Psalm 13 - A Pslam of Deep Grief & Lament

Psalm 13

1

How long, O LORD? Will You forget me forever? (Lament)

How long will You hide Your face from me? (Abandonment)

2

How long shall I take counsel in my soul, Having sorrow in my heart all the day? (Agony)

How long will my enemy be exalted over me? (Shame)

3

Consider and answer me, O LORD my God; (Waiting)

Enlighten my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death, (Mortality)

4

And my enemy will say, "I have overcome him," (Death)

And my adversaries will rejoice when I am shaken. (Wickedness)

5

But I have trusted in Your lovingkindness; (Faith)

My heart shall rejoice in Your salvation. (Deliverance)

6

I will sing to the LORD, (Celebration)

Because He has dealt bountifully with me. (Hope)

* * * * * * * * *

Psalm 13 Commentary

by C. Wess Daniels

http://gatheringinlight.com/2015/01/04/lament-brought-to-speech-psalm-13/

Lament, as Walter Brueggemann says, is about

“Calling attention to the reality of human loss.

It is a given that needs to be processed theologically.”

Lament is prayers and emotions that express deep loss, deep disconnect from how things ought to be and the reality of things are. Lament is protest, it can be expressed in anger, or desperation as we will see. Lament is like a deep and emotional groan that becomes prayer to God.

In order to understand lament better, let’s look at a contrasting poem in Psalm 13.

Remember that the book of Psalms is the prayer book of the Bible. Quakers aren’t particularly great at using written prayers but these Psalms “praises” have been being used as prayers for thousands of years. They are collected here as prayers that we can use for ourselves.

I think this is especially helpful when we don’t know how to pray, or what kind of words to say to God. We can turn to the Psalms and begin to steep in these “praises” which, once you start reading them, aren’t all praises.

Henri Nouwen has said that these Psalms of lament are,

“For those who cannot articulate their own pain.”

In other words: here is a tool for deeper spirituality right here. Learn, pray, read, meditate on the Psalms. Take them and pray them verbatim or put them into your own words.

Let’s Read Psalm 13, our first Psalm of Lament, again.

Q: What are some of the things you notice right off the bat?

Q: Do you see any patterns or developments as the poem progresses?

People call Psalm 13 a Psalm of disorientation or a Psalm of darkness.

Those who understand Psalms of disorientation better than me suggest that there is a basic framework to these we can discern. (This same structure is taken from Brueggemann’s “Message of the Psalms” p.58–60).

A. Questions (v. 1–2)

(1-2) How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever?

How long will you hide your face from me?

How long must I bear pain in my soul,

and have sorrow in my heart all day long?

How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?

There are 4–5 rhetorical questions here. God is put on trial. This is where we see the blame or the address made directly to God. The Psalmist here is not interested in having anyone explain what is going on or give any excuses. The Psalmist is only interested in questioning God for what is going on.

There are two major problems the Psalmist has with God:

• Absence of God
• My enemies prevail

For the Psalmist, there is something amiss in the relationship and the injustice, the brokenness drives his request into what Brueggemann calls “Bold Faith.” The accusatory language of this prayer may feel weird or unnatural but within the Hebrew tradition this is what the practice of lament looks like. Nothing is off limits. No prayer is inappropriate to God. To bring all your pain, your complaints, your nice prayers and the ugly ones are all a part of having a “bold faith.”

It is bold because it refuses to live in a pretend reality. It faces squarely into the darkness and disorientation of life. And it declares that this darkness, especially our darkness, must be put into conversation with God. Nothing should be held back from God. Everything must be brought to speech, and everything brought to speech must be addressed to God, who is the final reference for all of life” (The Message of the Psalms, 52).

B. Beyond Coping (v. 3–4)

(3-4) Consider and answer me, O LORD my God!

Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death,

and my enemy will say, “I have prevailed”;

my foes will rejoice because I am shaken.

The Psalmist is beyond coping. He is at his wit’s end. There are no more explanations, not more resources, no more excuses that can be given. But he refuses to give up.

He too, like Abigail, is about to die.

I sympathize with the prayer’s author because he stands in that in between life and death; where there is a teetering on just making it and completely losing himself. I feel as though I have no place left to stand.

“Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death.”

This truly is disorientation.

In Nicholas Wolterstorff’s book “Lament for a Son” he describes this in-between well:

"But the pain of the no more outweighs the gratitude of the once was."

He knows the in-between and describes it well when he receives a call about the death of his son:

“The call came at 3:30 on that Sunday afternoon, a bright sunny day. We had just sent a younger brother off to the plane to be with him for the summer.

”Mr. Wolterstorff?“

”Yes.“

”Is this Eric’s father?“

”Yes.“

Mr. Wolterstorff, I must give you some bad news.”

“Yes.”

“Eric has been climbing in the mountains and has had an accident.”

“Yes.”

“Eric has had a serious accident.”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Wolterstorff, I must tell you , Eric is dead. Mr. Wolderstorff, are you there? You must come at once. Mr. Wolterstorff, Eric is dead.”

“For three seconds I felt the peace of resignation: arms extended, limp son in hand, peacefully offering him to someone – Somone. Then the pain – cold burning pain.”

Our lament is like telephone call, the juncture between two great distances. We know it is true lament when we are beyond coping and we know that we are on the brink of life or death.

C. Waiting

And then the Psalmist waits. We don’t know for how long. But we know that he waits in the darkness. He becomes oriented with disorientation and stays there.

D. New Orientation (v 5)

(5-6) But I trusted in your steadfast love;

my heart shall rejoice in your salvation.

I will sing to the LORD,

because he has dealt bountifully with me.

And after so prolonged period of time he finds resolution in the lovingkindness of God. This is not some trite “everything works out to the good” because we know there are plenty of stories that never get told and plenty of endings that never end in a complete sentence or a period.

Instead, for the one who is transformed through lament, light comes to their eyes and they come to understand that “Nothing Shall Separate us from the Love of God.”

…Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present,

nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth,

nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us

from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

(Romans 8:37–39 NRSV)

Brought to Speech

The important thing about Lament is that our suffering, our darkness, and disorientation is “brought to speech” in relationship with God. There is nothing you experience, no pain too deep, no sense of loss so tragic that you ought not to just take it to God but to make it God’s business to transform the situation.

All of our lives must be brought into dialogue with the lovingkindness of God if we are to be transformed. Even if the circumstances are irreversible, that does not mean we cannot find a new orientation by practicing this bold kind of faith.

