Fighting Biblical Literalism with Literalism?

I'm not a fan of literalistic readings of the Bible in general. There's just no argument from any worldview, in my opinion, that supports this exegetical method. Even if every word was spoken by God and transcribed by humanity, that doesn't mean every word is literally true, as no one (even Jesus) spoke that literally all the time. And even Jesus' words were obviously highly contextualized, so "plain meaning" in our time just doesn't make any sense.

When taken too far, there are some extra special absurdities derived from literal interpretations of biblical text. Therefore, some people like to argue against a universally literal reading of the Bible by pointing out inconsistencies generated by such a reading. I can find this humorous (and appropriate) at times, as it helps keep all of us honest. As an example, one could argue against requiring a belief in a 7 day creation period by showing what else we would have to believe by the same interpretive methodology. The point of the argument is not to promote a particular interpretation necessarily, but to argue against a particular interpretive methodology.

However, then there's other times when I see people fighting conclusions made by literal interpretations by making another literal interpretation after criticizing this exegetical method. This is different than what I described above, as the methodology is undermined, but then the same methodology is used to come to a different conclusion.

Let me give an example. In our Sunday school class, we're exploring Borg and Crossan's The First Paul, discussing authorship and interpretation of the Pauline letters. For those who don't know, Borg and Crossan are squarely liberal scholars. They do not ascribe to literal readings of the Bible. In fact, a central component of their thesis is that only some of the letters attributed to Paul were authentically written by Paul. The rest, Borg and Crossan argue, were attributed to him in a way that often happened at the time. This argument alone helps undermine a literal reading of Paul.

However, part of the way they argue for different authorship is through a literal reading of the texts. They have several examples, but one is the topic slavery, as they see Philemon advocating for abolition (perhaps only of Christian slaves), while reading Colossians 3:22-4:1 and Ephesians 6:5-9 as advocating for the maintenance of slavery. However, the latter verses never explicitly support slavery. They could definitely be read that way (and have been in the past, of course). However, I see both of these as very superficial, literalistic, non-contextual interpretations.

Borg and Crossan's conclusions may be absolutely correct, but methodology matters. At least in this context, I do not find they have a rigorous explanation for their exegesis, as they are relying on a plain meaning of the text, which they clearly do not support themselves.

I find it interesting that some liberal scholars seem to do this. They clearly reject biblical literalism (and have changed their belief structure often in reaction to it, sometimes to the point of rejecting Christianity, like Bart Ehrman), but then use literal interpretations to make their arguments. I wonder if they seem to believe that the Christian community only values literal interpretations and in order to be heard, they have to use that methodology. Obviously, that's not true.

Historically and currently, a significant portion (perhaps even the majority, although they tend to be quieter) of Christians appreciate and value good non-literal exegesis. In fact, demonstrating that faithful Christians can interpret the Bible non-literally and still value it is critical to maintaining the faith of many and even evangelizing to many. So personally, I find it detrimental to the community of faith when those who have rejected literalism primarily use a literal interpretation to get to their points. Biblical literalism has already been effectively discredited for decades, if not longer. Rather than continuing to use it to make our arguments, lets show how good, faithful scholarship can actually be done.

Roman Context of Scripture

In most hermeneutic discussions of the Bible, I've traditionally heard a lot of talk of the Jewish context. That makes sense, especially with the Old Testament. After listening to the historical fiction The Advocate, I am realizing how important knowing and recognizing the Roman (and Greek) context of the New Testament is.

Randy Singer's story revolves around his imaginings of who Theophilus (of Luke and Acts fame) could have been. I realized through the course of this book how little I ever really learned about Roman culture (I'm kind of surprised about this frankly). The audiobook is 15 hours, so it took many days to listen to. During this process and the few days since completing it, I have been starting to view various New Testament passages differently, considering the Roman culture in which much of it (especially the texts attributed to Paul) were written. It helped me challenge some assumptions about interpretation and really pushes against some traditionally conservative interpretations (in my opinion). I have long firmly believed we have to interpret Scripture in the original historical and cultural context (as much as we are able). The Roman context is absolutely central and very unique and different from traditional Jewish contexts. Suddenly, various stories make even more sense.

