How to Read the Bible like the young Psalmist (Psalm 119)

I Love the Bible: B

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/07/15/i-love-the-bible-b/

by Scot McKnight

Jul 15, 2014

Comment

“How can those who are young keep their way pure?,” asks the psalmist in the opening line of the Beth lines of Psalm 119 (v. 9a). Some think the entire psalm is the journal reflections of an ancient Israelite as life progresses. What impresses me is other verses in this great psalm that give context to the concern of this young man to get started when young.

Notice the following verses (culled from Derek Kidner):

1. Some are skeptical: 119:126: “your law is being broken.”

2. Some seek the psalmist’s life: 119:95: “The wicked are waiting to destroy me.”

3. Some smear the psalmist’s name: 119:69: “Though the arrogant have smeared me with lies.”

Notice that this causes the psalmist pain: he is sensitive about the words being said (“Take away the disgrace I dread” — v. 39); he feels humiliated (“Though I am lowly and despised” — v. 141); and, he is exhausted by it all (“My soul is weary with sorrow” — v. 28).

Sometimes he lashes out against them — “Indignation grips me because of the wicked” — v. 53; and sometimes he loathes them — “I look on the faithless with loathing” (158).

So, the young man asks, how does one make it when the whole institution seems to be against the person committed to God? “By living according to your word” (119:9b). Not just by reading it; not just by listening to it; but by “living” it. The word “live” here comes from shamar — “to keep or observe.”

Start when you are young, the psalmist is saying, and what he means is start observing and keeping the Word.

In spite of what everyone else thinks. The genuinely counter-cultural person is observant.

“With all my heart,” the psalmist says in 119:10, “I have turned to You; do not let me stray from Your commandments. In my heart I treasure your promise.”

Commitment to God, a life absorbed in Torah, begins in the heart. And when the commitment begins in the heart (13x in Ps 119), Torah produces wisdom rather than just knowledge. Such commitment, because it opens one entirely to the presence of God, purifies in-and-with love.

Here are some observations:

1. Heart commitment implies inside-out, total revolution.

2. Heart commitment implies “faith seeking understanding.”

3. Heart commitment implies trust in God rather than self.

4. Heart commitment implies vulnerability to God — an admission of what the self is really like.

5. Heart commitment implies treasure in God and turning from sin.

6. Heart commitment implies finding instead of wandering.

x. Others suggestions? (Try to stick to Ps 119:9-16.)

Psalm 119:12-13 expresses the psalmists commitment — to learn the law and to rehearse the rules., thus:

“Praise be to you, O LORD; teach me your decrees. With my lips I recount all the laws that come from your mouth.”

Here the young psalmist blesses God (baruk) and petitions God to be the teacher; then the psalmist states that he will “rehearse/recount” all the laws (mishpat).

What I hear is this: the heart set on God learns the Torah — by reading it regularly, listening to it longingly, and loving it with life. Do you regularly read the Bible so that you listen to it? Or is it just something to analyze, study, break apart?

The Torah students begin sessions with this prayer: “Blessed are you, O YHWH; teach me your laws.

The pleasure the psalmist speaks of in Psalm 119:14-15 is not simply the mental exhilaration of study and discovery — the sort of thing many experience when they chance upon something previously unseen in the Bible, which I think is grossly overrated for Bible study.

No, the pleasure of the psalmist is otherwise. We sell ourselves short if we equate the “statutes” and “precepts” and “decrees” of these verses with the words on the page of the Bible. The psalmist finds these words to be communication from God; discovering these words as establishing relationship with God; and therefore the words as interpersonal [between God and the young psalmist]. In knowing them as communion with God the psalmist exhilarates.

Notice the words of pleasure:

“I rejoice in following your statutes

as one rejoices in great riches.

I meditate on your precepts

and consider your ways.

I delight in your decrees;

I will not neglect your word.”

The psalmist rejoices (shis) and delights (sha’ashu’im) — as one does in great riches. Exhilaration.

This exhilaration transcends knowing as cognition: It is the absorption in Torah and being absorbed by Torah, it is delight in knowing and being known, it is delight in both knowing and doing. I like how it begins in v. 14: “in” the way (derek) of your statutes — not just knowing but the knowing-doing in relationship with God; in the way of communing in in knowing-observing.

A meditation on the experience of the psalmist in Psalm 119; esp vv. 1-16. I take the key idea of this psalm to be absorption. I see this in three directions:

First, the psalmist is absorbed in the Torah as communication from God so that the psalmist is absorbed in God. Over and over the focus is on “Your” word, statutes, precepts, laws, regulations, and teachings. The psalmist delights in God, in hearing from God, and in knowing that God communicates through the Torah to God’s people.

