"It is tempting in such a project to enter the conflict--long standing and now at the boiling point--about the accessibility of the "real" Jesus and his words to us now. Because I do not do so, I will simply state my assumptions about the Bible: On its human side, I assume that it was produced and preserved by competent human beings who were at least as intelligent and devout as we are today. I assume that they were quite capable of accurately interpreting their own experience and of objectively presenting what they heard and experienced in the language of their historical community, which we today can understand with due diligence.
On the divine side, I assume that God has been willing and competent to arrange the Bible, including its record of Jesus, to emerge and be preserved in ways that will secure his purposes for it among human beings worldwide. Those who actually believe in God will be untroubled by this. I assume that he did not and would not leave his message to humankind in a form that can only be understood by a handful of late- twentieth-century professional scholars, who cannot even agree among themselves on the theories they assume to determine what the message is.
The Bible is, after all, God's gift to the world through his Church, not to the scholars. It comes through the life of his people and nourishes that life. It's purpose is practical not academic. An intelligent, careful, intensive--but straightforward reading--that is, one not governed by obscure or faddish theories or by a mindless orthodoxy--is what it requires to direct us into life in God's kingdom."
--Dallas Willlard. The Divine Conspiracy. Kindle location 155-168
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Stretching the Mind
Those of you who read my blog know I like to delve into the deep questions of life:
Honestly, I get a lot of energy and inspiration from dealing with difficult subjects. I get a lot of energy and inspiration from trying to wrap my head around questions which have been around for a very, very long time. I like crawling up into the realms of abstract thought and logic.
But then I come crashing down to earth rather quickly, and it is not preaching for my congregation which does it. It is teaching Sunday School--especially this year.
For this year, in our Sunday School program, I am teaching the pre-K and Kindergarten students. I am teaching kids who have just learned to potty train and can't tie their shoes. I'm teaching kids who have no clue about the nature of atoms, quarks, and other subatomic particles. They have no clue about evolution or science. They can't even come close to comprehending the idea of the Trinity or historical-critical biblical methodologies.
And I am teaching them about God.
Talk about keeping you grounded and stretching your mind.
Jesus famously said, "Unless you accept the kingdom of God as a child, you cannot enter it." Too often, I think we adults lose sight of this. Maybe we should all try to teach a group of 3-5 year olds about God from time to time. Might keep us a bit more humble.
- Why are we here?
- What is our purpose?
- What is Truth?
- What is the nature of reality?
Honestly, I get a lot of energy and inspiration from dealing with difficult subjects. I get a lot of energy and inspiration from trying to wrap my head around questions which have been around for a very, very long time. I like crawling up into the realms of abstract thought and logic.
But then I come crashing down to earth rather quickly, and it is not preaching for my congregation which does it. It is teaching Sunday School--especially this year.
For this year, in our Sunday School program, I am teaching the pre-K and Kindergarten students. I am teaching kids who have just learned to potty train and can't tie their shoes. I'm teaching kids who have no clue about the nature of atoms, quarks, and other subatomic particles. They have no clue about evolution or science. They can't even come close to comprehending the idea of the Trinity or historical-critical biblical methodologies.
And I am teaching them about God.
Talk about keeping you grounded and stretching your mind.
Jesus famously said, "Unless you accept the kingdom of God as a child, you cannot enter it." Too often, I think we adults lose sight of this. Maybe we should all try to teach a group of 3-5 year olds about God from time to time. Might keep us a bit more humble.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Faith and Evidence
I find it quite interesting that it is not enough for we as Christian believers to simply deal with those who do not believe in our faith and seek to articulate and defend our positions to them. No. For some reason, we also must deal with one another and oftentimes to seek to articulate and defend our positions to one another. Oftentimes, when we engage in such debates, non-believers can simply sit on the sidelines and watch us go at one another all the while laughing at our inter-squad rivalries.
It would be nice if we did not have to have such inter-squad arguments. It would be nice if we could have an agreed upon methodology of interpreting Scripture, formulating doctrine, and defining practice. But, alas, Pandora's Box has been opened, and we cannot stuff all the entities back into it. And so we must wade through the varying theologies and methodologies to seek the Truth and hopefully be grasped by it at some point.
One of the great struggles in the Christian faith has been the interpretation of Scripture and how we view the documents called the Old and New Testaments. Much ink has been spilled in how to view these documents throughout the ages from the earliest decades of Christianity to the present, and, in some cases, the arguments of how to handle these documents has gotten rather heated.
