Posts Tagged ‘Scripture’

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?

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

Recently, I’ve become more and more attracted to the Eastern Orthodox Church view of Scripture, that is, Scripture is a part of Tradition rather than a separate entity from it. Where this differs from the Roman Catholic view is that the RCC sees Scripture and Tradition to be two pillars of the faith.

The questions this creates:

1. If we see Scripture as part of Tradition, what do we do with individual interpretation? Does it cease to exist?
2. Also, what do we do with language, historical, and scientific developments? Are they to be ignored if Tradition has yet to deal with them?
3. How does this handle the idea of experience (as in the Wesleyan belief)?

These are some questions I have for the EOC view. If you are Orthodox, could you assist me with these questions?

The problems this solves:

1. It seems that the New Testament authors were, at many times, working within a particular interpretive tradition. They would often quote Scripture with no regard for historical context and reinterpret it to prove a specific Christological point. For instance, interact with Matthew’s use of Hosea 11. Matthew clearly interprets this to be a futuristic prediction of Jesus the Messiah. However, Hosea clearly is referring to a past event, that is, exodus, without any futuristic content. Matthew changes the text because his interpretive tradition, at that time, did so. Thus, it seems that the EOC continues such a tradition, in that it reads Scripture within a certain tradition rather than separate from it.
2. The EOC view, also, answers the question I raised before, “How did Christians handle issues of the faith for 300 years or so without a canonized Scripture?” Well, apostolic tradition, of course.
3. It also keeps from wild (even unbiblical, unchristian) interpretations since EOC members learn to submit to the authority of the community, the Church.
4. Lastly (and by no means does this exhaust this section), everyone relies on Tradition, whether they’d like to admit it or not. For instance, rapture theorists rely on a tradition, even though it’s only a 200 year-old, American tradition. So, when the question comes, “What does First Thessalonians 4 mean?” These Christians would say, “Well, it’s talking about the rapture.” But the majority of global Christians would say something else, perhaps like, “Well, Paul is using Caesar language there, making Jesus the ‘better Caesar.’” Denial one’s own reliance on tradition is naïve. We all do it, at least, the EOC admits it.

I would like to hear what people have to say about this, especially, those of you from the RCC or EOC, though I’d love to hear from you, Protestants, too. If you could offer some insight, please comment below.

This is a post I wrote for www.everydayliturgy.com some time ago. It was also “tweeted” by Emergent Village and baptimergent, and it was mentioned on multiple blogs. I’ve engaged in this conversation a few times recently, and, thus, I figured I would post it here, as well.

[I in no way hope to draw a conclusion about this topic here, but I hope it opens doors to serious dialogue not only between Protestants but also with our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters.]

I have increasingly become aware (throughout my own worship and interpretation of Scripture) of the difficulty of sola scriptura, that is, Scripture alone is authoritative for the Church. As a Protestant I know that it is one of the foundations of Martin Luther’s theology. In my church-life, every time I’ve come to question sola scriptura, I am quickly reminded that it is what makes Protestantism “great,” and so we can now remove ourselves from dead rituals and traditions that have for so long “plagued the Church” prior to Martin Luther.

However, I’m not so sure what sola scriptura has evolved into is what Luther ever intended.

I think Protestants have forgotten that the Church had no “scriptura” in canonical-form until the early 300s CE. How did they handle issues of the faith for 300 years? You guessed it – tradition. How did they determine how to live as the Church through those times? Modeling the faith through – tradition. For the early church, tradition was part of their story. It’s explained who they were. Tradition is what brought life to the writings they had received from the apostles.

Here’s where I have to turn this topic over to a statement made by Stanley Hauerwas –

When sola scriptura is used to underwrite the distinction between text and interpretation, then it seems clear to me that sola scriptura is a heresy rather than a help in the Church. When this distinction persists, sola scriptura becomes the seedbed of fundamentalism, as well as biblical criticism. It assumes that the text of the Scripture makes sense separate from a Church that gives it sense. Perhaps those among us who maintain such a position forget that for much of the Church’s life most Christians could not read, but that did not in itself make them less faithful…That Christians have learned of Christ and Christ’s relationship to Israel through biblical scenes portrayed on church windows and stone carvings and statues of the saints, alive and dead, should be sufficient for us to realize that the text of the Scripture is not mean to be “preserved intact” separate from the Church [p. 27-28; Hauerwas, S. (1993) Unleashing the scripture: freeing the Bible from captivity to America. Abington Press: Nashville].

