The Once and Future Scriptures - The Bible and Liturgy (pt 6)

This post continues my look at The Once and Future Scriptures edited by Gregory C Jenks. Here are my thoughts on the into and first chapter, the second chapter, the third chapter, fourth chapter and fifth chapter. This post will be dealing with the next chapter.

Marian Free - Chapter 6 The Bible and Liturgy

Marian starts off by pointing out that their are holes in the liturgy. For example Luke 19:12-27 doesn't get a mention in the three year Sunday services (p 95-96). I agree that there are issues with missing texts in liturgy. I have been looking at a 2005 weekday lectionary and there are holes in it. I think the Biblical texts already have an agenda and to cut out bits from it only creates another agenda. The church should be preaching the whole council of God. Free points out that many congregations are ignorant about the content of the Bible as they are not given the tool to help make sense of it (p 96). Free says that the primary place in which believers encounter the Bible is in the liturgy and then for the rest of the chapter exclaims it.

Liturgy & Forming Identity
I do like Free's assessment of the liturgy. The Scriptures are essential to it and so it is where Christians gather to hear the Word and worship God (p 97). One of the Bible's role is to help form and maintain the identity of the faith community (p 97) and that "the Bible is a communal document written by and for particular communities, and continually interpreted by and for those communities of faith" (p 97-98). As the stories of the Bible is told and retold they become the story of those who hear it (p 97). Yes, as we learn about the overarching Biblical story line, God redeeming His people for His purpose, we see that we are included into this story. Everything is going well, then Free says "in this setting the historical accuracy of the Bible is not relevant" and we meet the Jesus of faith as much as we meet the Jesus of history (p 98). If the story of God redeeming His people for His purpose is not grounded in history, then I think we should all do something else on a Sunday. The Jesus of faith, is the Jesus of history. I am reminded of something historian (and Christian) Dickson said in The Christ Files: Christianity has placed it's head on the chopping block of history and lets anyone take a swing. If we can not see ourselves as part of the true, real, historical story of the Bible, then what story are we becoming part of? I kinda don't want to live for a non-historical, or a-historical story. The good ones are the true ones.

Free correctly points out that the communities story has been used to misinform and dis-empower others. "Misinformation leads to mis-formation" (p 99), but does not go on to say how we can avoid this and by what standard we can claim that someone has misused a Biblical text.

The Lectionary
In this section Free points out both advantages and disadvantage of the lectionary. One advantage is that it forces communities to look at an even spread over the Bible and not favour one bit over the other (p 100). On the disadvantage side, I agree with Free, the breaks up can seem a bit arbitrary and like in the liturgy similar stories and parables are sometimes skipped over (p 100). I found the point interesting that when these passages are skipped over it may "lead to a false understanding of the story and of the history of faith" (p 101). It seems history is important after all... Free expands on the issue of breaking up the text; it sometimes doesn't fit the natural break in the passage (p 101-102) and how sometimes the text is pushed into a season (Advent, Epiphany, Easter, etc) and not used chronologically (p 102). I agree with all this.

Free then points out that "The Revised Common Lectionary restricts the choice of reading to passage from the Bible" (p 102) as if that is a bad thing. In the past sometime "lives of saints and other non-canonical texts were included as part" of the service (p 103). Free has already stated that it is the Bible that shapes the community, not other non-canonical texts, so I don't see why this "restriction" is such an issue. Why don't we also include some of the best selling books to our regular diet to be more contemporary with culture? If we did that, we would still be restricting some other category of books that we didn't use, like say Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto... Since I am an Anglican I deem the Bible containing all things necessary for salvation, so I am happy with this "restriction". Of cause this doesn't restrict the preacher from using materials from the lives of saint, or any other non-canonical material (including extreme right and left texts) in their sermon. In fact, it would be good if they had more references and citations.

The Sermon
Free points out some of the difficult in the preachers task to expound on the Scriptures. They have to move from the original language, the context of the book and its historical setting and then apply it to today (p 103). (Note again, the importance of history in this task). The preacher is to draw out the meaning of the text (p 103) and shouldn't dumb down the text (p 104). I agree that it is important to wrestle with difficult passages as it will help model and equip the congregation in how to deal with the Bible (p 104). It is a bad thing when preachers focus on personal and social issues and not the Biblical text (p 104). The cliche statement is mist in the pulpit, fog in the pews.

Free doesn't like if the congregation has to leave their intelligence at the door before a service and would like more preachers to do justice to the complexities of the text and not feel threatened by scientific discoveries or critical scholarship (p 105). I also agree, but with caution as to how much stress we put on these "new" discoveries over the Bible. Like all things science, things are contented in the next generation, so we shouldn't get too caught up in them. Science is after all based on faith, hopefully it agrees with reality and be true, but note it is not the standard of truth. We have something else for that... Also on the complexities of the Bible, I do think preachers need to wrestle with texts to explain them well, but I also hold that the scriptures are clear and that anyone can read it and will be able to understand the main driving point behind it. Even if a preacher does mess up the sermon, the person in the pew still has a Bible (at least in this country) of which they can read and understand themselves. If we had more educated people in the pews, then maybe they would hold the preacher to a better standard.

Challenges & Conclusion
Free points out that in post Enlightenment times the value of the Bible has been diminished (p 109). With numbers declining there is a challenge for the church to simplify its message and play to the lowest common denominator (p 109). Wrapping up this chapter Free says that the liturgy is thee one place in which Christians regularly encounter the Bible (p 109). I do hope that the Sunday service has an emphasis on the Bible, but I would also hope that Christians also encounter the Bible every (or most) days. Like critical scholar ship, the liturgy is just one tool that the Church has. There are daily lectionaries, Bible reader apps and plans, daily devotionals etc... that anyone can us to help them read the Bible. Our Church should be examining the true (and historical) story and provide resources to help everyone to do that.

Free ends with a great question: "Do we want to search for the meaning of the biblical text, or are we content to read meaning into it?" (p 110). May we always continue to do the former, and not the latter.

Read More

The Once and Future Scriptures - People of the Book (pt 5)

This post continues my look at The Once and Future Scriptures edited by Gregory C Jenks. Here are my thoughts on the into and first chapter, the second chapter, the third chapter and fourth chapter. This post will be dealing with the next chapter.

Susan Crothers-Robertson - Chapter 5 Scripture and Formation for Ministry

"Hear...Read, Mark, Learn and Inwardly Digest..."

The first section, and bulk of, this chapter is framed by the words from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer where it states that we are to hear, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the words of Scripture. This framework is not bad at all. 

Under "Hearing" Susan recalls students first experience with the Anglican Morning Prayer at her university. I have to say that her description is one I can relate to. I attend what some would call a "low" Anglican church as we don't celebrate the Lords Supper as the central part of the service, instead we deem the hearing and preaching of the word as that. We also don't physically carry Prayer Books into our service and so I have no idea how to navigate one. When I attended my first residential they had Morning Prayer, and I was one of those students who was lost. I had no idea how to navigate the Prayer Book (and I still have no idea what each of the coloured bookmarks mean) and throughout the service I was flicking pages and looking onto the person next to me. As Susan points out the purpose of the Morning Prayer is to assist in us reading the Bible, but sometimes the structure it is awkward. She correctly asks after the Morning Prayer service if what was read was really heard and listened to. Did the reading make a difference? (p 82). I agree that we should "actively listen, and hear" the scriptures, letting go of ourselves (p83) and our agenda.

