<Theofragen>

At the request of my friend Jason, this post is an attempt to remove myself from the esoteric dialogue that is so particular to academic theological blogs. I am trying to explain this topic as clearly as possible because it plays a major role in my theological views and for my critique of the doctrine of inerrancy. My hope is that, regardless of your theological perspective, you will understand what I am trying to get across in this post. Furthermore, I welcome any and all comments in response to this post. I only ask that those of you who know a bunch about hermeneutics cut me some slack given my purposes here. Additionally, please forgive the length of this post, I try very hard to keep my posts of managable length. I want to give a general overview of hermeneutics as I will build upon it in later posts. However, this does not mean that I will cover everything, people write books on this stuff people!

Now, "hermeneutics" is a technical term that basically means "the art of interpretation". But interpretation is just figuring out what the text is saying, right? I'm glad you asked because it is not that simple. For the past 2,000 years or so, Christians have been wrestling with the 'proper' way to interpret the Bible. Many early church thinkers weighed in on this debate and two opposing schools of thought quickly developed. The first was located in Alexandria and espoused a hermeneutic called "allegorical interpretation." Essentially, allegorical interpretation was the attempt to understand the Bible spiritually based on materials and presuppositions found outside the text. With this method, the text is understood symbolically as pointing to some deeper reality. The task of interpretation then was to discover the "true" meaning beyond the literal meaning of the text.

In polar opposition to the Alexandrian school stood the Antiochene school, which espoused a purely literal mode of interpreting the Bible. The 'literal meaning' of the text was understood as the "face value" of the text and focused primarily on textual and grammatical analysis. Any attempt to bring an extra-biblical understanding to one's interpretation was vehemently opposed.

These two schools of thought were at odds for many years until a church leader named Augustine offered a new hermeneutical proposal that was something of a compromise between the two. Augustine reaped the benefits of a classical education in which he engaged in text-by-text analysis of thinkers like Cicero and Plato. This methodology was very close to the "literal" hermeneutic touted by the Antiochene School. Augustine was heavily influenced as a young man by a Catholic bishop named Ambrose. Ambrose (via Origen--a prominent defender of allegorical interpretation) taught Augustine to read the Bible with an eye for the deeper, spiritual meaning of the text. After many years of study and experimentation, Augustine eventually established the method of interpretation that was to be the norm for Catholicism for the next few hundred years. Augustine had a healthy appreciation for the symbolic nature of language. He insisted that the biblical texts were human texts which refer to God and that they should not be treated as a God. Rather, they are used as guides to assist the Christian in forming a proper perspective in relation to God and humanity (cf.De Doctrina Christiana, I.40-1). This perspective, according to Augustine, was the notion of love. So, on the one hand, Augustine stood in solidarity with the Alexandrian folks in that he understood the words of the Bible as pointing beyond themselves to deeper truths (this is often called 'semiotics'). Therefore, the texts needed to be interpreted apart from the Bible. On the other hand, he argued for the Bible to be read according to the notion of love, which emerges from within the text itself. In so doing, Augustine resembled the advocates of the Antiochene school. Both notions, the literal, held in tension with the spiritual, became the mode of reading the bible until a guy named Thomas Aquinas appeard on the scene during medieval times.

A bit before Aquinas' time (in the 12th Century A.D.) the lost works of Aristotle were discovered and led to the development of something called "Scholastic Theology". These Scholastics, of which Aquinas was arguably the most influential, departed from Augustine's two-fold interpretive program in favor of the strictly literal meaning of the text. Thus the interpretation of the Bible took on a scientific nature. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas writes:

The author of holy scripture is God, in whose power it is to signify his
meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but by things themselves. So,
whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has
the property that the things signified by the words have themselves also
signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things
belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification
whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called
the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it…. Thus in
holy scripture no confusion results, for all the senses are found on one – the
literal – form which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those
intended as allegory, as Augustine says. Nevertheless, nothing of holy scripture
perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under
the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by scripture in its
literal sense. (Ia. 1,10)

One scholar has summarized this interpretive shift ushered by the Scholastics: "The control of interpretation is clearly the motive of scholastic hermenteutics" (140-1, italics mine). Aquinas' insitance on the literal meaning of Scripture as the "true" grounds of theology became the accepted hermeneutic for the next 400 or so years.

Then, in 1515, a chubby monk named Martin Luther posted his famous Thesis on the chapel at Wittenberg and Christian hermeneutics were altered yet again. Luther's insistance on sola scriptura (Scripture alone) intensified the Scholastic's emphasis on the literal meaning of the text. Luther, however, invoking the Christian mystical tradition, pressed for a strictly literal interpretation in light of one's contemplative wrestling in the Spirit with the text. Luther saw the Spirit as the author of the Bible and he believed that the Spirit would provide "the proper" interpretation to the extent that the interpreter submitted herself entirely to the spirit of the text. For Luther and his disciples the Bible's inspiration colluded with the text's literal, written word and thus the equation of the Word of God with the biblical text.