In our own cultural situation (North America, U.S.A.) perhaps the most heated debates on how to deal with the biblical canon are between those holding to biblical inerrancy and those who embrace the historical/critical methods of interpreting scripture.
I am of the opinion that each side takes its particular position too far in its effort to prove its credibility oftentimes ending up with the following exchange:
"You historical/critical folks do not take the Bible seriously enough and you try to manipulate it to say what you want to say."
"Well, we believe and worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible itself!"
The accusations on both sides are flawed. Each side takes the Bible very seriously--there is no doubt about that. Yet, each side fails to recognize some very basic truth as well. I believe some of these differences can be reconciled if we view the Bible in a particular manner--as evidence.
Professor John Lennox in one of his lectures found on Youtube said the following:
We have a job to do to explain what John does in his Gospel so brilliantly. That faith is not something that just happens to people. It’s a response to evidence–these things are written...in order that you might believe. Here is the basis, and faith is based on evidence. Otherwise, by definition, you wouldn’t need the New Testament. If faith is believing where there is no evidence, then the greatest faith is shown by those people who never read the New Testament. Because it is evidence, I am sorry to say, but I am not sorry to say.
This is a very important statement in my estimation. And as I have thought about it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Here is why:
Evidence demands interpretation, and it does not tell the full story. Those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture would do well to remember this.
Consider the analogy with dinosaur bones. (I am sorry. I cannot help but use this example as my son is a huge dinosaur fan.) The bones tell us an awful lot about anatomy. They give us a great glimpse of what the skeletal features of these creatures looked like. But, we also know these are the basics. There are much more to dinosaurs than just bones. In a very real way, we have to fill in some blanks. There is interpretation which must be done especially in regards to behavior. How did the dinosaurs act? Hunt? Move in their environment? How fast could they move? Were they warm blooded or cold blooded or did different species have different blood types? We can make some very good guesses based upon the bones, but the full truth actually escapes us. There is no way to fully verify.
The God of the Bible can be viewed similarly (please allow that I realize no analogy is complete). Scripture gives us the bones in a very real way. We see God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We see God revealed in how He acted in the Old and New Testament. We see God revealed in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, fully divine and fully human. However, there is much which begs interpretation. There is much which begs to be filled in. There is much to God which we still do not know. Given the tremendous advances in technology, how indeed does God view genetic engineering? The use of fossil fuels? The role sporting events now play in our nation? The rise of science? The fact that we interact so much over our computers and phones?
If we are true to ourselves, we will answer that we truly do not know for sure. We can get a pretty good idea, but the full Truth is just beyond our grasp, and the best we can hope for is to be grabbed by it.
And just like a paleontologist has to put together a skeleton based upon his or her knowledge of anatomy, we too have to put together the pieces of God as revealed as the Trinity. We know the fullest revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, and so we must look to Him as the example as we move forth in our talk about God. So, as we look at Jesus, does the "bone" regarding the stoning of disobedient children in Deuteronomy 21 fit? Obviously not. Furthermore, Jesus Himself told us that some bones are not to be dealt with any longer (dietary laws). Based upon the evidence of Jesus, we have a great guide to wade through some of the issues regarding inerrancy in the Bible.
However, there are a couple of things that we are not allowed to do. We are simply not allowed to rearrange the skeleton in whatever fashion we desire. I mean, when a paleontologist puts together a mess of dinosaur bones, he/she does not take a bone away just because it doesn't seem to fit his/her own imagination of what a dinosaur looked like. If a full skeleton of a dinosaur is found, and the bones are arranged in a certain way in the ground, the paleontologist does his or her best to deal with the skeleton as it is and tries to work with the bones as they are presented. One cannot manipulate the pieces and rearrange them to fit one's preconceived notions.
There are more than a few who involve themselves in the historical/critical methodology who do just this. They take the evidence presented in the Bible and arrange it to fit their own ideas of what God is like. They are more than comfortable saying, "Well, this bone/saying of Jesus doesn't fit what I think God/Jesus is really like, so this must be made up by a particular community; it must be legend; it must be an invention in the mind of a particular scribe who is trying to push his own agenda."