For the "Read..." section Susan points out that Morning and Evening Prayer is a challenge and is only done because it is expected of them. Positively, over time it does become part of their life as they are taking part in something bigger than themselves, something people all over the world is doing (p 83-84). Susan identifies as "people of the Book" who read and read and identify with the God in the Bible(p 84). I take this to mean, as Anglicans we read and read the Bible as the Morning and Evening Prayers are from the Anglican Prayer Book. I am happy as an Anglican to also identity as someone of the Book and that the God of the Bible is our God (p 84). (Don't get me wrong, other denominations are also "people of the Book" and have the same God, I am just saying that when I do the Morning Prayer, I am in solidarity with other Anglicans who are doing the same thing).

In the "Mark..." section Susan points out that we are to use our minds to mark the Scriptures. We are to thinking about the context, thinking critically "taking the Bible seriously, even if not literally" (p 84). Susan is shocked and surprised sometimes with how her students interpret the Scriptures. 

"For instance, they no longer believe in the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Yet when it come to the Scriptures they often interpret them in a certain literal, fixed and rigid way" (p 85)

I think taking the Bible literally does involve thinking critically. Like other writings we should work out the genre of the text and mark if it is an allegory, history, poetry, parables etc... so to be true to the text some bits are literal, and some might just be imagery. We shouldn't impose the form of the text on itself. I think the text was originally written in a certain literal, fixed way to convey a point. We should always be seeking the original intent of the text (just like when reading anything else). 

Susan sees her role in giving students "mature theological lenses"and to read "various forms of biblical scholarship" (p 85). Critical thinking shouldn't be balked at, but rather encouraged. This hopefully will bring about transformation in their lives "with a living, critical faith" (p 86). This sounds good, but it is light on specifics. Does having "mature theological lenses" mean we see the inspiration of God in the scriptures and that we should then humbly submit to the text, even if it goes against our agenda and Sunday School faith? Or does it mean we are to stand over the text and decide which bits Jesus really say, and which bits were really written hundreds of years retrospectively to appear to have been prophecies? One method really hears and marks the Scriptures and transforms lives to it, another one gives credit to human wisdom and transforms God to conform to it.

Under "Learn..." the challenge of critical thinking, as pointed out by Richard Briggs, is that we have pushed "the epistemological bar higher and higher. How do we know? How can we be sure?" (p 86). This I would argue is not critical thinking, but sceptical thinking. Stating ex-Anglican J. I. Packer as a scaremonger because he said seminaries leave the Bible behind and develop their own theologies which then sends out people to teach what they were taught (p 86). Susan even said that Packer saw the teaching of students this type of critical thinking is a violation of Article 20 (p86).

Now, Article 20 says that the Anglican church is not to "ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." Packer may be right only if people are taught contrary things to what the Bible says at universities and if the student goes on to be part of the Anglican system. Educational facilities should be open to all forms of critical thinking and positions, but the Anglican church is entitled to make sure it's historical position (and identity) is not compromised. Biblical criticism is a wide area, and it is good to learn and seek technical meaning from Scripture. Susan has a good point at the end of this section where biblical criticism could extinguished the spirit of prayer and devotion. We shouldn't elevate Biblical criticism in place of our living faith, but we can use it as a good tool to further it.

In the last subsection of "Inwardly Digest..." Susan asks some great questions about ordination candidates and if they are letting the Word lead their life and getting them to respond to it. Concluding this section Susan points out that "Balancing Scripture, reason and tradition is a sensitive yet necessary art for people of faith" (p 89). This is true and how we balance or order these in importance shows where we place the final authority for our lives.

The Scriptures and Anglican Identity

Quoting Muriel Porter, the 39 Articles were drafted under Queen Elizabeth I to deal with theological controversies of the time (p 90). And that Anglicans affirm that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation and that Scripture is meant to be accessible to all people, not just the elite (p 90). All very good, then Susan says that just because the "Scriptures are central to our worship this does not make them 'infallible', but rather they are open to criticism, interpretation, and discussion" (p90) and that "the Bible does not stand alone, independent of its context" (p 90).  Yes, just because the Bible is central doesn't necessary make it infallible, but I think the framers of The Church of England's position of the Bible was that it was infallible so therefor they made it central to worship. We shouldn't remove the English reformation from it's own historical context. With this in mind I agree that we should see the tradition in which we are formed "impacts in how we read and digest the Scriptures" to lead us to the Living Word (p 91).

Hearing, Once More...
Susan paints another picture, like her introduction, only this time it is the end of the year and the students are familiar with the Morning Prayer service and as a community they really "hear, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" the Holy Scriptures for the day (p 91). This is good picture. I think I can relate to this transformation towards the Morning Prayer. I think it is a worthwhile thing, so much so, I am currently building a website that will hopefully generated the Morning (and in future Evening) Prayer service form the 1995 Australian Prayer Book...

I do hope all ordination candidates have the same conviction of their Anglican for fathers who today speak into how they are to place the Bible in their lives. As Thomas Cranmer said about holy Scripture:

"the most sure and plain way [to settle a theological difference] is, to cleave unto holy Scripture.Wherein whatsoever is found, must be taken for a most sure ground and an infallible truth;" (p 10)

"But the true Catholick faith, grounded upon God's most infallible word, teacheth us, that our Saviour Christ (as concerning his man's nature and bodily presence) is gone up into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and there shall he tarry until the world's end, at what time he shall come again, to judge both the quick and the dead, as he saith himself in many Scriptures." (p 39)

May that Anglican Church continue to embrace this tradition and let the words of scripture bear much fruit for God's glory.

Read More

The Once and Future Scriptures - Searching for Jesus' God (pt 4)

This post continues my look at The Once and Future Scriptures edited by Gregory C Jenks. Here are my thoughts on the into and first chapters, the second chapter and the third chapter. This post will be dealing with the next chapter.

Nigel Leaves - Chapter 4 Scripture, God-Talk and Jesus

Human Words about Who We Think God Is

Leaves starts off in the class room of an Introduction to Theology course where the:

"lecturer is likely to announce that the Bible is not the literal Word of God and then go on to explain that it is a collection of literary documents reflecting diverse historical/social contexts and containing the writings of human authors engaged in search for God" (p 63)

This all sounds good, assuming that you think God hasn't come down to us, but instead think we somehow need to reach up to God. If God did not reveal Himself to us, then yes the Bible would be our human attempts at scratching around, trying to figure out who He is and what He is like. But, instead of us trying to search for God, God came and found us and revealed Himself to us. Here is an example: you may not know what I look like, my middle name, or my age and you can try and guess my ethnicity and age from hints throughout this blog, but if I showed you my drivers licence you would then know for certain as I have disclosed that information to you. Once it is disclosed, it would be silly to try and search for what my ethnicity, age and middle name is. Same with God.

In my experience in an Intro to Theology subject (at St Marks) it wasn't quite like how Leaves explained. However, my first assignment was to engage with four articles across the theological spectrum (Goldingay, J; Jensen, P; Migliore, D & Schneider S) to which I did read some statements that there were some mistakes in the Bible. Their examples were pretty weak as when I was looking up these mistakes there was a reasonable comment in the footnotes of the source explaining them, I didn't even need to read outside the main source to resolve these "mistakes".