The emphasis rather than the content of Luther's hermeneutics was challenged by the second-generation reformer, John Calvin. Calvin was greatly influenced by the Humanist tradition (championed by Erasmus) and found his greatest interpretive model in the great 4th century preacher, John Chrysostom. Calvin, as well as Luther, added a typological interpretation to his literal reading. This means that he sees the Bible as one unified story, with Christ as the culmination. In the service of this unity, Calvin either reads Christ back into the Old Testament (typologically) or views the Old Testament as prefiguing Christ in order to acheive this unity. Calvin writes,

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly
taught truly rest upon Scirpture, and that Scripture indeed is
self-authenticated; hence, it is not right ot subject it to proof and
reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by
the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself
by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our
hearts through the Holy Spirit. (Institutes, I.7.5)

Calvin's development of this doctrine will be taken up further in my next post on this subject.

Well, my fingers are sufficiently blistered from this post. Later I will continue this post with a Part 2, in which I will offer a summary of hermeneutics from Calvin to the present. Then I will offer another attempt to summarize, as best as possible, the philosophical development of hermeneutics and how this has led many fundamentalists to 'circle the wagons' in defense of the erroneous doctrineof biblical inerrancy. For those of you who know this stuff better than I, I welcome your criticism. Peace.

posted by Jake at 1/31/2005 10:30:00 PM

It's a Girl!

I want to congratulate my friends, Jason and Suzanna Phillips, as they welcome the birth of their new baby girl. They named her Elizabeth Annowen Phillips and both she and Suzanna are doing well. You can check out lots of pictures here.

posted by Jake at 1/30/2005 03:15:00 PM

See where fundamentalism gets ya?

Tony Jones asked those of us who are involved in the NJ regional cohort to think about promising theories of theodicy for the emergent church in the wake of the Tsunami. I think that a post-evangelical hermeneutic stears us away from the interpretation of this travesty by some fundamentalists. Check out what Henry Blackaby, the author of the popular 'Experiencing God' series, has to say. You can read about it here. This should offer a secondary conversation on how one's understanding of Scripture impacts one's theology in general and view of theodicy in particular.

posted by Jake at 1/25/2005 10:09:00 PM

The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 3)

My buddy, Jason, sent me an article today that I found rather interesting. It is a 1968 essay by Daniel Fuller (the son of the founder of Fuller Seminary) offering a subtle critique of B.B. Warfield's view of biblical inerrancy. I must confess, although I walk past his house almost every day I have not seriously wrestled with Warfield's view of inerrancy. My work has been more with the hermeneutical work of Warfield's progenitors (Luther, Calvin) and his predecessor (C.F.H. Henry).

Fuller, as I understand him, tempers Warfield's plenary-verbal doctrine of inerrancy and instead contends that the Bible is inerrant with regard to matters of salvation and not necessarily to matters of botany, cosmogony, history, etc. because, in these contexts, God is presenting humanity with non-revelatory matters. Nevertheless, Fuller maintains Warfield's insistence that Scripture is self-testified as inerrant. In other words, the Bible is to be viewed as inerrant because Scripture itself is divine!

Now, I'm not a theologian or a church historian, but I am pretty sure that that is a heretical statement. By elevating Scripture to divine status we are supplanting Jesus (as in the second person of the Trinity) with Jesus as interpreted by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul and then reinterpreted by modern day readers. I have many problems with this and will tackle only one for now. Warfield and Fuller presuppose that the Bible is divine and hence deduce that the biblical writers are trustworthy. Warfield's insistence that his view of inerrancy is not an a priori conception is logically flawed. He writes,

It is not on some shadowy and doubtful evidence that the doctrine of (verbal inspiration) is based not on an a priori conception of what inspiration ought be . . . but first on the confidence which we have in the writers of the New Testament as doctrinal guides, and ultimately on whatever evidence of whatever kind and force (that) exists to justify that confidence (quoted by Fuller, 75).
I beg to differ.

Heidegger wrote,
An interpretation is never a presuppositionless apprehending of something presented to us. If, when one is engaged in a particular kind of interpretation, in the sense of exact textual interpretation, one likes to
appeal to what stands there, but then one finds that what stands there in the first instance is nothing other than the obvious undiscussed assumption of the person who does the interpreting (192-3).
For Warfield and co. their presupposition in reading the bible is that every jot and tittle must be inerrant. In the hermeneutical circle, an interpreter brings her own presuppositions to the text which in turn influence the ways in which she interprets the text. To presume that inerrancy is a priori is to reject the entire enlightenment and the rise of modernity from whence this entire doctrine emerges.