Second, the psalmist is absorbed by the Torah. Not only is the Torah the object in which the psalmist delights; the Torah is the subject that overwhelms the psalmist so that one is caught up in-and-by the wordy presence of God. Not only is the psalmist studying to learn, but the psalmist is being studied by the Torah so that it becomes the “other” that addresses the psalmist.

And, third, the psalmist is absorbed toward others. This wordy presence of God in Torah, the authority of God that comes to the psalmist in the Torah, directs the psalmist’s life toward others. That means, the psalmist speaks about others, to others, and for others. The psalmist summons others to the Torah, to listen and learn.

Why? Because the Torah, this wordy presence of God, is not just words on a paper and not just propositions to be analyzed, but the missio Dei — it is the atoning presence of God among us. As we hear and listen and receive and observe and do and share and summon, we are caught up into the missio Dei [of God] in this world.

[The Word of God is His] missio Dei, so if we are absorbed in it and by it, we will be caught into its fundamental missional direction of speaking to us so that we might hear God and speak to God and speak to others on behalf of God.

Huffington Post - The Science-Religion Crisis at Christian Colleges

The Science-Religion Crisis at Christian Colleges

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-james-clark/science-religion-christian-colleges_b_5565641.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Posted: 07/14/2014 12:28 pm EDT Updated: 07/14/2014 12:59 pm EDT

Kelly James Clark

Kelly James Clark is Senior Research Fellow at the Kaufman Interfaith Institute at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is author or editor of more than 20 books, including Religion and the Sciences of Origins, The Story of Ethics and Abraham’s Children: Liberty and Tolerance in an Age of Religious Conflict, which was recently published by Yale University Press. You can learn more at kellyjamesclark.com

additional commentary by R.E. Slater

---

Shortly after the 2004 publication of his book, Random Designer, biologist Richard Colling was prohibited from teaching introductory biology courses at Olivet Nazarene College in Illinois and his book was banned from the campus. Peter Enns, who earned his PhD from Harvard University in Near Eastern languages and civilizations, claimed that the first chapters of Genesis are firmly grounded in ancient myth, which he defines as "an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins in the form of stories"; in 2008, the board of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia forced Enns, a tenured faculty member, to resign after fourteen years. In 2010, Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando fired biblical scholar Bruce Waltke for stating that evolution is true. In 2011, Calvin College fired theologian John Schneider and silenced biblical scholar Dan Harlow for challenging the traditional Christian understanding of a literal Adam and Eve....

---

Adam and Eve are the third rail for contemporary evangelical scholars--touch it and you will die (homosexuality is another third rail).

Science has peeled away successive layers of the Adam and Eve narrative for over two centuries. According to the traditional account, Adam and Eve, the morally pure first couple, lived in a paradise where, though they didn't work, their every need was met. In Eden there was no suffering and death (not just for humans but for every living creature). Adam's fall, then, issued forth in natural evils such as earthquakes, pestilence, and famine (and the suffering and death that lie in their wake) and moral evils such as human slavery, war, and other forms of violence (and the suffering and death that lie in their wake). Prior to the fall, the world was one of suffering-free and death-free bliss.

The disciplined study of geology in the nineteenth century presented an entirely different picture: a history that preceeded by millions of years than was suggested by a literal reading of Genesis; a history of natural evils on a scale vaster than [anyone could have] imagined. For example, previously unknown species such as the Megalosaurus and Iguanodon had not only suffered and died; they had gone extinct.

Modern geology says that natural evil, then, did not enter the world through the fall of Adam; it's built into the world's very structure. Therefore Adam and Eve did not live in an Edenic paradise with little struggle for existence. They would have entered into a world of suffering and death, one in which they would have to eke out their own existence.

---

What about Adam and Eve themselves? Even if an Edenic paradise is no longer tenable, what about a primordial perfect couple from whom all human beings have descended?

Contemporary molecular biology suggests that all living human beings are descended from about 10,000 [to 15,000] early humans, not a single couple. And paleontology, anthropology and archaeology have converged on the view that the first humans were anything but morally pure; their lives were characteristically selfish and even viciously so, in ways that included war, murder, and rape.

Science tells us that there was no Edenic paradise, no first couple, and no sinless parents of humanity.

And while most scientists and some theologians and philosophers teaching at Protestant Christian colleges know this, very few are willing to speak out. The message of the dismissals is clear -- speak out and get fired. When dissenting Christian voices are squelched or fired, faculty clam up.