Evidence demands to be interpreted--not thrown out because one does not like it. And too many scholars enjoy trampling on pieces of scripture because they do not like it and it does not fit their own ideas of what God/Jesus is/should be like. Indeed, this is tampering with the evidence instead of truly wrestling with it.
And so, what do we have if we view the Bible as evidence? Where do we arrive if we assume this book is God's people writing down how God has revealed Himself throughout history?
We have something we must take very seriously--but realize there are limitations. We have something concrete and unchanging: beyond manipulation--but some blanks that beg to be filled in. We have guidance in wresting with the tough issues of our day without having to come across as completely dogmatic and thinking we have it all figured out. We also have the ability to invite other eyes to come and view the evidence--to see if they can uncover things as well.
It seems to me, that viewing scripture as evidence of God and His work gives us a path forward to navigate in the rough seas generated by two particular views of Christianity which are highly incompatible
It would be nice if we did not have to have such inter-squad arguments. It would be nice if we could have an agreed upon methodology of interpreting Scripture, formulating doctrine, and defining practice. But, alas, Pandora's Box has been opened, and we cannot stuff all the entities back into it. And so we must wade through the varying theologies and methodologies to seek the Truth and hopefully be grasped by it at some point.
One of the great struggles in the Christian faith has been the interpretation of Scripture and how we view the documents called the Old and New Testaments. Much ink has been spilled in how to view these documents throughout the ages from the earliest decades of Christianity to the present, and, in some cases, the arguments of how to handle these documents has gotten rather heated.
In our own cultural situation (North America, U.S.A.) perhaps the most heated debates on how to deal with the biblical canon are between those holding to biblical inerrancy and those who embrace the historical/critical methods of interpreting scripture.
I am of the opinion that each side takes its particular position too far in its effort to prove its credibility oftentimes ending up with the following exchange:
"You historical/critical folks do not take the Bible seriously enough and you try to manipulate it to say what you want to say."
"Well, we believe and worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible itself!"
The accusations on both sides are flawed. Each side takes the Bible very seriously--there is no doubt about that. Yet, each side fails to recognize some very basic truth as well. I believe some of these differences can be reconciled if we view the Bible in a particular manner--as evidence.
Professor John Lennox in one of his lectures found on Youtube said the following:
We have a job to do to explain what John does in his Gospel so brilliantly. That faith is not something that just happens to people. It’s a response to evidence–these things are written...in order that you might believe. Here is the basis, and faith is based on evidence. Otherwise, by definition, you wouldn’t need the New Testament. If faith is believing where there is no evidence, then the greatest faith is shown by those people who never read the New Testament. Because it is evidence, I am sorry to say, but I am not sorry to say.
This is a very important statement in my estimation. And as I have thought about it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Here is why:
Evidence demands interpretation, and it does not tell the full story. Those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture would do well to remember this.
Consider the analogy with dinosaur bones. (I am sorry. I cannot help but use this example as my son is a huge dinosaur fan.) The bones tell us an awful lot about anatomy. They give us a great glimpse of what the skeletal features of these creatures looked like. But, we also know these are the basics. There are much more to dinosaurs than just bones. In a very real way, we have to fill in some blanks. There is interpretation which must be done especially in regards to behavior. How did the dinosaurs act? Hunt? Move in their environment? How fast could they move? Were they warm blooded or cold blooded or did different species have different blood types? We can make some very good guesses based upon the bones, but the full truth actually escapes us. There is no way to fully verify.
The God of the Bible can be viewed similarly (please allow that I realize no analogy is complete). Scripture gives us the bones in a very real way. We see God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We see God revealed in how He acted in the Old and New Testament. We see God revealed in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, fully divine and fully human. However, there is much which begs interpretation. There is much which begs to be filled in. There is much to God which we still do not know. Given the tremendous advances in technology, how indeed does God view genetic engineering? The use of fossil fuels? The role sporting events now play in our nation? The rise of science? The fact that we interact so much over our computers and phones?
If we are true to ourselves, we will answer that we truly do not know for sure. We can get a pretty good idea, but the full Truth is just beyond our grasp, and the best we can hope for is to be grabbed by it.
