Reading Scripture [Justin]
I haven’t been very good in recent months about studying the Bible consistently. Kind of embarassing for a church planter, I know, but it just seems like other things get in the way and take precedence over spending time in Scripture, even though I know this shouldn’t be so.
A few factors are interacting here. First, Amy and I have been much better this year about getting up early to have breakfast, read, and pray before we leave for work. This time if often cut short by oversleeping or having to leave early, but it’s been very valuable to have a morning quiet time, even if it’s only 15 minutes. This has caused a problem in that I start to think that I’ve taken care of my God-time for the day, so when I come home all I do is zone out reading blogs =) until it’s time for dinner and to start planning for tomorrow. I need to let it sink in that a quick devotional reading in the morning is not enough.
I also outlined a few problems that may creep in when plodding through Scripture. When we get these misconceptions in our heads, even subconsciously, our motivation to spend time in Scripture decreases:
-Scripture as devotional book
-Scripture as a doctrinal treatise
-Scripture as an ethical handbook
-Scripture as a quick-fix guide for when you’re feeling down
-Scripture as rules for every aspect of life
-Scripture as stories for us to learn from and emulate
-Scripture as a handbook for society
-Scripture as stories of the ideal world, which we should try to emulate in our day
To some extent, Scripture can function in all of these ways, yet as a whole, it is none of them. The problem arises when I have in mind that the Bible is one of these things, and reading it will bring me a certain benefit - inevitably, I will come across a text that doesn’t fit that purpose, and I will be disappointed. If I want to feel better and be reminded that I’m loved by God, and I end up reading about Joab’s military exploits, I will be disappointed, and less likely to look to the Bible next time I’m seeking something.
So what is the Bible? I’m not content to say, with the Orthodox, that it’s simply a collection of Israel and the Church’s documents that were produced long ago for their benefit and ours. We cannot leave out the design God had in providing us with the Scriptures - they were not just products of the church; they cannot be, because they are too crucial to our life in Christ to not have been intended for our benefit. I choose to believe that God intended for us to have the Scriptures, and the specific ones that we received, because they are our primary sources for knowing what it means to be the people of God.
In order to understand Scripture properly, knowing what it meant to the original audiences, we must understand the culture and position of the people to whom it was written. Evangelicals have done an excellent job, all things considered, of embracing the ancient biblical world, with animal sacrifices, prophets, coats of many colors, Roman soldiers, and the other stage props for the story God has been writing in history. We understand the temple sacrifice system in order to understand the significance of the temple’s curtain being torn in two, and the church’s view of Jesus as the passover lamb. These things have meaning because we have done our homework on ancient Judaism.
But we have not done it consistently, or deeply enough. There are far too many nuances of the ancient near east that are well-known to scholars and help illuminate bizarre things we find in Scripture that most Christians are totally unaware of. There are far more significant cultural differences than many of us are willing to admit between our society and ancient Israel. Failure to grasp this concept is the reason people view America as a modern-day version of ancient Israel, God’s nation where attack or tragedy represents judgment for rebellion. I’ve stopped counting and paying attention to the times people have staked the survival of America as a nation on a particular moral issue, as if God is going to smite us because Britney is showing too much skin or because Wal-Mart carries too many CDs with Parental Advisory labels. Yes, this happened to Soddom and Gomorrah (the smiting, not Britney Spears), but they were in ancient societies operating as theocracies under the wrong theo, or unfaithful to the correct Theo. This is not the world we live in; God’s way of constituting his people has shifted from being nation-oriented to being based on discipleship to Christ.
N.T. Wright’s The Challenge of Jesus has made it clear to me that Jesus’ message was filled with specific political statements of immediate relevance for Israel and Jerusalem’s pending destruction at the hands of the Romans. For example, when Peter drew his sword at Jesus’ arrest, Jesus said (Matt 26:52) “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” We cannot interpret this as a blanket command of pacifism, for Jesus had told them to bring swords (see Luke 22:36-38). Instead, Jesus was saying that his triumph as Israel’s Messiah would not come about with the help of swords, nor would it be in any sense a military assault on the occupying Romans.
So our reading of scripture can be much more motivating, much more formative, and much more rewarding if we take the time to study it, to dig into the background of Christianity’s Jewish roots and the worldviews of ancient near eastern peoples. I’m looking forward to ordering The Context of Scripture, which promises to be a massive scholarly work aimed at helping us understand Scripture, or [in thick southern accent and KJV English] “rightly divide the Word of truth.” Amen.