Leaves laments the way Dawkins and fundamentalist read the Bible, to which I agree. Historically and grammatical context is important with any writing, not less the Bible. Although Leaves does think some of the traits of God "rightly deserved to be shelved" but then in the next paragraph has a go at people who 'cherry-pick' biblical texts (p 64). Again stressing the Bible as an attempt for man to reach out to God Leaves put in italics: 

"the Bible contains the breadth and complexity of human response to a Be-ing that must forever remains beyond the creative comprehension of the human mind" (p 64)

Yes, God is completely other, there is no one or thing like Him. But just because we can't know Him fully doesn't mean we can't know Him at all. The reason why we can know God is because He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible. Again, the Bible is not a human response to God, it is God's response to humans.

Leaves quotes a bunch of guys on saying how God in God's self is unknowable and a mystery (p 64). These guys are talking about the immanent Trinity, of which I agree. It is a mystery how God's interior life between the Persons function, but lets not confuse that with the economic Trinity. In the economic Trinity we see how God relates to us, and we can know this as it has been revealed to us by Himself (and it is not just an attempt a humans trying to understand and respond to God).

Again, the Bible is described as being a holy book "because it abounds in thoughtful people's ideas about the nature of Holiness." (p 66). If that is the case then J.C. Ryles classic, Holiness, must also be considered a holy book. I wonder if given some time Kevin DeYoungs, Hole in our Holiness, will come to be considered a holy book? After all, he is a thoughtful guy who was writing about Holiness... 

Leaves does end this section asking the right questions about understanding the text. We do need to work out the original context and the life settings (p 66). However, when he reaches the conclusions that there are errors in the Bible because of this investigation and that the reader is left to decide over the text which parts of the Bible is obsolete, seems to me the reader hasn't understood the text and shouldn't then stand over it. When we are deciding what parts of the Bible are "obsolete", I would suggest that we let the Bible itself decided for us...

Human Words about Jesus Become Words about a Divine Jesus

Leaves makes the statement that "it must be admitted that the New Testament consists of human words about Jesus" (p 66) and that this point of often forgotten. The fact that it is in a human language might give it away, but sure, it is good to nail this point down, as long as we don't forget the inspiration of Holy Spirit in these human authors.

Again, like previous chapters in this book, the questioning of Jesus' divinity as believed by the eye witness is doubted as this was a later development in Christology (p 67). Looking at Phil 2:6-11 Leaves says this was written about 10 years after Jesus' death and shows that "very soon after Jesus' death Christians had begun to transfer the language usually associated with God to the person of Jesus" (p 67). I would agree, in fact Thomas "very soon" after Jesus' death called Jesus "My Lord and My God" (John 20:28). In light of Thomas' statement the quote from Karen Armstrong in Leaves includes stating "that there was a distinction between kyrios and God" (p 68) seems unimportant as Thomas called Jesus both.

Leaves says that with the earliest Christians "Jesus-talk became God-talk" (p 69), which I don't disagree with, because Jesus is God, and for some, it was only after His resurrection that it became plain to them.

God-Talk in the Bible
In this short section Leaves says "the Bible cannot be understood without some appreciation of its theological biases" (p 69). Knowing this implied or underlying theology in the Bible helps us to understand Jesus of Nazareth (p 70). I agree. We need to understand the original intent of the writings and their agenda. We shouldn't superimpose our own on to the text.

From Jesus to God, Not Vice-Versa!
Leaves struggles with the idea that Jesus though Himself to be God and trying to work out what Jesus was thinking is futile as we can not get into the inner workings of His mind and we can not get into the of the an author (p 71). This is only true if the author doesn't disclose what they were thinking, or what the people in their writings were thinking. What we should do is read an authors work and see what they say. After all what they do say comes from their mind, and so this revelation at least can tell us an idea that they had in their head. John 8:58 has Jesus saying that before Abraham exited "I AM" and a bit before that He said that He was not of this world (John 8:23). In Mark, which is the earliest gospel (as opposed to John's which is the last one) has Jesus forgiving sins even though in the same story it is pointed out that only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12). From this, I think it is say to assume that the authors (Mark and John) thought Jesus thought He was God. Since they were close to Jesus (well Mark was close to Peter) and they are recounting historical events I think it would be safe to assume that from these texts (and others) Jesus though He was God.

Ending this section Leaves makes a good point "if we proclaim God was in Jesus then unless we know who Jesus was, we might have God wrong!" (p 72). I think this is because Jesus was and is God.

Jesus' Theology
Leaves then turned to focus on what Jesus mean by the Kingdom of God. Was it a future kingdom or a present one? He sides with those who say Jesus' Kingdom "was to be made real now by those who accepted his teachings" (p 72), to which I do not disagree to a point.

The whole letter to the Roman colony in Philippi is how the Church is to live as a new colony under Jesus Christ who is Lord. They are to live a life worthy of the gospel and should be self-sacrificial and gently to everyone, not just from within the church (Phil 4:5). But, we should not go too far. Despite this emphasis on the here and now living, which is very important, Paul also says that the Church's citizenship is in heaven and they are to wait for Jesus who will transform them latter (Phil 3:20-21). So I think it is both. I think the Church is to live out the new kingdom now, but it will not be complete until Jesus comes and renews all things latter.

Leaning on Patterson, the chapter goes on to say that because of Jesus, God is not remote and is for the ordinary person (p 74) which is great. Then we see in Jesus that all are welcome into this family. "There are no outsiders, no expendables, and no one is unclean" (p 74). Now in a sense this is right. Jesus was for everyone, regardless of who you were or are. Jesus approached the "unclean" people and touched them (Mat 8:1-4) - or they touch Him (Mark 5:25-34). Instead of Jesus then becoming "unclean" himself, He made them "clean". The external things Jesus was not interested in, instead what makes people unclean is their hearts (Mat 15:17-20). Jesus does call people "into relationships of radical love and mutual care" (p 74) but those who He calls needs to put off their old self and put on the new self. The one with a new heart, which God gives.

Christianity Today: Why What We Say about Jesus' God Matters
Leaves gives a great picture of what the Church should look like. It should be a loving community that proclaims the love of God. We should stand up to the new atheists and say their representation of violent and irrational god is not our God because that is not the God Jesus preached (p 75). We are to beak down the barriers of gender, class, patriarchy and race and create communities that embody this love (p 76). "The role and mission of the Christian community is to live up that vision of a transformed world in the name of the God that Jesus came to proclaim" (p 76). This is all good stuff. But what seems to be lacking in all this is the means by which we can live up to this.

Jesus said that our hearts are unclean, and to some who have children are evil (Mat 7:11). God showed His love for us, that while we were still sinners Chris died for us (Rom 5:8).  This is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent His Son to die for our sin (1 John 4:10). It is by the proclamation and the belief in this message of God's love for us, that we can be this new community. This chapter failed to make note of this, which is a bit of an oversight. From this chapter one may think that this new community in the new kingdom could be brought about by our own efforts, and not but the King.

Leaves then sums up his chapter, to which I am in mostly agreement with. There are nuances of him still talking about "The God of Jesus" and not that Jesus Himself is God, that I have issue with, but this rant is getting too long again.

Thank you for reading.

Read More

The Once and Future Scriptures - Truth and History (pt 3)

This post continues my look at The Once and Future Scriptures edited by Gregory C Jenks. Here are my thoughts on the into and first chapters and on the second chapter. This post will be dealing with the next chapter.