For instance, the phrase "Jesus is Lord" seems particularly significant in contrast to Caesar is Lord of the Roman Empire. The divinity of the emperor was standard belief, and acknowledgement of his role and power was in that phrase. While I've heard pieces of that before, becoming immersed in a fictional framing of the culture gave the phrase new life. It also reminded me of the particularity of much of Scripture to a particular time and place. Would we say "Jesus is Lord" if the Incarnation occurred today? It doesn't have the same meaning that it did living in the Roman Empire.

Especially post-Constantine, much of Western Christian culture specifically is derived from Roman culture (probably more than Jewish culture). I wasn't familiar with the tradition of the Vestal Virgins; ladies who were married to the state and sworn to remain virgins (until their 30 year duty was completed). Could this have been the precursor to the Roman Catholic nun tradition?

Even the trial and execution of Jesus was centered in Roman culture. Yes, the Pharisees may have brought Jesus to Pilate, but Pilate has a backstory (and Singer's characterization is compelling) and thought process that is distinctly Roman in origin. We mustn't forget that crucifixion was not a Jewish rite. It was Roman with a long history in asserting power and dominance.

One of the more disturbing parts of Singer's book is the vivid explanation of the violence and fundamental lack of value of human life that was prevalent throughout Roman culture. When reading Scriptural references regarding the ways people treat each other and the role of slavery, having a better understanding of what this looked like in Rome (rather than in US history) really helps us better interpret the Bible. Verses that seem to reference a penal substitutionary theory of the atonement are given a completely new clarity in this Roman context, providing a particular framework for people to understand Jesus' sacrifice in a way they could understand.

One of the things that I really appreciated about this story is how Jesus' story was presented as rather tangential for the vast majority of the book. While some Christians may not like this, it really puts context to the initial impact of Christ's life on the Roman Empire--people didn't pay too much attention. Even when Paul is introduced (far past the halfway mark), he doesn't initially seem to be a major player in Theophilus' life. This approach helped me better understand the possible context Paul is entering and speaking to when he pursues his ministry to the Gentiles.

The flow and content of the book was rich and engaging. It's been a while since I listened to an audiobook that I wanted to keep running after my commute was over. David Cochran Heath's narration accentuated this, bringing dynamic life to the characters. The characterizations of famous historical characters and events sparked my interest and prompted me to spend a good amount of time reading even more about Roman history. Again, it's been a while since a book prompted me to do further research on a topic, so I give Singer a lot of credit!

Readers/listeners should remember this is historical fiction, and it is not intended as a hermeneutic guide, as far as I'm aware. But it's one of the stronger Christian fiction stories out there. It's definitely one that is not as cheesy as many and doesn't get too heavy-handed. It takes a fairly traditional view of how Scripture was written, for better or for worse, but I think people of all stripes can enjoy the story as an opportunity to explore a possibility of the origins of Theophilus and the books of Luke and Acts.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Is Biblical Archaeology Helpful to Faith?

When I was living with my grandpa, one of our monthly traditions was to go to a local meeting of the Biblical Archaeology Society. I long have had interest in archaeological findings, as I think it provides a richness and context to a variety of historical narratives. So getting the opportunity to review Discovering the City of Sodom: The Fascinating, True Account of the Discovery of the Old Testament's Most Infamous City was exciting.

Drs. Steven Collins and Latayne C. Scott explore the story of how Collins sought a new location for Sodom and his argument for Tall el-Hammam as the site of biblical Sodom. I found myself regularly tuning out of the first part of the book, detailing some of the historical arguments. While I've listened to many of narrator Sean Runnette's audiobooks, there was a lack of passion to hold interest in more nuanced intellectual arguments (and people who know me know I love those discussions :) ). It felt more like he was truly just reading a paper he knew nothing about. Unfortunately, I'm discovering a lot of Christian nonfiction narration is like that...

The explanations as to why Tall el-Hammam made sense as biblical Sodom was where more of my interest re-arose. Hearing about the historical context and how archaeology can help us better interpret the Bible is helpful.