A few things you wrote here confused me. (But I agree with your later points) I’m curious if you could clarify:
You wrote, “I’m not content to say, with the Orthodox, that it’s simply a collection of Israel and the Church’s documents that were produced long ago for their benefit and ours.” Then you went on to say, “they were not just products of the church; they cannot be, because they are too crucial to our life in Christ to not have been intended for our benefit.”
My first question is: It seems that at first you think the EO view is that they *are* for our benefit but then not. Which do you think it is?
Secondly, can you elaborate on why you see a dicothomy between Scripture being a “product of the Church” and beneficial for the lay Christian? What exactly is “the design God had in providing us with the Scriptures”?
Third, why would reading the letters of the family be the *primary* way of “knowing what it means to be the people of God”? It seems this is backward–being part of the family is the best way to know what it meas to be the family! Knowing the writings of the various family members is neccesary but not sufficient.
GReat response at the end there, Karl. Is what Justin wrote a fair representation of the EO view of scripture?
Felix,
Well, I’m not sure it is…but only because from what he wrote it seems to me that he is trying to eat his cake and have it too. Honestly, I’m not sure what he thinks we believe!
We would heartily agree when he writes, “In order to understand Scripture properly, knowing what it meant to the original audiences, we must understand the culture and position of the people to whom it was written.”
I suppose the difference here is that we would say something paradoxical and troubling: this is a more radical project and journey than most assume it is; and yet for all of its difficulty it is in fact possible.
As the story of Luke and Cleopas shows us, it is amazing what being Eucharistically connected to the Church can do for one’s ability to understand the Scriptures!
Karl-
I meant that I don’t get the impression from you that the Orthodox view of scripture includes God’s intent and role in inspiration, but rather that the NT is a collection of documents produced by the church with God’s stamp of approval. I didn’t intend any dichotomy between scripture’s usefulness and its being produced by the church.
I think scripture must come before our experience in the church because we are incredibly good at believing in what we do. There is a church in my neighborhood that consists almost entirely of openly active gay men. They have excellent music and are quite active in working for social causes. If experience is primary, rather than scripture, what basis do I have for questioning their behavior? What basis would they have for questioning mine? What basis would I have for questioning the “God is whatever you want him/her to be” lines I heard when we visited?
None without a very solid tradition, and I understand that this doesn’t apply to you because you have a pretty solid tradition. I can’t argue with you there. But it seems that, without scripture, it is very hard to know what it means to be a part of the family - and joining a disfunctional family wouldn’t help, so how would you know what the family was supposed to be about? I don’t think continuity with the early church is enough, any more than you could conclude that I will be a good businessman because my grandfather was.
Thanks for the comments. This was a really long post - I wasn’t sure anyone would read it.
Happy new year.
Justin,
You wrote, “I meant that I don’t get the impression from you that the Orthodox view of scripture includes God’s intent and role in inspiration, but rather that the NT is a collection of documents produced by the church with God’s stamp of approval.”
Oh, that isn’t our view at all! As you’ve stated it here, it seems you see our view as being more “human centered” and less “God centered”.
However, for us we see the Church, the Scriptures, everything in Holy Tradition as we see Jesus (perfectly divine and perfectly human, “without division or confusion”). Everything in the life of the Church is fully a creation and result of the perfect synergy between us and God in the Church.
So, no, Scripture is not just a collection of human documents with God’s approval, but the very words of God inspired by the Holy Spirit; written, collected, canonized by men *through* the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
In re: Scripture and experience…you raise a great point. The problem of course is that if I asked both you and the gay men’s church who is following Scripture properly and fully, both of you would say yourselves. This doesn’t help us determine who is actually correct. There has to be another criteria, another hermeneutic, other than sola Scripture *or* sola experience…neither one is self-interpreting.
You wrote, “I don’t think continuity with the early church is enough, any more than you could conclude that I will be a good businessman because my grandfather was.”
Of course if your grandfather was a good business man, it would be silly to assume that you *wouldn’t* be. Continuity, of course, is not an end but it sure is one of the many signs of authentic teaching and Faith.
One more additional point:
I wrote, “Of course if your grandfather was a good business man, it would be silly to assume that you *wouldn’t* be.”
This makes even more sense when we realize that all the great business practices (2 Thess 2:15) that made your grandfather what he was, are also available to the grandson by virtue of the fact that he is part of the family, not simply reading the story of the grandfather in a book. Now, the grandson has to use the practices himself…but the fact that he has such a rich heritage, organically, makes him a prime candidate to continue in his relative’s footsteps.
