Musings: Notes From My Daybook

Thanks to my friend Don who passed along a link to the following website.  Richard Beck writes a perceptive piece on how defining our theology through the lens of death distorts our faith and practice.  So much of the time the conflict we have with others does not rest in the actual issue but rather in the assumptions and convictions that lay underneath the surface.

We must begin with a loving revealing God who meets us in the story of Israel and in the incarnation and who continues to live among us in the Spirit if we are to have any real hope of finding our way to Him and to each other.  And if such a statement raises concerns about the Bible I would suggest that if our task is listening to God, then the value of Scripture is only heightened when we stop thinking that the Bible is  statue and case law to be assembled to prove a point.  We honor Scripture when we allow it to do exactly what God intended it to do--point the way to Jesus Christ.

Jim Neal has launched a class at Northlake on interpreting scripture.  Jim is a good student and teacher (they go hand in hand!) and I'm excited about the class.  What follows below is a series of statements that shape the process of listening well to the Bible.  An early version was posted on this blog; however, Jim has improved them greatly with additional reflection from the sources cited at the end of these statements.

 If you would like to see what Jim is up to, then head over to his blogsite for the class.  He as posted some really thoughtful information and quotes.  Click here.

 1. We recognize that the Bible is divine words. Scripture is “of God.” Scripture is God-breathed; it is God-given. We study and obey Scripture because Scripture is divine revelation.

2. We recognize that the Bible is human words. God chose to disclose his will to us through human beings who wrote material in human literary forms. Though Scripture is divine, God has accommodated Himself to human expression, words, and ambiguities. Therefore:

a. Scripture can be misunderstood

b. Scripture requires our best efforts to understand God’s message to us.

3. Scripture is rightly understood as a coherent narrative of God’s work in bringing grace to humanity through creation, rebellion, redemption, and the ultimate communion to come. The Bible contains many voices and speaks in many forms, with tensions, digressions, and subplots, yet Scripture finds its unity in the overarching story of God.

4. Scripture is not an end, but the means to a greater end: entering and nurturing a relationship with God in Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is the tool that God has chosen to disclose his love and gracious kindness to us.

5. Faithful interpretation of Scripture requires engaging the entire narrative: the New Testament cannot be rightly understood apart from the Old, nor can the Old be rightly understood apart from the New. We should read “back to front” - understanding the whole narrative in light of its climax in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We should also read “front to back” - understanding God’s revelation in Christ in light of the history of God’s self-revelation to Israel.

6. The study of Scripture takes God seriously and takes understanding the original contexts of Scripture seriously. We must set Scripture in its historical context in order to hear God’s divine message clearly and accurately.

7. The true meaning of the biblical text for us is what God originally intended it to mean when it was first spoken. So to understand Scripture and thus to hear God’s voice in Scripture, asking the question “what did it mean?” comes before “what does it mean today?”

8. To learn from Scripture we must appreciate the way in which it communicates and not attempt to fit our preconceived notions upon it. This can not be done perfectly. We all have some bias and we all have some limitations.

9. Picking and choosing texts is not an option. Neither is choosing one text, pulling it out of context, and using it as the standard by which everything else must be interpreted.

10. Some things have changed significantly since the first century. For example, we live in a culture where slavery is roundly condemned; Paul lived in a culture where slavery was commonly practiced. Such cultural shifts must be negotiated.

11. Some things have not changed since the first century. Sin is still sin, humankind still struggles for meaning, and God is still at work in the world. Such continuities must be affirmed.

12. We must learn that there are some things more important in Scripture than others - as Jesus himself understood (Matthew 22.34-40).

13. Because we are human we will not all agree on the various interpretations of Scripture. Humility, patience, kindness, and gentleness are indispensable virtues to frame our discussions of Scripture.

14. Interpretation is a conscious effort of spiritual growth, and growth needs the nurture of Christian community. The Christian community provides insight, example, encouragement, and counsel vital to shaping our understanding of Scripture and thus our Christian character.

15. Scripture calls the church to ongoing discernment, to continually fresh re-readings of the text in light of God’s continuing work in the world.

Adapted from:

“Scripture Basics” & “The Bible Tells Me So: A Primer on Bible Interpretation”

Carson Reed, http://www.carsonreed.squarespace.com

“Nine Theses on the Interpretation of Scripture,” The Scripture Project

The Art of Reading Scripture, Ellen F. Davis & Richard B. Hays, ed.