I also really appreciated how Collins ended his book addressing the various critiques of his work. Some arguments center around whether a biblical Sodom ever truly existed while others debate biblical interpretation. Collins' biblical interpretation centers around a theory of true narrative representation. While I won't claim to fully understand this approach, I think it makes a few too many assumptions demanding the historicity of the biblical texts. I see it being driven more from a perspective of people's faith needing the Bible to be historically true than honestly approaching the texts and how they were meant to be read.

This doesn't mean they are not historically true. I don't see any need for the story of Sodom to be historically true. However, I think those who deny archaeological data supporting biblical Sodom's historicity due to their interpretations of the Bible aren't being fair or honest, either. While I am most definitely not even a novice or amateur at reviewing archaeological material, Collins' arguments make sense to me. His willingness to engage in debate and address disagreement lends credibility. He does seem to want to be academically honest with himself and others.

However, at the end of the day, does it matter whether Tall el-Hammam is biblical Sodom or not? Whether biblical Sodom was historically real or not? The latter may impact some people's respect of Genesis, but I think there's problems with that approach. I'm not sure identifying the physical location and archaeological remains of biblical Sodom really adds much to our understanding of the biblical world or narrative. Other archaeological sites can provide clarity, especially to more important narratives (yes, I'm saying the Sodom narrative is not one of the most critical). Some stories really can be elucidated more by archaeological evidence. But I'm not sure what the value added is to the Sodom narrative beyond it being it being interesting...

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Brain and Theology

Tim Jennings' new book, The God-Shaped Brain: How Changing Your View of God Transforms Your Life, is advertised a bit as the newest exploration into neurotheology. As a psychiatrist, he has appropriate qualifications into the discussion, similar to Curt Thompson and his Anatomy of the Soul, which I reviewed a few years ago. In short, there were a lot of great points made in the book, but they weren't neurotheology or even centrally about the brain.

Jennings' work seems more to be a consolidation of his personal theology with examples from the Bible, his patients, and some neuroscience. His rationale for a loving God is frequently compelling, especially in the context of real-world relationships. He takes quite a literal view and interpretation of the Bible (or at least approaches it that way in his book), but he comes to very different conclusions than many biblicists, which I greatly appreciate. There were many explanations of biblical passages that he offered that were new to me and very moving and compelling. I hope more wrath-focused biblicists would read this book to offer a different option on how to still value the holiness and authority of Scripture while understanding it completely differently.

Ultimately, though, the title of the book seems like a bit of a false advertisement. Jennings definitely has neuroscience in the book, but that really wasn't central. Some of his theological theses weren't even supported by neuroscientific findings or interpretations. It seemed like he had many more anecdotal examples from his practice than brain science. That's not to say the anecdotes were bad; they were excellent and compelling. I found them excellent examples of the importance of paying attention to spiritual concerns while engaging in mental health treatment.

The narration by Sean Runnette was good (I've liked his stuff in the past). He kept me engaged and interested to continue listening. Although I wonder if there would have been a different nuanced emphasis if Jennings did the narration himself. I regularly prefer nonfiction read by the author, especially with texts that can be so personal, as with this one.

Overall, Jennings' work gives some good, multifaceted arguments for a loving, non-wrathful God that desired a relationship with each of us. I've heard many reasons for this theology in the past, but he offered several new narratives that are more moving than mere theology. Unfortunately, the book was lighter on neuroscience than the title advertises, and I wish he wasn't so dependent on a very literal approach to the Bible, which I personally find unnecessary and unsustainable. But this approach may be effective in reaching the people least likely to experience the loving, living Lord.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

A Fictional Incarnation @christianaudio @BryanLitfin

I'm generally not a fan of Christian fiction. It's usually cheesy and/or heavy-handed with bad or lame theology. For some reason, when I got the chance to review The Sword, the first of the Chiveis trilogy, written by Moody Bible Institute professor Bryan Litfin, I was intrigued, albeit skeptical.

The basic premise is that the human race has largely killed itself, leaving small clusters of people without knowledge of technology or Christianity. It explores what happens when a Bible is found and Yahweh (known as Deu in the book) is introduced to the culture.