The Psalmist knows that one option really is death, literal, spiritual or emotional death. These are always live options for us too. And to remain silent is to allow that death to creep in. It is to wall God off and and forego the change that is possible.

“Everything is awesome” is the theme song not just of the Lego movie but of all who live comfortably in America. To practice lament is to challenge this. It is to refuse to pretend and instead face reality squarely. To voice our disorientation. To address God fully. To pour out the depths of our hearts and to await transformation because we trust that God’s lovingkindness is the final reference for all of life.

* * * * * * * * *

Matthew Henry Commentary - Psalm 13

This psalm is the deserted soul's case and cure. Whether it was penned upon any particular occasion does not appear, but in general,

I. David sadly complains that God had long withdrawn from him and delayed to relieve him (v. 1, 2).

II. He earnestly prays to God to consider his case and comfort him (v. 3, 4).

III. He assures himself of an answer of peace, and therefore concludes the psalm with joy and triumph, because he concludes his deliverance to be as good as wrought (v. 5, 6).

To the chief musician. A psalm of David.

Verses 1-6

David, in affliction, is here pouring out his soul before God; his address is short, but the method is very observable, and of use for direction and encouragement.

I.

His troubles extort complaints (v. 1, 2); and the afflicted have liberty to pour out their complaint before the Lord, Ps. 102 title. It is some ease to a troubled spirit to give vent to its griefs, especially to give vent to them at the throne of grace, where we are sure to find one who is afflicted in the afflictions of his people and is troubled with the feeling of their infirmities; thither we have boldness of access by faith, and there we have parreµsia—freedom of speech.Observe here,

1. What David complains of. (1.) God's unkindness; so he construed it, and it was his infirmity. He thought God had forgotten him, had forgotten his promises to him, his covenant with him, his former lovingkindness which he had shown him and which he took to be an earnest of further mercy, had forgotten that there was such a man in the world, who needed and expected relief and succour from him. Thus Zion said, My God has forgotten me (Isa. 49:14), Israel said, My way is hidden from the Lord, Isa. 40:27. Not that any good man can doubt the omniscience, goodness, and faithfulness of God; but it is a peevish expression of prevailing fear, which yet, when it arises from a high esteem and earnest desire of God's favour, though it be indecent and culpable, shall be passed by and pardoned, for the second thought will retract it and repent of it. God hid his face from him, so that he wanted that inward comfort in God which he used to have, and herein was a type of Christ upon the cross, crying out, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?God sometimes hides his face from his own children, and leaves them in the dark concerning their interest in him; and this they lay to heart more than any outward trouble whatsoever. (2.) His own uneasiness. [1.] He was racked with care, which filled his head: I take counsel in my soul; "I am at a loss, and am inops consilii—without a friend to advise with that I can put any confidence in, and therefore am myself continually projecting what to do to help myself; but none of my projects are likely to take effect, so that I am at my wits' end, and in a continual agitation." Anxious cares are heavy burdens with which good people often load themselves more than they need. [2.] He was overwhelmed with sorrow, which filled his heart: I have sorrow in my heart daily. He had a constant disposition to sorrow and it preyed upon his spirits, not only in the night, when he was silent and solitary, but by day too, when lighter griefs are diverted and dissipated by conversation and business; nay, every day brought with it fresh occasions of grief; the clouds returned after the rain. The bread of sorrow is sometimes the saint's daily bread. Our Master himself was a man of sorrows. (3.) His enemies' insolence, which added to his grief. Saul his great enemy, and others under him, were exalted over him, triumphed in his distress, pleased themselves with his grief, and promised themselves a complete victory over him. This he complained of as reflecting dishonour upon God, and his power and promise.

2. How he expostulates with God hereupon: "How long shall it be thus?" And, "Shall it be thus for ever?" Long afflictions try our patience and often tire it. It is a common temptation, when trouble lasts long, to think it will last always; despondency then turns into despair, and those that have long been without joy begin, at last, to be without hope. "Lord, tell me how long thou wilt hide thy face, and assure me that it shall not be for ever, but that thou wilt return at length in mercy to me, and then I shall the more easily bear my present troubles."

II.

His complaints stir up his prayers, v. 3, 4. We should never allow ourselves to make any complaints but what are fit to be offered up to God and what drive us to our knees. Observe here,

1. What his petitions are: Consider my case, hear my complaints, and enlighten my eyes, that is, (1.) "Strengthen my faith;" for faith is the eye of the soul, with which it sees above, and sees through, the things of sense. "Lord, enable me to look beyond my present troubles and to foresee a happy issue of them." (2.) "Guide my way; enable me to look about me, that I may avoid the snares which are laid for me." (3.) "Refresh my soul with the joy of thy salvation." That which revives the drooping spirits is said to enlighten the eyes, 1 Sa. 14:27; Ezra 9:8. "Lord, scatter the cloud of melancholy which darkens my eyes, and let my countenance be made pleasant."

2. What his pleas are. He mentions his relation to God and interest in him (O Lord my God!) and insists upon the greatness of the peril, which called for speedy relief and succour. If his eyes were not enlightened quickly, (1.) He concludes that he must perish: "I shall sleep the sleep of death; I cannot live under the weight of all this care and grief." Nothing is more killing to a soul then the want of God's favour, nothing more reviving than the return of it. (2.) That then his enemies would triumph: "Lest my enemy say, So would I have it; lest Saul, lest Satan, be gratified in my fall." It would gratify the pride of his enemy: He will say, "I have prevailed, I have gotten the day, and been too hard for him and his God." It would gratify the malice of his enemies: They will rejoice when I am moved. And will it be for God's honour to suffer them thus to trample upon all that is sacred both in heaven and earth?

III.