Jesus clearly adopted a non-literalist interpretation of the Scriptures (cf. Mt. 5:17ff; Mk. 2:23-8; Lk. 13:10-7; etc) and I believe him to be the Word of God, not the Bible!

posted by Jake at 1/22/2005 08:09:00 PM

More Baptist Conflict

Montesquieu wrote, "Every religion which is persecuted becomes itself persecuting; for as soon as by some accidental turn it arises from persecution, it attacks the religion which persecuted it" (479). I understand this trend in the Southern Baptist Convention as it makes common sense: 'if someone strikes you on the cheek, beat the crap out of them when you get a chance.' In a recent Associate Baptist Press release, I have come to learn that Richard Land, the president of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, told reporters that the Southern Baptist Convention is now going to develop a competing international Baptist organization. The first meeting of this group will coincide with the Baptist World Alliance's (from whom the SBC split last year) July meeting. This is a blatant statement from the SBC that it aims to extend its schismatic practices throughout the world.

Frankly, this does not surprise me. Paul Pressler, one of the major players responsible for the fundamentalist takeover/conservative resurgence describes the reason for the takeover of the SBC in his book. He links the major reason for this action to the feeling among conservatives that their concerns were not being heard by the moderate controlled convention.

Sacks writes, "The pages of history are littered with the debris of empires that seemed impregnable in their day but soon thereafter fell into decay and oblivion" (192). On the one hand, I am frustrated about this SBC push towards further division among Baptists. On the other hand, I understand their actions as clearly exemplifying Montesquieu's apropos sentiment. I'd be interested to learn what my Baptist friends think about this?

posted by Jake at 1/19/2005 11:17:00 AM

Not a good sign

I just started a new book by Gerald Bruns called, Hermeneutics Ancient and Modern. My buddy Eric is taking a directed reading with Carol Newsom at Emory on hermeneutics and I am going to try and keep up. I limped my way through the first chapter and this is how Bruns concludes:

"The book that follows is an attempt to stretch the conceptual history of hermeneutics in order to produce a less narrow, more heterogeneous and complicated picture of its ancient and modern boundaries, but it will be apparent at once that this attempt is far from being either systematic or rigorously and exhaustively empirical--how could it be, given the vastness and intractability of its subject"(16).

In other words, this book is an attempt to complicate and obfuscate an already occluded 'loose and baggy monster' called hermeneutics. What ever happened to writing books with lucidity and cogency as the chief ends of publishing?

posted by Jake at 1/18/2005 02:14:00 PM

Ruth 1: Reflections (1:1-5)

(Ruth and Naomi, by He Qi, China) In our first section of this bible study of the book of Ruth we have become aquainted with the central characters of the story and their "sucky" plight (props to Stacy for this summary:). We have begun to explore the depths of human suffering and how the oh so common occurance of 'bad things happening to good people' impacts our relationship with God. In a man-centered world, three women are left without a care-giver--a veritable death sentence in ancient Israelite culture. In such dire circumstances a woman was left with one of three options: 1) get remarried; 2) become a prostitute; or 3) beg for one's sustenance. Due to Naomi's age (1:12), options one and two would be out of the question. She couldn't go out and get a job as a Walmart greeter or at McDonalds. No, Naomi would be subjected to a meager existance; relying on the charity of others (recall the Widow's Mite in Luke 21:1-4). The stage has been set, the drama has been cast, events are in motion that cannot be reversed. What will happen to our protagonist and her two daughters-in-law?

(Simon Bening, Naomi Grieving the Loss of Her Family, 1525-30) To the left is a picture of Naomi morning the loss of her sons and husband from a 16th century manuscript. What are your impressions of this depiction? Does it capture her pain? her sorrow? Has the artist rendered Naomi's plight justly?

This week please meditate on Naomi's struggle and these first five verses from Ruth 1. Try to live into her existential situation and see things from her perspective. How would you feel if you were Orpah or Ruth? Can you relive any experiences in which you were in grief and yet had to remain strong for someone else? How did this impact you? We do the story a disservice if we gloss over this pain too quickly. It must set with us for a while. We must be vulnerable before the text to allow its tale of pain to touch our own doleful experiences. This blog is a free-zone: you have permission to be as candid or furtive as you would like. Please respond to each others' comments with love and understanding. When we open ourselves up to the Bible, God's Word meets us in profound and myriad ways. Peace.

posted by Jake at 1/15/2005 10:42:00 AM

Ruth 2: Reflections (1:6-22)

(William Blake, Ruth the Dutiful Daughter in Law, 1803)
In our study this week we explored the complex relationship developed between these three women: Naomi, Ruth and Orpah. We discussed the depths of the women's losses and their relationship to one another in Iron I Age (1200-1000B.C.E.) Israel. We talked about the intricacy of family life during this time and about what it really meant to be a woman in this male-controlled world. Furthermore, we discussed the lunacy involved with Ruth's stubbornness to remain with Naomi against all odds. She has disobeyed her mother-in-law's plea and in doing so has chosen death over life--death to her own people, her own country, even her own gods! We also discussed the role that Orpah played in this scene. Is she an obedient, realistic woman or is she an evil and self serving rogue? Compare these two pictures. What strikes you about the manner in which Naomi, Ruth and Orpah are depicted? Do you agree with the artists' depictions? Why or why not?

