A Theology of Ethics, Truth, & Contemporary Applications
In a continuation of an exchange concerning Slavery in the Bible, some atheist critiques are addressed concerning ethics, the Bible, and modern society.
_______________
[EDITOR'S NOTE: At my personal blog, the long way home, I have been working on a series of posts responding to some old atheist friends of mine on the topic of slavery, ethics, and the Bible. So far: what the Bible says, why I'm doing the series, Philosophy & Ethics, and now, Theology & Ethics. If you want, read the other posts and feel free to get in on the lively discussion. I'm posting this article on this site, because I believe it addresses very real societal and cultural ideas and assumptions that affect our everyday lives and do not just belong to the areas of academia or theology. Let me know if you disagree.]
Objective Truth & Morality
The ideas mentioned in the previous post of transcendent ethical principles (and not simple behavioral norms) and a hierarchy of those principles (and not simplistic applications) within ethics are nothing new to Philosophy. Those enough could show the overly simplistic nature of the usual argument concerning general Christian ethics made when talking about slavery in the Bible. The Bible does not have simplistic do/don’t do ethics. It has consistent transcendent principles that are then wisely and faithfully applied in ways that look differently throughout history. This is the way that ethics works, even on a secular level. But, these are not uniquely Christian. There are ways that Christianity and the Bible uniquely further inform our ethics.
The first thing, and the most important thing I want everyone to get from this post is that neither the Bible nor historic Christianity believes in Objective Morality or Objective Truth. This is an idea of modernism. Modernism redefined “Truth” to mean anything that has a one-to-one correspondence with created reality. An unintended consequence of this mindset was that the only vehicles for Truth, then, became history and science. This meant that anything that called itself “true” had to be speaking in either historical or scientific terms — nothing else. Christians were influenced by these ideas and then began defending the Bible on the basis of these assumptions (best example: Creation “science”). This even seeped into many Christian articulations of Morality (“there is only one set of ‘good things’ people everywhere, at all times, should do”). But this is not the Biblical view of Truth nor Morality. The Biblical view is not that of objective Morality/Truth, but of an objective standard for Morality/Truth. This is such an important distinction. The Bible relocates Truth and Morality as anything that has a one-to-one correspondence with Ultimate Reality — the nature and character of God. This exists outside of created reality (and therefore outside the realms of history and science). In that case art, poetry, stories, myths, and even children stories can now fully be relied upon for truth and moral principles even if they have little or no basis in history, science, or universal applications of the ethical principles. There is an objective standard for Morality and Truth that is now subjectively applied by using wisdom, discernment, discourse, debate, intellectual thought, and engagement — not naive cut and paste applications of the Bible to life.
“An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight?” by Keith Miller
In the first in a series of posts going through the book “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” (Keith Miller, ed.), we look at the Scientific and Theological justifications for the very idea of an “Evolving Creation”.
_______________
As the title of this essay suggests, it sets the tone for the rest of the book by laying out what exactly the authors mean by an “evolving creation”. Miller begins by defining terms. “Evolution,” as he uses it, “refers to the descent with modification of all living things from a common ancestor. Miller talks of “Creation” as a noun meaning anything “to which God has given being” and as a verb meaning God’s past and present action of bringing things into existence and sustaining them there (closely related to the idea of Providence). In light of these seemingly innocuous, uncontroversial definitions, can we really say that an idea of an “Evolving Creation” is inherently antithetical and contradictory? Miller, nor I, believe this is the case.
I’m Coming Out (Intro to an Evolving Creation)
Can one more voice crying out from the evangelical wilderness make a difference amidst the rising and seemingly never-ending din concerning Science “versus” Faith? I guess we’re about to find out.
_______________
You ever start reading a book and can immediately tell that it is going to be a pivotal book in your life? It hasn’t happened often, but the few times it has, it has indeed proven to be a life-altering experience. I’m feeling that right now.
Almost exactly a year ago, I met my now dear friend Chris Martin (not the guy from Coldplay). We were sitting there at a party (where he first met his now fiancee), and he began telling me about his experiences at L’Abri, a Christian retreat/study center in Switzerland started by Francis Schaeffer. In that conversation Chris told me about a book he had read from during his study. It was a large, poorly-graphically-designed, 525-page collection of essays called Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. It piqued my interest. I immediately purchased the book and am only now getting around to reading it. This is a book I know will affect me for the rest of my life. And that brings me to my secret. It’s something about myself that I have kept hidden from the vast majority of Christians I’ve known. I’ve wondered if/when/how to reveal this to the world. And I think now is the time.
I, Paul Burkhart, am totally on board with Darwinian Evolution.
The Infinite Beauty of Beauty
A nine-month old brain child concerning Beauty and many of its components is finally done being birthed on a blog. Come see…
_______________
In about January of this past year, I received word that seven months from then, in August, I would be giving a message at Epiphany Fellowship on the topic of Beauty, of all things. This terrified me and I immediately began listening to every lecture, reading every article, and checking out every book in the library on the topic to prepare. Then I began working on the manuscript for this message. By the time I finished, I had produced a 43-page manuscript for a 40-minute message. The message answers several questions: Why we long for Beauty? What is Beauty? What Things are Beautiful? and How do we respond to Beauty?
The message went really well, but of course, a lot was cut out of the full manuscript for the sake of time. For that reason, a couple of months ago, I started a series on my blog that went through the various sections of the manuscript in bite-sized chunks, so that others could read it. Well, yesterday, three months after the original message was given, I finished that series on my personal blog and I wanted to plug it to the readers of this site. Below, you’ll find a complete directory of the fourteen parts of the series, along with links to the full audio and original manuscript that the message was based upon. I hope this is helpful and edifying to all of you. Be sure to send feedback, as I hope to build this out even more in the future, perhaps into a book-length project. We’ll see. Enjoy.
Turning the T.U.L.I.P. On Its Side
Can the classic Five-Points of Calvinism, notorious for inspiring complacency and judgmentalism, actually cause relationships that are gracious, self-sacrificing, and long-suffering?
by Stephen Hess
_______________
[Editor's Note: For those unfamiliar with the historical Five-Points of Calvinism (a.k.a. "TULIP"), click here for a quick guide, or here for a full article on it]
At Chapel time recently (every Tuesday and Friday at Covenant), I got the privilege to hear from Dr. Robert Petterson, a Covenant graduate and the Senior Pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Naples, FL. Out of John 13:34-35, he gave a message entitled, “Turning the Tulip on Its Side: The Sociology of Soteriology.” This was the first chapel message for the year (my first ever as a Covenant student). This message was perfectly timed for me (and I am sure, for many others). Not to mention the passage that Pastor Petterson focused on was the biblical motivation for myself and four (then five) other brothers in Christ to meet together in college weekly. To this day, despite the changes over time and the different post-college locations, these guys are still my closest brothers in Christ.