His prayers are soon turned into praises (v. 5, 6): But my heart shall rejoice and I will sing to the Lord. What a surprising change is here in a few lines! In the beginning of the psalm we have him drooping, trembling, and ready to sink into melancholy and despair; but, in the close of it, rejoicing in God, and elevated and enlarged in his praises. See the power of faith, the power of prayer, and how good it is to draw near to God. If we bring our cares and griefs to the throne of grace, and leave them there, we may go away like Hannah, and our countenance will be no more sad, 1 Sa. 1:18. And here observe the method of his comfort. 1. God's mercy is the support of his faith. "My case is bad enough, and I am ready to think it deplorable, till I consider the infinite goodness of God; but, finding I have that to trust to, I am comforted, though I have no merit of my own. In former distresses I have trusted in the mercy of God, and I never found that it failed me; his mercy has in due time relieved me and my confidence in it has in the mean time supported me. Even in the depth of this distress, when God hid his face from me, when without were fightings and within were fears, yet I trusted in the mercy of God and that was as an anchor in a storm, by the help of which, though I was tossed, I was not overset." And still I do trust in thy mercy; so some read it. "I refer myself to that, with an assurance that it will do well for me at last." This he pleads with God, knowing what pleasure he takes in those that hope in his mercy, Ps. 147:11. 2. His faith in God's mercy filled his heart with joy in his salvation; for joy and peace come by believing, Rom. 15:13. Believing, you rejoice, 1 Pt. 1:8. Having put his trust in the mercy of God, he is fully assured of salvation, and that his heart, which was now daily grieving, should rejoice in that salvation. Though weeping endure long, joy will return. 3. His joy in God's salvation would fill his mouth with songs of praise (v. 6): "I will sing unto the Lord, sing in remembrance of what he has done formerly; though I should never recover the peace I have had, I will die blessing God that ever I had it. He has dealt bountifully with me formerly, and he shall have the glory of that, however he is pleased to deal with me now. I will sing in hope of what he will do for me at last, being confident that all will end well, will end everlastingly well." But he speaks of it as a thing past (He has dealt bountifully with me), because by faith he had received the earnest of the salvation and he was as confident of it as if it had been done already.

In singing this psalm and praying it over, if we have not the same complaints to make that David had, we must thank God that we have not, dread and deprecate his withdrawings, sympathize with those that are troubled in mind, and encourage ourselves in our most holy faith and joy.

Wikipedia - Deconstruction and Religion

Deconstruction and Religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article discusses those who apply deconstruction, a method developed by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, to religion.

Those who take a deconstructive approach to religion identify closely with the work of Derrida, especially his work later in life. Theologian John D. Caputo describes Derrida's work in the 1970s as a Nietzschean 'free play of signifiers' while he describes Derrida's work in the 1990s as a "religion without religion."[1] However, Martin Hagglund argues against claims that deconstruction is a religious discourse seeking transcendence, and shows that the mortal and the transient is the source of value.[2]

Law, Undeconstructibility, Justice

A vital feature of Derrida's work later in life is the notion of "undeconstructibility". In Derrida's thought, deconstruction exists in the interval between constructions and undeconstructibility. The primary exemplar of this relationship is the relationship between the law, deconstruction, and justice. Derrida summarizes the relationship by saying that justice is the undeconstructible condition that makes deconstruction possible.[3] However, the justice referred to by Derrida is indeterminate and not a transcendent ideal.

Justice by Luca Giordano

The law is made up of necessary human constructions while justice is the undeconstructible call to make laws. The law belongs to the realm of the present, possible, and calculable, while justice belongs to the realm of the absent, impossible, and incalculable. Deconstruction bridges the gap between the law and justice as the experience of applying the law in a just manner. Justice demands that a singular occurrence be responded to with a new, uniquely tailored application of the law. Thus, a deconstructive reading of the law is a leap from calculability towards incalculability.

In deconstruction, justice takes on the structure of a promise that absence and impossibility can be made present and possible. Insofar as deconstruction is motivated by such a promise, it escapes the traditional presence/absence binary because a promise is neither present nor absent. Therefore, a deconstructive reading will never definitively achieve justice. Justice is always deferred.

Further reading

Derrida works out his idea of justice in Specters of Marx and in his essay "Force of Law" in Acts of Religion; he works out his idea of hospitality in Of Hospitality; Similarly for democracy seeRogues: Two Essays on Reason; friendship see The Politics of Friendship; the other see The Gift of Death; the future see Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money.

God and deconstruction

Deconstruction-and-religion understands religion in terms of what is shared among the Abrahamic faiths. In Derrida's work, there is a suggestive notion of a quasi-religion locatable in the cluster of concepts surrounding the affirmation of that which is experienced as undeconstructible. Derrida's acts of affirmation go by names such as the "unconditional without sovereignty," the "weak force" of the undeconstructible, and the "possibility of the impossible." Derrida sometimes suggested that such acts of affirmation can be used to describe "God."

Différance and negative theology

Derrida saw the God of negative theology as a crude precursor to deconstruction's central concept of différance. However, the God of negative theology is qualitatively different than the idea of différance because the God of negative theology functions as an ultimate, higher reality where différance does not.

Derrida in the middle-phase of his career re-visits negative theology in his Comment ne pas parler - Dénégations (1987; How to Avoid Speaking - Denials (1989)). Robert Magliola explains at length[4] the several ways—most of them adapted from Talmudic tactics—that Dénégations uses to disrupt or "confound" possible structural solidarity with negative theology (Derrida was a Sephardi Jew very appreciative of his ancestry). Via many examples from Derrida's text, Magliola demonstrates how these Derridean tactics work. A partial list of these tactics:

(1) ambiguous narrative modes, voices, and citations, so the voice of any utterance may conceal another that it may or may not be quoting;
(2) subversive footnotes that destabilize rather than reinforce the text's body;
(3) double binds, so assertions in parts of the essay are designed to contradict other parts;
(4) aberrant reinscription, so double binds proliferate in the text, implying a symploké (GK-"crossing") that precedes the binds themselves: thus Derrida's often-cited différance originaire is itself a double bind;
(5) Trace-words such as sceau, filtre, prétend, etc., that neither mean nor do not mean what they meant in his earlier oeuvres.

Différance is not God

See also: Différance

Central to deconstruction is the idea of différance. Différance is an anarchic nonconcept that makes a conception of language-as-a-play-of-signifiers possible. This French neologism means both "differing" and "deferring," describing in its name its own operation in setting deconstructive language in motion.

Prior to différance, all Western conceptual schemes relied on one form or another of a "transcendental signifier". A transcendental signifier is any metaphysical, hierarchical principle that presumes to determine which constructions of signifiers are "natural" or "proper." Examples of transcendental signifiers include Truth, God, Allah, Reason, Being, and various political ideologies. Différance is an alternative to and escape from the logic of the transcendental signifier.

Because employing the idea of différance precludes the possibility of positing a transcendental signifier, no historical conception of God can survive a deconstructive framework; even the God of negative theology falls short of différance. John D. Caputo has indicated that différance is not God[5] and that the God of negative theology is a transcendental ulteriority while différance is a quasi-transcendental anteriority.[6] However, negative theology and différance are kindred spirits insofar as they both desire what is absent, impossible, and incalculable.