(Armond Avanes, Ruth will not leave Naomi, 2000)

It seems that these two paintings depict Orpah in distinct ways. Which one do you think captures the biblical text more faithfully?

In verses 20-22 we behold Naomi as she returns to her hometown of Bethlehem. In a world that defined women in relation to the men in their lives, how do you think Naomi felt when she returned home "empty"?

How would you feel? How does this picture make you feel? Have things changed for women all that significantly? It seems that society still puts an enormous amount of pressure on women to have a boyfriend, husband, etc. Why do you think this is? We mentioned in class about the language Naomi uses when she enters into the city gates. She says, "I went away full but the Lord has brought me back empty." Is she indeed empty? This picture clearly shows Naomi accompanied by her daughter-in-law. Perhaps her "being brought back" by the Lord was done in the service of being refilled? Notice that she was "brought back". The storyteller is clear to note that this is not some whimsical okay-so-I-guess-I-will-go-home-now on Naomi's part. The Lord has brought her back and maybe her sorrow will be turned to gladness, her emptiness to abundance, her bitterness to sweetness? Tune in next week to see what happens as the barley harvest begins. (Bible Moralisée, Vienna, c.1122)

posted by Jake at 1/15/2005 10:41:00 AM

Ruth 3: Reflections (2:1-23)

(Nicolas Poussin, L'été ou Ruth et Booz, 1660-1664)
In today's lesson we watched as Ruth and Boaz make their first encounter in Boaz's field. More artists have chosen to paint this scene from the Ruth book than any other. Why do you think that is? An interesting thing to observe in these artistic renderings of the narrative is the characterization of Boaz and Ruth. Some pictures emphasize Ruth's utter dependence upon Boaz's magnanimity by showing her prostrating herself before Boaz. Other portrayals show Ruth standing, boldly. Which do you think is the better depiction?

(Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Ruth in Boaz's Field, 1828)

We mentioned that both Ruth and Boaz are depicted in relation to their hesed (loving kindness/compassion) they show for another in need. How do think that their hesed may be indicative of the Lord's? We need to work hard to make sure that we recognize the abundance of Boaz's compassion. Do you think that God treats us the same way? What about people (Christian and non-Christian) who are living in abject poverty around the world? Does God provide for them less? Does God care for them less? As we attempt to get our minds around the unfathomable blessing that Ruth has been to Naomi, and here Boaz to Ruth, let us consider ways that we too can work towards meeting the needs of those in want. What might this look like in our church? in our community? You can click on the pictures to see them enlarged. Peace.

posted by Jake at 1/15/2005 10:40:00 AM

Ruth 4: Reflections (3:1-18)

(Marc Chagall, Ruth at the Feet of Boaz, 1960) In our Bible Study this week we wrestled with Ruth 3:1-18, which recounted Ruth's furtive encounter with Boaz at the threshing floor. We talked about the repeated double-entendres employed by the storyteller to highten the narrative tension and to draw us as readers into the story. When trying to understand this passage, the English translations warm-over toublesome words that contain nuanced meanings. The verbs "lie down," "go down," "go/come," and "know" all bear sexual connotations in addition to their lexical definitions. Even after the explication during class we are left with many lingering question: what exactly transpired that Spring night so many years ago? Did Ruth politely lay at Boaz's feet as the painting by Chagall suggests? Look very closely at how he has chosen to depict both Boaz and Ruth. How does that compare with the contemporary interpretaion offered by Avi Katz? Which do you like better?

