billarnold.typepad.com

An Authentic Witness

I think the story of the "Woman at the Well" (John 4:1-42) gives us a picture of an authentic witness. The woman is, on some level, anticipating the coming of a messiah and Jesus claims to be that messiah. The woman is impressed by the things Jesus is able to tell her about herself and goes back to town saying, "Could this be the Christ?" (John 4:29)

The way she phrases that question seems to indicate that she is not entirely convinced. Nonetheless, her "evangelism" is effective. The result of this whole interchange is recorded in verse 42:

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

She was able to set them on the path toward personal faith by simply telling them what she knew. She didn't need to have a perfect life or a perfect faith, neither of which exist in my opinion! She wasn't even sure she totally believed what she was experiencing, but she was compelled to relate her experience to others.

How encouraging to those of us who don't have it all figured out! We need not be discouraged by our lack of faith or understanding. Christians often exude a sense of unerring confidence in the "absolute" truths they have learned about morality, spirituality, and the final destiny of human souls (to name a few topics). I think this may often detract from the authenticity of their "story."

Word

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

I observed a classic case of a pastor misinterpreting the meaning of the word "word" on Sunday. He quoted this verse and proceeded to talk about the Bible. This passage can't be talking about the Bible, however, as it it did not yet exist in its present day form. I doubt Paul was even talking about the Old Testament. Rather, I think he was probably commending them for believing that the message he was sharing with them was from God.

This has become a pet peeve of mine. We have gotten in the habit of assuming various things based on our English translations. I think evangelicals need to deconstruct their lingo a little bit and think about how their beliefs compare to what the Bible actually says/depicts.

Absolutely Wrong

This is a follow up to my post entitled "Absolutely True." I'm still open to discussing absolute truth as a general concept, but I would now like to focus in on moral absolutism. The wikipedia defines moral absolutism as "the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act."

Let's talk about lying for the purpose of this discussion. For now, I'm going to define "lying" as "an inaccurate or false statement." (see dictionary.com) It seems to me that there are three ways we can view lying:

1. Making a false statement is always wrong, regardless of the situation.
2. Making a false statement is not wrong if it is done for a higher good.
3. Lying is always wrong, but sometimes making a false statement is not lying.

Absolutely True

What does it mean to say that something is absolutely true? There is a lot of debate about "absolute truth" these days and sometimes I wonder if everyone involved is talking about the same thing. The following is my attempt to give a basic definition of the term and to discuss some relevant questions.

According to Whatis.com, "absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context." To say that absolute truth is always valid means that there are no exceptions whatsoever. There are no instances or situations in which an absolutely true statement can be said to be untrue, in part or in full. We should add that the existence of absolute truth does not have to be dependant on our own observation. In other words, absolute truth could exist regardless of whether or not we experience it as such. As Steve Robiner put it, "An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth."

Doxorthy

This will be my last post in a series based on How (Not) To Speak of God by Peter Rollins. The book has made a tremendous impact on me and I would recommend it to anyone who is willing to think about the way we speak of God.

Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God's love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:7-12)

Commenting on this passage, Rollins says that "those who exhibit a genuine love know God, regardless of their religious system, while those who do not love cannot know God, again regardless of their religious system." (57) One of the most often quoted Bible verses is John 14:6, where Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus is not saying that he is a collection of beliefs about God. He is saying that to be in a relationship with him is to experience truth. To "know" Jesus is to be transformed him. To "know" truth is to be transformed by Jesus (the truth). I put the word "know" in quotes because I am using it in a qualified way. I am not simply referring to "knowing of" or "knowing about." We can make an analogy to the way that Adam "knew" Eve, according to Genesis 4:1. The Hebrew word there is yada and its equivalent in Greek is ginosko, which is the word used in 1 John 4:7 above. Both of those words are euphemisms for sex, which helps paint a picture of the kind of "knowing" we're talking about here. It is a knowing that involves a relationship!

Top 5 Bible Names

This is my list of top 5 Bible names:

1. Oholibamah: How cool is this name? Just say it out loud and it will brighten your day.
2. Zaphenath-paneah: The name given to Joseph by Pharoah. I never would have noticed it, but we have a movie version of Joseph's story and there is a scene where the Egyptians are chanting his name. It definitely has a sweet rhythm to it!
3. Dan: One of Jacob's 12 sons. I feel bad for the one kid who got a "normal" name.
4. Philologus: Not only is this a cool name, but saying it is great exercise for the tongue!
5. Shadrach, Meshach, & Abednego: These three guys get the prize for the coolest trio of names ever. They beat Crosby, Stills, & Nash hands down.

What are your favorites? (You can click here for a list of biblical names.)

Inspiration

My Summer reading has included a fantasy novel by R.A. Salvatore—The Highwayman. I don't read much fiction, but I was in the mood for some good old-fashioned swords & magic type stuff and I was pleasantly surprised that the author tackled a subject near to my heart. One of the main characters, Brother Dynard, is a missionary for a fictional religion. He is sent to the barbaric lands to the south in order to proselytize them. What he finds, however, is that these "barbarians" are quite possibly more civilized than their neighbors to the north. He also discovers that their own wisdom tradition has much to add to what he has already learned from his religion.

He returns to his native land, excited about the prospect of sharing his newfound truths. His goal is not to take away from the "teachings of Blessed Abelle," but to provide his fellow monks with further enlightenment. Here is an excerpt from the conversation that ensues:

"You presume much, brother, to think that we are in need of further enlightenment," Barthelais said slowly and deliberately. "The teachings of Blessed Abelle are not open-ended and inviting of addition."