Further reading

In the essay "Sauf le Nom," Derrida centered his investigation of the notion of God around negative theology and the poetry of Angelus Silesius.[7]

Reading strategy

"Abraham Sacrificing Isaac" by Laurent de LaHire, 1650

Proponents of deconstruction-and-religion believe that dominant contemporary explications of theology are inherently ideological, totalizing, and militant. In response, deconstruction-and-religion expresses itself through acts of interpretation. In taking on the process of interpretation, deconstruction-and-religion follows two tropes: active reinterpretation of the theological tradition and passive reinterpretation.

Active reinterpretation

Deconstruction-and-religion operates actively when it theorizes in a new way. Deconstruction-and-religion begins from a deconstructive framework that is both post-structuralist and post-phenomenological. The framework provides a means of identifying and exposing illegitimate doctrines or interpretations from within monotheistic traditions. Through the use of careful historical analysis, linguistic critique, and logical scrutiny, deconstruction-and-religion resolves interpretive tensions from within theological discourses while at the same time creating space for unforeseen developments in theological expression.

Passive reinterpretation

Deconstruction-and-religion operates passively when it takes a historical, descriptive approach to analyzing the corpora of various traditions of theology. In its passive mode, deconstruction-and-religion examines theological traditions to take note of documented instances of reified or unnatural theological concepts expanding only to later be dismissed or significantly transformed. An example of an unnatural concept rising and falling is the medieval Christian understanding of indulgences. The historical deterioration or mutation of theological concepts is referred to as "self-deconstruction" by Jean-Luc Nancy. The idea of self-deconstruction echoes Friedrich Nietzsche's idea that the highest Western values devalue themselves.

John D. Caputo on weak theology

John D. Caputo has a distinctive approach to deconstruction-and-religion that he calls "weak theology". According to Caputo, the distinctive reinterpretive act of weak theology has resulted in the notion of the "weakness of God". The paradigm of God as an overwhelming physical or metaphysical force is regarded as mistaken. The old God-of-power is displaced with the idea of God as an unconditional claim without force. As a claim without force, the God of weak theology does not physically or metaphysically intervene in nature.

Essentially, the idea of God in Caputo's thought is an alternate name for particular manifestations of undeconstructibility. The idea of God as an undeconstructible follows a line of ethical thinking that moves from Martin Buber to Emmanuel Levinas to Jacques Derrida. Caputo works the idea out in the following way:

"On the classical account of strong theology, Jesus was just holding back his divine power in order to let his human nature suffer. He freely chose to check his power because the Father had a plan to redeem the world with his blood. ... That is not the weakness of God that I am here defending. God, the event harbored by the name of God, is present at the crucifixion, as the power of the powerlessness of Jesus, in and as the protest against the injustice that rises up from the cross, in and as the words of forgiveness, not a deferred power that will be visited upon one’s enemies at a later time. God is in attendance as the weak force of the call that cries out from Calvary and calls across the epochs, that cries out from every corpse created by every cruel and unjust power. The logos of the cross is a call to renounce violence, not to conceal and defer it and then, in a stunning act that takes the enemy by surprise, to lay them low with real power, which shows the enemy who really has the power. That is just what Nietzsche was criticizing under the name of ressentiment."

— John D. Caputo, The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event[8]

Jean-Luc Nancy on self-deconstructed Christianity

Following Derrida's criticisms of the metaphysics of presence and logocentrism, Jean-Luc Nancy understands Christianity to be act-based and focused on an undeconstructible understanding of hope. Nancy thinks of Christianity as the "religion that provided the exit from religion," and posits that it consists in the announcement of the second coming of Christ, known as parousia. For Nancy, because Christ is central to the formation of value and meaning in Christianity; because parousia is an announcement of a Christ to come; and because the promised return of Christ involves the return of a person who lived in the past, then Christianity as a framework of thought supports the notion that 'traces' of the non-present (i.e. past and future) are constitutive of the present. As a result, the Christian concept of parousia poses ontological questions about the conditions of possibility of concepts like identity, subjectivity, consciousness, and experience, among many others. In Nancy's thought, the concept of parousia reveals that we humans are no longer mortals who are saved by faith in an immortal being. Rather, the concept reveals that we are beings who are capable of accepting or rejecting non-self-presence. The acceptance of non-self-presence is what Nancy understands to be the heart of Christian 'faith.'

"[F]aith, in any case, is not about compliance without proof or the leap above proof. It is the act of the faithful person, an act which, as such, is the attestation of an intimate consciousness of the fact that it exposes itself and allows itself to be exposed to the absence of attestation, to the absence of parousia. ... Christian faith is distinguished precisely and absolutely from all belief."

— Jean-Luc Nancy, Dis-Enclosure: The Deconstruction of Christianity[9]

Bernard Stiegler on the prosthesis of faith

The French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, following the archaeologist André Leroi-Gourhan, understands the human distinction to consist in a third kind of memory: in addition to the genetic memory recorded in the DNA molecule, and individual nervous system memory, human beings are the creatures capable of using organized, inorganic matter, that is, tools, technology, writing, and everything that records a human gesture (as Stiegler puts it: "humans die but their histories remain").[10] Stiegler calls this tertiary memory, and it is the beginning of the human possibility for the individual to adopt a past they did not themselves live (when, for example, an immigrant to the United States adopts George Washington as part of his or her past). In his article, "Derrida and technology: fidelity at the limits of deconstruction and the prosthesis of faith," Stiegler uses this concept of tertiary memory to conduct a reading of the Derridian corpus. In so doing he reaches the following conclusion:

"An intelligence of faith—which is impossible, which we can do nothing but promise, which we have to promise in its very default—must/fails to account each time for the conditions in which faith yields to the trust that we have or do not have in tertiary memory. No politics of memory or of the archive, of hospitality or of home, no future is, perhaps, promised outside this "must/failure" of life that the dead haunts in life's technicity. The tertiary trace refers to the arche-trace, older than any empiricial or meta-empirical trace; it refers always to the absolute past. But the absolute past only constitutes itself "as such" through this referral. It is why a logic of the supplement, without ever simply being such a history, must also be a history of the supplement in its epochs, epochs that are each time singular and must each time form the object of a technical history constantly renewed. Faith and tele-technology are for this reason mutually insoluble and mutually inseparable—transductively (re)constituted by each other. It is why, finally, fidelity is always at the limits of deconstruction qua undeconstructible justice. Such would be faith: at the limits of deconstruction. Such would be faith at the limits of deconstruction."