(Avi Katz, Ruth Cuddleth with Boaz)

Katz seems to depict Ruth as the "hottie" that Stacy suggested her to be. Is the biblical author condoning this act? It certainly seems so, for after this "act" she is deamed all the more a "woman of worth" by the author. What might this mean? I encourage you to think critically about your own presuppositions and biases that you bring to your interpretation of Ruth 3:1-18. Do you think that they had sex or not? Does it matter? If this is an intentional recasting of the Judah and Tamar story, as I contend, what are the implications for the Church today? In other words, what might the storyteller be trying to communicate to us about the ethics emcombant upon the covenant community? The Ruth story seems more concerned with the plight of the widows, Ruth and Naomi, than about sustaining the lineage/name of Mahlon. What might this signify? Please share your interpretations with the rest of us. Then you can read my interpretation (ignore the formatting on my Hebrew words). RuthPaperBody.pdf

posted by Jake at 1/15/2005 10:40:00 AM

Ruth 5: Reflections (4:1-12)

I find it interesting that this was the only picture I could find online that depicted the legal transaction between Boaz and so-and-so at the city gate. Isn't that weird? This picture looks like a 4th grade Sunday school picture. Anyway, we mentioned in class the difficulty of determining who took off his sandal and, more importantly, what it signified. Is this a vestige of the levirate marriage practice found in Deuteronomy 25? What do you think about Mr. So-and-so? Was he a shrewd business man who counted the yield-to-debt ratio and opted out for financial reasons or a selfish jerk who was only concerned about his own needs, or some combination? When Boaz tells him about the opportunity to acquire Naomi's property he responds promptly by saying "I will redeem it." This is only one word in Hebrew! He made this decision with alacrity and this quickness was matched only by his decision to back out of the deal once the fine-print was read. What do you make of this?

Why do you think Boaz was so eager to step into this role of redeeming Naomi and Ruth? Think about this from as many different angles as you can. I look forward to reading your responses.

posted by Jake at 1/15/2005 10:40:00 AM

Blogger anonymity

I presume that most of you blog in solitude. Sure you might blog in a coffee shop or at a public internet terminal, but for the most part it's just you, your computer and your thoughts. I work in the computer lab here at PTS and I inadvertently stumbled upon something that you may find interesting about anonymity and blogging.

I was posting a comment not long ago on my friend's blog when he came into the computer lab and started talking to me. Now I am a rather garrulous fellow, even in the lab, but I was taken offguard when he encountered me posting comments on his blog. I felt as if he had opened the door while I was going to the bathroom or something... it was almost an embarrassing experience! This experience has caused me to reflect on the nature of blogger anonymity and cyber-community. We all read the comments others post on our blogs, so the evidence is there that others actually post comments. But to have someone barge in on this sacred interaction felt a bit invasive. My friend is not to blame; he had no idea that I was posting a comment on his blog. But nevertheless, it taught me something about this shared community we enjoy under the veiled cloak of cyberspace.

My friend, Todd, will be preaching about missional community on Sunday. And I imagine that he will be referring primarily to community-in-the-physical-realm. I am all for face-to-face relationships, I'm no hermit. Though it feels as if there is something sacred about engaging another's thoughts on a blog. Through the internet one may enter into solidarity with another and this exchange has meaningful implications.

Yet, this anonymity is not blind. We engage with strangers thoughts through recommendations (links) of those whom we already trust. Other times we experience formal introductions to strangers (references in a post). So when we create a blogger identity and post a comment on another's blog we risk a little bit of ourselves. We dare to engage the other. I know these thoughts are a bit sporadic but they are my feeble attempt to share this blogging insight. Peace.

posted by Jake at 1/14/2005 01:24:00 PM

The Barreto Admiration Society

Here ye, here ye. I am hereby calling all members of the Eric Barreto admiration society to stand and be recognized. Okay, not really but I think we need to press our dear friend to finally start a blog. Here are just a few reasons:

1. He's online all the time anyway
2. He's one of the most lucid and enlightened thinkers I know
3. As a New Testament PhD student at Emory he has a unique perspective to share
4. He's already got his iBook with him 24/7
5. He reads and responds to everybody elses blog already
6. He's Baptist AND smart

I'm sure that those of you who know Eric would agree that he would be a great blogger. So send him an email (americasnexttopmodel@mac.com) or post a comment on this post and, hopefully, Eric will quit hogging all of the great ideas and share them with the rest of us. Peace.

posted by Jake at 1/12/2005 01:10:00 PM

Can't we all just [not] get along?

I promised in an earlier post to offer criticism of the liberal agenda in addition to my comments on the conservative position. It seems that if fundamentalism errs on the side of particularity (i.e. the dogmatic insistence that their, and only their, understanding of Truth is valid), then liberalism errs on the side of universality (i.e. all religions are basically the same and all differences are but mere reflections of the same image). Both perspectives, in my opinion, are significantly flawed. I've been wrestling with a provocative writer as of late, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. As an orthodox Rabbi he offers an interesting perspective, that may serve as a critique of liberal universalism. He writes,

"Often when religious leaders meet and talk, the emphasis is on similarities and commonalities, as if the differences between faiths were superficial and trivial. That is not, however, what comes to the fore at times of conflict. It is then that what seem to an outsider to be minor variations take on immense significance, dividing neighborhoods and turning erstwhile friends into enemies. Freud called this 'the narcissism of small differences'. There is nothing so slight that it cannot, under pressure, be turned into a marker of identity and thus of mutual estrangement. We need, in other words, not only a theology of commonality - of the universals of mankind - but also a theology of difference: why no civilization has the right to impose itself on others by force: why God asks us to repsect the freedom and dignity of those not like us" (21).