And just like a paleontologist has to put together a skeleton based upon his or her knowledge of anatomy, we too have to put together the pieces of God as revealed as the Trinity. We know the fullest revelation of God is in the person of Jesus, and so we must look to Him as the example as we move forth in our talk about God. So, as we look at Jesus, does the "bone" regarding the stoning of disobedient children in Deuteronomy 21 fit? Obviously not. Furthermore, Jesus Himself told us that some bones are not to be dealt with any longer (dietary laws). Based upon the evidence of Jesus, we have a great guide to wade through some of the issues regarding inerrancy in the Bible.
However, there are a couple of things that we are not allowed to do. We are simply not allowed to rearrange the skeleton in whatever fashion we desire. I mean, when a paleontologist puts together a mess of dinosaur bones, he/she does not take a bone away just because it doesn't seem to fit his/her own imagination of what a dinosaur looked like. If a full skeleton of a dinosaur is found, and the bones are arranged in a certain way in the ground, the paleontologist does his or her best to deal with the skeleton as it is and tries to work with the bones as they are presented. One cannot manipulate the pieces and rearrange them to fit one's preconceived notions.
There are more than a few who involve themselves in the historical/critical methodology who do just this. They take the evidence presented in the Bible and arrange it to fit their own ideas of what God is like. They are more than comfortable saying, "Well, this bone/saying of Jesus doesn't fit what I think God/Jesus is really like, so this must be made up by a particular community; it must be legend; it must be an invention in the mind of a particular scribe who is trying to push his own agenda."
Evidence demands to be interpreted--not thrown out because one does not like it. And too many scholars enjoy trampling on pieces of scripture because they do not like it and it does not fit their own ideas of what God/Jesus is/should be like. Indeed, this is tampering with the evidence instead of truly wrestling with it.
And so, what do we have if we view the Bible as evidence? Where do we arrive if we assume this book is God's people writing down how God has revealed Himself throughout history?
We have something we must take very seriously--but realize there are limitations. We have something concrete and unchanging: beyond manipulation--but some blanks that beg to be filled in. We have guidance in wresting with the tough issues of our day without having to come across as completely dogmatic and thinking we have it all figured out. We also have the ability to invite other eyes to come and view the evidence--to see if they can uncover things as well.
It seems to me, that viewing scripture as evidence of God and His work gives us a path forward to navigate in the rough seas generated by two particular views of Christianity which are highly incompatible
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Why Does it Matter?
It was a strange bit of conversation that I had on an internet message board.
A woman started a thread about the creation story in Genesis chapter 2.
She wondered how it was that people could believe the story and the idea that death was a consequence of something called the Fall.
Of course, I gave the standard, orthodox, Christian answers.
Then, she went all philosophical on my post blatantly undermining many of the points I made.
Well, two can actually play that sort of "game" so I answered philosophically in my own right undermining her points.
That actually led her to be a little less bombastic and show some humility--which was appreciated.
But then she said, "The Bible has no authority for me..."
O.K. That's an important point right there. A very important point.
And so I asked, "If the Bible has no authority for you, then why even bother with the question? Why even worry about it? What does it matter?"
For it is one thing as a Christian to proclaim God's Word to others. We have an explicit command from Jesus to go into the world to teach everyone all that Jesus said and did and to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible has authority as it reveals to us the nature and person of God revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If the Bible has no authority for you...
And if you do not believe in the God of the Bible...
And if you do not adhere to the belief Jesus is resurrected from the dead...
Then why even bother trying to figure out the beliefs of Christianity?
Why seek explanation to something you refuse to believe in the first place?
What does it matter, and what is one trying to accomplish?
It is a matter of curiosity from my perspective.
A woman started a thread about the creation story in Genesis chapter 2.
She wondered how it was that people could believe the story and the idea that death was a consequence of something called the Fall.
Of course, I gave the standard, orthodox, Christian answers.
Then, she went all philosophical on my post blatantly undermining many of the points I made.
Well, two can actually play that sort of "game" so I answered philosophically in my own right undermining her points.
That actually led her to be a little less bombastic and show some humility--which was appreciated.
But then she said, "The Bible has no authority for me..."
O.K. That's an important point right there. A very important point.
And so I asked, "If the Bible has no authority for you, then why even bother with the question? Why even worry about it? What does it matter?"
For it is one thing as a Christian to proclaim God's Word to others. We have an explicit command from Jesus to go into the world to teach everyone all that Jesus said and did and to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible has authority as it reveals to us the nature and person of God revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If the Bible has no authority for you...
And if you do not believe in the God of the Bible...
