Having finished reading, asking questions, reading again and seeking answers the question remains, "what next?" The next part is fairly simple . . .
BBI Part Five: Share
Biblical interpretation is not a solo adventure. The Bible is a community text and its interpretation is no less a part of the community. Having read the text and found solutions to some of the questions, the next step is to begin to share with others what you are beginning to "sense" the text to mean. Interpretation that is shared can be challenged and challenge is good for several reasons. The first reason is that sharing forces the interpreter to voice the thoughts that are germinating in the brain cells. This becomes the first part of interpretation, actually voicing the interaction between human and text.
A second reason is that interpretations that may need information to clarify can enter that process. Often times an initial "sense" of the text withers when brought to a shared light. The interpreter is faced with actually assessing the validity of their own interpretation. While others may disagree with this opportunity, not every interpretation of the Bible can be called biblical. This often has to due with the process of finding interpretations that are not at odds with the larger text. It is far too easy to remove a passage from the larger context and identify an interpretation that is at odds when seen in the larger context.
Finally, it is necessary for North American readers to realize that the Bible and biblical interpretation have a history that is more than a few centuries old. The interpretations from the 5th century shape the interpretations of the 15th century. These interpretations shape, whether recognized or not, those of the 21st century. Seldom is an interpretation novel. What becomes novel is the way that the interpretation takes life in the particular interpreter. But that is for another part.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Part Two of Book Interlude
After reading Michael Horton's book For Calvinism I should probably admit that I am now for Calvinism. But I can't make that statement. What is interesting is that both Olson and Horton have the same essential purpose, namely to argue against hyper-Calvinism or what is sometimes called the "new Calvinism". Horton provides a discussion of the five points of grace, erroneously known in his opinion as TULIP, and the Reformed perspective. While mention is made frequently of other traditions from the root of Geneva, most of his "For Calvinism" comments are directed at "For Reformed" positions. Horton provides a remarkably "moderate" position and explicates the various history, roots, and stances behind the often maligned or caricatured flower acronym.
Part of the reading is definitely pre-modern. According to my understanding of Horton, the Reformed tradition continues to draw inspiration from a variety of patristic sources, who somehow got it right before "Rome" got it wrong. In a sense, the Reformed Calvinism espoused is reflective of the tradition among many evangelicals to move back in time and join a tradition with older and perhaps deeper roots in their practice of liturgy.
I am bothered by the argument Horton makes because some paragraphs are merely a string of quotations of biblical passages strung together. The method of using scriptural words to back up doctrinal statements simply because the words are agreeable, is not the same as seeking to understand scripture. It appears that the best method for winning a doctrinal debate is to have the most pieces of evidence!
For one example that was especially perturbing to my train of thought, Horton makes the statement that Paul is discussing individual salvation in Romans nine and "(t)hat are in view is indisputable, they have names [he lists the names]." Anyone with half a minor prophets class (the last half) recognizes that with regard to (not with regards to!) Jacob and Esau, Paul is quoting Malachi and Malachi is not discussing a single individual but the corporate "family". Throughout the minor prophets "names" are used to refer to the group of people.
A second problem I have with the entire Calvinism/Arminianism discussion is that it seems to be a case of potato/potato. For instance, in discussing election Horton makes a statement (and I will admit I am confused from the paragraph if this is his take or what he is arguing about) "Salvation may be provided by the Lord, but it is up to us to choose ourselves for this gift and to make and to make Christ's redeeming work effective by our decision." The italics make me think that he is arguing against the previous sentence, but the context is unclear. To my knowledge, (limited to my experience) no one in Christianity argues with the first part of the statement, Salvation is indeed from the Lord. The argument appears to lie in terms of the perspective of looking at the salvific event. Does one attempt feebly to describe the event as God sees it or to describe the event as humans experience it? There is the potato/potato paradigm.
Horton provides three chapters at the end that are a delight to read."Calvinism and Christian Life", "Calvinism and Christian Missions", and "Calvinism Today". These are historical and somewhat personal reflections on the role of Calvinistic/Reformed theology in the practical element. In the Afterword Horton shows his dealt hand and shares that Romans and John are two of the key NT books that have shaped his thinking. Go figure!!!
Part of the reading is definitely pre-modern. According to my understanding of Horton, the Reformed tradition continues to draw inspiration from a variety of patristic sources, who somehow got it right before "Rome" got it wrong. In a sense, the Reformed Calvinism espoused is reflective of the tradition among many evangelicals to move back in time and join a tradition with older and perhaps deeper roots in their practice of liturgy.