The audiobook is long (over 14 hours), but it was one that I didn't want to stop listening to. Litfin's writing is engaging, and he does a nice job making the reader/listener care about the characters. What I also appreciated is that the book was not preachy. Non-fiction can be preachy (under certain circumstances), but fiction generally should not be, in my opinion.

There was a section where it could have become preachy, when there was a debate among the fledgling community if the "Sacred Text" should be read with "plain meaning" or "hidden symbolism for the elite." The former was clearly favored by the heroes. However, I think the truth is somewhere in between, not with such dichotomy. At the same time, as the book progressed and the characters deepened their faith, their understanding of Deu and the Bible also seemed to become more nuanced.

In many ways, this particular struggle, along with the initial emphasis by the characters on seeing Deu's overt power mirror the developmental process of individuals and communities along the journey of faith. I was happy to see that Litfin decided not to have Deu demonstrate dramatic, spectacular miracles to bring the people to faith, but rather worked more smaller, incarnational ways.

I also really enjoyed powerful ways Litfin demonstrated the love, grace, forgiveness, and mercy of God while not minimizing his perfection and desire for holiness. What saddened me was the hostility and fear of the clergy from the gods of Chiveis reminded me very much of many Christian communities now and in the past. This book should not just be message for people to follow the one true God, but also to remember how to encourage followers. The message Litfin sends is clear: God transforms through love, not fear.

I think the best summary of my review is that I went ahead and purchased the two sequels from christianaudio (the last one is due out at the end of the month). I'm liking the start of book 2 already.

The Sword is currently available free on christianaudio, and the sequels are available for only $4.98 each for a limited time.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Utter Absurdity of Inerrency @JohnPiper

On October 15, I saw someone retweet something John Piper tweeted: "The prophets give no evidence of ever using "um" or "ah". These are weak, learned fillers and can be unlearned for Christ."

Now, I'm hoping this was satirical, but I don't know. I haven't seen anyone else write about this post, so maybe it was humorous. However, I'm sure someone somewhere believes it. And it demonstrates the absurdity of an extreme inerrency model of the Bible.

For those unfamiliar with interpretation terms, inerrency is the view that the Bible is completely true in every word. The pure form of inerrency holds that it was dictated from God. Therefore, each word (in the original texts) is holy.

If the words really were dictated by God, then this makes sense. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this nor does it even make sense why God would approach Scripture this way.

In contrast, infallibility holds that the message of the Scriptures is true, while certain elements, like exact history or science, do not have to be completely accurate.

Of course, these are gross generalizations of each form, but for summary purposes, there you are.

Back to Piper's tweet. It takes the idea of the Bible being dictated absolutely literally. If it's dictated, and the prophets are the voice of God at the time, then the lack of "um" or "ah" would indicate they were not used by these holy people. However, there are a few problems with this. Most of the writings about the prophets are clearly not meant to be transcripts of their prophecies. Further, even modern transcripts, which would likely be more accurate than ancient ones just due to our ability to record and listen again, rarely include filler words and sounds. The transcript can be accurate and still leave things out.

And then just the judgment that they are weak is absurd. Since Moses had a speech problem, did that make him weak?

When we start worshiping the Bible rather than the Living God, we very quickly lose sight of the message of the Scripture and focus on debating such worthless things as filler words. And dedicate whole blog posts to them...

Remembering Biblical Assumptions @penns1176 @BioLogosOrg

BioLogos posted a great article based on a video of Pete Enns (the same guy who had a great article/presentation on doubt). In the new post, Enns describes how ancient readers and writes had different assumptions and understandings of the world than we do today. And that affects the biblical narrative.

This is an excellent reminder that we cannot approach the Bible with the lens of a modern American person only. We will impose assumptions as to what the text is saying that are simply inaccurate. And then this leads to incorrect interpretation and fights over infallibility and inerrancy. If we take the original context and intent into account and not try to impose our own worldviews on it (won't ever be totally possible to avoid), then we will get closer to God's original intent in the text.