— Bernard Stiegler, "Derrida and technology: fidelity at the limits of deconstruction and the prosthesis of faith"[11]

Writers

• John D. Caputo
• Hélène Cixous
• Simon Critchley
• Hamid Dabashi
• Jacques Derrida
• Mark Dooley
• Martin Hägglund
• Mario Kopić
• John Llewelyn
• Jean-Luc Nancy
• Peter Rollins
• Richard Rorty
• Mark C. Taylor
• Bernard Stiegler
• Gianni Vattimo
• Charles Winquist

See also

• Continental philosophy
• Deconstruction
• List of deconstructionists
• Metaphysics of presence
• Ontotheology

Notes

1. (2002) Raschke, Carl, "Loosening Philosophy’s Tongue: A Conversation with Jack Caputo" http://www.jcrt.org/archives/03.2/caputo_raschke.shtml
2. (2008)Hagglund, Martin, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, Harvard University Press, 2008.
3. (2001) Derrida, Jacques, Acts of Religion, p. 243.
4. Magliola, Robert, On Deconstructing Life-Worlds: Buddhism, Christianity, Culture (Scholars P. of AAR, 1997; Oxford U.P., 2000), pp. 157-165, especially pp. 160-164.
5. (1997) Caputo, John D., The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, p. 2.
6. 
   
7. (1997) Caputo, John D., The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, p. 3.
8. (1995) Derrida, Jacques, "Sauf le nom." In Thomas Dutoit (ed.), On the Name.
9. (2006) Caputo, John D., The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event, p. 44.
10. (2007) Nancy, Jean-Luc, Dis-Enclosure: The Deconstruction of Christianity, p. 221.
11. Stiegler, Bernard, Our Ailing Educational Institutions; cf., Stiegler,Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998).
12. Stiegler, Bernard, "Derrida and technology: fidelity at the limits of deconstruction and the prosthesis of faith," in Tom Cohen (ed.), Jacques Derrida and the Humanities: A Critical Reader (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 263.

References

Primary references

• (1992, 1999, 2014) Critchley, Simon. The Ethics of Deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas, 3rd Edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 352. ISBN 9780748689323.
• (1993) Against Ethics - Contributions to a Poetics of Obligation with Constant Reference to Deconstruction, by John D. Caputo
• (1995) On the Name, by Jacques Derrida
• (1996) The Gift of Death, by Jacques Derrida
• (1997) The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, by John D. Caputo
• (1998) Religion, with Jacques Derrida & Gianni Vattimo
• (2001) Acts of Religion, by Jacques Derrida
• (2005) The Future of Religion, with Richard Rorty, Gianni Vattimo, & ed. by Santiago Zabala *[1]
• (2007) Dis-Enclosure: The Deconstruction of Christianity, by Jean-Luc Nancy

Secondary references

• (1982) Deconstructing Theology, by Mark C. Taylor
• (1987) Erring: A Postmodern A/theology, by Mark C. Taylor
• (1993) Theology of Discontent: The Ideological Foundations of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, by Hamid Dabashi
• (1995) Desiring Theology, by Charles Winquist
• (1997) Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, ed./auth. by John D. Caputo
• (1999) About Religion: Economies of Faith in Virtual Culture, by Mark C. Taylor
• (1999) Epiphanies of Darkness: Deconstruction in Theology, by Charles Winquist
• (1999) Ethics-Politics-Subjectivity: Essays on Derrida, Levinas, and Contemporary French Thought, by Simon Critchley
• (1999) Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of Ayn al-Qudat al-Hamadhani, Hamid Dabashi
• (2000) "In the Absence of the Face," by Hamid Dabashi. In Social Research, Volume 67, Number 1. Spring 2000. pp. 127–185.
• (2001) "Derrida and Technology: Fidelity at the Limits of Deconstruction and the Prosthesis of Faith," by Bernard Stiegler. In Tom Cohen (ed.), Jacques Derrida and the Humanities
• (2001) On Religion, by John D. Caputo
• (2004) Portrait of Jacques Derrida as a Young Jewish Saint, by Hélène Cixous
• (2004) Sufism and Deconstruction, by Ian Almond
• (2006) Philosophy and Theology, by John D. Caputo
• (2006) The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event, by John D. Caputo
• (2007) After God by Mark C. Taylor
• (2007) After the Death of God, with John D. Caputo, Gianni Vattimo, & ed. by Jeffrey W. Robbins
• (2008) Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, by Martin Hägglund
• (2010) Sekstant by Mario Kopić

External links

Online reading

• "Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004)" (pdf), by John D. Caputo
• "Religion and Violence: Plea for a 'Weak' Theology in Tempore Belli" (pdf), by Ulrich Engel OP
• "The Weakness of God: A Review of John D. Caputo's 'The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event'" (pdf), by Peter G. Heltzel
• "Already, Not Yet: A Review of Jean-Luc Nancy's 'La Déclosion : Déconstruction du christianisme, 1'" (pdf), by Adam Kotsko
• "Weak Theology" (pdf), by Jeffrey W. Robbins
• "Take Care", by Bernard Stiegler
• Academic homepages[edit]
• Homepage of John D. Caputo, Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion and Humanities at Syracuse University
• Homepage of Simon Critchley, Professor of Philosophy at the New School for Social Research
• Homepage of Jeffrey W. Robbins, Assistant Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Lebanon Valley College
• Homepage of Richard Rorty, Professor Emeritus of Comparative Literature at Stanford University
• Homepage of Mark C. Taylor, Cluett Professor of Humanities at Williams College
• Homepage of Gianni Vattimo, Professor of Theoretical Philosophy at the University of Turin
• Homepage of Santiago Zabala, Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow at Potsdam University Institute of Philosophy

Post-Structuralism in the Life of Prophetic Christianity

Post/Movement:

Sturcturalism - PostStructuralism-Structuration

As you know, I love anything preceded by the word "post" in it. Like, post-structural, post-foundational, post-fundamentalist, post-evangelical, post-religion, post-faith, post-ideology. Why?

1 - Because "post" conveys movement away from something. Usually something that is broken, not working, unrealistic, disconnecting with reality, oppressive, etc.

2 - It also is filled with the idea of disenchantment, personal or societal chaos, unhappiness, brokenness, darkness, unknowing, confusion, etc.