I have had the distinct privilege of meeting weekly with a conservative friend to discuss many of the issues I have broached in this blog. Through those conversations, I see Sacks' suggestion above as being acutely poignant. Those "small differences" that liberals wish to gloss over in the name of openness or tolerance only embitters the conservative side to the point of fundamentalism. Perhaps in our globalized society, we can get away from the agonistic modus operandi, in which the strongest wins the conflict, and honor/glory lies in fighting in a 'just cause', that has characterized so much of the liberal-conservative debate (read: debacle). The liberal side has offered a proposed way out: universalism. The paradox of this manner of dialogue is that the supposed antithesis to particularism - universalism - can also be deeply threatening and fails to justly account for the human Sitze im Leben.

For years America has operated under the myth that we were a 'melting pot'--a place where all of the differences instrinsic to our myriad cultural/racial/religious/ethnic backgrounds were slowly being amalgamated. This metaphor has been replace by the 'mixed salad' conceptualization, whereby Americans are conceived as living together in the same place and yet retaining all of their particularities, despite their proximity to others. This seems to be an error in the opposite direction. I suggest that we are like a red sock that has been inadvertently thrown into a load of whites in the washing machine. Each article of clothing maintains its identity (s/m/l/xl; t-shirt/ underwear/sock/blouse), and yet we are all forever pink due to our interconnectivity. In such a world, the veracity of Sacks' argument becomes palpable:

"That is why nothing less than a paradigm shift may be needed to prevent a global age from becoming the scene of intermittent but destructive wars.... I believe that each of us within our own traditions, religious or secular, must learn to listen and be prepared to be surprised by others. We must make ourselves open to their stories, which may profoundly conflict with ours. We must even, at times, be ready to hear of their pain, humiliation and resentment and discover that their image of us is anything but our image of ourselves. We must learn the art of conversation, from which truth emerges not, as in Socratic dialogues, by the refutation of falsehood but from the quite different process of letting our world be enlarged by the presence of others who think, act, and interpret reality in ways radically different from our own. We must attend to the particular, not just the universal.... There are many cultures, civilizations and faiths but God has given us only one world in which to live together - and it is getting smaller all the time" (23). Peace!

posted by Jake at 1/12/2005 11:18:00 AM

The Myth of a 'Pure Gospel'

Steve Bush has been offering some insightful remarks regarding the fundamentalist response to post-evangelical (post-foundational) theology. In engaging Steve's assessment of the project, Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times, I have also been wrestling with the missional theology of Leslie Newbigin. I understand why so many evangelical scholars, pastors and lay-people are afraid of the theological and philosophical arguments of post-colonial thinkers, like Grenz and Bush. It seems that evangelicals in general and fundamentalists in particular are scared that their 'pure' understanding of the gospel will become tainted by 'postmodernism'. In attempting to mollify this fear they bifurcate unadulterated Truth (which they believe they have grasped en toto) and subjective relativism (which they accuse 'postmoderns' of holding). Such a dichotomy is simply not helpful!

For example, D.A. Carson writes, "Grenz has bought into one of the fundamental antitheses embraced by postmodernism: either we can know something absolutely and omnisciently, or our 'knowledge' of that thing is nothing more than a social construction that has the most doubtful connection with reality, i.e., with the thing-in-itself" (quoted from Bush). I find it interesting that Newbigin writes, "We must start with the basic fact that there is no such thing as a pure gospel if by that is meant something which is not embodied in a culture...The missionary does not come with the pure gospel and then adapt it to the culture where she serves: she comes with a gospel which is already embodied in the culture by which the missionary was formed" (144).

I don't think that we need to view this in such either/or terms. I appreciate fundamentalism's critique of an 'anything goes relativism'. Yet, perhaps they have gone too far in the opposite direction. I think it is fair to say that most of my conservative and fundamentalist friends will be able to agree with Newbigin's next quote. He continues, "Once again we have to insist that since the response to the gospel has to be made in freedom, and since all human beings are fallible, there will not be unanimity in the ways in which the Church in any time and place seeks to 'contextualize' the gospel, seeks, that is to say, so to proclaim to embody the life of Jesus that his power both to sustain and to judge every human culture is manifest" (148).

