Posts Tagged ‘Bible’

Tattoo

Have you ever had a debate with someone over what the Bible says? Well, I have. It isn’t always pleasant, but, often, it can be beneficial for you (and sometimes, for both parties). One instance in my own life was with my grandfather (who has now passed away) over the dreaded issue of (duh, duh, dum)…tattoos. I truly found nothing wrong with Christians having tattoos, and I was pretty confident about it. My grandfather on the other hand did not agree. In fact, he found out about a previous discussion I had with my dad about tattoos, and, at an after-church lunch one day, he handed me a 3×5 card with a verse from Leviticus, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the LORD” (19:28 NLT). I thanked him and responded that this verse is from Leviticus, and, unless we were expected to keep the ceremonial laws, then I would have to disregard it. We went back and forth for some time, but, eventually, we agreed to disagree.

Now, I don’t have tattoos. It’s not that I don’t want one or think they are “evil.” It’s just that I’d rather feed my family. My brother does have tattoos; perhaps, one day I will join him (and, Jon, if you are reading this, you’re welcome for fighting those battles with Mom and Grandpop :)). However, I thought about this conversation with my grandfather, particularly, after his death. It just didn’t do it for me to say, “Well…that’s the Old Testament. Disregard it.” Somehow, I think I remember the Church deciding that such things were heretical. So, how would I approach something like this in the future?

The Last Word (2005)

Voila! Enter N.T. Wright’s The Last Word and his five-act hermeneutic. The five-acts are as follows: creation, fall, Israel, Jesus, and the church. We are currently living in the fifth act “the church” (In case you were wondering, this is not dispensationalism). There are several things to highlight about this:

• NTW explains,

This act began with Easter and Pentecost; its opening scenes are the apostolic period itself; its charter text is the New Testament; its goal, its intended final scene, is sketched clearly in such passages as Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 21-22. The key point of the whole model, which forms the heart of the multi-layered view of how “the authority of scripture” actually works, runs as follows: Those who live in this fifth act have an ambiguous relationship with the four previous acts, not because they are being disloyal to them but precisely because they are being loyal to them as part of the story (p. 122).

• He continues, “We must act in the appropriate manner for this moment in the story; this will be in direct continuity with the previous acts (we are not free to jump suddenly to another narrative, a different play altogether)” (p. 123; emphasis original).
• This leads us to a state of “improvisation” within Act 5. Creativity is allowed, but we are acting within the play. For instance, if one was improvising within a Shakespearean play, he or she would not add spaceships to the play. They simply don’t work within that framework.
• What about tradition? Wright correctly explains that tradition is a “grid” on how to interpret Scripture (p. 118). There are scenes that have gone before us in Act 5. If we are to jump in now, we must take into account what has already happened in our Act. To disregard tradition is like me saying, “I don’t care who my grandfather was or where my parents lived most of my life. They don’t make me who I am. I am me.” And then I go about acting as if these things never existed or don’t influence my behavior. Such is certainly not true and is absurd (as at most a psychologist could tell you or at least my Philly accent gives it away that my history makes me who I am today).

So, back to the issue at hand — what do you say to the Christian who thinks tattoos are evil? Perhaps you consider the Act in which Leviticus was written (i.e., Israel), then look at Act 4 with Jesus, and then Act 5 with the apostles and so forth; and then you conclude that tattoos are a matter of Christian freedom–just like wearing a shirt made of two cloths. I know it takes some time to explain how this works to someone, but it might be time that we give people a better framework on how to interpret Scripture. For instance, I don’t know how one can believe in the “prosperity gospel” if he or she reads the Prophets or the Gospels (or church history for that matter). That’s like spaceships in a Shakespearean play!

As I stated yesterday, I don’t agree with Wright on everything in this book, but, overall, I believe this is how the authority of Scripture works, like a story, like a five-act play. It is a guiding principle. It leads us to better understand who God is and what his mission for us is, as well. In the end, Wright’s The Last Word encourages us to read Scripture, wrestle with it, and allow it to guide us each and every day. Score 8 out of 10.

+++++++
Wright, N.T. (2005). The last word: beyond the Bible wars to a new understanding of the authority of Scripture. Harper: San Francisco.

Buy: Amazon.com

Stage 3. Post 1. The Last Word.