This is of course why the chief danger of Orthodoxy is pharisaicalism–we truly have been given the fullness but if we do not live it, and pass it on, we will receive the greater condemnation.
Hi guys!
I’ve been asleep at the switch and have missed this thread!
I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of the relationship between, the individual, the scriptures and the church. A few observations.
1) Sola Scriptura as it is understood today is very different from what the reformers believed. Wesley, Luther, and Calvin all believed strongly in the value of tradition. Today many in the evangelical world don’t, and that is foolishness.
2) It is arrogant and wrong headed to believe that one can come to a full understanding of the revelation of God by oneself. We need other voices from different times and different cultures to balance out our bias.
3) It seems inconsistent that one would believe in inerrant scripture but not believe in the infalliablity of the church councils. If God could work through people to canonize the perfect scriptures, then one must consider the possibility they spoke with authority to other issues.
4) What happens then when entire groups of people, not just individual interpreters, see inconsistency between scripture and other tradition or the current church? Is the inconsistency an illusion? If it is real, which authority trumps the other? Today I’m still at the point where I say the tradition (note: I consider scripture the earliest tradition) closest to Christ is the most trustworthy. I understand the dangers inherent with this path, but if there is an inconsistency between the scriptures and the church/other tradition what other choice is there?
Welcome back, LT.
On #3: The difficulty is in determining which councils we can trust, as the record is not perfect.
More importantly, Scripture is not the same kind of artifact that a council’s pronouncement is. One is a doctrinal statement made by people in collaboration, based on what they’ve learned, thought about, and personally believe. The other is based on people’s experience and knowledge that they received firsthand from Jesus or the apostles.
My point is that the church council people aren’t inherently any more qualified to make doctrinal formulations about, say, the divinity of Christ or the Trinity than I am. If all I have to do is get 30 or 40 influential leaders to agree with me, have I established a universal and unassailable doctrine of the Christian faith for all time? I don’t think so, yet that’s how we sometimes treat the councils.
Not that it’s any better to make the opposite mistake and say they’re all wrong. We need to take them into account as we do theology afresh in our context. But Scripture came first and must remain first. Regardless of the fact that it was compiled and verified by a church council, it takes precedence over such councils because it was not written by them but by the apostles and those immediately connected with them.
(for more on this line of reasoning, see Beyond Foundationalism’s early chapters.)
Glad to see this discussion still alive and kicking. Feliz a?o nuevo.
Grace and peace,
Justin
Hi Leighton,
On your first point I would completely agree. It’s funny how “unevangelical” many of the evangelical heroes can be! I also think that many of us are actually unaware what the evangelical position on Sola Scriptura really is. It is less about a ’sole’ authority and more about our supreme authority.
I could not agree more strongly with your second point. This is, I believe, one of the greatest weakenesses with much hermeneutics today.
However, your 3rd point greatly troubles me. I guess I may not be the best one to comment as I don’t believe in either the inerrancy of scripture or the infallibility of the Church councils! You wrote: “If God could work through people to canonize the perfect scriptures, then one must consider the possibility they spoke with authority to other issues.”
Of course we must consider the possibility, but I don’t really see the force of your logic here. I believe that on some occasions, God spoke perfectly through Peter the apostle. But I do not conclude from that that everything Peter the apostle wrote was infallible. It is certainly misguided of people to write off the Church Councils, but I think it’s premature to think that because God soveriegnly worked thru them to get one thing right, that everything else they said or did was also right.
Felix wrote:
Amen - well said.
“it’s premature to think that because God sovereignly worked thru them to get one thing right, that everything else they said or did was also right.”
Sounds like it is time to bring in the classic line of “100% of the Fathers were 85% Orthodox” again!
Consubstantiality is everything.
Another point is that most seem to think the Councils were a bunch of tired old politicians bickering about things they don’t actually live out in their lives. As Justin put it the Councils were “made by people in collaboration, based on what they’ve learned, thought about, and personally believe.”
Ah, but more than that (and this is the key), they were made by people who lived the life of the Apostles, who were sacramentally nourished by the very Church Christ established, who followed *all* of the teachings of the Apostles (2 Thess 2:15). It isn’t they were smarter–it is that they were holy. They didnt’ just know the truth–they lived it and breathed it.
Are you really prepared to say that these Fathers, these men who have lived a life of great humility and love, are just as equally flawed and unmoveable by the Spirit as you? Or that you have reached that same heights as they? I’m not sure which is less believable.
Remember, the tradition, the way of life that leads to a real union with God and purification of the soul did not die out when St. John died. It is the way of life that guided all of the Fathers of the Church.