I want to press my fundamentalist friends to consider the fact that perhaps their understanding of an inerrant Bible and absolute Truth readily discernible by reason is nothing more than their post-enlightenment contextualization of the gospel. I conclude with Newbigin:

"Where there is a believing community whose life is centered in the biblical story through its worshipping, teaching, and sacramental and apostolic life, there will certainly be differences of opinion on specific issues, certainly mistakes, certainly false starts. But this is part of my faith in the authenticity of the story itself that this community will not be finally betrayed. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But where something else is put at the center, a moral code, a set of principles, or the alleged need to meet some criterion imposed from outside the story, one is adrift in the ever changing tides of history, and the community which commits itself to these things becomes one more piece of driftwood on the current" (148). Peace.

posted by Jake at 1/10/2005 04:21:00 PM

Worship at the Well

I started working at a new church today. It's called, "The Well" and it is located in Buck's County, PA (a suburb of Philadelphia). I will be serving there for the rest of the Spring semester as a part of my field education requirements for PTS. My initial feelings were all positive. I am really looking forward to learning more from my new found friends: pastor of teaching and worship, Brad Jackson and pastor of mission and community, Todd Hiestand. The Well is a missional community that strives to create a space for folks to "Be. Read. Think. Pray. Study. Surf. and Relate." The Well is essentially an emergent church, although neither Brad nor Todd seem particularly concerned to publicize this fact. I admire their posture: they have a 'yeah what's up' mentatlity that is a breath of fresh air for me. They are attempting the laudable endeavor of establishing and nurturing a community of devoted followers of Jesus Christ that seeks to love God and bless the world. To this end, I think they are well on their way.

Here are some of my impressions of the service this morning. Abby and I got there early to get to know some of the folks and spend some time chatting with the leadership. We were warmly greeted and sensed the intense feeling of 'togetherness' among the church members. The newly renovated warehouse is simple but not plain. You can see pictures of the church HERE. The service was quite traditional: a call to worship, worship through song, community fellowship, Bible lesson, sermon, communion, and benediction. I really appreciated the genuineness of the whole service. No one seemed to be trying too hard and yet the quality of the whole service was outstanding. Brad and Todd have created a fellowship that diplays authenticity without pretensiousness (a rare feat in the church-world these days). The music was very well done. They did not use Gregorian chant or classical music, rather their band played several contemporary praise and worship songs. However, these songs were not performed...we were led in worship via song. This is an important distinction. Brad's sermon was quite good. He preached on the Kingdom of God, which is a difficult task even if one is preaching on this topic for an entire year! He challenged the congregation to embody the Kingdom of God in our respective communities. He asked an intriguing question, 'What would Philadelphia look like if it was transformed by the New Being(Rev.21) promulgated by the kingdom of God?' It really makes ya think. I like the way that Schweitzer once put it. He said our actions typified in the public realm are acted prayers of the kingdom.

I really enjoyed my experience at The Well and I think that I am going to learn a ton from these two practical theologians. If you are in the northern-PA/southern-NJ area and would like to check the Well out, I'm sure you would be warmly welcomed.

posted by Jake at 1/09/2005 04:48:00 PM

Campolo on Emergent

Baptist's Today just put out a commentary by Tony Campolo on Emergent. You can read it here. Let me know what ya'll think about his assessment. Props to my buddy Eric for the tip.

posted by Jake at 1/08/2005 11:15:00 AM

The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 2)

The great British missionary to India for over forty years, Leslie Newbigin, wrote,

Fundamentalists are often dismissed as obscurantist or crazy fanatics, and some may be. Whatever their defects, they recognize the problem. If we cannot speak with confidence about biblical authority, what ground have we for challenging the reigning plausibility structure? But the fundamentalist case has been flawed. If the bible is treated as a compendium of factually inerrant propositions about everything in heaven and earth, then it is impossible to explain both the contradictions between parts of the Bible and things we certainly know as the results of the work of science, and also the obvious inconsistencies within the Bible itself on factual matters. Even the most convinced fundamentalist who lives in the modern world has to rely at innumerable points on knowledge provided by science and not by the Bible. In fact this way of looking at the Bible is nearer to the Muslim way of looking at the Qur'an and prompts the question: 'Why, then, did Jesus not write a book as the Prophet did?'(97)

The fundamentalist's basic aim in their interpretation of Scripture should not be discounted, but admired. They see the Bible as the Truth itself, whereas moderates tend to see the Bible as the revelation of the Truth. Nevertheless, the fundamentalist hermeneutic ought not be summarily discounted, but reckoned with honestly and critically. It is not their commitment to Scripture that I find heretical, but their dogmatic bibliolatry.

Doug Pagitt has prophesied that 2005 will be the year in which the 'battle' will begin over the veracity of Emergent's theological amendments to the evangelical agenda. Doug offers an approach that I will attempt to employ in my own 'battles'. What saddens me the most about my fundamentalist friends is that they fight so hard out of fear that they might be wrong. They can't allow truth to be truth, they feel as if they must fight for their interpretation of the truth. One need extend only a cursory glance at the fundamentalist's Magna Carta to see this.