Steven Ogden - Chapter 3 Wisdom as well as Facts
The Story Rings True
After a retelling of the Parable of the Lost Son Steven asks the question if it was true. Rightly he points out that it is not historical but then asks "if the story is not historical, does this mean it is not true?" (p 44). Steven can not dismiss the parable as "simple because there is a lack of corroborating empirical data" (p 44). A minor concern I wonder about is what Steven would think if after he watched a Star Wars movie. Was there really a Death Star that was destroyed by the Rebels?

Ogden then turns to John 1:1-18 and looks at the claims that are being made about Jesus and points out that "'the Word' in the text does not relate directly to the Jesus of history" and that "the doctrine of the Incarnation itself, even in its earliest forms, cannot be subjected fruitfully to the scrutiny of historiography" (p 44). I will just point to my last post which mentions Ignatius, 1 Clement and Athenagoras who said Jesus was God, and I would also like to add in what Pliny the Younger said to emperor Trajan sometime before 113 AD reporting that the Christians worshiped Jesus "as a God". So much for historical evidence...

Ogden contrasts Christian fundamentalism with progressive bible scholarship. One is circular and "the Bible is used selectively to support truth claims" the other carefully measures the Bible against the historical empirical evidence (p 45). Ogden lines himself up with the progressive position (p 45). With the progressives, the Lost Son parable is not true because there is no historical evidence. I would contend that the Parable of the Lost Son is not true because it is a parable as the text says it is. I'm pretty sure fundamentalist could have worked that one out as well, because the text says it is.

An Old Problem Revisited
Odgen looks at a debate between historical methods between Tillich and Rahner. Tillich said that the historical search for Jesus had failed and that the "'Christ-event ' was actualized by faith through human participation; it was not captive to the particulars of historical research" (p 46). Rahner sided with modern scholarship and that our exegesis was determined by our dogmatism so we only find things from within that context (p 47). Personally I side with N.T. Write who said that we know about Jesus through faith and history.

History Has It's Problems
Ogden points out that orthodox and progressives rely too much on history (p 48). I agree there are issues with how historians weigh and interpret the facts of history and agree that we shouldn't end up saying that "facts cannot be established and it is all a matter of alternative readings" (p 48). Ogden, leaning on Carr points out that the historian is himself part of history and so his (or hers) findings need to be understood in their own context (p 48). This line of thinking then goes further with Scott and Oakeshott and reconstruction of historical events become contextual and truth statements are hard to make.

I agree that history, or more accurately historical methods, and reconstructions have their issues. Back in 1910 George Tyrell accused Adof Harnack's reconstruction of Jesus as merely his own reflection at the bottom of a well. Since then, that is the accusation of most historical reconstructions, that the historical finds Jesus in their own image. According to McKnight Marcus Borg found Jesus to be a mystical genius; John Dominic Crossan found Jesus to be a cynic and N.T Wright found Jesus to be an end-of-the-exile messianic prophet. But despite these reconstruction short falls, I still think we can know things for certain from the historical records that we have.

What is Truth?
Odgen then says "The concept of truth is complicated" (p 50) which is a simple statement that is true... The modern search for truth has it's limitations, and so when it comes to truth a better way is to present a coherence experience But again "experience is hard to define" (p 51). For this chapter Odgen defines experience in two ways, the first "is the objective sense, for example, sociological information the the Jewishness of Jesus" the other is "the subjective sense" (p 51). So experience is both objective and subjective. To me this seems like the word "fact" has been pushed into "experience", even though there are shortcomings with "facts" to do with context and agendas, I don't think we should mash that into the word "experience" because it is subjective. Who gets to decide which part of experience is objective and which part is subjection?

This definition allows Odgen to say that "just because a disciple, a gospel writer or an early theologian thinks something is true, that it is true" (p 52) because their writings come from an experience. Then reducing the cannon of scripture Odgen says that experience can range "from Paul to Augustine and beyond, but real epidemiological clout comes from contemporary, corporate, intersubjective experience" (p 52). Historical writings, including the New Testament are objective and subjective, but the real weight of it's objectivity and subjectivity comes from our modern surroundings... So much for timeless truths. Everything current has more clout than that of the past. Too bad for us that Jesus was 2,000 years ago. That's a problem.

A Working Epistemology

Ogden then sets up a working model of epistemology (p 52) and in this "truth claims are not made here in absolute terms; they are expressed in terms of probability" (p 52-53), and so then I wonder if that sentence was absolutely true or not. I think I know what Steven is saying, as we are not dealing with an exact science (p 55), but history. However, as a Christian I wouldn't go on to call our knowledge of God in terms of probability. Luke writes his gospel so that Theophilus would have certainty in what he has been taught (Luke 1:4). The letter of 1 John is all about how we can know the truth (1 John 2:21), know that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13), know that the Son of God has come and that we can know Him who is true (1 John 5:20) etc... Yes, this certain knowledge comes from faith (through the Holy Spirit), but that faith is still grounded in real/actual historical events.

Ogden talks about incremental or cumulative nature of acquiring knowledge (p 53) and I agree. On a larger scale you see this in the Old Testament with hints, and signs, and prophecies about Jesus, but nothing is that clear. Only after Jesus had come can we see that the Messiah was also the Suffering Servant. That Jesus was the one the law and the prophets were talking about. All our knowledge is built upon previous knowledge. At the end of this section Odgen says "In our context, wisdom is more than just a simple bit of direct experiential evidence" (p 54) and again, I agree. Wisdom should be the application of knowledge. As DeYoung said once (and may have incorrectly been attributed to me somewhere): "doctrine is like blood: its meant to help you live. If you just store it up and collect it, you are weird (and you might not be invited to parties)".

Possibilities
Ogden correctly points out that there are issues with how both the fundamentalists and progressives interpret the Bible (p 54). I agree. The fundamentalists may read a text separate from it's context and genre, which may lead them to think the Prodigal Son was a real person. The progressive may read through the text and wonder if Jesus actually told the Prodigal Son parable in the first place (as Odgen suggests later p 57).

Ogden talks about the second and third quest for the historical Jesus and the link with the modern mind for certainty (p 55). He then points out that the progressive movement "has much to offer" but "is constrained by a limited view of history, epistemology, experience, and hermeneutics" (p 56). Odgen contends the Parable of the Lost Son is significant "because it rings true with shared human experience" (p 56), which I would say is the attribute to any good story, fictional or true. For the prologue of John's Gospel, we shouldn't be reading it a just empirical knowledge, but use it to build upon our existing knowledge or experience (p 56).

Ogden again wrestles with with the the Parable of the Lost son. He ask if it is 'just' a parable to which he says "The answer is 'yes' and 'no'" It is a parable, but it not just a parable "simply because there is a lack of evidence" (p 57). This is confusing, as I think the Parable of the Lost Son is a parable, but a parable which has a point. The lack of evidence of the events in the story has no bearing on the point of the story. It does "ring true with experience" (p 57) which is because it is a good parable, that is one of its tasks. Ogden then asserts that the parable didn't come from Jesus' lips but from an early church's community (p 56-57).

Returning also to John 1:1-18 Ogden says that the truth of this also has to do "with the wisdom of a particular faith community" (p 58). He said this is based off an early hymn but it is not about the "historical description of Jesus of Nazareth" (p 58) but show how faith communities build upon wisdom of a historical figure into a living tradition. The fact that John 1 is read on Christmas Eve in an Anglican service "does no prove the doctrine of the Incarnation, but it rings true with the faith community" (p 59).