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)
Pastor Petterson’s main point: A soteriology of grace without a sociology of grace is illusionary.
In other words, “turning the TULIP on its side.” The biblical soteriology of Reformed theology is often captured in the acrostic TULIP. Dr. Petterson described the five truths in these ways: (1) there’s not a single molecule of my being that is not corrupted by sin, (2) God has chosen to love me unconditionally, (3) he loves me specifically, (4) his love for me is irresistible, and (5) his love will persevere to the end.
When Jesus says, “so you must love one another,” he is saying that it is not enough to have a vertical relationship with God. That same love relationship must become horizontal in the same way with others.
After such rich beautiful description of this soteriology, he went on to explain about an angry, old Dutch Calvinist that he recently counseled. This man had memorized the five points as a child in catechism classes. He would pound anyone who would listen with the doctrines of Sovereign Grace. But this man had been estranged from his daughter for over five years. His wife could barely tolerate him–they slept in separate rooms. And he kept blowing through churches that weren’t reformed enough for him–creating controversy all along the way.
(more…)
Let’s play: “Guess Who’s Doctrinal Statement?”
Given just the “Core Doctrines” of a Church, can we evaluate its true Orthodoxy and faithfulness?
_______________
Okay, we’re going to a play a little game I like to call “Guess Whose Doctrinal Statement.” I’ll give you the doctrinal statement of a popular American Church and you all try and think whose it is. Then we’ll reveal the answer and talk about it. Everyone ready?
Okay, here’s the doctrinal statement:
- WE BELIEVE…the entire Bible is inspired by God, without error and the authority on which we base our faith, conduct and doctrine.
- WE BELIEVE…in one God who exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to this earth as Savior of the world.
- WE BELIEVE…Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our sins. We believe that salvation is found by placing our faith in what Jesus did for us on the cross. We believe Jesus rose from the dead and is coming again.
- WE BELIEVE…water baptism is a symbol of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and a testimony to our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
- WE BELIEVE…in the regular taking of Communion as an act of remembering what the Lord Jesus did for us on the cross.
- WE BELIEVE…every believer should be in a growing relationship with Jesus by obeying God’s Word, yielding to the Holy Spirit and by being conformed to the image of Christ.
- WE BELIEVE…as children of God, we are overcomers and more than conquerors and God intends for each of us to experience the abundant life He has in store for us.
_________________
So whose doctrinal statement do you think it is? Is it:
- a. Mars Hill Church (Mark Driscoll)
- b. Bethlehem Baptist Church (John Piper)
- c. Lakewood Church (Joel Osteen)
- d. Mars Hill Bible Church (Rob Bell)
- e. The Village Church (Matt Chandler)
- f. Westboro Baptist Church (Fred Phelps)
- g. None of the above
and the winner is . . . found here.
So what do we do with this?
Independence Day?
Is it really the fact that “both sides are right” on the whole Sovereignty question?
_______________
“There is another and worse evil which springs from this basic failure to grasp the radical difference between the natures of the two worlds. It is the habit of languidly “accepting” salvation as if it were a small matter and one wholly in our hands. Men are exhorted to think things over and “decide” for Christ, and in some places one day each year is set aside as “Decision Day,” at which time people are expected to condescend to grant Christ the right to save them, a right which they have obviously refused Him up to that time. Christ is thus made to stand again before men’s judgment seat; He is made to wait upon the pleasure of the individual, and after long and humble waiting is either turned away or patronizingly admitted. By a complete misunderstanding of the noble and true doctrine of the freedom of the human will salvation is made to depend perilously upon the will of man instead of upon the will of God. ” – A.W. Tozer
(more…)
Unlimited Limited Atonement? | (a discussion)
art by Patrick Benbow
A new articulation of an old idea: a Facebook exchange on the single most controversial tenet of traditional Calvinism.
_______________
This was a facebook message/discussion between a few friends and me on the topic of “Limited Atonement” (the “L” in Calvinism’s acronomical existence). I’m thinking about letting this be the first of a new type of article I’m calling “Orthodoxological”. I’m thinking about trying to write some articles on some of the deepest and seemingly arbitrary and useless doctrines of the Christian faith, and showing how they do in fact necessarily lead to a greater worship of God. Let me know what you think!
_______________
The Scarlet Cord
How a prostitute can both save a city in the past and teach us how our souls are saved in the present.
_______________
Our dear brother Paul of Burkhart not long ago wrote a letter asking that a theme of “women in ministry” be written on. As I am in graduate school and life has taken me in its undertow, over a month has passed since. I have been thinking all the while about this, though, and I thought of all the women whose ministries have deeply engraved Christ in my heart and mind. Women like Elizabeth Elliot, Kristyn Getty, Grace Driscoll, Grace Irwin (who wrote a book called Servant of Slaves), Brooke Fraser, and women only some have been graced to know, as Susan Hermes, Helen Toroian, Rachel McConnell, Lisa Rodebaugh, and Linda Sieben. I believe all of us have known women who have indelibly nurtured Christ in us.
(more…)
Parables, Allegory, and Luke 16 [the Application]
Part 2 of an excellent series on interpreting parables. In this post: the principles laid out in Part 1 applied to the Rich Man & Lazarus
_______________
Now, turning attention to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus directly, the above insights will prove helpful. It was briefly mentioned that Jülicher’s enterprise, beyond destroying allegory, was intent upon finding the single point of comparison in each parable. Dodd and Jeremias distanced themselves in degree from the flattening effect of Jülicher’s generalizations, but like most scholars following Jülicher could not distanciate themselves from the single point of comparison. The following interpretation will find more than a single point of comparison.