Challenging and Accepting Beliefs

Yesterday, I discussed some reflections on doctrine. During my thinking and struggling on the issue (it's not over yet, by the way), I read Romans 14 as part of the liturgical year in my Mosaic Bible.

If you don't know Romans 14, please read it now. I've read it a couple of times since because it seems so relevant to my current questions and even this blog. In particular, Romans 14:1 is a good summary of the chapter:

Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong.

In crafting my post yesterday, I had this in mind a bit, focused more on writing what I believe rather than criticizing others' beliefs. Okay, so I didn't do great on this, but in some ways it relates to the idea that arguing and needing to defend oneself is not necessarily what we are called to do.

The purpose of this blog is to help people explore their beliefs. I've thought of adding a new tagline: "Deconstructing to Reconstruct." However, I also have long said these conversations are not for new Christians. They're for people who want to take their faith to the next level and really challenge themselves to seek Truth.

It's very easy to get into a pattern of pointing out others' false belief and challenging it. I think I've done that a few times here. However, my goal is not to really call people out, but rather to provide a space to validate others who are having similar experiences, thoughts, and concerns.

In various church groups, I get the urge to challenge and criticize others' beliefs. But there may be a good reason they have them. What is the use of making that challenge? Oftentimes, it just causes strife.

I think of an analogy in terms of psychotherapy. I see plenty of people with a very different set of beliefs about behavior, motivation, faith, etc. I don't simply debunk all of their beliefs. For ones that are immediately damaging and to which they are open, I will present an alternate perspective. I rarely say something absolutely to a client or family, even if it's considered to be absolutely true in the field. It's just generally not helpful.

I need to remember this regarding theology.

Providing opportunities for discussion is important. But I also need to know the limits and let people believe what they will, no matter how unbiblical and damaging I see it.

However, if a lot of these ideas are premised on Romans 14, particularly verse 1, then we also need to focus on the phrase "believers who are weak in faith." What does that mean?

Everyone thinks they're strong in faith. So it can quickly result in spiritual narcissism. "I'm more faithful than so-and-so, so I will accept their immature faith." I don't want to be that person, but I border on it at times (and may just simply be there).

I wonder if we're not necessarily supposed to operationalize that phrase. It may be something everyone is supposed to hear. No matter if we think someone is strong or weak in faith, we need to focus on building each others' faith. And according to Romans, that doesn't seem to be about defining right belief or right action. After all, Romans 14:17-19 states:

For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God, and others will approve of you, too. So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up.

To me, this emphasizes the futility of detailed doctrinal statements. We are to focus on "living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Arguing over biblical interpretation and types of sins does not usually do this...

Women and the Church

Gender identity and social roles has not been something I have been particularly passionate about. Gender definitely plays a role in society, but for me, my maleness does not (at least consciously) play a major role in my personal identity (other things are much more important).

However, recently, I have noticed that I have been feeling more passionate about advocating for women in the institutional church.

There are many ways this is presented. At a basic level, the language we use in our Bible translations can make a big difference. I'm definitely supportive of the gender-inclusive language because I believe it is a more accurate translation of the meaning. And I believe the meaning to be the most important, as I do not take a literal interpretation most of the time.

Further, this type of translation is important because not only can our translations be archaic, but the way the original authors understood things may not be the way God understands things.

In any case, the area I have been having the most frustration is women's titles and leadership. J.R. Daniel Kirk presented a very nice post on women's silence in the Bible and how that does not mean they should not be pastors or leaders in the institutional churches. In many of the organizations I've been in, particularly religiously, women are the most motivated and wisest.

So why do we insist that men are the heads of household, spiritual leaders, and the only ones who can be pastors? Not all communities do assert this, but many do, even if that's not what practically happens because they have better women than men...

The Anxiety of Scriptural Interpretation

Related to yesterday's post on doubt and certainty, one of the biggest areas I see the certainty as a coping mechanism for religious anxiety is in the interpretation of Scripture. This has literally led to wars and murder. This reminds me again of Brink's quote that closed yesterday's post with that the best defense of faith is displaying love...