I think a balance is needed between historical studies and the Christian faith. We need to realise that all writings have an agenda and are biased, including the text in the Bible. This agenda is already an interpretation of events, so as Christians we should need to readjust it's content, instead we should read it on its own terms. The issue of reading through a text to come up with the real Jesus, or a fifth Gospel, is that once you remove bits and create a new reconstruction, it can not be proved. We should work with the evidence (the text) we have.

But history can be helpful in shedding light on the text we have. It also helps faith from becoming fantasy and from possible Docetism. The Christian faith makes historical claims about the person of Jesus, and to lose His humanity, would lose the essence of Christianity. However history can only reveal what the earlier followers thought of Jesus, faith is also needed for a personal view of Him as the Christ.

I think I have said enough on this, I could go on, but I have started quoting myself from an essay I wrote in 2010 on how we know Jesus through both faith and history...

Read More

The Once and Future Scriptures - Change is the new norm (pt 2)

This post continues my look at The Once and Future Scriptures edited by Gregory C Jenks. You can read my thoughts on the into and first chapters in part 1.

Cathy Thomson - Chapter 2 Scripture as Normative Source in Theology
Fore-"word"
Thomson sets out to define her terms of "scripture", "normative", "source", "normative source" and "theology" carefully, because in postmodern thought "you have to be really careful about words" (p 25). She then says:

"theology begins somewhat improbably in seismology. Here, when the little that can be said to be securely 'denoted' is ascertained, there emerges to poetic subversion that is connotation, at once powerfully suggestive and poignantly insecure. Of cause, it has always been so." (p 25)

What a clear and careful choice of words to convey meaning... Anyway on to definitions:

• Scripture "provides temporal expression of the eternal, through human witness reflecting on their experience of God" (p 25-26). Scripture "has sacred possibility only though" the "holy susceptibility of the reader" (p 26).
• Normative "is claimed by those who wish to establish a norm." (p 26). "What is often found here are standards  patterns, types, or customs to govern a set of practices or behaviors" (p 27)
• Source "is the word spoken", it "is God, or perhaps it is the point at which the sheer uncreated potential of God meets its own mysterious actualization in creation." (p 27).
• Normative source perhaps could mean (because we have to be careful about words) "a source that establishes a norm or set of norms" or "a document that records the human experience of what it believes to be the originating mystery" (p 28).
• Theology "is faith seeking understanding" (I think that is a Anselm reference, even though there is no citation, but that was years ago, so I guess it doesn't matter now). Theology is "an academic pursuit that recognizes human deficiency in understanding the divine." (p 28).

After all that are we clear? Just in case we are or aren't Thomson puts as a note:

"It is important at the outset to recognize anew that all discursive measure - whether of language, art, Scripture, theology or in any other symbol system - may be found to be self-subverting." (p 29)

I could quote her all day long, its like reading an artwork.

"Derived Methodology" (or "What to Make of the Above....")
Thompson sets out to show how we get truth out of the Scriptures, but points out that philosophers have questioned whether humans beings can apprehend truth (p 29). If they can't apprehend truth, then that is a truth which in turn means we can apprehend truth (solved!). We should not forget Jacques Derrid who "casts doubt on the capacity of language per se to convey truth" (p 30) who used language to convey this truth, of which Thompson also relays using, wait for it... language. So if language can not convey truth, then that last sentence isn't true, but it is... If all this philosophy sounds circular, don't worry, so is the truth claim that the Bible is inerrant:

"A faith community might choose to make truth claims about biblical inerrancy, but this often don through what are considered to be illogical circularities, such as using the Bible itself to determine principles for the interpretation of Scripture" (p 30)

But remember words can't convey truth, except for these words. Lets not look too deeply or we may find also that our reason is true because our reason says that is true...

When deciding what is true you have to stop somewhere and you can't avoid circular reasoning. What is important is where you stop - whether it be your own reason, someone else's philosophy or the Bible - and if that worldview aligns with reality (what is true). The philosophers of language don't line up with reality, if it did then we wouldn't have been able to understand them...

Thompson argues that the "postmodern theologian does no claim the Scriptures contains no truth" (phew!) but the act of it been written and disseminated renders "it impossible to make absolute truth claims out of the text" (p 31). Of cause that is an absolute truth claim, and one wonders if I can say the same about this chapter. Can I say that this chapter doesn't contain any absolute truth claims because it was written and published and therefore there are actually absolute truth claims...?

Thompson tries to locate where the Scriptures are considered sacred. It is in the words themselves or is it "located in the dynamic process of reading, marking, learning and inwardly digesting them both in private and public sphere" (p 31-32)? Thompson argues for the latter "as the process of finding inspiration in Scripture is a complex one involving human engagement at every level" (p 32). It seems that God's Word is at the whim of human enterprise. If it wasn't for humans we wouldn't have sacred words from God, but lucky for God that He made us.

There is also problems with claiming normativity for Scripture as "claiming 'normativity' - with its tendency to suggest 'norms' and their 'enforcement' - may be over come by understanding the 'normative' as evolving through a process of 'traditioning'... a process that is not static, but ongoing" (p 32). So norms evolve, things are not static, even though Thompson defined what theology is by using Anselm's definition (p 28)... So how much do norms really change? You know who doesn't change? God (James 1:17). He also doesn't lie (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18). Those two facts alone should help us set boundaries in our 'traditioning'; assuming we think God is smart enough to navigate the complexities of language and communicate something clearly (and absolutely) to us in the first place...

Again on page 33 Thompson makes the point that "there should be recognition of the poverty of language to convey absolute truth for today's Christianity and the Church... partly because of its innate capacity to both represent and usurp representation at the same time", failing to note she used language. If language can't convey absolute truth, then the first part of this sentence can't be absolute.

Despite all the above Thompson does argue that exegesis is important to find the original meaning of the text (p 34). I agree with this completely. I do wonder if Thompson would agree that the original meaning doesn't change (ie they are absolute) or how in exegesis it is even possible to get meaning from the complexities of language.

How the Scriptures Function as Normative Source for Christian Theology
Thompson then sets our to demonstrate her methodology and how it deters "the development of exorbitant claims to truth and inerrancey". She chooses Christology as an example to show that "Scripture is not a self-regulating system characterized by inner consistency, or self-interpretative possibility" (p 35).

Using Hebrew 1:8-9 as examples John 1:14 Thompson shows that:

"the earliest texts which could be interpreted as pointing to the divinity of Jesus were probably drawn from liturgical material that would have been used well before the gospels were written, can centuries before the divinity of Jesus was asserted in doctrinal statements such as those produced by the Council of Nicea in 325 CE" (p 35-36)

These two quotes "are intriguing but ambiguous, attributing 'sonship' to Jesus, but not necessarily divinity" (p 37).

Thompson first fails to note that John and Hebrews are not the earliest of the New Testament texts but are closer to being the last ones (Paul's writings were earlier).

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quote from Psalms 46:6-7 showing that Jesus is greater than angels. At the start of that very section (and the whole letter) it declares that Jesus is God's Son, heir of all things who created the world (Heb 1:2), who is the radiance of God's glory and His exact image who upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb 1:3) (sounds a lot like Gen the guy in Gen 1:1) and is much superior to angels and has a greater name than then (Heb 1:4).