Some argue that the Rich Man and Lazarus may not technically be a parable. This is advanced because of the lack of certain features that generally accompany parables. “It is neither called a parable (e.g. 8:4; 12:16, 41; 13:6; 15:3; 18:9) nor introduced with a comparative that suggests a parable (e.g. 13:18, 20).”[21] This is not convincing because the parable begins with ‘a certain man was’ which is common to a number of Jesus’ parables and furthermore certain parables are not explicitly called such within the text such as Mark 12:1 or Luke 15:1.[22]
Another issue that this parable faces is the notion that historically it was two different parts. The two divisions are between 16:19-26, which deals with the treatment of others, and 16:27-31, which tackles the issue of resurrection.[23] It seems the main reason for this division is the passages reference to resurrection, the supposed Lucan appeal to Moses and the prophets, as well as the idea of repentance. However, Bock makes clear that 16:30:
parallels the appeal to father Abraham in 16:24, and its mention of ‘going from the dead’ does not equal resurrection but refers to a visit from the dead. The appeal to resurrection in Luke 16:31 serves as literary heightening of the appeal in the parable and makes sense in the tone of the account. The remark also has an enigmatic edge, since it asserts that the resurrection is not convincing. In light of the resurrection’s central role in preaching, would the early church create such a statement? The entire remark makes more sense as a defense of Moses and the prophets, thus fitting a precross setting.[24]
The passage is better taken as a whole.[25]
The last bit of historical background concerns two stories, which bear a resemblance to the canonical parable. There was an ancient Egyptian story about a wealthy man clothed in royal linen, and a poor man on a mat, and similarly a Jewish story of a rich tax collector named Bar Ma’jan and a poor teacher of the law.[26] The interesting theme enveloped in both of these stories is that the states of the characters are reversed by the end, which is correlative with the Rich Man and Lazarus.[27] It seems Jesus used the basics of these stories while adding his perspective of repentance and the Old Testament covenants (i.e., the Abrahamic and the Mosaic) into the mix.
The three main characters in the drama are the Rich Man (also know by the Latin Dives), Lazarus (most likely coming from the Hebrew Eliezer meaning ‘God helps’) and Abraham the covenant head and father of the nation of Israel. Along with these players we have the backdrop of the Old Testament under the nomenclature of Moses and the prophets. The setting also plays an integral part as it shifts dramatically from the earthly to the other-worldly.
In the first act we are introduced to Dives “clothed in purple and fine linen.”[28] Lazarus was certainly seen by Dives as he sat in the prominent spot of the gate. This clues the audience to realize that Dives “had no…sympathetic heart for the needs and sufferings of others, but had fallen completely into selfish pleasure-seeking,” which is “evident from the fact that he had left the sick beggar uncared-for as he lay at his gate in his misery.”[29] Dives certainly enjoyed his wealth, “which he celebrated with outward splendour and pomp and exuberant joviality. He strove after no higher purpose in life than to use his riches in selfishness and ostentation for worldly pleasure.”[30]
Lazarus is just the opposite. Lazarus was not only poor and unable to provide for himself, but he was suffering from sores, which, on top of all of this, he was licked by dogs which were designated by a Greek word, ????, meaning wild, undomesticated dogs. This would have made Lazarus unclean.[31] It appears “in vain did the starving Lazarus long to still the cravings of hunger even if it could only be done with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table.”[32] Lazarus was utterly deprived in the earthly realm.
The next act brings a dramatic change of scenery. Lazarus has died and it is no wonder remembering his awful condition on earth, yet Dives has taken a dive of his own. Not even money can save you in the end. This new place is the afterlife. Lazarus “was by the angels carried to Abraham’s bosom…to recline in Abraham’s bosom, as the apostle John was going to recline in the bosom of Jesus, indicates special favor…in connection with Luke 14:7.”[33] This plot twist, alluded to in the ancient Egyptian and Jewish folk stories, does not stop with Lazarus who was transformed from poor to truly rich. It goes on to show the state of selfish Dives. Receiving his good things within his earthly life, Dives has all stripped away as he is placed in anguish because of his lack to care for Lazarus.[34] Dives is in Hades.[35]
This apparent judgment upon Dives moves one to ask what the basis for condemnation was. This question is answered in verse 29 with verse 31 reaffirming the answer. Being a child of Abraham, Dives was in covenant with God. This covenant was written in Moses and reiterated in the prophets. Dives knew full well what his duty to the poor was in light of this covenant and was thus rightly condemned for disobeying it.
This post-Death—pre-Resurrection intermediate state is final in a penultimate manner. With respect to the already and the not-yet, it may be said that Dives is certainly damned for eternity, though not yet fully damned in the ultimate place of torment known as Hell or Gehenna. On the lighter side, Lazarus is in a state of bliss but he is not yet in the consummated kingdom. There is a finality in this intermediate state represented by the chasm which verse 26 shows is not able to be crossed. “The image is strong and suggests that how we respond in this life is decisive for where we reside in the next.”[36]
This is the consequence, which is revealed to motivate one of the main points in the parable.
All the main aspects of the parable set forth something for the audience to learn. This method, which explicitly denies Jülichers single point of comparison, adds a dynamic to interpretation, which at the same time is not an imposition but naturally flows from the main aspects as they represent something other than themselves in accordance with the Old Testament and the Lucan context itself. Dives stands as a warning to money lovers and the self-righteous, who were combated earlier in the chapter.[37] Lazarus is he whom God helps who “without uttering a single word of hate or bitterness against the rich man or against God, accepted the painful trials that had come upon him. He had not allowed suffering to drive him away from God, but had remained a true child of Abraham—a God-fearing sufferer such as Job had been.”[38]
The last two main aspects flow from the Old Testament and seamlessly through the context of Luke. Abraham and Moses are associated with two different yet cooperative covenant structures. Abraham is associated with a covenant of grace, which holds the promise of life for those who believe.[39] Moses is associated with a covenant of works, which, due to our sinful hearts brings death upon our heads.[40] This is just the case with Dives. He had Moses, who pointed out the way of the righteous, but Moses does not give the power to live according to God’s will. Not even a resurrection from the dead will change the hard of heart.[41] It is only by trusting the one to whom Moses pointed, the “Christ of God” promised by God through Abraham that anyone may be saved.[42]
“The parable is not primarily a moral tale about riches and poverty – though, in this chapter, it should be heard in that way as well…if it’s a parable, that means once again that we should take it as picture-language about something that was going on in Jesus’ own work…As Luke makes clear throughout, his kingdom – mission is the fulfillment [sic] of the whole story of Israel. Anyone who understands the law and the prophets must therefore see that Jesus is bringing them to completion.”[43] After all, Luke is an evangelist. Soli Deo Gloria.
____________________
- [21]Darrel L. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), p. 1362.
- [22]Bock, Luke, p. 1362; Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 205.
- [23]Bock, Luke, p. 1361. At least part of this dichotomous bent comes from those, like Bultmann, who deny “unity…wrongly assuming that a parable can only have one point.”
- [24]Bock, Luke, p. 1361-62.