I am bothered by the argument Horton makes because some paragraphs are merely a string of quotations of biblical passages strung together. The method of using scriptural words to back up doctrinal statements simply because the words are agreeable, is not the same as seeking to understand scripture. It appears that the best method for winning a doctrinal debate is to have the most pieces of evidence!
For one example that was especially perturbing to my train of thought, Horton makes the statement that Paul is discussing individual salvation in Romans nine and "(t)hat are in view is indisputable, they have names [he lists the names]." Anyone with half a minor prophets class (the last half) recognizes that with regard to (not with regards to!) Jacob and Esau, Paul is quoting Malachi and Malachi is not discussing a single individual but the corporate "family". Throughout the minor prophets "names" are used to refer to the group of people.
A second problem I have with the entire Calvinism/Arminianism discussion is that it seems to be a case of potato/potato. For instance, in discussing election Horton makes a statement (and I will admit I am confused from the paragraph if this is his take or what he is arguing about) "Salvation may be provided by the Lord, but it is up to us to choose ourselves for this gift and to make and to make Christ's redeeming work effective by our decision." The italics make me think that he is arguing against the previous sentence, but the context is unclear. To my knowledge, (limited to my experience) no one in Christianity argues with the first part of the statement, Salvation is indeed from the Lord. The argument appears to lie in terms of the perspective of looking at the salvific event. Does one attempt feebly to describe the event as God sees it or to describe the event as humans experience it? There is the potato/potato paradigm.
Horton provides three chapters at the end that are a delight to read."Calvinism and Christian Life", "Calvinism and Christian Missions", and "Calvinism Today". These are historical and somewhat personal reflections on the role of Calvinistic/Reformed theology in the practical element. In the Afterword Horton shows his dealt hand and shares that Romans and John are two of the key NT books that have shaped his thinking. Go figure!!!
Thursday, July 12, 2012
A Brief Book Interlude
I just finished reading Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson and have started the twin sister For Calvinism by Michael Horton. Olson writes from the Arminian perspective and discusses in particular high Calvinism and its Five Points, Five Doctrines of Grace, or TULIP specifically (There are a variety of names for these five positions but he only discusses 4, the book is not that long). Olson makes a point of holding this manner of Reformation theology to the logical standards it so stringently enforces of others. While many of the examples do not resonate strongly, they are merely examples to illustrate various issues.
My concern as a non-professional theologian and as a professional biblical interpreter is the use by both positions of Scriptural passages. I understand the nearly 500 year history of these positions and their birth in the 'scholastic' era, but my concern is the continued (mis)use of biblical interpretation. Both positions appear to prefer a prooftext approach to their theological positions. As a baptist who follows the Arminian track fervently and avows the free church position fervently, I find it interesting that both positions appear to take modern corrections, not to mention post-modern corrections, to scholastic biblical interpretation so lightly. While Olson gives frequent signs of the larger approach and I am not opposed to any particular Arminians or Calvinists, it is the Arminian and Calvinist use of Scripture that I abhor. If the avowed position is sola Scriptura, then why do both hold so dogmatically to, dare I say the word, "tradition"?
It appears that both positions are birthed from modernity and the adherents are content to argue their doctrines from the modern position with little recognition of the post-modern world. We'll see how the book fur it reads!!!
My concern as a non-professional theologian and as a professional biblical interpreter is the use by both positions of Scriptural passages. I understand the nearly 500 year history of these positions and their birth in the 'scholastic' era, but my concern is the continued (mis)use of biblical interpretation. Both positions appear to prefer a prooftext approach to their theological positions. As a baptist who follows the Arminian track fervently and avows the free church position fervently, I find it interesting that both positions appear to take modern corrections, not to mention post-modern corrections, to scholastic biblical interpretation so lightly. While Olson gives frequent signs of the larger approach and I am not opposed to any particular Arminians or Calvinists, it is the Arminian and Calvinist use of Scripture that I abhor. If the avowed position is sola Scriptura, then why do both hold so dogmatically to, dare I say the word, "tradition"?
It appears that both positions are birthed from modernity and the adherents are content to argue their doctrines from the modern position with little recognition of the post-modern world. We'll see how the book fur it reads!!!
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
BBI Part Four
Some of the followers of this blog may be getting a bit antsy about ever getting to the "meaning" of the interpretive process. Read, ask questions, read again? What kind of interpretation is this?