And if you do not adhere to the belief Jesus is resurrected from the dead...
Then why even bother trying to figure out the beliefs of Christianity?
Why seek explanation to something you refuse to believe in the first place?
What does it matter, and what is one trying to accomplish?
It is a matter of curiosity from my perspective.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
The Reason for Marriage: A Christian Perspective
It is not enough when one simply points out the flaws of a given perspective when it comes to a particular issue. One must also offer an alternative point of view, and so, in regards to yesterday's post where I put forth the reasons a basis for marriage from a secular perspective fail, I must now offer the alternative.
Christianity has two main figures who address marriage at length: Jesus and Paul. I will begin with Jesus as He is the Author and Perfector of the faith:
3 Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus], and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ 4He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, 5and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ 7They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’--Matthew 19:3-9
Jesus teaches against divorce by referring to Genesis chapter 2. I too will head that direction so that Jesus' words may be understood more clearly in regards to marriage, but first we must take a slight detour and examine St. Paul:
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband 11(but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.--1 Corinthians 7
Interestingly enough, Paul gives, as a reason for marriage, the quenching of the fires of lust. Get married so that you can have sex which does not conflict with the commands of God. Now, this might seem a bit absurd as the only reason given for marriage, but we must also note Paul ties his teaching to Jesus'. So, we must examine in depth what Jesus says about divorce and why it is not permissable except in the cases of unfaithfulness.
One last tangent: there are those who claim that sex is sinful unless it is for procreation. Paul doesn't come close to this in his statement. If any of my readers ever thought this, I assure you, it is not scriptural. Go have some fun.
Onto heavier matters...
Jesus teaches quite clearly marriage is to be between one man and one woman and that the bond should not be broken by anything man does. Why is Jesus so strong on this teaching, leaving very little wiggle room?
Examining the text from Genesis chapter 2 is important here:
18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.’ 24Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.--Genesis 2:18-24
There are a number of things of import in this passage. Number one: While we can certainly live alone, it is not the preferred option. We are meant to be a communal creature--individuals living in community, and the very foundation of that community is the marriage relationship. Number two: we live in relationship to creation. God began the process of community by bringing the animals to the man to name, and while none was a suitable helper, man still was in relationship with them.
And now, we come to a very important part: woman was taken out of man. Please do not assume this means women have one more rib than men. They don't. Perhaps man was originally created with an extra--I really don't know. What I do know is the importance of that act of removing part of the man and creating woman out of it.
For one must think like the ancient Jews to understand the importance of this act of God. For the ancient Jews put a great value on the concept of wholeness. God was considered the ultimate of wholeness, completeness if you will, and things which were whole were considered closer to God. (Incidentally, the concept of shalom means wholeness.) When man's rib was taken, he was no longer whole. He was no longer one flesh. How could he recover his wholeness? How could he recover being one flesh?
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.--Genesis 2:24
It is in the marriage relationship where wholeness is found. The two, in their relationship with one another become one--united in wholeness, in shalom. This is why Jesus puts severe restrictions on divorce. One does not simply walk away from such a bond because these two individuals have become one, and to tear one flesh apart not only is painful, but it destroys wholeness and shalom. What God has joined together...
This is why the Roman Catholic Church honors marriage as a sacrament. The mysterious joining together of two individuals into one flesh by God's Word indeed is a wondrous mystery. (Lutherans do not consider marriage a sacrament because while there is command from God's Word, there is not a physical sign attached to it.)
This concept of wholeness is actually referred to again by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 and gives further credence to the Christian stance of saving sex for the marriage bed:
16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’
The Christian basis for marriage is the belief that wholeness, shalom is achieved in this relationship. It is not to be entered into flippantly, but with the knowledge something very important is going on. The relationship should not be ended without very, very good cause (unfaithfulness, in my estimation, can also be extended to abusive situations).
So, what does viewing marriage in this fashion do?
1. It handles both the couples who have and do not have children.
2. It handles the emotional aspect of companionship.
3. It allows for the economics of marriage.
4. As it stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition, it also imposes the Judeo-Christian boundaries on healthy marriages.
Of course, then one must recognize the place of polygamy in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible never out and out declares polygamy a sin. In fact, there are notable heroes of the faith who practiced it and without a peep from God or a prophet sent to tell them they were wrong. One could argue that polygamy indeed is sanctioned by the Bible.