With the John 1:14 reference, the start of that section (as well as the whole book) Jesus is said to be with God and was God and all things were made through Jesus (John 1:1-4). All that doesn't sounds like the author of Hebrews or John is taking about "a devout follower of the God of Judaism" and "only that" (p. 35). Hebrew 1:8-9 and John 1:14 may ascribe sonship to Jesus "but not necessarily divinity" but the start of both those sections seem pretty clear that Jesus is God - assuming the written language has meaning and a context.

Thompson also quotes Colossians 1:15-20 again as evidence that Jesus was ascribed divinity because of past liturgical material which "may be read to imply divinity  but could be understood in the sense of a son and spirit derived from/by God, but not sharing divinity" and Jesus "is not portrayed explicitly as divine" (p 37). Now I haven't finished my Trinity subject this semester, but if Jesus and the Spirit were created by God (not begotten or proceeded), then that sounds a bit like Arianism... I want to tread lightly and carefully here, but I thought Arianism was heretical...

Colossians 1:16-17 ascribes to Jesus as the creator over all things in heaven and earth, and that he was before all things, and He sustains all things. That sounds a lot like God. If Paul has lifted these statements from some past liturgical material he must have know it was about God and here he is applying that to Jesus. The fact that Paul included this text and uses it about Jesus, shows that he thought Jesus was God

Thompson points out that "There is ambiguity in all of theses texts, which makes it difficult to 'ground' biblically any Christological claim of divinity" (p 37). If this is the end result of Thompson's method of reading the Bible, then I think there are big really big problems.

Thompson lists lots of titles ascribed to Jesus by Himself and others, pointing out that Jesus didn't call himself "Messiah" even though Martha called him "the Messiah, the Son of God" in John 11:27 (p 38). And that Jesus never referred to Himself as God's Son (p 38) even though the people who insulted Jesus on the cross said He did (Mat 27:43) and the Jews also said Jesus set himself up as the Son of God (John 19:7). Paul also called Jesus the Son of God four times (Rom 1:4; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; Eph 4:13). The explicit agenda of Mark and John is about Jesus being the Son of God (Mark 1:1, John 20:31), to miss this would be to miss the original intent of these authors. Jesus did call Himself "I AM" which was kinda big deal, that was God's name to Moses (Exd 3:14) and so people tried to stone Him for that (John 8:58-59).

Just last night for my Trinity readings I stumbled across these (which is only two of many) quotes:

"Serious reader of the four Gospels find it difficult to escape the conclusions that Jesus had a relation to God which is impossible to fit into regular human ways of describing the relation of a man to God" (here)

and:

"In the Synoptic Gospels there is one passage that could imply that Jesus is God: Mat 1:23. In the Pauline writings there are three... Rom 9:5, Tit 2:13 and Heb 1:8. In the Johannine writings there are two passages in which Jesus is probably called God: John 1:18 and 1 John 5:20. And there are two passages in which He is clearly called God: John 1:1 and John 20:20" (p 27)

With the above quote I will conceded that Paul didn't write Hebrews and that there is a variant in Romans 9:5 which the RSV goes with. Still the Hebrew passage really exists and the case for Jesus being God doesn't solely rest on just Romans 9:5.

When dealing with the title "Son of Man" that Jesus frequently uses to call himself, Thompson doesn't mention Daniel 7 (p 39), which is kind of a big oversight.

Thompson points out that Arian was a respected leader and that "Jesus' divinity was not derived from scriptural material in an uncomplicated manner, as though it lay, a clear theological concept.. It was deliberated upon, thought about and prayed (and fought) over for centuries" (p 39). I would propose that the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on one bit of scripture, but the underlying idea of the Trinity, including Jesus' divinity is derived from the Bible and all the historical thoughts, conflict and prayers was over the meaning of the Biblical text.

As for Jesus' divinity being a late addition to the Church's teaching, Ignatius of Antioch (died before 117 AD), the First Letter of Clement (before 100 AD) and Athenagoras (133-190 AD) were aware of the trinitarian structure of Christian salvation. Theophilus of Antioch (died before 185 AD) and Tertullian (160-225 AD) even use the term "trias" or "trinitas" in their writings about God. All these guys used as a basis of their reasoning the Biblical text. Arius (250–336 AD) came on the scene later and was shot down, based on reasoning from the Scriptures - whose original meaning hadn't changed in two hundred years.

Thompson concludes by saying that Scripture can be considered as the 'normative source' in theology "on the condition that 'normativity' is redefined in terms of 'suggestion of meaning' rather than 'enforcement of truth'" and that her system of reading the Bible may seem 'edgy' to some (p 41). I wonder if Thompson would like me to suggest we read her chapter in the same way, that is her norms are not static and that her method is indeed 'edgy' only if we redefine the term 'edgy' to be 'wrong'.

My concern as an Anglican is whether Thompson agrees with the Nicene Creed which says Jesus  is:

the only Son of God, eternally begotton of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.

Or is that only a suggestion?

Again, thank you for reading to the end.

Read More

The Once and Future Scriptures - The problems (pt 1)

The Once and Future Scriptures is edited by Gregory C Jenks and is about how the modern church is to approach and interact with the Bible. Before starting this book I thought the title reminded me of The Once and Future Church. Based off that book I assumed the tone of this book would be something like "we are in the most important time in the history of the church" and that the content of this book was going to be a defense of the Scriptures and how we are to handle the text today. After reading (some of) this book, and making a few notes, I realised that in order to engage with this book properly I will have to use more words than first intended and so this review will span over a few posts. Since this book is a collection of essays by different academies from St Francis Theological College (Brisbane) I don't think that will be a huge issue and not feel too disjointed.

Forward by Phillip Aspinall
The forward of this book is good as it lays out the issues facing the Anglican Brisbane diocese. They have discovered that people are not reading their Bibles which is concerning as Aspinall correctly notes that "the Bible is the bedrock of the faith" and it "has inspired and sustained Christian people" for two thousand years (p ix). Sadly I don't think the Brisbane diocese is alone in this discovery, and it is good that they have flagged this as an issue. Steps should be in place to help more people read the Bible for themselves. Aspinall suggests that it is the the Enlightenment and biblical criticism (the academic study, not general criticism) are to blame for people not reading their Bibles and we can't undo what we know now (although I think we can learn new things that undoes old scholarship). There are hints in this forward that might suggest that scholarship and the Bible are on par with each other: "We must approach Scripture informed by the best scholarship on offer and in dialogue with everything other fields of endeavor have discover of the truth" (p xi). I do agree with this, we should listen to the best scholars. But what happens when one disagrees with the other? Who rules over who? Do you go with the best scholars, or with the One who made the best scholars? It's a worry when that last question is hard to answer.

From looking at the list of authors in this book it seems that both Gergory Jenks and Nigel Leaves were fellows of the Jesus Seminar and Cathy Thomson has co-authored a book with Muriel Porter, so already you can know that the following articles are going to be written by the best scholars. (If only Barbara Thiering was added to this book; then we would definitely have the best Australian theologians have to offer... - Yes, that was mean).

Gergory C Jenks - Introduction
Jenks starts out strong:

"Each time we distance ourselves from a historical or theological claim in the Bible that we no longer find credible, the authority of the Scriptures is eroded" (p 1). 

Yes! Keep this opening point in mind for chapter 1. If we distance ourselves from the history of the Bible, the authority of the Scriptures is eroded. But just over the page we are to take the Bible "seriously while refusing to take it literally" (p 1-2). Well, that depends. The Bible is made up of literature so we should take each bit in it's own context on its own terms. When the Bible is dealing with imagery it would be bad to take it literally, but when it is deal with literal thing, we should probably take it like that and not mystify the text.