BBI Part Four: Look For Answers
Having now accomplished the task of identifying critical questions to understanding the text in question, it is time to move into the "research" mode. Research is defined as "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." (Apple Dictionary 2.1.3) The questions that remain need to be answered and research is the first step toward obtaining relevant and accurate information.
The first course of action is to try to distinguish or categorize the questions into various groups. These might be 'historical' questions that try to find out specific information, e.g. how long is a cubit. There might be other questions, depending on the text chosen, that ask about where the writer got the information or why one passage doesn't seem to coordinate with another passage you know, e.g. the books of Kings and Chronicles. Other questions will be of a devotional nature and will take reflection and meditation to discover an answer.
Begin by finding answers to the historical questions as they serve as a basis for biblical interpretation. If you need to know a name, check out a 'biblical names' source, if it is a city try a biblical atlas. Find out as much of the factual details you can since a wrong presupposition here, e.g. Jerusalem is south of Bethlehem, will lead you astray for many years to come. It should be noted that there is often disagreement about where a city might be located or what a name might mean, but the majority of historical questions are relatively easily answered.
The second type of questions mentioned are more difficulty. For questions of this sort, you probably are going to need to read what other people have said about the passage under consideration. The unreliable source is usually fond on the internet. This does not mean that every internet source is erroneous, but many are not judicial in expressing their opinions fairly in light of opposing opinions. The normal place to look is a book or electronic resource you might actually have to pay money for! The free sites are free for a reason. Matthew Henry commentary was written in the late 1700s and is not noted for provided recent opinions on the text. While it might be suitable for the next set of questions it is not suitable here. Commentary series vary and hardcover ones normally outperform paperback ones (it may have to do with the investment of the publisher to print good information). This is a more difficult section because only time and repeated attempts will help you discover where you can find good, reliable information.
Finally, devotional questions. Some of you may be thinking: "this guy is finally getting spiritual!!!" The point is not that I am finally getting spiritual, but I am providing stages for developing and attuning the spirit and mind!!! Far too many 'spiritual' interpretations have proven false when the information they were based on was found to be invalid!!! One need only look at various translations of 1 Cor 7.1 and how they punctuate the second half of the verse. Since Jesus once said "I am the way the truth and the life" it might be useful to base any understanding of Jesus on truth rather than folly, or on fact rather than rumor. (Readers will be glad to note that I did not include a non sequitur just to create a list of three comparatives.)
Having established that devotional questions should be answered later rather than sooner, these devotional questions are a great time to begin journaling and writing down further questions that serve to clarify the direction of spiritual inquiry. This will require more of that which you thought the others required: time. To answer devotional questions, one may even need to communicate with other believers and ask them questions to find answers consistent with the Spirit of God's direction.
Once the questions have been answered, it is on to Part Five!
BBI Part Four: Look For Answers
Having now accomplished the task of identifying critical questions to understanding the text in question, it is time to move into the "research" mode. Research is defined as "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." (Apple Dictionary 2.1.3) The questions that remain need to be answered and research is the first step toward obtaining relevant and accurate information.
The first course of action is to try to distinguish or categorize the questions into various groups. These might be 'historical' questions that try to find out specific information, e.g. how long is a cubit. There might be other questions, depending on the text chosen, that ask about where the writer got the information or why one passage doesn't seem to coordinate with another passage you know, e.g. the books of Kings and Chronicles. Other questions will be of a devotional nature and will take reflection and meditation to discover an answer.
Begin by finding answers to the historical questions as they serve as a basis for biblical interpretation. If you need to know a name, check out a 'biblical names' source, if it is a city try a biblical atlas. Find out as much of the factual details you can since a wrong presupposition here, e.g. Jerusalem is south of Bethlehem, will lead you astray for many years to come. It should be noted that there is often disagreement about where a city might be located or what a name might mean, but the majority of historical questions are relatively easily answered.
The second type of questions mentioned are more difficulty. For questions of this sort, you probably are going to need to read what other people have said about the passage under consideration. The unreliable source is usually fond on the internet. This does not mean that every internet source is erroneous, but many are not judicial in expressing their opinions fairly in light of opposing opinions. The normal place to look is a book or electronic resource you might actually have to pay money for! The free sites are free for a reason. Matthew Henry commentary was written in the late 1700s and is not noted for provided recent opinions on the text. While it might be suitable for the next set of questions it is not suitable here. Commentary series vary and hardcover ones normally outperform paperback ones (it may have to do with the investment of the publisher to print good information). This is a more difficult section because only time and repeated attempts will help you discover where you can find good, reliable information.