Yet, I personally would not go that far. In 99% of the cases, polygamous relationships in Scripture turn out badly. Sarah and Hagar were not the model of wives who got along. Jacob's favoritism of Rachel's children over Leah's caused massive strife among the children. David's family went into open war. Solomon's heathen wives led him astray and into worshiping false gods. In building a case, I wouldn't recommend polygamy in the least.
However, with that one caveat, I believe a faith based approach to marriage serves as a much better approach than a secular approach.
Christianity has two main figures who address marriage at length: Jesus and Paul. I will begin with Jesus as He is the Author and Perfector of the faith:
3 Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus], and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ 4He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, 5and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ 7They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ 8He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’--Matthew 19:3-9
Jesus teaches against divorce by referring to Genesis chapter 2. I too will head that direction so that Jesus' words may be understood more clearly in regards to marriage, but first we must take a slight detour and examine St. Paul:
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband 11(but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.--1 Corinthians 7
Interestingly enough, Paul gives, as a reason for marriage, the quenching of the fires of lust. Get married so that you can have sex which does not conflict with the commands of God. Now, this might seem a bit absurd as the only reason given for marriage, but we must also note Paul ties his teaching to Jesus'. So, we must examine in depth what Jesus says about divorce and why it is not permissable except in the cases of unfaithfulness.
One last tangent: there are those who claim that sex is sinful unless it is for procreation. Paul doesn't come close to this in his statement. If any of my readers ever thought this, I assure you, it is not scriptural. Go have some fun.
Onto heavier matters...
Jesus teaches quite clearly marriage is to be between one man and one woman and that the bond should not be broken by anything man does. Why is Jesus so strong on this teaching, leaving very little wiggle room?
Examining the text from Genesis chapter 2 is important here:
18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.’ 24Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.--Genesis 2:18-24
There are a number of things of import in this passage. Number one: While we can certainly live alone, it is not the preferred option. We are meant to be a communal creature--individuals living in community, and the very foundation of that community is the marriage relationship. Number two: we live in relationship to creation. God began the process of community by bringing the animals to the man to name, and while none was a suitable helper, man still was in relationship with them.
And now, we come to a very important part: woman was taken out of man. Please do not assume this means women have one more rib than men. They don't. Perhaps man was originally created with an extra--I really don't know. What I do know is the importance of that act of removing part of the man and creating woman out of it.
For one must think like the ancient Jews to understand the importance of this act of God. For the ancient Jews put a great value on the concept of wholeness. God was considered the ultimate of wholeness, completeness if you will, and things which were whole were considered closer to God. (Incidentally, the concept of shalom means wholeness.) When man's rib was taken, he was no longer whole. He was no longer one flesh. How could he recover his wholeness? How could he recover being one flesh?
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.--Genesis 2:24
It is in the marriage relationship where wholeness is found. The two, in their relationship with one another become one--united in wholeness, in shalom. This is why Jesus puts severe restrictions on divorce. One does not simply walk away from such a bond because these two individuals have become one, and to tear one flesh apart not only is painful, but it destroys wholeness and shalom. What God has joined together...
This is why the Roman Catholic Church honors marriage as a sacrament. The mysterious joining together of two individuals into one flesh by God's Word indeed is a wondrous mystery. (Lutherans do not consider marriage a sacrament because while there is command from God's Word, there is not a physical sign attached to it.)
This concept of wholeness is actually referred to again by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 and gives further credence to the Christian stance of saving sex for the marriage bed:
16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’
The Christian basis for marriage is the belief that wholeness, shalom is achieved in this relationship. It is not to be entered into flippantly, but with the knowledge something very important is going on. The relationship should not be ended without very, very good cause (unfaithfulness, in my estimation, can also be extended to abusive situations).
So, what does viewing marriage in this fashion do?
1. It handles both the couples who have and do not have children.
2. It handles the emotional aspect of companionship.
3. It allows for the economics of marriage.
4. As it stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition, it also imposes the Judeo-Christian boundaries on healthy marriages.
Of course, then one must recognize the place of polygamy in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible never out and out declares polygamy a sin. In fact, there are notable heroes of the faith who practiced it and without a peep from God or a prophet sent to tell them they were wrong. One could argue that polygamy indeed is sanctioned by the Bible.