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

I don’t think I know what someone means when they say they believe the Scripture is authoritative. I suppose I imagine Scripture on a pedestal, looking down on us from above, and we just look up at it and bow before its verses. I know that’s strange, but I think a lot of Christians don’t know what it means to say that Scripture is authoritative. I usually hear some type of rhetoric about how, “We read Scripture, and we believe it so if you disagree with us, you disagree with Scripture.” Somehow I find that to be unhealthy, and it sounds more like you are authoritative rather than Scripture, and I don’t think you want that type of pressure. So, when N.T. Wright explains, “The phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only if it is shorthand for ‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture’” (p. 23; emphasis original), we see the proper understanding of Scripture’s (I capitalize “Scripture” unlike our friends across the Atlantic) authority. Scripture simply is used by God as a vehicle through which he expresses his authority.

The Last Word (2005)

In many circles, the “literal” sense of Scripture is seen as “authoritative.” Not many today would suggest that a way of determining how Scripture is authoritative would lean on the “four sense” interpretive scheme or a highly allegorical interpretation. NTW points out, though, that “when the Reformers insisted on the ‘literal’ sense of scripture, they were referring to the first of the four medieval senses.” As NTW continues, “For them, the ‘literal’ sense was the sense that the first writers intended” (p. 73; emphasis original). With this being said, if a passage is meant to be figurative, the literal sense would be figurative. For instance, the Reformers challenged the Catholic view of the elements of the Eucharist. Yes, Christ did say, “This is my body,” but this is in fact meant to be figurative. A literal reading turns out to be the Catholic view of transubstantiation. Thus,

We need to note carefully that to invoke “the literal meaning of scripture,” hoping thereby to settle a point by echoing the phraseology of the Reformers, could be valid only if we meant, not “literal” as opposed to metaphorical, but “literal” (which might include metaphorical, if that, arguably, was the original sense) as opposed to the three other medieval senses (allegorical, anagogical, and/or moral) (pp.73-74; emphasis original).

Unlike many Christians who have an aversion to metaphor, metaphor is often used in Scripture and the intent of the authors could be so. For instance, if Revelation is supposed to be metaphorical, then there is no need to think we are abandoning the literal sense when we interpret it metaphorically.

I do have to challenge Wright on a couple of things. Although if he were face-to-face with me, he would probably wipe the floor with me. However, the benefit of a blog is I can say whatever I want. First, I felt Wright was a little harsh on the four medieval senses. Concerning the four senses, he states, “The trouble with all of this is of course the lack of control. Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion” (p. 70). Now, I do lean towards the literal sense, but I think the four senses can take Scripture from a “static” book to a “dynamic” one. Control we cannot, but there is great beauty in this style of interpretation. But we can’t even control the literal readings that some people come up with. And who’s to say that the Holy Spirit cannot open such senses to the reader?

This leads to my second “hang up” (so to speak). NTW disagrees with the more supposedly “Catholic” position of tradition over Scripture. He states, “Those who transmit, collect and distribute the message are not in the same league as those who write it in the first place” (p. 63). In a sense, I agree. However, I have explained something similar elsewhere, but, even if Paul or Moses were here with us today, they are merely one voice among many. Now, Paul and Moses are taken more seriously since they were the authors of their supposed texts, but the Spirit can lead the Church to a new, fresh meaning for today. I know this is controversial, and I don’t have time to unpack it all here. I would mostly agree with Wright, and I wouldn’t dismiss him (as all these posts on his works will show I admire him). I simply would like to ask him questions concerning these things.

Tomorrow, I will talk about how Scripture can and should be used today. Specifically, NTW’s “five act play” model will be talked about. I, in fact, have used it often, and I have heard it used in other books. However, thus far, I have to admit that I find NTW’s proposals very helpful. We have to think about the authority of Scripture differently, and part of that task is to unpack what we mean by that and how we intend to use its authority. Wright helps us do that.

How have you heard people use defend their positions with the “authority of Scripture”?

How do you feel one should come about the proper interpretation of Scripture? Is there any value to the four senses view?

The Last Word (1st ed. 2005; 2nd ed. 2009)

I have a great place in my heart for N.T. Wright’s The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (my edition is different from the picture. I have the earlier one). I was finishing up college, and I was looking for a fresh “word” about Scripture. I was tired of hearing how the Bible was the “infallible, inerrant word of God.” Not that I didn’t (or don’t) believe those things, but I was used to hearing those words as an attack on someone else. “We believe Scripture!” is what I would hear with nuance or substance. I also had learned my theology from a strong dispensational standpoint, and it was beginning to unravel for me. It just didn’t make sense. Things were just too neat and organized.