- [25]Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 204. “Some suggest…that Luke has simply embellished a popular story…More plausible is the suggestion that the second ‘half’ of the parable is Jesus’ own distinctive addition to a tale which circulated in different forms. Nevertheless, structurally, the break after verse 23 (when the dialog begins) seems more pronounced than the shift in focus between verses 26-27. Tying verses 24 and 27 together, the verbal repetition of an address (“father”), of an imprecation (“have mercy on me,” “I beg you”) and of a request for Abraham to send Lazarus supports this assessment. So it is perhaps doubtful whether any two-stage development of the parable should be posited. More important still, the theme of ‘too late’ winds through all portions of the passage, weaving it into a tightly-knit unity.”
- [26]Bock, Luke, p. 1362; Blomberg, Interpreting, pp. 203-204.
- [27]Bock, Luke, p. 1362.
- [28]Luke 16:19
- [29]Norval Geldenhuys, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1951), p. 425.
- [30]Ibid., p. 425.
- [31]William Hendriksen, Luke, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 783; Bock, Luke, p. 1367.
- [32]Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke, p. 425.
- [33]Hendriksen, Luke, p. 784.
- [34]Luke 16:25.
- [35]Geerhardus Vos, “Hades.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. II: 1314-1315. 1915. online http://www.biblicaltheology.org/hades.pdf, 2007), p. 2-3. The language flowing through verses 22 and 23 seems to distinguish Hades and Abraham’s bosom/side as two different places. Geerhardus Vos is not so sure as he defends, “the distinction is not between ‘the bosom of Abraham’ and another place, as both included Hades, but between ‘the bosom of Abraham’ and Hades as antithetical and exclusive.” However, he goes on to make sure that, “The parable is certainly not intended to give us topographical information about the realm of the dead, although it presupposes that there is a distinct place of abode for the righteous and the wicked respectively.” Also, according to a word study that he does Vos maintains that Hades is equivalent to the Old Testament sheol. On this he then states, “The element of truth in theory of the provisional character of Hades lies in this, that the New Testament never employs it in connection with the final state of punishment, as subsequent to the last judgment. For this Gehenna…and other terms are used.”
- [36]Bock, Luke, p. 1373.
- [37]Luke 16:13-15.
- [38]Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke, p. 426.
- [39]Genesis 17:7, Luke 1:70-73.
- [40]Deuteronomy 31:29. “For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.”
- [41]Luke 16:31.
- [42]Luke 24:44; 9:20; 1:72-73.
- [43]N.T. Wright, Luke for Everyone, (London: SPCK, 2001), pp. 200-201.
Parables, Allegory, and Luke 16 [the Theory]
[ADMIN NOTE: this is the first half of a post by Austin Ricketts. This first half gives the theory, and the next will give the application of these ideas to a specific text: Luke 16. The next half should come in the next couple of days.]
“And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem…And a voice came out saying,…‘this is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!’”[1]
Every thesis entails the usage of technical terminology. Oftentimes it is this terminology that bars the common reader from accessing the particular message of the work that lies in front of her. A thesis regarding the peculiar locution of any given parable does not stray from this general rule. There is historical baggage for certain terminology surrounding the interpretation of Christ’s parables. A survey of this history will reveal any attempt to properly deal with the interpretation of the parables of Jesus Christ lacking if it does not spill some ink concerning the meaning of allegory. Once obtaining the linguistic boundaries of this term, movement may begin towards interpretation.
Allegory has landed on hard times. Adolf Jülicher totally dismissed the idea of parables being allegorical remarking that “the parables in general do not admit of this method at all, and that the attempts of the evangelists themselves to apply it rest on a misunderstanding.”[2] Joachim Jeremias chimes that allegory is a thick layer of dust, which conceals the original meaning.[3] C. H. Dodd seems to eschew allegory because of its matrix-like appearance as a cryptogram, which needs de-coding.[4]
All of this may sound harsh, but it is certainly understandable once placed in its particular historical setting. The parables had been suffering from various interpretations, which squeezed them through an allegorical sieve. These interpreters desired to obtain every precious stone possible as they sifted through the parables. The problem, however, was that in all of the flurry of activity these interpreters mistook fool’s gold for the real thing.
Jülicher, and, subsequently New Testament scholarship, reacted against this complicated and often contradictory mess. Thus, in his reaction, Jülicher whittled the parables down to generalizations with moral or religious principles being the cognitive transaction.[5] Jülicher believed that every parable had only a single point of comparison. This was a great first step in alleviating the burden thrown onto our interpretive backs by the excessive allegorizing of prior interpreters. The question then becomes, “Is Jülicher’s method the correct one, or is it more a polemic overreaction—has the pendulum swung too far?”[6]
Jeremias certainly thought that Jülicher erred, even fatally, in his tendency toward generalization.[7] In his rejection of Jülicher’s generality, Jeremias was simply following Dodd, while, of course, taking cues from his training in the culture of Palestine. Jeremias and Dodd are not the only ones who have rejected Jülicher’s “moralizing” as most scholars have since done so.[8] Jeremias went looking for meaning in the culture and history of Palestine, while Dodd saw crisis in the life and times of Jesus.[9]
Jeremias made an even more profound step away from Jülicher’s complete decimation of allegory. The distinction between parable, metaphor, simile, allegory, etc. is “a fruitless labour in the end” due to the fact that the original Hebrew and Aramaic words for parable embraced all of these categories.[10] It is certainly not at all clear how Jülicher can surgically remove allegory from the rest of these literary categories when Jesus irrefutably “used the language and thought forms of Aramaic, a Semitic language very similar to Hebrew.”[11] It is akin to removing someone’s heart with not a single intention of replacing it.
This raises another key issue, which conveys the polemicization inherent in Jülicher’s approach. There is a tendency to think that it was the Greek mind of the early church, which drove the heavy allegorizing of parable interpretation.[12] This may be true insofar as some church fathers are concerned, however, to eschew the allegorical interpretations of the Parable of the Sower and the Wheat and the Tares as an invention of the early church is absurd. Christian Bugge argued that Old Testament and rabbinic literature rather than Aristotle provided the background for interpreting Jesus’ use of the parables “So, it is arbitrary to restrict Jesus’ use of parables to the patterns of Greek rhetoric.”[13] Similarly, Paul Fiebig compiled into two books a large number of rabbinic parables, highlighting their allegorical nature, and in opposition to Jülicher, demonstrated that a mixture of parable and allegory was both common and well-liked in ancient Judaism. He even goes so far as to demonstrate that there were “standard metaphors” which were employed so frequently by the Rabbis that Jesus’ audiences almost certainly would have interpreted them in fairly conventional ways.[14] Many of the early church fathers certainly over-allegorized, but Jülicher, even in the eyes of his follower’s was overzealous with his axe. He went for the root of the tree when he should have stayed after the dead branches.
