have at least two sources in the book of Jeremiah, one the Baruch scroll, and the second a document containing prophetic oracles against the nations.

    In an earlier post I used the parable of the sower as an example of a parable that is attested in three gospels. Having the same form (parable) in three different larger documents helps us to study the nature of the form. The gospels are even more useful as an example of forms in action. There are blocks of text in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that show very close verbal parallels, suggesting some form of copying one from another. The question is what was copied, and who copied whom.

    These blocks involve text that is in all three synoptic gospels, some that is in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, and some that is in Matthew or Luke, but not in any other gospel. The most common explanation for this phenomenon is known as the two source or two document hypothesis. This suggests that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and an unknown source known as ‘Q’ for ‘Quelle’ which is German for ‘source.’

    You can identify various elements in this system using a gospel parallel. Where you find all three gospels in agreement, you are generally dealing with Markan material. When Luke and Matthew agree but Mark does not, you are dealing with Q material, when Matthew or Luke are alone in a reading, they are dealing either with their own independent material, or with further hypothetical sources ‘M’ or ‘L’. There are cases in which this loose equation doesn’t work, for example there are some elements of Q that appear in Mark, or there can be cases where only Luke or Matthew copy Mark. Note also that this is not the only theory of how the gospels were composed. (For related information see Understanding the Search for the Historical Jesus.)

    Careful source criticism is useful in understanding the history of the text and how it was composed. It can tell us about the people who were involved in creating the text. It is also a necessary adjunct to redaction criticism, which I will discuss in my next entry on this topic.

    There are a couple of dangers in source criticism, however. First, like all critical methods, it often must be based on limited evidence. Speculation added to speculation can get very doubtful. Second, there are cases in which Bible students conclude that they have solved a problem because they have identified the sources.

    As an example, Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-25 are normally regarded as coming from two separate sources. There are differences in the way creation is described, and some potential issues in the order of creation. One response is simply to assume that they are different sources, and thus it’s no big deal that they tell a different story. But that is to miss an important element of interpretation. Even if you believe that the two passages come from different sources, someone seems to have thought they fit together. An interpreter must consider also what they mean when combined. Source criticism shouldn’t be used to shortcut a full exegesis of a passage.

  • The Unforgivable Sin

    The Wesley Daily has posted an entry by Jason Woolever (post-methodist) entitled The Unforgivable Sin. If you read this blog regularly,or if you look over the entries right now, you’ll realize that I don’t post something that just says, “Go look!” all that often, but this is the time for an exception.

    This is a good post! Go read it!

  • Balancing Old and New

    My wife and I often approach things differently. I know that’s a really shocking admission, likely to stun our family, friends, and neighbors. 🙂 We even like different styles of worship services. She tends to embrace new things quickly. I’m rather conservative. I can be persuaded, but you need to prepare a good case first! We knew this when we were going out together. For the most part, it has been one of the strengths of our marriage. It could be a weakness, something to fight about. We’ve learned, however, to balance our approaches, and we find that at different times and circumstances each of our approaches works for the best. Don’t get me wrong, though, there can be some substantial debates along the way!

    Today while I was looking around at some things on the web and waiting for time to go to church (I’m an early riser, she gets up later), I came across an article in Christianity Today, Four Words that Make Me Cringe: What’s so great about their old church back home? And why should I care?. The author, Marilyn Yocum, tells of an encounter with those stories of a parishioner’s “old church” and how it became a positive thing. Go read it. It will make you think about how you respond to suggestions.

    Now “in my old church” can be used as a critical, progress-stopping phrase, just like “we ain’t never done it that way before.” There is a certain desire for the “old ways” when everything always worked so much better than it does now. It’s amazing how our memories filter out the things we’d rather not remember. Once we have survived a situation, we tend to remember surviving, and not the struggle that went into it!

    One of my college professors used to require students of church history to read the book The Good Old Days–They Were Terrible, which presents a much more realistic picture of what it was like to live “back then.” I am always amused, as a student of the ancient world when people talk about what is traditional. Inevitably, what they’re talking about is what their church or community was like when they were a child. And a glowing picture it always is for them. When some want to go back to the 50s, they often forget that life expectancy was much lower, that treatments for cancer and heart disease that we now take for granted were unknown, and that communications that we would find hard to live without were nonexistent.

    There can be an advantage to looking back. It involves learning from experience and being challenged by the accomplishments of the past. But there can also be a deadening disadvantage: We can be held back by what they did not accomplish and what they did not know.

    More than once I have been told by an elderly church member that multiple generations (the number varies) of his or her ancestors were buried in the church cemetery, that they had built the church, and that they would not approve of what was being done with it. It’s really very safe to invoke the dead as support for an argument. They have better things to do now, and we’ve probably forgotten exactly what they were like in any case.

    Let me commend two texts to you:

    “Don’t remember the former things, don’t think about the past.” — Isaiah 43:18

    “Remember the former, ancient things, for I am God and there is nobody like me! I am God, and there is no other!” — Isaiah 46:9

    Classic Biblical contradiction? Go back and read each of those passages. Try reading both chapters from start to finish. I think you’ll see the point when you get the verses in context. And at the same time you’ll see what we have to look for in order to balance the “good old” and the “bad old” and mix in the “good new” and the “bad new.”

    The church is the church of the living. Let the living take all the available ideas from the past, all the experiences, all of God’s leading, and then add all the creative new ideas and excitement of the present, and select the things that will best accomplish God’s work in the present, listening to the Holy Spirit all the way.

  • Art for Fun, Faith, and Profit

    This is a very different sort of blog entry for me. I’m used to writing heavy and sometimes obscure entries on religion, Biblical studies, or politics for this blog. So bear with me . . .

    My wife Jody and I spent a couple of hours today at the Fairhope Arts and Crafts Festival in Fairhope, Alabama. This is a wonderful art show that is popular enough with exhibitors and with visitors that they can afford to be selective in who they allow to exhibit. Artists from all over the country come there to show and sell their work. It’s well worth the time to take a good look around.

    Henry Neufeld at Fairhope Arts and Crafts Festival with Garden Tower

    Cheryl FosterOne of the exhibitors at the show is a good friend of ours, Cheryl Foster. Her business is called C. Foster’s. Cheryl is an artist with a whimsical sense of humor and a wonderful talent for expressing it in art. Her art ranges from ugly mermaids–a humor item that I don’t think I quite get (my wife gets it, and so do many others) to fine paintings. Art for just plain fun is a wonderful thing.

    Here are some of Cheryl’s paintings on display. Note the presence of Dusty the cat sitting on the chair. You can find out more about Dusty on Cheryl’s web site.

    But Cheryl is also a woman of faith, taking as much joy in her faith as in her art. In fact, she also expresses her faith in art. One example of this is her collection of crosses. I have one of these on display in my office, and so do many others among our family and friends.

    This time, however, Cheryl has introduced a new concept–Garden Towers, or scripture theme clay towers. The wonderful pieces of artwork take a scriptural theme and express it in art.

    Garden Tower, vine and fruit of the Spirit

    I am coveting the garden tower that is based both on the vine and branches and the fruit of the Spirit. (I guess that considering it’s about the fruit of the Spirit I should covet it, should I?) 🙂

    Noah's Ark Garden Tower
    Jody really likes the Noah’s Ark Garden Tower.

    And one more picture just to finish this whole description up!

    This is Betty Portzer (right), who works with Cheryl, with my wife Jody.