After summarising each chapter Jenks closes with the book's goal of contributing to the "necessary conversion about how Australian Anglicans might best understand our own reception of the Bible" (p 5). This is a a necessary conversation, to which I hope to somehow add my response to, as and Anglican in Canberra who is currently studying theology at St Marks.

Gergory C Jenks - Chapter 1 The 'Problem' of the Bible
In this chapter Jenks seeks to "identify and explore selected aspects of the problem posed by the Bible in our time and place" and to "set an agenda for the rest of the book (p 8).

A Brief History of Reception
Jenks gives a quick overview of how the Bible was received and states that:

"since the Reformation, grassroots Christian views of the Bible have become increasingly exaggerated and naive claiming far too much for the Bible." 

This results in an uncritical assessment that "the Christian Scriptures are defended as uniquely authoritative, inerrant, infallible, historically correct, self-sufficient, internally consistent, self-evident in their meaning, and universally applicable" (p11). And that "in formal religious statements it often remains sufficient simply to cite a biblical reference to settle a theological point."

I'm not sure why that is an issue. Jesus after all used scripture to settle an argument with Satan (Matt 4:4, 7, 10), frequently quoted and read from Scripture to make points (Mark 12:10-12, 36; Luke 4:16-18) and after His death and resurrection Jesus explained His actions in light of the Old Testament and indicated that it was all about Him (Luke 24:27, 44). Peter compares Paul’s letters to “other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:15-16) and Paul quotes Luke’s gospel referring to it as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18). Scripture is after all is God breathed and useful to teach, rebuke, correct and train people for righteousness (2 Tim 3:16) (see what I did there with my points :).

Citations are good. Surely any academic would be happy with ideas containing citations rather than not. Maybe it depends on the quality of the citation. Hopefully as Christians and Anglicans we can agree that the Bible is a pretty good source to cite. If theological points are not made from the Bible, then by what other standard? Do we all just anonymously vote on an idea and declare that to be true, until the next generation comes along and votes again to see which way the democratic dice falls? Peer review is good and all, but a quick survey of ideas should show that that is not infallible.... if only God revealed Himself to us in some way that was recorded for us...

Points of Confrontation and Challenge
After the quick survey of the Bible's reception in history Jenks points out three general areas of problems for the Bible. These are "the world behind the text, the world within the text, and the world before the text" (p 12). Jenks points out lots of problems, and I too have lots of problems with what he says. Believe it or not, I am not going to deal with everyone of them due to length, but I will mention some to give you an idea of my thoughts.

The world behind the Biblical text is looking at the historical setting the text are dealing with. Jenks sees this as a problem:

"We find ourselves knowing more about what life was like 'back then', and yet also being less certain of the historicity of the biblical narratives" (p 13). 

It is true we are learning more things about what happened "back then" and one thing we shouldn't overlook is that people "back then" thought the things in the Bible happened. Why do we think that the people who are a few centuries removed from the events knew less than those who are a few millenia removed from the events?

Jenks states that that events in the Bible are "more often fictional than historical" and points out that:

"Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and David did not write the Psalms. More seriously, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that only Psalms 1-91 were finalized by the second century BCE..." (p 14). 

The page before Jenks is right to say that "historical reservation have significant religious and theological implications" (p 13). So what does this mean if David didn't write the Psalms or if the Psalms really only stopped at 91? Simply put it means the Bible is wrong and so by extension we shouldn't trust it. 73 Psalms are directly ascribed to David and Psalms 2 and 95 in the New Testament are said to be composed by David. Jesus said that "David himself, in the Holy Spirit" said something in Psalm 110:1 (Mark 12:36 & 37; Luke 20:42, 44); Peter says David wrote Psalm 16 (Acts 2:15-28) and Psalm 2 (Acts 4:25-26) and Paul says David said Psalm 69 (Rom 11:9-10).

The Psalms stopping at 91 is a curious. The LXX which also dates back to the second (and even third) century BCE has all 150 Psalms. Since the LXX is in Greek and is commonly known to be a translation, means that before the LXX there must have been Hebrew texts that contain all 150 Psalms in one collection. Also the New Testament quotes lots of Psalms that are greater than 91. Psalm 110 is the most quoted one(!), Psalm 118 is also up there. See this list for more references of the New Testament using Psalms and note how many are over Psalm 91. So yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls may have a copy of the Psalms that ends at 91, but that is not the only (tiny bit of) evidence that we have.

When dealing with the world within the Biblical text Jenks makes the statement "These writers were shaped by Homer" (p 14). Really? Which ones? The Jewish ones? Are we talking Old Testament or New Testament writers? All of it or maybe a few passing phrases? We could say that Paul is shaped by Aristotle or Plato because he uses an "if", "then", "therefore" argument and those guys also used logic, but that is hardly worth mentioning. There is not citation to back this Homer point up, we just have to take it on face value and trust this historical statement...

In the section of the world before the text Jenks is right to say "a text without a read is a document that has no significance" (p 15). If the wider issue is that people in Brisbane are not reading their Bibles then perhaps we should read the Bible and treat it significantly. I would suggest you read to Bible to be true for this to happen, but not so. To remain significant:

"the Bible may need to be read contrary to its literal and historical significance. Only then can it serve as a source of wisdom for readers in context beyond the imagination of its authors and previous readers" (p 16). 

Unlike this book and all texts, Jenks doesn't think the historical context  is important. So much for authors intent and original meaning. I wonder if Jenks would appreciate if portions of this chapter was used in a first year uni course as a demonstration of how not to cite your essays? Or if this was used by the communists to make points about the oppression of the bourgeoisie academics? Context is important.

Jenks gives an example on how we can read the text contrary to its literal and historical significance:

"What matters most to me now is not whether Abraham and Sarah trusted YHWH, but whether I am going to spend my allocated span of human existence in an act of trust akin to the of Jesus" (p 16). 

Reading the text this way reduces everything to be some sort of moral thing we much now do, and writes us in as the main character of the story. Sometimes that is OK, but most of the time that is not Christianity. We need to see the characters in God's plan for salvation and sometimes reading ourselves as Abraham misses the point that we need a Savior as we do not have faith like Abraham, but Jesus did. What matted to Paul was that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness, not because of what he had done but because God was faithful to His promises to Abraham (Rom 4). James 2 also deems the demonstration of Abraham's faith important. Why can't the historical setting be the spring board for us finding meaning in the text?

Jenks also point out that "the Twenty-third Psalm can be read at funerals as well as at weddings. The text has not changed, but the readers and their contexts certainly have (p 15)". This is true, but also the original historical, grammatical context hasn't changed either. You can read 1 Corinthians 13 at a wedding, but that doesn't change the fact that Paul was writing to a messed up church and the original intent of the passage was for a church to get along with each other. There are such things as timeless truths (such as those in Psalms 23 - God is faithful and loving) that can be applicable in many and varied ways.

Implications for Theologians, Churches and Believers (skipped over much for space)
The Bible is in trouble because it is "not capable of sustaining all the demands made of it" and so it  "isn't able to live up to our expectations" (p 17). Jenks is right to point out that how we see modern history is different to how people in the ancient world saw and used history. So, because I am crazy and think we should read the text in it's historically setting, we should then deal with the text in the same way to original authors did, in the same way I should read Jenks' writings.