"But even Blessed Abelle was ignorant of the truths of the Jhesta Tu," Brother Dynard said before he considered his words. As soon as they left his mouth, Barthelais widened his eyes and recoiled, and Dynard knew that he had erred.

"Th-those truths are extensions," Dynard stammered, trying to being [sic] back a level of calm that seemed fast eroding. As he spoke, he uncurled from around the book and slowly presented it to Barthelais. "Contained herein are beauteous revelations that enhance all that Blessed Abelle has taught us."

"Then you are saying that Brother Abelle was not God inspired? You are saying that the words God spoke to Brother Abelle were not revelations of divine truth but merely revelations to him of a truth that already was known to man?" Barthelais shook his head, a sour look on his face. "A truth already known to the beasts of Behr?" (p. 100)

Later on, Brother Dynard asks, "If we are to believe in divine inspiration, then are we to claim sole province over it?" (p. 103) I think this fictional conversation is apropos to the discussion we've been having about the Bible. I have some thoughts but I would like to hear your reaction to the excerpt first.

The Liberty Bible

I'm sure the American Bible Society does some wonderful things, but this is just really lame:

Understanding Scripture: Conclusions

You've got to love cheeky comments like this one:

Now what? What do we do with the Bible? If parts may be wrong, how do we determine which parts? What use does it have in our Christian lives? Or should we just stick it under the coffee table to prop up the broken leg?

In conclusion to my series on understanding scripture, I would like to affirm what I believe about the collection of writings we call the Bible:

1. I believe that the traditional Protestant canon of scripture comprises the best representation of the historic faith, extending from before Abraham's time all the way up to key events in the life of the early Christian church. It is this canon that I refer to when I discuss "the Bible."
2. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and that he has somehow influenced the development of its texts over the course of history.
3. I believe that our interpretation of the Bible must include an understanding of the context in which they were written. This must include an understanding of historical methods for religious discourse.
4. I believe that our hermeneutic can be informed by the practices of early Jewish and Christian theologians (i.e. Paul's usage of Old Testament texts and midrashic methodologies).
5. I believe that the Bible was written, edited, and compiled so that the people of God would have a witness to the historic faith of those who have followed Him.
6. I believe that the story of God is still being written today. The original texts are invaluable in helping us to understand that ongoing story, but God continues to reveal himself just as he has in ages past.
7. I believe that theological reflection must hold the Bible in tension with tradition, reason, and experience.
8. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides us "into all truth." (see John 16:13) I believe that this guidance extends beyond the non-exhaustive pages of the Bible.
9. I believe that the Bible is best interpreted and "lived out" from within the context of Christian community.

I am going to consider this a work in progress and would definitely welcome any comments about what I should add, subtract, clarify, etc. Thanks in advance for your help!

********************
Links to the rest of this series: Understanding Scripture, Jesus and the Old Testament, Prophecy, What Counts as Scripture?, Fuller's Statement of Beliefs, How Was Scripture Written?, The LXX, What If?, Conclusions 

What If?

Here is a quote from Introducing the Bible by John Drane:

It is also important to remember that the Old Testament is quite different in character from a modern book. It is even different from the books that make up the New Testament, all of which had their origin in the same social and religious context as one another. Moreover, whereas we can, on the whole, be tolerably sure of the identity of the New Testament authors, and of the reasons they wrote, the same cannot be said in the case of the Old Testament, and there are very few books for which it is possible to give a positive identification of either a particular author or a specific date. The Old Testament is essentially an edited anthology—a collection of writings by different people, and from different ages....The earliest editions of the Old Testament materials were probably gathered together during the reigns of David and Solomon, who provided the stability and economic prosperity necessary for the flourishing of such an enterprise. (p.18-19)

Dr. Drane (whom I studied under this past Spring) goes on to talk about how the Old Testament was influenced by the people who compiled it. We shouldn't be surprised or feel threatened by this.

The truth is that there is probably no such thing as the 'bare facts' of history, whether biblical or otherwise—and if there was, they would be much less useful than people often imagine. To understand the past—or, for that matter, the present—events need to be interpreted, placed in a context and set alongside other aspects of human experience in order that their full significance might be discerned. (p.20)

The reason why I've quoted all of this is because of a "what if" question that's been on my mind: What if the Bible really did come about in the fashion that many scholars say it did? I'm not talking about secular people who just want to "disprove" the Bible. I'm talking about Christians who want to truly understand it.

Some conservatives feel very threatened by anything that questions their theories about scripture. This should probably be looked at as a normal part of being human. Most of the time, we don't like change...unless it benefits us! But can we put aside our presuppositions for a moment and consider my question?

What if?

What if the Bible was compiled, edited, and redacted over a period of time? What if God never even tried to inspire people to write an "inerrant" text? What if we really don't have all the answers? What if we have to continue to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us rather than thinking we have some sort of manual that lays it all out?

Does that necessarily destroy our faith? Or is it possible that changing our views could actually help us?

By the way, I don't claim to have an airtight understanding of how the Bible came to be, what it's purpose is, etc. A lot of what I say about the subject may be wrong. I do think, nonetheless, that all of us need to consider my question: What if?

********************
Links to the rest of this series: Understanding Scripture, Jesus and the Old Testament, Prophecy, What Counts as Scripture?, Fuller's Statement of Beliefs, How Was Scripture Written?, The LXX, What If?, Conclusions