3 - Lastly, it is always used in relation to something immediately preceding itself: an era, a movement, a troubled period in one's life, a lostness, people, etc. But it revolves and reflects and bounces off relationships to things and ideas.

To admit to this kind of personal or societal movement must always be accompanied by abandonment to one's past fidelities, opinions, commitments, beliefs, old world values, habits, or way of life. This can be dangerous for many when foundations in life are removed. Especially epistemologic foundations.

But it also requires hope above all things. Plenty of courage. And sometimes a deaf ear to what people are saying around you. Why? Because usually they don't understand, or don't want to understand, or feel threatened, or, too often, serve as obstacles to growth and change.

And many times there must be a deep willingness to push past barriers, fears, and uncertainties to discover a new paradigm, new epistemologic, even ontologic, structures and foundations, and ever more questions without answers and uncertainties without resolve. to say the least, this can be difficult if not impossible.

For someone to say then that they wish to explore or live in a post-everything world is to measure the rapidity of change from one lone heartbeat to the incredible, the impossible, the unheard of, the nevermore, or the other side of the Looking Glass filled with obsurantism. It goes by many names. Many of them we know through the bible. Bible concepts like reclamation, reformation, recreation, renewal, revelation, resurrection, or just plain rebirth.

To think of these grand concepts in terms of the old vs the new, the past and the present, what is and what can be (eschatological hope) is also very biblical, very ancient, very present in the distraught human breast seeking transformation if not reformation. The Apostle Paul called it new birth. Jesus called it being born again. The Apostle John also reflected upon birth coupling it with the love of God present in the troubled soul seeking fundamental change. The church has come to call it revival, repentance, salvation.

But usually we think of all these wonderful terms as something that is experienced by the "other guy". By someone other than ourselves because, well, when or if this experience occurred within our lives it was many, many years ago and not something we think of in our present context. But what if rebirth and renewal, repentance and transformation were a continual experience rather than a one time, "Come to Jesus" moment? Then what? Well, for the theologian as for the philosopher this might be known as an "overthrow" to all the old world structures we have learned but must now unlearn. Which can be difficult. In fact, very difficult if not impossible.

The word "post" then conveys this sense of forward movement away from one's past formations. Perhaps a fine-tuning, if you will, but more likely, a complete overall of body and soul. When people in our acquaintance go through this experience it disturbs us. Mostly because we don't understand it or know what to do when its affects conflicts with our own "structural" understanding of life. A structural understanding which we don't want disturbed in any way, sense, or word. Then we become the toxic person in the equation of post-structural reform. The one who obfuscates against the penitent seeking deep reform making true transformation even more difficult than it already is. Learning to live in a "post-everything world" can do that. It threatens people as much as liberates them. The same can be said of a society in the throes of anarchy. Whether a true rebirth can be discovered in the chaos or whether all is lost to fundamental idealism unrelenting in its prevention of societal transformation to occur.

A second question. Can this period of life be identified as a prophetic period in one's life? Certainly it seems to bear all the characteristics of prophetic grief and lament over the way things are. As well as all the joy and hope for the way things could be. It also can be a burden of inspiration and illumination heaven sent by the Spirit of God in pressing into this weary world with prophetic insight radiating with laser light understanding for how things must change or be overthrown.

And so, yes, a post-structural reformation or rebirth can be prophetic, even spiritual, and certainly necessary. But as stated earlier, it can also be resisted, obstructed, rejected, ignored, and refused. As example, Jesus discovered His mission to be one of constructing a post-Old Testament, even post-Jewish, view of old world versus new world. In this task He fulfilled the role of a prophet - even as do God's more perceptive servants tasked by His Spirit today. He suffered, was rejected, ignored, and was finally refused. For those luminaries presently within our society the sin of ignoring or refusing is every bit as possible as the honor of accepting and blessing those living prophets around us laboring in our midst.

But like all willing workers no one can say the time or the hour for the completion of God-ordained toil and labor. The prophet senses its burden. Sees its necessity, struggles with its acceptance, and finally succumbs to its call. Struggles too with its implications. Resists the Spirit. Then re-submits to the Spirit to proceed by labor of blood, sweat, and tears into fields of mockery, scorn, abuse, and rejection. And perhaps finally to find death's oppressive cloak drawn upon everything before surrendering to the inevitable as his or her's deepest burdens are witnessed in its greatest harms and destructions upon a people with stopped ears, dead eyes, and deader spirits. Its death can be as much existential as it is physical. And it is a hard death for the prophet to witness against the horrors of his illumined imagination. An imagination unwanted, undreamed, unsought. But an imagination which finally enters into a societies deepest darks unless repentance and change are allowed in.

And so today's living prophets, like Jesus of old, are most typically underappreciated, overlooked, even damned individuals, who would offer us celestial airs in exchange for the burdens we bear. This then is what it means to live prophetically in a post-everything world as bounded by the Spirit of God.

Peace.

R. E. Slater

October 1, 2016

Refusing a Contemporary form of Paleo-Christianity, Part 2

The Shackles of Our Dreams

I can no longer follow a Paleo-Christianity anymore. A Christianity that has closed its bible and views God's living revelation as a static, dead thing. A rancorous Christian faith that has stopped up the Spirit of God's work in the world because they are seeking any-and-all forms of divine judgment and retribution upon mankind. Or has become a Christian faith that is closed-minded dogmaticly, even folklorish, because it doesn't know how to accommodate societal evolution and technology without feeling itself to be sinfully marginalized. It is a kind of Christian faith more dead, destructive, and full of despair than it is one of liveliness, relevancy, or willingness to bear the gospel into today's postmodern world without needing to subscribe to its old timey rants and predilections.

When writing and developing Relevancy22 over the years this was the fundamental question that kept facing me. And each time as I met this hurdle I simply wanted to ignore it. But over time this could not be done. As mentioned last week in the illustration of the U.S. Constitution as a living - and not dead, or static - societal document, continually shaping and being shaped by an evolving society model discovering with each succeeding era or generation the Constitution's import. So too the Bible is a living document that must evolve with our understanding, technologies, academic discoveries, and societal movement. If not, the bible becomes a dead and static document without relevance or import into our lives. Mostly, it becomes a legal thing where judgment is preached because today's paleo-Christians feel we aren't keeping to its 1950s or 1890s or 1760s or 1540s standards of creed and conduct. And in their despair they see much of society no longer listening to their kind of God, Jesus, bible, or theology. Knowing this they then want Jesus to return because, well, everything has "gone to hell" in their estimation and its time to fly away.