Now, if allegory is admissible, how do we determine what may be interpreted as allegory and what may not? It seems all that Jülicher really wanted to do was to eliminate the imposition of alien ideas onto the text, for example making the innkeeper in the parable of the Good Samaritan an allegory for the apostle Paul, when Paul was almost certainly not in the mind of Christ as he was telling this story. At the same time, considering the standard metaphors of the rabbinic parables, it is too hasty to extract allegory itself as alien.[15] Balance is desirable.
French Catholic Maxime Hermaniuk distinguishes between parable and allegory. From both Jewish and Greco-Roman perspectives parables were seen as extended comparisons or similes, while allegories were extended metaphors (where the comparisons are left implicit). But he stressed that the difference in meaning (though not in impact) between simile and metaphor is negligible once the points of comparison are recognized.[16] In other words, whether simile or metaphor, there is something, which stands for/in the place of something else. Extended metaphor, also know as allegory, is just less obvious than simile. With the proper spectacles nearly all haziness disappears. Hermaniuk’s essential conjoining of parable and allegory is reminiscent of Jeremias’ conception of Semitic thought on the issue wherein one word is used for both. It seems the remaining piece of the puzzle lies in finding a point of comparison, the proper spectacles, in order to safely navigate through the Scylla and Charybdis of over-allegorizing or flattening the parables.
In the shadow of the Old Testament the light of the New Testament parables will become brighter in somewhat of a chiaroscuro fashion, wherein the light is emphasized by the shadowy, yet all too necessary, figures found under the Old Covenant. Realizing the Old Testament to be Christ’s cognitive foundation is essential to understanding the parables. Christ amazed the rabbis with both his understanding and his answers and he increased in wisdom and in favor with God.[17] It was even said of him that he is greater than Solomon.[18] Proverbs makes clear that wisdom is the path of the righteous, and the only way to gain favor with God is to follow God’s law perfectly, a law, which is found in the Torah. Christ, in turn, understood himself to be perfectly in line with the thoughts of Moses as he says, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings how will you believe my words?”[19] So, the imagery of the Old Testament (that of the Law, the Prophets and even the Psalms) was certainly prevalent in Christ’s mind.[20] The Old Testament is our touchstone, our point of comparison from where we may determine correct or incorrect allegory. This constant aids in ridding ourselves of methodological arbitrariness.
__________________________
- [1] Luke 9:30-31, 35.
- [2]C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), p. 2.
- [3]Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus. (London: SCM Press LTD, 1963), p. 13.
- [4]Dodd, Kingdom, p. 1.
- [5]Dodd, Kingdom, pp. 12-13.
- [6]Dodd, Kingdom, pp. 7, 13. Dodd firmly believes, like Jülicher, that parables present us with a single point of comparison, however, he holds that Jülicher has moved too far. According to him, Jülicher’s interpretations have a flattening effect. While holding to the single point comparison of Jülicher, Dodd adds the dynamic element of “crisis” to his interpretive understanding, which, in his mind, gives more depth in meaning.
- [7]Jeremias, Parables, p. 19.
- [8]Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables. (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1990), p. 33.
- [9]Dodd, Kingdom, p.13; Jeremias, Parables, p. 22.
- [10]Jeremias, Parables, p. 20.
- [11]Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 36.
- [12]Dodd, Kingdom, p. 4-5.
- [13]Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 36.
- [14]Ibid., p. 37. “Among the most important for interpreting Jesus’ parables are: a father, king, judge, or shepherd for God; a vineyard, vine or sheep for God’s people; an enemy for the devil; a harvest or grape-gathering for the final judgment; and a wedding, feast or festal clothing for the Messianic banquet in the age to come.”
- [15]Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 47. “Indeed, part of the debate is simply a semantic one involving the meaning of allegory. Many scholars who reject the term nevertheless recognize stock symbols in almost all of the parables, which ‘stand for’ something other than themselves and would have been well known to Jesus’ original audiences. Yet the other ‘side’ replies that this is precisely what allegory usually involves. Moreover, almost all commentators who actually expound a selection of the parables wind up with some allegorical interpretations, as the anti-Jülicher tradition defines them, regardless of what they may say about their method.”
- [16] Ibid., p. 38.
- [17] Luke 2:47, 52.
- [18] Luke 11:31.
- [19] John 5:46-47.
- [20] Luke 24:44.
The New York Times on Mark Driscoll
At Reform & Revive, I try to offer only original content, but this was something I couldn’t pass up. A friend and fellow “Westminsterian”, Art Boulet, put a post up on his blog a few days ago containing an article about Mark Driscoll that appeared in the New York Times. I found both the article and the discussion that followed in the comments section fascinating.
A Prayer to Our Great High Priest
I try not to double-post, I really do. But, that being said, I did with this post. As anyone who has perused my numerous links knows, I have a whole slew of blog “Bible Studies” that have seen no action for the past year or so. Until now. I have a newfound motivation and excitement to get a whole bunch of these done, especially in the next month and half or so until school starts back up. So, feel free to keep up with my Burkhart Bible Studies. This is a recent meditation I pulled from my journal for my Hebrews blog.
“Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in the time of need.”
–Hebrews 4:14-16
everything was designed for my losing (4) {kind of; a recycled post from october 2007}
10.17.2007; 14th and E. Carson, Pgh, Pa (if i wasn’t a calvinist, i’d hate women)
even among your heart’s great durress, you want to scream, shout and dance (huh?!) in your joy. this all-consuming joy that only shows its face in those dark hours. it’s those days when you are brought so low that there is only one to be reached out to, and in that great distress, that horrible despair, even, is the one who ordained that misery – those weaknesses – to fight for perfect glory. and in that is the great comfort.
five months ago in this very coffee shop, you scribbled down those words about all things being made new – from Death comes Life, right? right. and in these tragedies (or so we see them) lie our daily-mini-deaths. and borne out of those deaths are new mini-lives. and in the redemption from that death, to this life – what joy!
in deepest despair one cries out – and in that cry, there is sustinance – that greatest joy.
what foolishness: to look to the grandest times of sorrow + suffering with the strongest sentiment of nostalgia + yearning. don’t you taste redemption? it is near. and in fact, it is here. suffer again; there is no fear.
death begets life. sorrow begets only the purest of all joys.
and here you are, young + naieve. what grand tragedy have you endured? you are a fool to write such ugly words. you cannot fathom the heart-break of the most awful tragedies. how can you so boldly proclaim that you yearn for them? in those most tragic of kingdoms that you have found yourself (though they know nothing of the depths of some – or most, for that matter!) always sustained by the power borne of such weaknesses.
if you must boast and delight in anything, delight in weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions and difficulties. when you are weak, then you are strong.