Finally, devotional questions. Some of you may be thinking: "this guy is finally getting spiritual!!!" The point is not that I am finally getting spiritual, but I am providing stages for developing and attuning the spirit and mind!!! Far too many 'spiritual' interpretations have proven false when the information they were based on was found to be invalid!!! One need only look at various translations of 1 Cor 7.1 and how they punctuate the second half of the verse. Since Jesus once said "I am the way the truth and the life" it might be useful to base any understanding of Jesus on truth rather than folly, or on fact rather than rumor. (Readers will be glad to note that I did not include a non sequitur just to create a list of three comparatives.)
Having established that devotional questions should be answered later rather than sooner, these devotional questions are a great time to begin journaling and writing down further questions that serve to clarify the direction of spiritual inquiry. This will require more of that which you thought the others required: time. To answer devotional questions, one may even need to communicate with other believers and ask them questions to find answers consistent with the Spirit of God's direction.
Once the questions have been answered, it is on to Part Five!
Monday, July 2, 2012
BBI Part Three
Now that the biblical interpreter has asked a series of questions, what next? The logical solution is to begin to research and find answers for those questions. This response is typical and EVENTUALLY necessary, but still premature.
BBI Part Three: Read Again
The third step in interpreting the Bible would be to read the passage again now that you have some questions. The first read introduces you to the text, the second part introduces questions that illuminate the areas where further understanding is necessary prior to interpretation. The third part, re-reading is a necessary element since it will clarify the questions, or in the language of BBQ Pitmasters that I have enjoyed viewing recently "render the fat," getting rid of some unnecessary elements and infusing the other questions with more meaning/flavor!
This third part is the element that determines which questions are crucial to the interpretive process and which are merely peripheral questions that may be simple rabbit chases. Since the goal is to interpret the text and not to chase rabbits the inclusion/ignorance of this part is crucial to the final product.
How then should one read? I suggest the descriptor: carefully. What does this mean? The word has two avenues of understanding and both should be heeded. First, carefully implies to make sure of avoiding potential danger. Rabbit chases are replete with potential danger. The opportunity exists for heads to be bumped on low hanging limbs, clothes to be snagged, torn or shredded by thorns, branches, and wires, and for the object of the chase to be lost and other more appealing avenues pursued that have no relationship to the primary concern, the text itself.
Second, carefully implies to be done with attention. Attention must be given to clues, to implications, to prior perceptions of the text, and even to what tradition might inform regarding the text. The lack of attention to the details of the text and its interpretive world leads to the hubris of "original thought" when very little is actually original regarding biblical interpretations.
Having read with questions in mind, part 3b is to identify the questions worth pursuing in the interpretive process. This will lead to part four.
BBI Part Three: Read Again
The third step in interpreting the Bible would be to read the passage again now that you have some questions. The first read introduces you to the text, the second part introduces questions that illuminate the areas where further understanding is necessary prior to interpretation. The third part, re-reading is a necessary element since it will clarify the questions, or in the language of BBQ Pitmasters that I have enjoyed viewing recently "render the fat," getting rid of some unnecessary elements and infusing the other questions with more meaning/flavor!
This third part is the element that determines which questions are crucial to the interpretive process and which are merely peripheral questions that may be simple rabbit chases. Since the goal is to interpret the text and not to chase rabbits the inclusion/ignorance of this part is crucial to the final product.
How then should one read? I suggest the descriptor: carefully. What does this mean? The word has two avenues of understanding and both should be heeded. First, carefully implies to make sure of avoiding potential danger. Rabbit chases are replete with potential danger. The opportunity exists for heads to be bumped on low hanging limbs, clothes to be snagged, torn or shredded by thorns, branches, and wires, and for the object of the chase to be lost and other more appealing avenues pursued that have no relationship to the primary concern, the text itself.
Second, carefully implies to be done with attention. Attention must be given to clues, to implications, to prior perceptions of the text, and even to what tradition might inform regarding the text. The lack of attention to the details of the text and its interpretive world leads to the hubris of "original thought" when very little is actually original regarding biblical interpretations.
Having read with questions in mind, part 3b is to identify the questions worth pursuing in the interpretive process. This will lead to part four.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)