Newbigin continues, "What is unique about the Bible is the story which it tells, with its climax in the story of incarnation, ministry, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. If that story is true, then it is unique and also universal in its implications for all human history" (97). I hope that Doug is wrong and that fundamentalists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, post-evangelicals, post-liberals, everyone will find a way to be Christian (read: Christ-like) about our disagreements. I suggest every liberal to go out and make friends with the most ardent fundamentalist you know. Likewise, my fundamentalist friends out there should enter into genuine, loving dialogue with a liberal. If you consider yourself a moderate, then become a friend to both a fundamentalist and a liberal. I think that most everyone with whom I dialogue can affirm the Newbigin quote on this paragraph. I want to press my fundamentalist friends to rethink the doctrine of inerrancy and to consider whether it is so important that they are willing to spread further animosity and discord because of it. (In a little while I will offer a criticism of my liberal friends' understanding of the Bible as well--I want to be a moderating voice on this blog, even though the community to which I have been called is primarily comprised of fundamentalist/conservatives). Let us all be fundamentalists about this instead!

posted by Jake at 1/05/2005 01:04:00 PM

Deconstructing Delta

Hello everyone. I hope you all had a restful and happy holiday. I just got back from Jacksonville, FL (where both my wife and I are from). We had a great time hanging with family and friends in J-ville. I was sorry to leave but the semester's end beckons me northward. My parents celebrated their 30th wedding anniversary on New Year's Eve. They had a vow-renewal ceremony and it did my heart good to see my parent's so happy after three-decades of marriage--a rare feat these days. Anyway, enough of the personal stuff.

As any of you who traveled by air the day or two before Christmas know, holiday travel sucks! Originally my wife and I were scheduled to fly from Philly to Cincinnati to Jacksonville. However, with the Ohio blizzard fast approaching, my wife made a heads up call and had our flight changed to Philly-Atlanta-Jacksonville. Our flight from Philly was two hours late and so we missed our connecting flight to J-ville and got to stand in a line for two hours, only to spend the night at the airport. I bumped into a PTS buddy in ATL who I recently learned has just started a blog of his own. I hope he had better luck getting to Mississippi.

I wasn't too upset about the overnighter. My friend Adam's rendezvous with Derrida this semester prompted me to do a little Derrida reading of my own over the holidays. As I was reading into the wee hours of the morning, bracketed by intermittent walks up and down concourse A with my wife and failed attempts at sleeping on the ATL airport floor, I realized something profound about Delta airlines' personnel: they lie in intervals. Derrida got himself into trouble because he challenged the basic philosophical foundations upon which much of our thinking is built. One of his early works, challenges Plato's notion of opposites(being/non-being; black/white; life/death; etc). As Plato's heirs, via Aristotle, we make a distinction between true and false. I am convinced that Delta Airlines has made a similar Derridian move by deconstructing this basic dichotomy by lying in intervals. To illustrate: Delta employees appear highly skilled at telling just enough of a lie to get you to believe them. There is almost a hint of truth in what they are saying. Delta: "The plane will be here in a few minutes." Truth: The plane will be two hours late. Delta: "We've had a small problem with our maintenance crew." Truth: The maintenance crew didn't show up today. Delta: "You should make your connecting flight." Truth: There is no way in hell you will make your connection. Delta: "You just need to stand in that fast-moving line." Truth: You will be in that slow-moving line for at least two hours. Delta: "Your luggage should be off the carousel shortly." Truth: The luggage is still in Florida. Delta: "We will have a courier deliver your bags between 4 and 10 pm." Truth: The bags will arrive (torn) at 9:30 the following day. Delta: "You just need to drive to the airport and we will reimburse you for the bag we shattered and the contents that fell out." Truth: That remains to be seen. We will drive the 1 hour trip back to the airport this week to get our luggage fixed/replaced and reimbursed for all of the contents that fell out due to their ineptness. If I were smarter I wouldn't bother. But I am not, so I will gullibly load up the car with my torn bag in the hopes that this time Delta will actually tell the truth. If your having troubles understanding what Derrida is all about, just take a trip with Delta airlines and it will all become painfully lucid.

Introducing Hermeneutics (Part 1)

It's a Girl!

See where fundamentalism gets ya?

The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 3)

More Baptist Conflict

Not a good sign

Ruth 1: Reflections (1:1-5)

Ruth 2: Reflections (1:6-22)

Ruth 3: Reflections (2:1-23)

Ruth 4: Reflections (3:1-18)

Ruth 5: Reflections (4:1-12)

Blogger anonymity

The Barreto Admiration Society

Can't we all just [not] get along?

The Myth of a 'Pure Gospel'

Worship at the Well

Campolo on Emergent

The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 2)

Deconstructing Delta