One Thing is Needed
How can the Bible’s statement of our need be our greatest offense and greatest joy? Some thoughts on “Humility” by someone who did doctoral research on it.
by Jen Justice
For those who might have been wondering: yes, I am still alive. I started the below article back in April, maybe even March… and then life happened. =) But here I am.
I love that the necessity of humility was brought forth so early here at Reform and Revive. If the gospel is to intersect with our lives and our culture, humility is a necessary ingredient in that process. Why? Because God’s ways are not our ways and to walk in His ways requires that we surrender our drive to live “reasonable” lives. (Perhaps Paul’s comments on our “subnatural” state will help us with this…)
The first step toward walking in God’s ways is acknowledging Him as the eternal Sovereign Lord, which requires more humility than most of us possess (as was pointed out by Whit via Tozer in a previous post). It requires that we admit to being creatures—and subservient creatures at that. As Michael Casey puts it in his book on humility, you will often notice those of our race having trouble forgiving ourselves for any slowness of mind or ineffectiveness of will—essentially, for being human. We refuse to see ourselves as the created subjects we are; we forget that we are not gods. We need to accept the fact that we are humus; our origins are in the earth and not the heavens.
But when we do come to terms with our creaturehood, we find ourselves in a stance to accept God as He is. A wholly Other, uncreated, divine, eternal being … And to recognize our position relative to Him. Mainly, as our Creator, He is the best authority on how we are meant to live.
There are many aspects to the life God calls us to, but in this article I choose to highlight what our Lord described as “the one thing that is needed” in Luke 10:38-42. In this passage, Jesus tells Martha that her sister, Mary, has chosen the one thing that is needed, the thing that will not be taken away from her. What is that One Thing? Mary “sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said.”
So how do we choose the one thing that is needed?
As always, I think it is a matter of faith—believing that God is right when He tells us that the most important thing we can do in this life is to sit in His presence, to listen to His words, to gaze on Him, to know Him. This is the one thing that will bring the freedom, acceptance, and significance we are all seeking. This is the One Thing that will fulfill the deepest desires of our hearts and transform us into the image of our Savior and King. I don’t know about you, but too often, I just have a hard time really believing this. My faith is weak. I think, surely I must need to be productive and successful in some things and have the love and approval of some men and have my own way in a few matters at least to experience all that I desire of life. But no, we cannot believe it, beloved. Only when the Perfect, Holy, True God is our heart’s pursuit and desire are we free.
Can you believe this? Will you choose to believe? If so, I’d like you to consider all the different ways your life could look when only this One Thing really matters—sitting at the feet of Jesus, meditating on His word, seeking His presence, beholding His beauty and wisdom, listening for His voice, obeying His loving direction. If you choose to believe the words of your Lord, what would this mean for your life? Where could you live? What job would you need? What people would you need around you? What would demand your time?
When considering the possibilities, on the one hand, having only one need is incredibly freeing, but on the other, it wounds our pride and offends our reason. But this is the price we pay, this is the cost we count when we choose to follow God’s ways and not our own, when we submit our lives to the lordship of Another. But be assured, child of God, that He rewards those who diligently search for Him (Hebrews 11:6) and that He is greatly pleased and honored by your faith in His wisdom in spite of how strange it may sound to your creature ears.
I know that I have listened so long to the ways of the world that I have failed to recognize that things such as professional success or personal dreams or the respect of men are expendable in God’s Kingdom. These are the lessons I have been learning lately, and so I ask you what the Spirit has been asking me:
What reasonable things in your life are keeping you from knowing intimacy with God as the one thing that is needed?
And will you humble yourself enough to let Him show you?
It’s worth it, my friends. How do I know? In part because I have tasted the sweet fruits of forgoing what I thought was reasonable, right, and good for more of Him, but more so, I know simply because He says it is so.
Will you believe Him?
The “Natural-ness” of God
The Nature of God is the defining Nature against which all things are measured. Let me unpack that a bit. What God loves above all things is Himself. His Glory, His Presence, His Work, and His Son are the things which bring Him the most delight, hence why those who are saved are being conformed to the image of His Son – they must be or wouldn’t be accepted by him. So, at the end of time, everything and everyone will be compared to the Nature of God and He’ll keep that which stands up, and cast away what doesn’t. Believers will be found in Christ (God-incarnate) so they will find themselves with Him forever.
So, it is that which does not exist in accordance to God’s Nature (the defining, upholding, creating, outside of creation thing it is) that is considered sin. That’s why all sin is described by the Bible in “realtive” terms that all imply missing, falling short, or perverting a pre-existent standard. Words like “perverse”, “de-praved”, “fallen”, and “sin” (an archery term meaning to miss the bulls-eye) all show this.
This means that what exists in line with His Nature is the truly natural. This makes the present fallen reality of the world – all things not in line with His Nature – not what’s “natural” but indeed “subnatural,” making the things of God not “supernatural” but the truly “natural.” Everything God does then to break into this world is a matter of justice, restoration, and redemption – a matter of purchasing from darkness to bring to where all was meant to live.
What does this have to do with life as we know and experience it? Simply put, it means freedom. The idea of “supernaturality” creates this sense in us of impossibility, and we proceed to live life out of that notion that God is so “unattainable” for our little wills to obtain. But the truth is more wonderful and terrifying all at once. It’s not that he’s so far above, but it’s the fact that we’ve sunk so low that causes this gap. But though we are trapped in this valley, Christ still descended and did the work required to make us truly natural humans again. This means that in Christ we are more ourselves than we ever were apart from him. We don’t lose our humanity, we gain it. So the fight of this life is to live as you were naturally meant to live.
We must fight the subnaturality of this world to attain that which is truly natural, and in that find the rhythm of life that resonates in the most ancient and basest part of our souls that hearkens to a time in a garden long ago, and in a city that is yet to come.
