Biblical Hermeneutics in a Post-Truth Culture

When developing a postmodern contemporary theology one of the first problems that drew my attention was the problem of how Christians interpret the bible. Because of the church's many deeply held sacrosanct traditions and beliefs it quickly became the one area that must be examined and talked about if progress was to be made in hearing God's Word again rather than our own uncharitable belief systems. Consequently, over the past decade or so many "practical or pragmatic" discussions have been occurring in the theological community across any number of levels of bible topics for the very reason that the theology of biblical interpretation is in transition. And it must be if the church has any hope of getting through the hard-bent realities of post-truth cultures doubling-down on secularizing (or segregating) cultural/societal beliefs resistant to the Spirit of God working across our tightly integrating global cultures. Resistance by the church to God's will and work creates a climate of spiritual darkness that chains everything-and-everybody to policies of inequity, injustice, and untruth. The church then becomes a body politik for these injustices rather than a mediating force for the love and goodness of God. Theologians and church people are beginning to understand this dilemma as seen in the quote below by David Congdon.

R.E. Slater

January 25, 2017

* * * * * * * * *

From David Congdan, IVP Academics -

"...This is true, but I think the problem goes far deeper. Evangelicals are in the habit of viewing certain sources of knowledge—specifically, the Bible, but also their own traditions, beliefs, and practices—as being beyond scrutiny and critique. Their divine sanction renders them immune to historical and scientific testing. Assessing the truth-claims of Christianity represents a lack of faith. Having grown up in this tradition I know all too well how one learns from an early age that anyone who challenges one's beliefs must be an enemy of God, and thus an enemy of truth.

"The cultivation of this way of thinking over many years produces the conditions in which a "post-truth" culture and politics can easily thrive. If one is inculcated in the belief that one's theological ideas are unfalsifiable, then it becomes very easy to believe that one's political ideas are also unfalsifiable. Scientists say the world is billions of years old? It's a lie because the Bible tells me so. Historians say the conquest didn't take place as narrated? It's a lie because the Bible can't be wrong. Scientists say that humans are responsible for climate change? That must also be a lie because my faith community tells me so.

"It has long been acknowledged that evangelicals have a very difficult time with hermeneutics. The word hermeneutics refers to the science of interpretation. Hermeneutics arose because the old traditions could no longer be taken for granted; texts and theologies came under scrutiny in modernity as people became conscious of the way history and culture condition how people see the world and themselves. To acknowledge the challenge of hermeneutics is to acknowledge that all of our thinking and speaking is conditioned by our time and place. But this means opening ourselves to critique and testing as we become aware of the diversity of perspectives.

"All of which is to say, the evangelical resistance to hermeneutics is a key contributor to the creation of a "post-truth" society. If evangelicals want to address our political crisis, embracing the problem of hermeneutics is an important first step."

* * * * * * * * *

Resources

Wikipedia - Biblical Hermeneutics

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Hermeneutics

Additional resources I would consider apropos would be in the postmodern sciences, social sciences, including the philosophical areas of the orthomorphology of linguistics, existential narrative, Continental Philosophy / Radical Theology using the Hegel stream of tradition (Peter Rollins et al), Relational Process Theology (Thomas Oord et al), Stanley Hauerwas' insights into the pragmatics of prophetic interpretation, Peter Enns and Greg Boyd's "Incarnational" writings (Jesus-centric), and so forth as have been reviewed here over the years. What is not needed is a continued dependance upon a biblical literalism but a grown-up, full scale, postmodern acquisition of how we see-and-understand things than translate them into our world to act upon or ignore. - R.E. Slater

* * * * * * * * *

Defining Biblical Hermeneutics

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/defining-biblical-hermeneutics/

How Biblical interpretations, or hermeneutics of the Bible,

affect the way we read the scriptures

Ellen White  •  09/03/2016

This Bible History Daily article was originally published in 2011.

It has been updated and expanded.—Ed.

---

This vellum copy of the Gutenberg Bible is owned by the Library of Congress. The Gutenberg Bible, the Vulgate (Latin) translation, is the first book printed using moveable type. Printed in the 1450s in Mainz Germany, this is one of only 48 copies that still survive (11 in the United States), and is considered to be one of the most valuable books in existence. Photo: Raul654’s image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

For as long as there have been Biblical texts, there have been Biblical hermeneutics, or Biblical interpretations. One definition of hermeneutics (given by Bernhard W. Anderson in a piece he wrote for Bible Review) is that Biblical hermeneutics are “modes of [Bible] interpretation[s].” In another Bible Review article, James A. Sanders offered a Biblical hermeneutics definition as “interpretive lens[es]” through which one reads the Bible. Going a step further, the Merriam-Webster dictionary extends its hermeneutics definition to include not only the methods or principles of the interpretations but also the study of those very Biblical interpretations. In short, the hermeneutics of the Bible are the many ways people read the Bible.