---

Christian colleges and seminaries desperately fear change. According to Peter Enns, "The theological tradition embraced at Westminster Theological Seminary, stemming from deliberations in England during the seventeenth century, is nevertheless perceived by its adherents to enjoy an unassailable permanence and in need of no serious adjustments, let alone critical reflection, despite many known advances in biblical studies or science since that time."

How can Christian intellectuals be getting fired, just when Christians need leadership on this and other science-related matters? With such a paucity of intellectual assistance, Christians feel forced to choose between the science of human origins, on the one hand, and an antiquated theology of human origins on the other.

---

A recent Gallup poll indicates that in the U.S. the percentage of those who believe that humans evolved through a God-guided process has declined from 38 percent to 31 percent for the period from 1982 to 2014.

And while massive amounts of money have been spent on science education and in court battles, the number of people who believe that humans were created in their present form 10,000 years ago has stayed roughly the same over this period (an embarrassing 42 percent of the U.S. population).

The single, most relevant variable indicative of young-earth creationism is church attendance. Fully 69 percent of young-earth creationists are regular church attenders. Sadly, low education is likewise highly correlated with young-earth creationism.

The only clear winner of the past thirty years is atheism. The number of people who believe that God had nothing to do with the creation of humans has doubled in just over 30 years (from 9 percent to 19 percent). Apparently, those people, too, think that one is forced to choose between science and antiquated theology....

---

*ADDENDUM

Note - the phrase "God has nothing to do with the creation of humans" is poorly constructed in referring to the opinion of non-Christians and to those Christians who view creation from an evolutionary biological standpoint.

What I would like to add, from mine own perspective, is that God is the Creator of this earth through the divine process of evolution. That He guided its process throughout its formation. That He decreed the evolutionary process of chaos and randomness by giving to it a process of efficiency to whatever may come within its chaotic and random disorder cosmologically, geologically, and biologically.

And to this idea of efficiency God also gave biologic life the "will to survive" in anyway that it could. This, to me, would be evolution's divine teleology (sic, refer to several past articles on this topic).

It also is the way in which God chose to act sovereignly without invoking the concept of meticulous sovereignty whereby He must control every jot and tittle of His creative act. Meaning that, God is deeply involved, deeply present, and deeply interested, in the creation, maintenance, and sustenance of the universe, our world, and humanity in particular.

But to creation He gave it "a kind of free will" better described as "indeterminant." That is, creation's "freedom of will" (an anthropomorphic description) is its interderminate character of chaos and random disorder (its better scientific description).

Hence, this would then better describe the Arminianian view of creation's character (sic, free will: mankind; indeterminancy: creation) than that of Calvinism's idea of a necessary meticulous sovereignty of divine involvement when thinking of the bad things that comes to humanity within this kind of creative structure.

And yes, God created a creation that can hold bad things for us humans such as fire and windstorm, virus and illness. Even death. But not sin: a human trait involving moral conscience in relationship to free will. Again, please refer to the sidebar for this topic as well.

But we would more properly attribute these "bad things" to creation's process and not to the divine Himself. Meaning that a child's sickness cannot be directly attributed to God but more to the kind of process that God has created. A death by tornado or windstorm comes not by God's hand so much as by the kind of evolutionary process that we survive within - I wish to phrase it in this way in order to underscore the additional idea that evolution has not stopped, but is a continuing process that we live within, that we survive within, even now.

- R.E. Slater

July, 15, 2014

---

Along with their firings, Protestant Christian college and seminary presidents have taken the side of antiquated theology over science (contributing even further to Christian colleges' climate of fear). For example, in 2010, at a conference chock full of Christian leaders, Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (the flagship seminary of the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.), resoundingly declared that the Bible unequivocally teaches six x twenty-four-hour days of creation and a young universe (on the order of tens of thousands of years, not billions). He claims:

"I would suggest to you that in our effort to be most faithful to the scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the gospel an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems, and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and what it means and why it matters."

In his wooden and historically uninformed interpretation of Genesis, Mohler, armed with no training whatsoever in the relevant sciences or ancient Mesopotamian history, rejected cosmology, geology, and biology. At the end of his sermon, Mohler boldly asserted:

"I want to suggest to you that when it comes to the confrontation between evolutionary theory and the Christian gospel we have a head-on collision. In the confrontation between secular science and the scripture we have a head-on collision."

By squelching faithful scientific and theological exploration, Mohler-and-company are teaching Christian students that Christians are forced to choose between well-established knowledge and God. And they are teaching teachers and pastors who are teaching children and lay people that they must choose likewise.

But forcing a choice between science and God may not have the result Christian colleges and their shortsighted leaders desire. Forced to choose between physics, cosmology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, genetics, and biology, on the one hand, and their antiquated interpretation of Christianity on the other, increasingly many will choose science.