Get yourself some Packer
I am currently working on a longer post to contribute here but I wanted to make one last shorter post in the meantime. As I was reading J.I. Packer’s Knowing God (do yourself a favor and go buy this book), I read this exhortation regarding how we should study theology. It was particularly convicting for me:
“We need to ask ourselves: What is my ultimate aim and object in occupying my mind with these things? What do I intend to do with my knowledge about God, once I have it?…If we pursue theological knowledge for its own sake, it is bound to go bad on us. It will make us proud and conceited. The very greatness of the subject matter will intoxicate us, and we shall come to think of ourselves as a cut above other Christians because of our interest in it and grasp of it; and we shall look down on those whose theological ideas seem to us crude and inadequate…To be preoccupied with getting theological knowledge as an end in itself, to approach Bible study with no higher motive than a desire to know all the answers, is the direct route to a state of self-satisfied self-deception. We need to guard our hearts against such an attitude, and pray to be kept from it.” – Page 21-22
Packer then acknowledges a common question he has come across in discussing the study of theology:
“Do not all children of God long, with the psalmist, to know just as much about our heavenly Father as we can learn?…Yes, of course…But if you look back to Psalm 119 again, you will see that the psalmist’s concern to get knowledge about God was not a theoretical but a practical concern. His supreme desire was to know and enjoy God Himself, and he valued knowledge about God simply as a means to this end.” – Page 22
Get yourself some Spurgeon
I don’t want to get into the habit of short posts like this one, but I simply couldn’t resist posting a quote from Charles Spurgeon that C.J. Mahaney used this past weekend at the New Attitude conference:
“I once knew a good woman who was the subject of many doubts, and when I got to the bottom of her doubt, it was this: she knew she loved Christ, but she was afraid he did not love her. ‘Oh!’ I said, ‘that is a doubt that will never trouble me; never, by any possibility, because I am sure of this, that the heart is so corrupt, naturally, that love to God never did get there without God putting it there.’ You may rest quite certain, that if you love God, it is a fruit, and not a root. It is the fruit of God’s love to you, and did not get there by the force of any goodness in you. You may conclude, with absolute certainty, that God loves you if you love God.” – Charles Spurgeon
What is “God’s Righteousness”? (and other thoughts)
With school done, I had some free time today to read a bit of John Piper’s book The Future of Justification. In this work, Piper responds to the views of theologian N.T. Wright on the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ. What was stunning to me (and prompted this post) was that as I read what I consider an academic/theological work, I was struck by Piper’s exposition on Romans 3 and God’s Righteousness.
Attempting to offer input for how Wright may be mistaken about the doctrine of justification (for example, Wright claims that imputation of God’s (Christ’s) righteousness to sinners is a “category mistake” and “makes no sense at all”), Piper explains how Wright makes his chief mistake in this area by misunderstanding the definition of God’s righteousness. Wright says that God’s righteousness should be understood as “keeping covenants, judging impartially, dealing with sin properly, and advocating for the helpless.”
Piper points out that none of these actions are what righteousness is, rather he states that these are merely what righteousness does. From here, Piper continues to offer a proper understanding of God’s righteousness. This is where I was absolutely fascinated and enlightened.
In his book The Justification of God, Piper notes that the simple way of defining God’s righteousness consists in his “unwavering commitment to do what is right.” However, even this definition is lacking as Piper says “we don’t feel like we have gained much in defining ‘righteousness’ if we use the word ‘right’ to define it.” Thus, he shows through several Old Testament texts that “God defines right in terms of Himself.”
Therefore, Piper shows that “what is right, most ultimately, is what upholds the value and honor of God – what esteems God’s glory.” Moreover, he points out that the highest value that God gives in accounting for His actions is “the glory of God, or sacred and infinite value of His holiness, or sometimes simply His name.”
Taking this further, Piper adeptly explains how God demonstrated His righteousness through putting forth Christ as a sacrifice for sins. Here is Piper’s excellent explanation:
“But now we find God ‘passing over sin’ – that is, treating sin in a way that makes it look less outrageous than it is. This makes God look as though He does not properly esteem his own glory that sin belittles…In passing over countless belittlings of his glory (sins), he looks as though he counts his glory a small thing. This would be unrighteousness in God – the very essence of unrighteousness. Therefore, he puts Christ forward to vindicate his righteousness…When he justifies the ‘ungodly’…he is not unrighteous, because the death of Christ exhibits God’s wrath against God-belittling sin.” – Page 67
This leads me to my main point, namely that every single person reading this, in fact, every person on earth, has experienced the loving grace of God. Not everyone will receive it eternally, but every single time we value or love something more than God and His glory (sin), we deserve the full and complete wrath of a just and Holy God. We have loved and cherished other things and people more and the God who is worthy of our love and honor, we have dishonored through our daily sin and turning away from Him.
Have you ever stopped to consider that apart from God’s love revealed in Christ, we should and would all be in the face of God’s unimaginable wrath for sin at this very moment? And justly so at that.
In a world where many cry, “Why do bad things happen to ‘good’ people?”, shouldn’t we instead be asking why more bad things don’t happen to us?
In Defense of “Knowledge”
First, let me say that the posts made here recently have been amazing. I’m excited to be a part of this and it’s been pretty cool to be in the company of some awesome people who have had some life and heart changing encounters with the living God that words can barely suffice to explain.
Additionally, one thing I have noticed thus far seems to be a certain aversion to the whole concept of “Knowledge” regarding God. It would appear that some of us, including myself, are at times turned off by this idea as it pertains to the great I AM. I should say that there is definitely one sense in which I find this distaste to be justified. No doubt, many of us are familiar with how “Knowledge” of God has been abused and manipulated and often led to the development of cold, dead religion as opposed to the joy and delight that is found in authentic Christianity. Certainly we must seek the latter, reminding ourselves of the caution issued to us by Dr. Wayne Grudem when he said, “The study of theology is not merely an intellectual or mental exercise. It is a study of the living God and of the wonders of all His works in creation and redemption. We cannot study this subject as if our hearts and lives are not involved!”
However, I think we should also be careful not to err too much on the opposite side here, and thus spurn the concept of “Knowledge”, especially when God’s Word itself exhorts us to seek it. Proverbs 9:10 tells us that “Knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Without a right conception of who God is and what God is like, we will inevitably have a flawed perspective on ultimate reality. Moreover, our worship of God will be based on incorrect premises and possibly even lead us into idolatry. This led A.W. Tozer to conclude that, “What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”
To be sure, God does not want us to simply analyze Him like we would with DNA. But I think this verse and others serve as a clear call from God to seek to know who He is in all of His divine attributes, to test the limits of our capacity to know and understand Him, and when we ultimately fail, to erupt in worship, adoration, awe, and wonder.