Biblical hermeneutics even take place within the Biblical text itself. In the Hebrew Bible, the authors of the Psalms and the prophets often referred back to the Torah and incorporated their own interpretations and understanding of the text from their social locations.

In the years leading up to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E., several different Jewish groups had risen to prominence, including the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. Although they were all Jewish, each group had very different Biblical hermeneutics. Definition of what happened to the soul after death, proper temple sacrifice and the importance of studying the law differed among these groups because of their varying approaches. Christianity also began as a Jewish sect, but as Jesus’ followers developed their own hermeneutics in relation to the law and the role of the messiah, it became a distinct religion.

Today there are many hermeneutics applied to the Bible. These methodologies range from historical-critical, to post-colonial, to rhetorical, to cultural-critical, to ecological to canonical-critical. These are all types of Biblical hermeneutics. Part of the reason that so many hermeneutics exist is that interpreters have different goals. For example, if you want to understand how Moses’s life in the wilderness differed from daily life in the ancient Levant, you would use an archaeological/anthropological hermeneutic. However, if you want to understand the gender politics between Miriam and Moses in the wilderness, you would use a feminist or womanist approach to the text. Different hermeneutics lead to different types of interpretations. Cheryl Exum famously wrote two articles on Exodus 1-2:10 focusing on the women in the narrative. Her conclusions in these articles appear contradictory, but that is because she used two different hermeneutics (rhetorical and feminist) and each method focused on different elements of the text, which led to different interpretations of the text.

Even archaeology, which is the focus of BAR, is a Biblical hermeneutic. By studying the remains of ancient people and how they lived, and comparing their finds to the texts, archaeologists are able to offer exciting new interpretations. For example, the sacrifice of Isaac is one of the most interpreted stories throughout history. The disturbing narrative about a God who orders his follower to sacrifice his son, but ultimately withdraws this command at the final moment, has caused great discomfort in readers for several reasons. Many of these reasons revolve around the modern revulsion regarding child sacrifice. The world of archaeology provides insight into the practice (or non-practice) of sacrifice in the ancient world, as well as the hilltop altars, which appear in the story. For more on this topic see “Infants Sacrificed? The Tale Teeth Tell” by Patricia Smith in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

There are many ways in which you can approach the text, and your method will determine your interpretation. It is important then to be transparent about what is essential to you as a reader and recognize how that impacts the interpretations that you develop. Your interpretive goal will ultimately determine your Biblical hermeneutic.

---

This Bible History Daily article was originally published in July 2011.

It was updated and expanded by Dr. Ellen White on October 13, 2014.

---

Ellen White, Ph.D. (Hebrew Bible, University of St. Michael’s College), was the senior editor at the Biblical Archaeology Society. She has taught at five universities across the U.S. and Canada and spent research leaves in Germany and Romania. She has also been actively involved in digs at various sites in Israel.

---

Read how noted scholars arrive at a definition of Biblical hermeneutics:

• Bernhard W. Anderson, “The Bible: Word of God in Human Words,” Bible Review, June 1997.
• James A. Sanders, “’Spinning’ the Bible,” Bible Review, June 1998.

R.E. Slater - Personal Thoughts and Ramblings

As you have guessed I've backed away from blogging for awhile to create a new space for myself after having experienced a truly terrible year of misery and pain gained from a complicated surgery last January 2016 which brought about three different infections - one of which was deadly serious - while the other two hindered the massive wounds gained from surgery from healing. After three surgeries (the latest one several days before this past Christmas) and a fourth hospitalization to keep me from dying (last April) I can say that this experience has been one that has broken all my normal routines in life - both at the blogsite and out in my communities where I volunteer in environmental reclamation with various green and blue (water) organizations and manage various political commissions and appointments in local government.

However, this has also been a good time to break away from my past labours at distilling what a progressive Jesus-gospel and biblical-tradition might look like to reflect on other literary and scientific interests. Which I have done in reading through the entire New Testament in eight short weeks with a group of 30 other readers using Biblica's unusual bible containing no verses or chapter headings and mixing up the books according to authorship; reading/studying Vergil's massive 14,000 lined poem, The Aeneid, wherein he created a new narrative legacy for the old Roman Republic under Augustus Octavius Caesar; Shakespeare's marvelously rich and dark, Hamlet. I've gone to class and studied Monetary Supply Economics (basically America's banking system); the Role and history of the European Union (whose lectures were conducted by a former US Ambassador); and looked (again) at the necessary disruption and resolution caused by America's Civil War for the Constitution Rights of All (I read 4 thick books, went to a class on Michigan's regiments in the war, and also visited Gettysburg for the first time this past August). This past summer my wife and I toured Washington D.C. for a week absorbing its museums, history, and culture (despite, or in respite to my ill health); and generally toured the state of Virginia from Shenandoah Park to Richmond, Virginia, to its Eastern Seaboard including the Eastern Shoreline and the state of Maryland which included a visit to Anapolis' Naval Academy.