Eerdmans Publishing, 2003

How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, 3^rd edition.

Zondervan, 2003

The case for taking the Bible literally created quite a stir in 19th century America. It was, of course, the popular position to take. The democratic spirit had given great resource to the idea of everyone simply reading the Bible for themselves. The plain and simple sense of Scripture would be plain to anyone who had eyes to see.

So it was quite plain to see for most ministers and theologians in the middle years of the 19th century to thus argue that slavery was perfectly acceptable to God and it would be an affront to the Bible to try and change the institution of slavery. Those who took another point of view and tried to suggest that the spirit of the Bible or the spirit of God purposes would suggest freedom for every person fell on deaf ears and earned the charge of being a person who didn't take the Bible seriously.

I find it so amazing that the cultural forces at work in America had appropriated Scripture itself to uphold a cultural vision that nearly everywhere else in the world had long since been left behind. I think, in a large way, the reason for it was the ability to uphold the institution of slavery by a naive appeal to the literal sense of the Bible.

Having said that, I wonder what cultural factors are at work for us in the 21st century that we either resist or uphold by making similar appeals to the Bible?

The scary thing is that in the middle of our holding on to or resisting we make a mockery of the Scripture's voice to enlighten and guide God's people. In the 1800's the moderate voices that sought to hear the heart of God in Scripture and resisted making the Bible a lawbook were usually ignored. And unfortunately, it was not a theologian or a preacher or even a regular church going person who helped to stay the course. With characteristic humility, Abraham Lincoln himself could speak of persons from the north and the south, "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God."

It is regrettable to see the Bible become the club by which we enforce a way of thinking, rather than allowing the Bible to set a course for freedom, equality, and hope.

People have interpreted Scripture in all sorts of ways. How do we know that we are right? Mark Noll, in his book, America’s God, quotes Nicholas Wolterstorff, as Noll concludes his review of how church leaders that believed that slavery was biblically ordained also held to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Wolterstorff reminds us that “interpretation of Scripture is always caught up within a broader interpretation of reality and experience and responsibility, in one way or another grounding that larger interpretation.”

Noll’s book is an insightful one. He explores in depth the a number of important theological themes from the 1730’s to 1865. Germane to the questions of how Scripture is to be read is Noll’s assessment on biblical literalism in the 1860’s. The focus on the authority of the Bible in the middle of the 1800’s had led to a set of convictions that the Bible was true—literally true. This point of view then led to a wide-spread conviction by people, North and South, that since the Bible was literally true, then slavery was ordained by God.

So, many people, in the years leading up to the Civil War, were faced with the dilemma—either Scripture is literally true, i.e., slavery is right or slavery is wrong and we have to find some new way of thinking about Scripture. Common sense thinking, also a major component to 19th century Americans, found the idea that slavery was a good thing and so a major rethinking of the how the Bible speaks authoritatively was underway. Sometimes life experiences force a new look at the way in which we hear the voice of Scripture.

Unfortunately, the easy and popular thing in America was to assert that the Bible was literally true, accept slavery as something affirmed by God, and then go on with life. People found it easier to live with biblical literalism, than to ask the deeper, harder questions about how to hear and learn the heart of God from Scripture.

A note on a book that recently crossed my desk:

Charles Cosgrove’s book, Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate (Eerdmans, 2002), offers some helpful, hopeful perspectives for hermeneutics and ethics. He presents five “hermeneutical assumptions.” These assumptions are foundational statements that he believes are commonly at work for people in moral argument.

Cosgrove suggests that these rules or principles are necessarily in play in our conversation about ethics. They are:
1. The Rule of Purpose. The reason behind the rule is of greater significance than the rule itself.
2. The Rule of Analogy. Analogical reasoning is appropriate for working from Scripture to contemporary issues.
3. The Rule of Countercultural Witness. Anytime Scripture offers a countercultural move—a move away from the usual self-seeking impulses of society, then there is a moral strength present.
4. The Rule of the Nonscientific Scope of Scripture. The Bibl isn’t a science book.
5. The Rule of Moral-Theological Adjudication. Theological reflection should guide hermeneutical choices between conflicting outcomes.

Obviously, more would need to be said about Cosgrove’s intent and direction with these “rules” to draw any conclusions. However, it does raise this question: How does Scripture shape our moral voice in contemporary culture?