Listen to these words from the Apostle Paul, written after great revelations of knowledge of the Living God: “O the depths of the riches and wisdom and Knowledge of God!” Furthermore, consider this quote from Jonathan Edwards: “The more you have of a rational knowledge of divine things, the more opportunity there will be when the Spirit shall be breathed into your heart, to see the excellency of these things, and to taste the sweetness of them.”
This belief by Edwards and other convictions have for over two decades now motivated John Piper in his crusade to unite the two seemingly opposed wings of Christendom, one divorcing delight from understanding and the other divorcing understanding from delight. I hope that we will seek to accomplish the same here at Reform and Revive. Thus, let us allow each other freedom to write in such a way that expresses love for God from all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength, even if it does not necessarily translate into “sweeping prose, poetry and musings” in every post. Nonetheless, let us also unite under Paul’s call to let our souls and hearts be stirred as often as God allows us that grace.
Sola Gratia (“By Grace Alone”),
- Whit
a clarification, a vision, and a call
I once heard it said that every faith in the world was an Orthopraxy, where “right practice” made you right before God, whereas Christianity was an Orthodoxy where “right doctrine/belief” did. This is incomplete. Most Protestants know right action is inadequate (Rom 2:6, Gal. 2:16), but most evangelicals are told all the time that what you intellectually assent to as you walk down an aisle is what washes your sin and depravity away into the “light of His wonderful face.” But this is not so (Mat. 7:21, Jam. 2:19). Christianity, rather, is an “Orthoontology,” where your “right state of being” is what makes you acceptable to him. Belief and practice are wholly and ultimately inadequate. It is the nature of the being from which these beliefs and practices flow from that matter.
So what on earth, does this have to do with this site and its vision and passion and focus and drive?
Everything.
Reformed Theology begins with the state of being of man (Total Depravity). It says that what needs to change is that state, and man has neither the desire nor the faculties available to him to change himself. He requires then a sovereign act of a Sovereign God to bring that change about. Reformed Theology then ends with the perseverance of that change. As both practice and surety of beliefs may wax and wane at times, the state of one’s being does not change after God has seized it.
But this has implications far beyond the theology of salvation. It means that Christians must have a passion that spills over from this change of being. It means that we must appeal to the whole man to increase their delight in God. It means this site must move from posts on the “Knowledge” of the Holy, to sweeping prose, poetry and musings. From deep theology that reveals who God is to soul-stirring poetry and meditations flowing from men and women forever impacted by their encounters with this revealed God.
These things go hand in hand. A good friend once told me, “you know? The Theologians of the world should be the ones that weep the most.” Let us weep, friends, as we see this God as He has revealed Himself and then get swept up in the beauty and the mystery that can do nothing but call out praise, adoration, and delight.
Join us for the ride. Reforming the mind, while reviving the heart.
Soli Deo Gloria
“to God alone be the Glory”
–paul
“Knowledge” of the Holy
I thank Whit for leading us off here at R&R. I think it rather appropriate for us to start off in humility, understanding that God far surpasses our ability to fully comprehend His nature and ways. What we have comes from revelation in the Scriptures and the words that the Spirit moves on our hearts and minds. I simply want to pick up on some thoughts from “I am who I am” and add in some more general ideas floating through my mind right now. I want to briefly unpack that word “knowledge,” focusing on how it relates to faith and our own ideas of R&R’s mission. This will virtually be a copy and paste job from a recent post on my own blog (see the list of contributors for a link):
Tonight, I attended a performance of “Rebirth of a Nation,” a film created by Paul Miller (aka DJ Spooky) that seeks to deconstruct and remix the 1915, W.D. Griffith film, “Birth of a Nation,” a highly acclaimed cinematic venture and historical one of the most controversial films in America. The film led off with a clip of two gentlemen sitting down, each smoking a cigarette and talking about the original film, “Birth of a Nation.” The gentlemen to the left of the frame asked the other man, Griffith himself, creator of the film, “Do you believe ‘Birth of a Nation’ to be truth?” It is what Griffith responded with, what was later affirmed by Paul Miller, that has me most irked and desperate to release these thoughts. Griffith quoted Pontius Pilate’s words to Jesus before allowing him to be crucified, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). This question is the central question of postmodernism as well. What is tragically ironic about Pilate’s statement was that he was looking at Truth. One of the great mysteries of the Christian faith is that Truth is not a set of principles, or morals, or facts to be ascertained; Truth is a person, Jesus Christ. That is not something that can just filed away–that is a thought that begs for contemplation and that ultimately humbles this college student holding knowledge as supreme, and yet constantly mistakes knowledge in the heart with mental propositions. God truly surpasses any attempt by such a finite being to comprehend without revelation. Oh, how far has cultural Christianity erred from this awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping idea into morality!?!
Our American culture has a habit of ridiculing the French, but I think their language (among others) has more to offer in terms of expression, especially when it comes to types of knowledge. In the English language, we are limited to the phrase “I know this/that,” but in French (and Spanish and other non-English languages), there are distinctive meanings to “knowledge” — savoir and connaitre. Savoir refers to knowing “something,” some fact, or how to do something. Connaitre is used when someone knows someone else, another person. Did I get a stellar score on the AP French exam in high school–no! But I think this distinction has actually been the most valuable piece of knowledge I have received from those required language classes. It is a distinction that many of us, me being the worst, fail to understand in the way we approach our faith! Knowing God is about connaitre, not savoir. But in our Western “enlightened” culture, we continually think of our faith by way of savoir. As if knowing enough scripture or reading numerous “Christian” texts gives eternal life. What we need is to know (connaitre) a person, or rather Three Persons in One, the Holy Trinity. Jesus explains the difference to the Jews around him at the time [John 5:39-40]:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
Study without prayer (a common pattern in my life) becomes a shallow intellectual pursuit. Jesus shows the futility in pursuit for that knowledge. My hope is not (well should not be) founded on a scientific proof of God, but rather the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, son of God the Father. How often have I reduced my “relationship” with Christ to some combination lock of scripture and pedantic intellectualism?? The knowledge that God speaks of is always a matter of the heart!
My prayer for both us as contributors and for any and all that may comprise our audience is that we would be firmly resolved to proclaim Christ as supreme in all things. I pray that we would have a conviction that the all of the Scriptures testify to Christ, with his name exalted from Genesis to Revelation. For those of you that have not come to know the Lord, I pray that you would not see these words as another argument, but rather a humble attempt to contextualize the Scriptures to our current moment. At the end of the day, our hope is that you would have a real encounter with the God of the Universe and come to know the indescribable love of Christ in your heart.
This is not about more book knowledge to file away somewhere, this is about knowing Christ intimately.
~Stephen Hess