This is a humorous video that emphasizes how biblical interpretation and theological nuances can become rather extreme and the basis for conflict. This is another humor post that has a very short summary of each book of the Bible.

On a more serious note, BioLogos often addresses biblical interpretation, particularly regarding Genesis 1 and 2, which I personally think get way too much emphasis put on them in this regard. In any case, this is a nice post exploring literary versus literal interpretations of these chapters. I appreciate how BioLogos emphasizes that even literary interpretations do not reduce people's faith and worship of the Lord...

I also like this post, part of a series on interpretation after inerrancy. The author does a nice job summarizing how non-inerrant views were actually held by some of the most respected Church leaders over time.

And then there's the age-old (or 2000-year-old) fights about the God of the Old Testament and New Testament and the various ways of interpreting the texts to reconcile the two. Keith Giles wrote a very interesting post on this topic.

Proof-Text Poker

I've been having trouble keeping up my blogging as my wife and I have been house hunting among other things (there's always excuses, huh?). But there's a lot of good stuff I've read I'm hoping to share.

This was a particularly good devotional taken from Eldredge's The Sacred Romance. I love the emphasis on the drama of life and that being a more appropriate way of approaching the Bible. Much better than "proof-text poker," as Eldredge so beautifully describes the way we often approaching biblical interpretation.

What do you think?

Saturday, July 03, 2010 A "Propositional" Christianity We have lived for so long with a "propositional" approach to Christianity, we have nearly lost its true meaning. As Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen says, Much of it hinges on your view of scripture. Are you playing proof-text poker with Genesis plus the Gospels and Paul's epistles, with everything else just sort of a big mystery in between-except maybe Psalms and Proverbs, which you use devotionally? Or do you see scripture as being a cosmic drama-creation, fall, redemption, future hope-dramatic narratives that you can apply to all areas of life? (Prism interview) For centuries prior to our Modern Era, the church viewed the gospel as a Romance, a cosmic drama whose themes permeated our own stories and drew together all the random scenes in a redemptive wholeness. But our rationalistic approach to life, which has dominated Western culture for hundreds of years, has stripped us of that, leaving a faith that is barely more than mere fact-telling. Modern evangelicalism reads like an IRS 1040 form: It's true, all the data is there, but it doesn't take your breath away. As British theologian Alister McGrath warns, the Bible is not primarily a doctrinal sourcebook: "To reduce revelation to principles or concepts is to suppress the element of mystery, holiness and wonder to God's self-disclosure. 'First principles' may enlighten and inform; they do not force us to our knees in reverence and awe, as with Moses at the burning bush, or the disciples in the presence of the risen Christ" (A Passion for Truth). (The Sacred Romance , 45)

HOME · MISSION · EVENTS · STORE · COMMUNITY · DONATE · MORE privacy policy · contact us © 2010 Ransomed Heart Ministries. All rights reserved.

Biblical Context

This past week there were two good (and very different) blog posts about biblical interpretation and the importance of context.

The first is from BioLogos on lack of evidence intra- and extra-biblically for inerrancy. The thing I love about BioLogos and this particular post is that they challenge our traditional assumptions, but do not give up on the sanctity and holiness of the Bible. It's just approaching it differently.

So many people take hard-line stances on things like biblical interpretation because they feel that if their particular method of interpretation is wrong, then their whole faith disappears. This doesn't have to be the case, which is a major purpose of this blog... And unfortunately, taking a hard-line stance often removes context from interpretation, which actually makes our faith less accurate, in my opinion.

The second article is by Dan Kimball, in which is uses the analogy of Scary Mary applied to the Bible. I'd never heard of Scary Mary, but it's a remix of scenes from Mary Poppins to make the movie look terrifying. Kimball includes the video in his post, so you can see it there.

It's an excellent analogy, though, of how removing the context from a excerpt of something drastically changes its meaning. Yet we do that frequently with the Bible, to the detriment of everyone...