What a silly idea. Since when do paleo-Christians get to decide for the rest of us "who's in-and-who's-out?" Or, "who-and-what God and His Word is?" Or, "how we should live, believe, and think?" I, for one, think (if I use their own words and mindset) that this is "a subtle trick of the devil." Certainly its a lack of imagination about who God is and what He is doing in this, His lively creation, by-and-through His Spirit, and through those "Red Lettered Christians" dedicated to imagining a Christian faith uniquely applicable to their time and era. Which, folks, in this case, is a postmodern era. Not a Modern era. Nor Enlightened era. Nor Medieval. But Postmodern. And guess what? It's been around since the 1930s (sic, the Great Depression and the world's succeeding horrors of war inducing the death of the modern era in the 1940s to this present time). But, postmodernity is going away. Yep. Away. Say what?

Postmodernism is transitioning to another form. To something else. And it would behoove God's church to figure out how they wish to live relevantly in these succeeding temporal eras so they may leave the maximum level of gracious, loving witness to a world searching for answers. Yes, answers. With-or-without the church's input. So that if the paleo-church willingly excludes itself from any involvement, participation, or input, their witness will be moot. But not one of a pseudo-science as it is drawn to now. No. But a real science using today's academic standards. As example, insisting on a creationism while denying evolution, or building a $100 million Noah's Ark center and Bible Town near Cinncinati, isn't exactly what I call being faithful to God's revelation. Mostly its a refusal to update its old theology and doctrines because of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" when they do (FUD - to use Microsoft's "modus operandi" in the formidable years of its operation).

So let's today abandon this "repent and let God return us to the day's of our glorious past" type of thinking. I'm all for repentance but let it start with the fact that we have been curmudgeoned Christian believers holding back the liveliness and import of God's evolving Person, Being, Spirit, and Revelation. Or that we have missed the import of His gracious mercy and love in our lives and the lives of people hearing only the out-datedness of today's modernized (aka, secularized) faiths using all the tools of music, TV/media/publishing, and outreach but breathing an old fashioned gospel that no longer is helpful. A gospel that hinders - or misses altogether - God's work across humanity. I think the church can do better than this. And it must if it is to have a voice again. One that is relevant, humble, and serving.

R.E. Slater

September 22, 2016

What the Christian faith should be - "An Open Faith"

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2015/12/desperately-seeking-biblical-relevancy.html

* * * * * * * * *

What the bible is NOT - "A Closed Canon"

http://capro.info/Christianity/Bible/Is_the_Biblical_Canon_Closed.html

(see article below)

Is the Biblical Canon Closed?

Paul Derengowski, ThM

Before answering the question, it is best to define just what it meant by the term “closed.” For there are those critics of biblical inerrancy who seem to think that God is still revealing himself through the written page, and that such is a necessity. Otherwise they further conclude that God is no longer actively communicating to humanity, and the Bible is nothing more than a static 1 document that is either limited or irrelevant to meets the needs of contemporary humanity. Therefore, what is meant by the term “closed” is merely that the Bible is complete. There are no more inspired documents that are to be included in the biblical canon, and there will not be in future. Such a declaration makes some religious and “spiritual” 2 zealots cringe, usually more out of hostility than anything, since such a pronouncement also immediately passes judgment upon the specious offerings of their favorite prophet or guru who have claimed to be an authoritative mouthpiece for God. Nevertheless, those hostilities put aside, there are a few very good reasons for believing that God no longer makes prophetic revelations of the canonical variety, and why what is currently seen in the biblical text known as the Bible is final. Those reasons are the coming of Jesus, the sending of the Spirit, the finalization of doctrine, the cessation of the apostolic office, and the tradition of the Christian Church.

The Coming of Jesus, as a reason to show that the biblical canon is closed, is explicitly seen in the comment to the Hebrews that, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world” (Heb. 1:1-2). Here the writer is telling the reader not only how God communicated to mankind in the past, but how that communication came to a head in the person of Jesus himself. In fact, Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson points out that the contrast between the Old Testament prophets and Jesus is “sharp,” and that the revelation in Jesus is a “final and full revelation.” 3 Why? Because of the qualitative difference 4 between the person of Jesus and the prophets themselves, and their partial revelations that they gave in contrast to the complete revelation and fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan for mankind as expressed in the “Word made flesh, and dwelt among us” who was “full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14). Since we know through the providential activity of God who recorded the events of the coming of Jesus, and how he completed the salvific requirements of God for the benefit of humanity, there is no longer any additional written revelation needed, nor necessary, to add to what Jesus has communicated.

The sending of the Spirit is clearly a revealed prophecy of Jesus found in John’s Gospel, and is another indication that subsequent written revelation has been suspended. Just prior to Jesus’ crucifixion he promised that upon his departure, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (Jn. 14:25). Jesus continued later by saying, “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatsoever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you” (Jn. 16:13-14). Finally, we read in one of John’s epistles, “And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him” (1 Jn. 2:27). The point of all of these statements is that when the Holy Spirit came and set up residence in all those whom God chose to believe, the Spirit then set forth to carry out the ministry of teaching and informing the elect those things that Jesus said and did. As Morris points out, “He is not originating something radically new, but leading people in accordance with the teaching already given from the Father and the Son.” 5 That teaching is seen in the inspired writings given by the Father and the Son, which, once again, is a primary key in understanding the nature of divine revelation in written form. If it was not deemed “God-breathed,” then it was not from God.