Scripture cannot be removed from the Church. The Church does not rely solely on Scripture, but it relies on its story, equally. How does God, then, use Scripture and tradition together? Hauerwas explains further, “God certainly uses Scripture to call the Church to faithfulness, but such a call always comes in the form of some in the Church remind others in the Church how to live as Christians – no “text” can be substituted for the people of God” (p. 28; emphasis added). We constantly see the same thing in the Hebrew Scriptures – the prophets are always pointing the people back to remember their story, their tradition, in order to remind them what it means to be “God’s people” in their land.

Is Scripture neglected? Does tradition take precedent? No, Scripture and tradition always bounce off one another. Try to explain Jesus’ divinity without the Nicene Creed when confronted with Jesus’ rejection of divine status in Mark 10v18. If Scripture alone is our authority, Jesus is not God, for he rejects it, as he does in other places. But the Nicene Creed reminds us – Jesus is “of one Being with the Father.” Thus, the Nicene Creed assists us in our reflections upon Mark 10.

On the other hand, Luther’s reasoning for sola scriptura allows Scripture to hold accountable the Church and (at that time) the selling of indulgences. Scripture and tradition must go hand-in-hand.

If we hold Scripture and tradition hand-in-hand, reminding ourselves what tradition has to say about Scripture, and Scripture about tradition, it influences our worship and how we live as “God’s people.” We remember the importance of the Eucharist, and it is not reduced to a boring “ritual;” instead, it brings life. We remember the importance of baptism, not as “some thing we just do” but as something that brings life. We remember the Church’s stance of non-violence, and we second-guess our tendencies to partake in any of its forms. If we do so, we will live stories of justice, embrace, love, and service. We will remember our heroes and heroines, and we seek to live in the Christ-like ways they did. Scripture walking hand-in-hand with tradition brings life, not death (as many have supposed), to the Church.

If we do not take seriously the relationship between Scripture and tradition, I’m afraid sola scriptura becomes more of a heresy than a help.

I’ve recently started re-reading Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Enns’ “incarnational analogy” of Scripture is basically that Christ being the “Word of God” is equally fully man and fully God, and so is Scripture being the “Word of God” is equally fully human and fully God. I have been moved by the following:

Enns explains that the difference between Jewish interpretation and Christian interpretation of Scripture is that Judaism engages tensions and ambiguities and even suggests that Scripture allows for tensions in order to invite the interpreter to “problem solving.” On the other hand, as so in my experience, evangelicals tend to sweep tensions “under the rug” (so to speak). About evangelical Christian interpretation, Enns correctly states:

As quite distinct from Jewish interpretation, the history of modern evangelical interpretation exhibits a strong degree of discomfort with the tensions and ambiguities of Scripture. The assumptions often made are that Scripture should have no tensions and that any such tensions are not real but introduced from the outside, namely, by scholarship hostile to evangelical Christianity. Whatever tensions remain are addressed either by posing some direct solution (however ingenious) or by moving the problem to the side (”We know it has to fit somehow; we just aren’t sure how”).

p. 72, Enns, P. (2005). Inspiration and incarnation: evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Baker: Grand Rapids.

For more quotes, which I found noteworthy, go here.

I’ve recently started re-reading Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Enns’ “incarnational analogy” of Scripture is basically that Christ being the “Word of God” is equally fully man and fully God, and so is Scripture being the “Word of God” is equally fully human and fully God. I have been moved by the following quotes:

On the interpretation of Scripture: “To put it succinctly: the Spirt leads the church to truth–he does not simply drop us down in the middle of it. To say this is not a low view of Scripture or the role of the Holy Spirit. It is simply to recognize what has been the case throughout the history of the church, that diverse views and changes of opinion over time have been constant companions of the church and that God has not brought this process to closure” (p. 49).

On the uniqueness of Scripture: “What makes Israel’s law and wisdom literature unique is not so much what it says (although that is certainly true with various laws), but Israel’s claim to be connected to the one true God who alone has the right to lay these claims upon them. That is the message to the other nations: This is the law of God who delivered us from Egypt; this is the wisdom of God who created heaven and earth. We worship him. The similarities between Israel’s conduct and that of the other nations does not make Israel less unique among the nations any more than Jesus’ sharing in the customs of practices of first-century Palestine makes him less unique. Rather both Israel’s practices and Christ himself are evidence of ‘God with us’” (p. 59; bold mine).

Enns, P. (2005). Inspiration and incarnation: evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Baker: Grand Rapids.

Aren’t they great?! I think so.