"Plain & Simple" Interpretation of Bible and Nature

A lot of my posts recently have been related to biblical interpretation. This first article is focused on the Bible and science, specifically in the context of evolution. I don't want to get into the evolution debate here, but the article discusses some excellent points. In particular, I like the following quotes:

Secondly, regarding Scripture itself, although Augustine and Calvin deeply trusted the Bible as a witness to Christ and the Gospel message, they did not feel any deep need for Scripture to provide dependable insights on everything in human experience.

And

Their temperament towards Scripture was very different from what prevails nowadays in pop Christian culture, where it is casually assumed that the Bible is a fool-proof guide for everything … not only for leading us to Christ and right living but also for elucidating the scholarly facts of astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, psychology, and sociology as well as the practical facts of success in marriage, parenting, health, and personal finances.

This second article does an excellent job of exploring the idea of the "plain and simple" message of the Bible and our flawed approaches to a simple understanding. Specifically, I like this quote:

The Bible is written in plain and simple language to the common man – the common man of the ancient Near East, not the common man of the modern Far West. To put it plain and simple, my “plain and simple” is not the Bible’s “plain and simple.”

Sola Scriptura History

There was a question about Sola Scriptura from another post of mine, and my response became so long, I decided to make it into another blog post. So here it is:

There are people who would only believe something if it were stated in the Bible. The problem is that is not the original intent of Luther's Sola Scriptura.

Luther's development of this theological point was in reference to the Roman Catholic Church asserting various theological truths based on tradition. This was usually done with a political purpose, including maintaining the power of this institutional church and its leaders. As Luther began investigation Scripture, he argued that not all of these theological points were accurate, but the church once again argued against him based on tradition and threatened his life more than once.

Therefore, in contrast to a tradition-based theology, Luther went to the other spectrum, stating that we should only develop theology based on Scripture. That's why he also advocated for all people having the right to read the Bible (previously, only priests were able to do so). He made the first German language translation in order for the masses to be able to read the Bible and therefore challenge beliefs based on tradition.

This is the origin of why many Protestant churches advocate that everyone own and read the Bible and why many Protestant denominations are less hierarchical than the Catholic Church.

The problem is that many people have taken it to the extreme, arguing that if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth. Further, interpretation of the Bible is done out of context. Again, if we hold literally true to Sola Scriptura, then we need not understand other things like psychology, sociology, history, biology, physics, etc. in order to understand Scripture. This obviously creates many theological and interpretation problems, yet many Christians do not even realize they have faced these problems. This article describes some of these problems, too.

We need to interpret the world around us through the lens of the Bible, while interpreting the Bible with the information gleaned from the world.

Luther's Incarnational Gospel

This weekend, I found a neat plaque with a quote from Martin Luther, saying "God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars."

Anyway, I really like and agree with this quote and find it quite interesting that it comes from Luther. As many people know, Luther advocated Sola Scriptura, stating that we only use Scripture to come to conclusions. I wrote an earlier post challenging this theology, too.

Assuming this quote really did come from Luther and is not a popular misattribution (Googling it seems to show that it really was attributable to Luther, although I don't know the original source), I think it emphasizes that followers of various leaders and theologians may not understand them correctly. Even before Luther died, many people misinterpreted his work and took it to disturbing levels, which included the deaths of many people. We need to be aware of our potential misinterpretations of various theologies.

Sola Scriptura is one of them. I think it's really important to remember the other ways God writes and shares the Gospel. It's not just in the explicit text of the Bible. And we must remember that the world around us influences our interpretations of the Gospel. How and where have you seen the Gospel?

Set Apart

Last week, I discussed the love one another verse in Leviticus and a way of looking at Leviticus other than the legalistic way we often approach it.

This past week, Luke 6:27-42 was part of the devotional liturgy in the Mosaic Bible. This is the passage on loving your enemies. As I was reading it, I thought back to the Levitical love passage and blog post. This is another passage that is often approached legalistically, with people sometimes literally saying to have people whack you on both cheeks.

I'm not sure Jesus was advocating a literal adherence to this way of loving our enemies. This time reading through it, the passage hit me more as a way of living out the "love one another" command and setting ourselves apart from the rest of the culture. The culture at the time of Jesus was not very loving. There was a lot of hierarchy and abuse (including quite literal, physical abuse). So engaging people in a different way was as a significant a difference as the ways the Israelites were commanded to act in Leviticus in contrast to the other Canaanites. Frankly, in Jesus' time, living out Leviticus would not have really been that significant as a way of setting believers apart.