The finalization of doctrine alludes to the fact that with the coming of Jesus Christ, that which is necessary for the building of “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6; Tit. 1:9; 2:1) is complete. That does not mean that an exhaustive and infinite understanding of the basic doctrines which comprise the Christian faith will be arrived at by anyone. What it means is that which God has provided through the divinely inspired revelation provided in the biblical text concerning the Bible, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Humanity, Sin, Salvation, the Church, Angels, and Last Things is complete and adequate in matters of faith and practice. Furthermore, it means that whatever subsequent “prophecies,” teachings and revelations that fail to echo biblical revelation on any particular doctrine, or in fact contradicts it, and causes division and strife among believing Christians is not from God, and is to be rejected. In fact, the apostle Paul warned about such activity when he wrote, “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Rom. 16:17). John Stott comments that, “He [Paul] takes it for granted, even thus early in the church’s history, that there is a doctrinal and ethical norm which the Romans must follow, not contradict; it is preserved for us in the New Testament.” 6

The cessation of the apostolic office clearly indicates that the biblical canon is closed, simply because the apostles, and those whom they influenced, were the divinely appointed messengers selected to receive and write inspired Scripture. And with the passing of the last apostle from the earthly scene, written revelation has come to an end. Of course, there were those shortly after the days of the apostles who attempted to impose their writings on the church, usually pseudonymously, and there are those today who would like everyone to believe that they are genuine apostles, or that they are following those who have been called after the order of apostolic succession. Yet, such posturing is without credibility. For as Robinson explains, “In most of the approximately eighty cases in which the word ‘apostle’ occurs in the NT, it refers to the Twelve or to Paul. Their unique place is based upon the resurrected Jesus’ having appeared to them and having commissioned them to proclaim the gospel as the eschatological action of God in Christ.” 7 No one since that last genuine apostle left the earth in death has seen the risen Jesus, nor has anyone fulfilled the ministry of an apostle in the same manner as those who were apostles, in respect to writing inspired Scripture, or the performing of signs and wonders to validate their office. Typically, what has been seen by those claiming to be apostles, and are not, are egotistical boasts that either draw attention to themselves, and not the biblical Jesus, or to those with even bigger egos than they, who propagate doctrines and teachings that are clearly antithetical to those held by biblically orthodox Christians. Therefore, with the cessation of the apostolic office, we have another clear indication that the biblical canon is closed.

Finally, there is the tradition of the Christian Church. Now, by this it is simply meant that the standards and doctrines of the Church have been established and have been intact since the day that Jesus initially ordained it. 8 Of course, not every doctrine was fully developed in the beginning, but has grown with understanding as the Spirit moved human minds with divine illumination from the Scriptures to understand the infinite mind of God. It is because of this tradition, that if anyone outside the Church came along and claimed to have found some document that should be considered to be included in the biblical corpus, unless the teachings found within that document were consistent with what has already been taught for millennia, and supported and validated Scripture that has already been received as inspired, then the document was be rejected as spurious. Presently there have been some documents that seem to keep recycling themselves for canonical consideration, like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas. Yet because of their either strange teachings or fragmentary commentary, which leaves one to wonder just why anyone would consider them to be inspired in the first place, 9 they are consistently rejected as unequal to the biblical texts.

Therefore, the biblical canon is closed. Some have postulated that “Hypothetically the canon could be open,” 10 but given the preceding, that kind of speculation is extremely gracious, if not fleeting. Besides, given the general overall ignorance of the Bible by so many, if God did manage to pass along additional written revelation for humans to use as a guide to life, both spiritual and physical, then just what would God be hoping to accomplish? Obviously, since many humans are not willing to read what has already been written, then why would they necessarily be interested in anything else God had to say? Some might answer that contemporary revelation is fresh, exciting, and relevant to modern man, which implies that the living Word of God, given by the living God, is stale, boring, and irrelevant, further meaning that in order for God to communicate to man, He must communicate to him on his terms, and under his conditions, otherwise God’s effort at revealing Himself is at best impotent. Plainly, such notions are more of an indication of man dictating to God what God should be like, rather than humbly acknowledging what man is like, as God has already indicated, long ago, in the Scriptures, that such arrogant men ignore as stale, boring, and irrelevant. No, the biblical canon is closed because of Jesus’ coming, the sending of the Spirit, the finalization of doctrine, the cessation of the apostolic office, and the tradition of the Christian Church, and only a hardened skeptic of the Bible would disagree otherwise.

References

1 Old Testament scholar, Edward J. Young makes a poignant rebuttal regarding the charge of the biblical text being “static,” when he retorts, “Is it, however, static? As this word is used, it is used in a derogatory sense. Is the connotation of the word, however, always derogatory? If by ‘static’ we merely mean that the truth of the Bible does not change, then, of course, the Bible is a static revelation. There are times, however, when one may indeed be thankful that some things are static.” Thy Word Is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 222. I could not agree more. Can you just imagine that if the truth about God was not “static,” or, how about the person of Jesus? Not only would the Christian have no reason to believe anything the Bible had to say about anything, he could never know from one moment to the next whether or not what he was doing was God-honoring or the most heinous sin committed against God. Obviously, the whole “static” argument presented by those who either disdain the Bible, or find it personally dissatisfying and inadequate, is irrational from the outset.

2 I use “spiritual” in the sense of those hypocrites and double-minded persons who on the one hand want to develop and promote their own brand of “spirituality,” while on the other hand are devoid of the truth, because of their rejection of what God has not only revealed about Himself, but about the Book He has chosen to record that revelation. Much of this kind of hypocrisy is seen not only among avowed pagans and nature worshipers, but also among many so-called “Christians” involved in Postmodernism. They’re all “spiritual” alright; just in wrong way.

3 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), 5:334-35.

4 In commenting on Hebrews 1:2 Daniel Wallace argues that, “Although this should probably be translated “a Son” (there is no decent way to express this compactly in English), the force is clearly qualitative (though, of course, on the continuum it would be closer to the indefinite than the definite category). The point is that God, in his final revelation, has spoken to us in one who has the characteristics of a son. His credentials are vastly different from the credentials of the prophets (or from the angels, as the following context indicates).” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 245.

5 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 621.

6 John Stott, Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 400.

7 W. C. Robinson, “Apostle,” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 1:193.

8 Absent from this definition are those things with allude to praxis and methodology, which some choose to confuse with doctrine in an attempt to show how divided the Christian body is. There is a difference, though, between the basic doctrines, and the diverse methods of Christian practice, as is seen in the various Christian denominations. Since this is a discussion about Bibliology, rather than Ecclesiology, further comments about faith and practice will be reserved.

9 One of my favorite statements stemming from the Gospel of Thomas is this one from Saying 113: “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, because women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘Behold, I shall guide her so as to make her male, that she too may become a living spirit like you men. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels, trans. by Marvin W. Meyer (New York: Random House, 1984), 38.

10 Norm Geisler and William Nix make this statement, alluding to the possible theory that some first century book might be found, and then conclude, “But that is unlikely for two reasons: First, it is historically unlikely that such a new book intended for the faith and practice of all believers, but unknown to them for two thousand years, will suddenly come to light. Second, it isprovidentially improbable that God would have inspired but left unpreserved for two millennia what is necessary for the instruction of all generations.” Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible(Chicago: Moody, 1986), 218.