Jenks explains to us why the Bible is deemed so important: "They are sacred texts for us because of their religious value, not because of their historical worth" (p 18). Even though,

"Each time we distance ourselves from a historical or theological claim in the Bible that we no longer find credible, the authority of the Scriptures is eroded" (p 1). 

The Anglican crisis over the bible (I will try to be brief - promise)
In this section Jenks is at least consistent. Not only are we to read the Bible removed from it's historical context, Anglicans are to read the Thirty Nine Articles and the Prayer Book for Australia from it's context.

It is good the Jenks sees the Anglican church as deeming the Bible inspired by God and an "authoritative revelation from God" (p 20) but then he raises the question as to what books in the New Testament are canonical. After quoting Article 6 Jenks comments that "constitution begs the question of which books are 'canonical'" (p 21) because Article 6 "simply  refers to the 'canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testament'" (p21). Here, an understanding what the "canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testament" in it's original context means would shed light on what it means. Instead Jenks is scratching his head wondering what is in and out, without regard for what was meant when it was written.

In A Prayer Book for Australia, in the ordination as a Deacon the following question is posed:

"Do you wholeheartedly accept the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as given by the Spirit to convey in many and varied ways the revelation of God which is fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ?"

To which Jenks asks "what are the many and varied ways...Are metaphorical and non-literal readings of Scripture part of that diversity?" (p22). Well, it could be... if you remove the original meaning from the intent. So what does the "many and varied ways" mean in this question? Hebrews 1:1-2 should help:

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. (NRSV)

Hebrews opens with explaining that God has spoken to us in "many and various ways" by the prophets which was fulfilled by God's Son (our Lord Jesus Christ). The "many and varied ways" are the different writers/voices in the Old Testament, which has nothing to do with the "many and varied ways" we can remove the text from it's historical content.

So I point you back to what Jenks said on page one:

"Each time we distance ourselves from a historical or theological claim in the Bible that we no longer find credible, the authority of the Scriptures is eroded". 

I am left wondering at the end of this chapter if this was a goal that Jenks set out to do, or if it was it a warning that we should avoid. Sadly, I have a feeling that it was the former, not the latter.

I do hope that the rest of these reviews don't blow out to be this long. Seriously, thank you for reading this far.

Read More

Unconditional Surrender

At tradition goes, my friends and family heading up to Katoomba over Easter for their yearly convention. This year the them was "Unconditional Surrender" which is a phrase that is somethings given as a negative. They said if Piper didn't write a book called Risk is Right they would have named the conference that. This year the speakers were Kirk Patston, David Jones and Peter Jensen. These notes may not be clear (sorry), but they are helpful for me to be reminded about what what said.

Kirk, like in previous year, spoke really really well. Each of his talks looked at someone from the Old Testament and how they showed their faith. I don't think the following will do Kirk's talks justice, I think they are worth the $2 per talk. Talk 1 looked at Abraham who was told to sacrifice his only son Issac, Abraham acted with simple trust and obedience and through Abraham's faith so much good comes from it. We should follow God with simple trust and obedience, for our God lives and bleeds fidelity. Talk 2 was set in Numbers 25 where there is story about Phinehas who in a burst of zeal for God took a spear and impaled a Moabite woman and an Israelite man together who were having sex. In this story the leaders were all talk and no action, Phinehas ho took what God said seriously and a moment of almost madness acted. Where are our bursts of zeal for God, or have we, like Israel, forgotten what it's all about? Talk 3 was about the book of Ruth where we see her surrendered acts of kindness to Naomi as flowers in a vase. They point to a garden and a Gardner. Talk 4 was an honest look at that fact that if  we are to live a life of unconditional surrender to God, then things may not go so well. In Jeremiah 20:7-18 we see the prophet lamenting to God, that his life is not worth living. We need to learn the practice of lament - to really tell God how we feel.

David Jones gave three talks encouraging us to live a Christian life in light of the present time. In Luke 21 we should remember that its not the end of the world, but we can see it from here. God's kingdom is breaking in, the end is coming, so we should be ready. Romans 8 reminds us that in Christ we can do better than our best - we are more than conquerors. This frees us up to be radical as we should have the confidence that we are adopted by God and that nothing can separate us from the love of God. John 11:17-37 turns the phrase "Be happy while your living because your a long time dead" completely upside down. Jesus brings the resurrection in to the present and challenges us to live as if we are standing on his promises. We can ignore our bucket list and live a life of radical risk, because we are not a long time dead.

Peter Jensen spoke at the three night sessions as well as in the morning on last day. Peter walked us through the Sermon on the Mount, while also adding a bit of the philosophy of the day touching on issues of life and identity. Peter's main point is that what is described in the Sermon on the Mount is what a repentant life looks like. He got us to think about what the good life looks like and challenged us to think if our answer can apply to a disabled person or a poor person or a dying persons to an evil person or even to Jesus. In order to assess if you have "the good life" you need to know the purpose of life in order to judge if you are living well or not. Peter called us to repent, to not toy with lust or anger, to trust God in the face of our culture. Right actions are good, but of cause are not what save you. In Peter's third talk he challenged us to think about our identity and to see who we are in light of Christ. Our identity should help us stand against the faith and idolatry of our world such as risky behavior (gambling, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity), pleasure obsession (fashion and travel), wealth creation and ideologies (gender confusion). Peter's final talk showed that faith rests on truth and reason. He challenged us to consider that if we believe Jesus then are we doing what He said?

Jensen's slide on Christian identity for his 3rd talk

There were also Q&A's throughout the conference. Kirk showed great wisdom in answering some questions on the KEC panel and led me to think that Old Testament scholars see the world not in black and white but in all its complexities, possibly because the texts they wrestle with are narratives made up of complex people where application sometimes is not black and white.

Jensen even put on another session for Q&A. On that topic Jensen spoke about his time on ABC's QandA and how Catherine Deveny (at the end of the show) wanted to see a miracle to believe  Jensen said that two happened right in front of Deveny, but she didn't have eyes to see. The first miracle that night was that Jensen got about 2 minutes of air time at the end of the night to talk about Jesus, that along is something almost unheard of. The second miracle is that afterwards he has found out that at least two people became Christians because of what he said at the end of QandA. Go back and read the end of transcript or watch it from the 55 minute mark. The fact that someone, let alone two people were converted by what Jensen said has to be a miracle (if it wasn't then everyone who watch it would become Christians, as a miracle is something that doesn't happen too often; so again if you read what he said and don't end up believing that Jesus is God, then that only shows a miracle took place...).

The conference was good, and they gave our a CD with a few talks from the past which was nice. There was a new earlier starting times, which didn't bother us as our little one now gets us up early. She was a little disturbed after the conference, as we had never left her alone in someone else's care before, so she was a bit clingy for a few days after hoping we wouldn't leave her again. So that was kinda cute.

You can buy all the talks from the KCC online store. Kirk's one would be worth your money and time.

My wife might write about this convention on her own blog, which no doubt will be better than this post.

Past Easter Conventions I have been to:
KEC 2012 on Character - speakers: Bryan Chapell, Jonny Gibson and Justin Moffatt
KEC 2011 on Commitment - speakers: Don Carson, Dale Ralph Davis and Simon Flinders
KEC 2010 on Christians in a Sceptical World - speakers: John Lennox, Stephen Um and Ray Galea
KEC 2009 on Time - speakers: Frank Retief, Kirk Patston and Jonny Gibson
(I also attended KEC 2008 but I didn't write a review of that one)

Read More