I picked up The Last Word at a local bookstore because the topic intrigued me, and I was looking at Biblical Theological Seminary to attend for graduate work and John Franke (a professor there) endorsed the book. I never heard of this N.T. Wright guy, except once or twice before. I knew he wrote a few things, and some people liked him. So, I picked it up. What I found is what I fell in love with!

Looking back, it isn’t Wright’s best book, but it was my first exposure, and, like your first kiss, it’s memorable. I remember reading the book as I handed out fliers for the company I worked for at the time. I would walk around the neighborhood to put fliers on mailboxes (putting them in is illegal), and I brought this book with me. I re-read it (very quickly) for these blog posts, and I realized how much of my theology was truly influenced by this book. I hope you enjoy my posts on it.

N.T. Wright

4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

If you don’t know already, I am a huge N.T. Wright fan. No other author has had a more lasting impact on my life than he. God has used his writings to help me be a better lover for theology, a better Christian, and (I would even suggest) a better human. Over the next two weeks, I will be reading multiple books by N.T. Wright and reflecting on them here on my blog. My goal: read 4 of his books, write two reflections/posts on each, give a score (e.g., 7 out of 10) for each one, and complete it all before my wife gives birth to our son (wish me luck!). I hope you will find my reflections stimulating and encouraging. If you are looking for someone to call NTW a “heretic,” you won’t find that here, but I hope I can offer you a glimpse into his theology and maybe you’ll pick up one of the books on your own, too. I would also like to challenge any other NTW fans to take on this “N.T. Wright Project” over the summer, read a book or two, and offer reflections on their perspective blogs. Anyone interested?

I have chosen the following as part of this undertaking, and I have provided pieces of the Amazon.com reviews to help you get a brief synopsis of what each book is about:

• Evil and the Justice of God (2006).

Evil and the Justice of God (2006)

“Why does evil persist in a world created by a good God? And why does the church seem so feeble in counteracting evil? Wright, a New Testament scholar who is Anglican bishop of Durham, U.K., and author of several well-received volumes, including Jesus and the Victory of God, addresses these questions in a readable and compelling plea to renew the church’s compassionate mission in these challenging times.”

• The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God–Getting Beyond the Bible Wars (2005).
  

  The Last Word (2005)

“Wright offers sensible insights on the transforming power of God, very necessary in these times of skepticism and confusion.” (Publishers Weekly )

“The best book of its kind available.” (The Christian Century )

“[P]robing, provocative, insightful…This is a book of uncommon wisdom for all who read and love the Bible.” (Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and Executive Editor of Christianity Today)

• What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (1997).
  

  What Saint Paul Really Said (1997)

N. T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said leads readers through the current scholarly discussion of Paul and gives a concise account of the actual contribution Paul made to the birth of Christianity. Wright offers a critique of the argument that claims that it was Paul who founded Christianity and shows clearly that Paul this allegation is simply not true. But rather that Paul was the faithful witness and herald of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Messiah and the risen Lord of the Christian faith. And that neither he, nor any of those who immediately followed him in the leadership counsels of the Christian church, every claimed or thought otherwise. — Midwest Book Review

• Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (2009).
  

  Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision (2009)

“For some time now, I have watched in puzzlement as some critics, imagining themselves as defenders of Paul’s gospel, have derided Tom Wright as a dangerous betrayer of the Christian faith. In fact, Paul’s gospel of God’s reconciling, world-transforming grace has no more ardent and eloquent exponent in our time than Tom Wright. If his detractors read this book carefully, they will find themselves engaged in close exegesis of Paul’s letters, and they will be challenged to join Wright in grappling with the deepest logic of Paul’s message. Beyond slogans and caricatures of ‘Lutheran readings’ and ‘the New Perspective,’ the task we all face is to interpret these difficult, theologically generative letters afresh for our time. Wright’s sweeping, incisive sketch of Paul’s thought, set forward in this book, will help us all in that task.” —-Richard B. Hays, Duke University

Glenn Beck

In case you haven’t heard, FoxNews personality, Glenn Beck, has asked Christians to leave their churches if their pastor(s) speaks of “social justice.” So, I figured I would compile verses supporting one set of social justice issues, that is, the caring for the poor, and, then, compile all the verses about Glenn Beck at the end. Here they are:

Verses about the poor (i.e., “social justice” or what Beck calls “code for communism”):

(more…)