Yet, I personally would not go that far. In 99% of the cases, polygamous relationships in Scripture turn out badly. Sarah and Hagar were not the model of wives who got along. Jacob's favoritism of Rachel's children over Leah's caused massive strife among the children. David's family went into open war. Solomon's heathen wives led him astray and into worshiping false gods. In building a case, I wouldn't recommend polygamy in the least.
However, with that one caveat, I believe a faith based approach to marriage serves as a much better approach than a secular approach.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Testimony Versus Historicity
In this and other cases, including the Gospels, testimony asks to be trusted. It does not consist in the presentation of evidence and argument for what only the witness, the involved insider, can tell us. In all cases, including even the law courts, testimony can be checked and assessed in appropriate ways but nevertheless has to be trusted. In the unique events we are considering, this is all the more true. To insist, with some Gospel critics, that the historicity of each and every Gospel periscope must be established, one by one, with arguments for each, is not to recognize testimony for what it necessarily is. It is to suppose that we can extract individual facts from testimony and build our own reconstruction of events that is no longer dependent upon the witness. It is to refuse that privileged access to truth that precisely participant testimony can give us. Ancient historiography rightly valued such testimony as essential to good history...
--Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony p. 502
Yes.
Bauckham has definitively destroyed the underlying assumptions for the quests of the Historical Jesus by rightly defining the Gospels not as history or mythology, but as stories based upon eyewitness testimony (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and by an eyewitness (John).
I am in agreement with Timothy Keller that this book will take a number of years to infiltrate current biblical scholarship, and it will be a new generation of biblical scholars who will carry this torch as it (hopefully) blossoms into a roaring fire. Yeah, it's that good.
It stands in sharp contrast to those who have undertaken the quest for the "historical Jesus." Those who undertake this task approach the gospel narratives with a skeptical nature--that they are narratives which include embellishment and perspectives of communities of faith instead of the reports of individual, eyewitness testimony. The task of the person/scholar searching for the "historical" Jesus is to wade through the mud and the muck in order to find the true jewels or authentic sayings and deeds of Jesus.
This Jesus historian then must reconstruct Jesus based upon those nuggets. So, you have a book like Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and The God We Never Knew. In each of these books, Borg reconstructs Jesus and God giving us a picture of a Jesus we never knew and a God we never knew.
Well...
Of course we never knew THAT Jesus and THAT God. They are Borg's reconstructions of Jesus and God. As such, they are Borg's Jesus and Borg's God not the God of scripture.
Plenty of folks have met Jesus through the Gospel accounts. Plenty of folks have met God through the biblical account, but they haven't met Borg's God and Borg's Jesus for obvious reasons.
Yet, Borg and others like him have garnered a hefty following in certain Christian circles. It's not surprising. (See: How Do Bad Ideas Continue to Stick Around)
Bauckham turns the tables and argues quite successfully that the Gospels demand to be approached with trust instead of skepticism--just as a person approaches another's testimony with trust unless given a reason to the contrary. Changing the assumption of how one approaches these documents changes the game--completely.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Sanitizing the Bible
I sat down in my office on Monday to consider the biblical texts for this week recommended by the Revised Common Lectionary. My attention centered for a time on the Second Lesson appointed for the day:
Revelation 22: 12-14, 16-17, 20-21
As a seminary professor once said, "They looked like roadkill."
If one were to print the appointed texts, they would read like this:
12 ‘See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’ 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. 17 The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift. 20 The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.
Nice, tidy, pretty, and comforting.
But let's add now what was omitted. The omissions will be highlighted for your consideration:
12 ‘See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’ 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. 15Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16 ‘It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.’ 17 The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift. 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; 19if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. 20 The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.
Question: Why the sanitizing?
(BTW: Since my congregation prints the lessons in the bulletin, I made sure the omitted texts were included.)
Revelation 22: 12-14, 16-17, 20-21
As a seminary professor once said, "They looked like roadkill."
If one were to print the appointed texts, they would read like this:
12 ‘See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’ 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. 17 The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift. 20 The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.
Nice, tidy, pretty, and comforting.
But let's add now what was omitted. The omissions will be highlighted for your consideration:
12 ‘See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’ 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. 15Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16 ‘It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.’ 17 The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift. 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; 19if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. 20 The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.
Question: Why the sanitizing?
(BTW: Since my congregation prints the lessons in the bulletin, I made sure the omitted texts were included.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)