You may disagree with or feel uneasy about LT’s point #3, but you don’t have any real evidence to assume a sharp dichotomy between “apostolic times” and now. Everyone assumes that a great change occured in the Church, but when you start to look for evidence, it turns out there isn’t much. A better explanation is that our Protesant forefathers looked at their own situation and culture, assumed that the Apostles did it their way and the rest of Churh history went to hell in a hand basket, and then closed their eyes to reality. Sadly, we’ve inherited this blindness.
Frankly, LT’s point #3 isn’t just a “possibility”–it is very plausiable and likely.
Another couple of points that I thought of:
The use of the word “artifact” by Justin is telling I think, because it hints at the problem I just wrote about–the idea that a real knowledge of God that is true or an ability to speak truth in community that is actually guided by the Holy Spirit (Scripture *and* Councils) is really just a figment of the past; an “artifact” to study and mine for “insights”, but not organically connected to a living reality into which we can be grafted.
Second, I have always found it puzzling that we quote the wisdom and scholarship of new books and teachings and are quick to assme these people know more about the history and true teachings of the Church than…well, the Church herself! As CS Lewis said, we would do well to give the benefit of the doubt to that which has actually passed the test of time, rather than things written in our lifetime.
Karl wrote:
I’m not saying I’m better than them, but I’m not going to put them on a pedestal either. The Fathers are not apostles, and that makes all the difference between what is upright & respectable (their good lives and enduring writings), and what is normative for the church at all times and all places (the actual apostles’ teachings). And yes, I do think they were flawed and prone to being resistant to the Holy Spirit, as all humans are. If their kind of living didn’t die out when John died, that kind of life didn’t die out with the Fathers either. Not saying I’ve got it down or even close, but it’s not unreachable either.
I have difficulty with the “passed-down organic community/living tradition” concept because what has actually been transmitted is not as organic as your language indicates. It’s liturgies, doctrines, and texts. It’s not relationships, examples, attitudes, except as these are captured and illustrated in the liturgies, doctrines, and texts. I don’t think those of the Orthodox faith are really that much more connected to them as people than the rest of us, and certainly no closer to apostles’ lives and teaching and to Jesus. The whole “unbroken chain” thing really doesn’t mean much to me, for the normal evangelical reasons (though with the many qualifications I’ve made in previous posts).
Sorry if any of this seems harsh, but I think a lot more of us than the Orthodox can claim the kind of closeness to Christ that you mention, even though our traditions have many discontinuities in the intervening centuries.
Also - I don’t think the Fathers all had copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Stuff like this is important, isn’t it? (I’m speaking out of ignorance here, but I’m assuming, since they were sealed in jars for 1900 years…)
“What has actually been transmitted is not as organic as your language indicates. It’s liturgies, doctrines, and texts. It’s not relationships, examples, attitudes…”
I suppose this seems obvious to me, but this is what it looks like from the outside because liturgies and texts are all you see or can experience at this point! When people’s only experience of Orthodoxy is blogs, books, and the quick visit to a service, *of course* that will be the assumption they have! But that would be as silly as me reading your blog, seeing a picture of you, visiting your house once and then deciding that the Baeder family is just about “eating meals and talking to each other”; just the boring and lifeless liturgies and dogma of family life…
As I’ve pointed out before, many American Orthodox have been Evangelical/Emergents before and fervent ones at that. But the converse is not true. So until one has given Orthodoxy a good 2-3 years of incarnated living effort and real experience, one might want to reserve judgment about whether or not we do in fact have that “passed-down organic community/living tradition.” That may sound cultish, but the proof is in the pudding. Orthodoxy is a way of life, not a text — so the only way to “prove” it is to actually live it out. And the Orthodox have done this and done it well for centuries. Come and see.
If you want to see and experience the examples, attitudes and relationships you want, you would have to be willing to enter into them–and that takes humility, obedience and time as well as a willingness to open yourself up to them on their terms. (Not that you aren’t willing to or can’t do this…I’m just saying that is what it takes).
Also, keep in mind I didn’t say we are closer to Christ; many of you put us to shame–I only mean that we have been given the tools, the tradition, the way of life that if followed in faith and with love, is *proven* to produce holiness and real union with God.
I’m not saying I’ve reached it or that you, being non-Orthodox, can’t. That is the beauty of the paradox.
Justin,
A couple of quotes for you in re: to Fathers and the Dead Sea Scrolls–
St. John Climacus: “A genuine teacher is he who has received from God the table of spiritual knowledge inscribed by His Divine finger, that is, by the in-working of illumination and purification and who has no need of other books.”