We are a much more loving society, at least on the surface. Treating people fairly is expected (again, at least on the surface). Are we really asked to become doormats and walked all over. I don't think so. Rather, we need to love people radically in ways that are holy and biblical and are different from the rest of the world. This is not to say that loving people in the ways of the world are inappropriate. We just need to do something more, too.

I'm honestly not totally sure what this would look like. I have some ideas, but I'd rather hear what some of yours are.

Misunderstanding the Fall and Hell

This video from BioLogos and this one from Out of Ur are provide excellent summaries of the misunderstanding of the Fall that many Christians have. I've discussed this a couple of times previously, but this presents some of it in a clear, concise way.

It really is important to note that much of our understanding of Heaven, Hell, and Satan come from Milton's Paradise Lost, not necessarily Scripture.

Following God & Hearing God's Voice

I heard a message this weekend on John 10:1-21. This is the famous passage about Jesus saying "my sheep hear my voice." I've heard this passage be preached on many times, and honestly, I've never been particularly satisfied with any interpretations.

Namely, most messages on this seem to be quite an oversimplification. Most people do not address the complexity of following God and hearing his voice. This is an incredibly nuanced aspect of our relationship with the Lord. Frankly, it's something that probably cannot be adequately addressed in a single sermon. Full books are written on the topic and still seem like an oversimplification.

Have you encountered this also? Have you heard a good message on the topic that addresses the complexity and richness of following and listening to God?

Annoying Biblical Mis-assumptions, Part 2

So in following up from Friday's post, here is my other annoying mis-assumption. As I think about the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids (Matthew 25:1-30), I can only think of hearing it interpreted as, "You better be ready for the Second Coming, or you'll go to Hell." Pretty scary. So if I fall asleep or have a bad day, and Christ returns, then I'm screwed.

I can see this interpretation. If the passage stands on its own. I read it a little over a week ago during the Advent season in my Mosaic Bible. The theme of the week was Preparation. Such a theme makes sense in the week leading up to Christmas. And this passage does address being prepared for Christ.

However, what does "being prepared for Christ" actually mean? I usually have heard it in terms of having right belief (see my post from last Thursday regarding that mis-assumption, too). However, taking the parable in context, particularly paying attention to the following parable, may lead to a different interpretation. The following parable is that of the Three Servants (AKA the Parable of the Talents).

Both parables begin with Jesus stating, "the Kingdom of Heaven will be like" or "the Kingdom of Heaven can be illustrated by." Sure, that can mean post-death, but there's a lot of evidence that the Kingdom of Heaven is also present on earth right now. Think of the Lord's Prayer: "Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."

I think a more appropriate interpretation of these two parables is actually more works-based than faith-based: Christ is calling us to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth now, not to simply wait for him to return and to change it. We won't do a perfect job, but we need to do what we can. That's where the beauty of faith, life, and the Kingdom is.

What say you?

Annoying Biblical Mis-assumptions, Part 1

Over the past week I have come across two classic assumptions of biblical texts that I am questioning. I have not studied the texts in an in-depth academic way, so I cannot be sure, but these are my thoughts.

Luke (the writer of the Gospel of Luke) was a physician. It is often argued that we need to pay extra attention to his work because he was clearly detail-oriented and well-educated in a formal education because he was a physician.

The problem? Physicians are not always detail-oriented (I work with several). Further, from my understanding, physicians often did not have formal education until the last 100-200 years. This arose as people realized that physicians needed to have scientific bases for their work in contrast to an apprenticeship model that had a wide variety of length and quality. The establishment of Johns Hopkins medical school in 1893 provide the basis for the model we have today.

I don't know how medical education worked in Christ's time, but assuming it was the same as today's is a major problem. I would guess it was more similar to the process of a becoming a blacksmith. Or a carpenter...

The other assumption I ran across was the interpretation of the ten bridesmaids story. But I'll save that for Monday...