So no, we don’t need the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls! *wink*
St. Symeon: “They are heretics who say that there is no one in our times who is able to keep the Gospel commandments and become like the Holy Fathers.”
The same Holy Spirit that was given to the apostles in the upper room is the same one given to the Holy Fathers and the same one given to us at Chrismation. The only question is: are we willing to lay down our lives and be instruments of God as they were?
I like that last one =)
I didn’t mean to say that Orthodox church life is empty and boring, consisting only of liturgy and text, and not organic and wonderful. I intended to say that the connection between your fellowship (the people you literally know and spend time with) and the early church and fathers is not all that much closer than any other Christian group’s, because it is based on the text, liturgies, etc. and not actual relationships as the language of “organic” implies. I would suspect, as you have indicated, that many Orthodox churches have wonderful fellowship and authenticity, even if that’s hard to see if you only attend one service.
Hi Karl,
“Sounds like it is time to bring in the classic line of “100% of the Fathers were 85% Orthodox” again.”
Who defines who was and was not a “Father”? Do you not simply define this according to who agreed with the 85%? So, it’s slightly circular, isn’t it? Also, was the 85% always the same? Was the 15% that they left out always different? Because, to be honest, I don’t see this as so compelling.
“Another point is that most seem to think the Councils were a bunch of tired old politicians bickering about things they don’t actually live out in their lives.”
Well, that’s not how I would have put it, but I certainly don’t see the Councils - or those who partook - as the pinnacle of Christian discipleship. Surely you would not deny an element of political manoeuvring was involved? Do we need to talk about who was or was not invited and who called the Councils and why? It’s not like these great Saints were all deep in prayer when the Holy Spirit called them all together! ;o)
“Are you really prepared to say that these Fathers, these men who have lived a life of great humility and love, are just as equally flawed and unmoveable by the Spirit as you?”
I would not put it quite like that. I would say that they are equally as in need of the Spirit of grace and unable to do anything without Him - thus more than able to err in doctrine and practice. Would you really not say this? I would also want to point you to your comment following the quote from Symeon above. (But I don’t think this is central to what either of us were saying because we’d both want to emphasise the communal nature of what took place.)
“You may disagree with or feel uneasy about LT’s point #3, but you don’t have any real evidence to assume a sharp dichotomy between “apostolic times” and now.”
Well, this discussion we are having now is quite some evidence, as is my Catholic neighbour! (The only reason you can say that this is not a real change is because we are not considered part of the Church.) I don’t consider the EO to be the perfect representation of Church life as we see it in the NT or as it was in the early Church. I’m sure that’s very distressing for you, but as I’ve said before, we must read different history books.
More on Point 3
The heart of my third point is that it seems inconsistent to consider the books that are in the bible to be the perfect set and then conclude it would be impossible for any other tradition to be authoritative.
Now I don’t believe the bible is perfect. Certainly not in the modern systematic inerrant sense of perfection.
Justin,
“I intended to say that the connection between your fellowship (the people you literally know and spend time with) and the early church and fathers is not all that much closer than any other Christian group’s, because it is based on the text, liturgies, etc. and not actual relationships.”
But it is and that is exactly what I’m saying, as hard as that is to believe! The role of the father-confessor in the life each Orthodox person is that very relationship that connects us to the living tradition. The spiritual praxis, the discipleship, and the teaching that goes back to the Apostles themselves.
As St. Paul said in 1 Cor 4:15-16, “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me.”
This is the Orthodox life–in community, in relationship, and in continuity with the Apostles. So, no it isn’t based on liturgies, texts…those flow from the community, from the relationships and discipleship, not the other way around.
Felix,
“Who defines who was and was not a “Father”?
The entire Church, clergy and laity, as time passes and the doctrines and teachings are put to the test in real life. Those that lead to holiness and truth are kept, and those that don’t, aren’t. Pretty simple really.
“Also, was the 85% always the same?”
Does the Truth change? Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever….
“Surely you would not deny an element of political maneuvering was involved?”
Of course not. But does this mean that the decisions must not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit?
“It’s not like these great Saints were all deep in prayer when the Holy Spirit called them all together!”
Sure they were because they practiced unceasing notetic prayer, one of the primary spiritual disciplines of the Christian life.
“I certainly don’t see the Councils - or those who partook - as the pinnacle of Christian discipleship.”
Neither do we because the Councils weren’t about discipleship, they were about arriving at the truth and protecting the faithful from false teaching.
“we must read different history books.”
No doubt. But since they are contradictory, we can’t both be right.