During all this time I have been collecting books, videos, and lectures to review on topics like postmodernism and where it is and might be going.... My personal thoughts are that its "good" period of "global cooperation and unity" is now being crudely replaced by a "post-postmodernism period" of state control and authoritarianism, chaos, and anarchy by populist movements both left and right of the political spectrum. Mostly because humanity doesn't do solidarity very well with each other wishing to have it all their way or none at all. But I'm pretty sure the bible calls this sin. At least that was my reflecting thought to our goodhearted (though very conservative) ambassador who shared the same opine in the turn of the phrase, "We just don't share together very well."

I have also started (several times by now due to the normal flow of life's constant interruptions) to read at a deeper level what Continental Philosophy might promise Christianity as a more proper philosophical bedrock than what analytic Western Philosophy can do with all its syllogistic formulas and mathematical arcane re life rules, do's, and don'ts, and binary reflections. To this I'm trying to read through Martin Heidegger's thoughts on metaphysics, Jacques Derrida's deconstruction of this, and the progress of CP by way of Radical Theology using Relational and Process Theology to help it behave. Mostly I think Christian hermeneutics might be greatly helped in its narrative appeal and messaging should both public and church come to understand that all of God and His ways are in flux and in movement about us. That His Spirit is more unbound to us than ever before in this time of theologic hisotry. That it was never just one thing. Which is to say, God is intimately present with us at all times. Who cares for us in the totality of the desperateness of our human condition fraught with uncommon freedom to be all that we are - both the good and the bad. And, as respecting this freedom, our Lord and Savior works within, underneath, and across these paradigms of creation's magnanimous freedom in Sovereignly ways of encouraging us, urging us forward in "pleadings and prayers" by His Holy Spirit, and throughout the miraculously transformative life we partake in with its promises of great beauty and deep abysses of great harm.

And it is this kind of theology I believe can be transformative (as I related in my last article re the subject of biblical interpretation respecting inerrancy). That God has not abandoned us but works within the spirit-system of the universe doing all that He can underneath its great burdens without losing an iota of His majesty or Godship by partnering with creation towards rebirth and renewal, redemption and resurrection, reclamation, service, beauty, and love.

Peace.

R.E. Slater

January 14, 2017

Participatory Revelation in Process of Transformation (Or, Why Inerrancy Isn't All That)

And now, a word about inerrancy (or the lack thereof).... What if rather than giving to His people de facto truths God chose instead to work TOGETHER with His prophets, writers, and editors of the Bible to struggle with revelation and it's interpretation/meaning thereof? That instead of giving priority to a finalized, "canonical" form of scripture the prophets, writers, and editors of the "bible" actually struggled for its meaning into their communities before committing it into canonical law? If so, than scripture itself emerges as a complex, multi-layered tradition built upon personal/social interpretation at its time of development given more as guidance than as law. And as "all rocks roll downhill rather than uphill" the doubter within me says that I would expect less from the public interpretation of God's will then I would more - as is evident throughout the pages of the Old Testament in the obsequious interpretation by God's people to one another as well as to their neighbors and enemies.

In this way Judaism tends to be more flexible in accepting the Bible’s diversity and contradictions than the Western tradition of biblical interpretation. The very people of the Bible (Israel) know that with every jot and tittle there can be diverse opinion about the true meaning of God for that era or that community.

This view of canonical development then is known as the “participatory theory of revelation” or “participatory theology,” by which the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of, and response to, God's will however imperfectly it comprehended or actualized this task. So obviously there is the cultural element of apprehension as it grows and evolves within and without various faith traditions doing their best to know the mind of God so as to be obedient and humble to it. Otherwise known as the Bible's "existential comportment" or, "how it came to be read and understood within individual faith groups."

vs.

As such, many biblical texts that describe the giving of Torah move simultaneously - and without contradiction - in two directions: they anchor the authority of Jewish law and lore in the revelation at Sinai, but they also destabilize that authority by teaching that we cannot be sure how, exactly, the specific rules found in the Pentateuch relate to God’s self-disclosure without searching through them in its practical applications to that time and place.

To cut through all the skulduggery, the bottom line is love, humility, and service. God never intended His word to be onerous. That is the man-side of things when we get involved and declare for self-righteousness. Assuredly, most will assent to the dictum that pride is the worse sin of all. But underneath this grotesque sin is what the Bible knows as legalism. The quality of an individual to lift their willfulness up for acceptance before God rather than to give it up and allow God to crush it under Jesus' atoning sacrifice as the sum virtuous description of any follower of God. And if so, than God's word will do no less in its transformative work across communities challenged in their interpretations and beliefs to holiness in love and humility.

R.E. Slater

January 14, 2017

* * * * * * * * * *

Amazon link

Finalist for the 2015 National Jewish Book Award:

Nahum M. Sarna Memorial Award for Scholarship

Series: The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library

Hardcover: 440 pages

Publisher: Yale University Press (June 30, 2015)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0300158734

ISBN-13: 978-0300158731

At once a study of biblical theology and modern Jewish thought, this volume describes a “participatory theory of revelation” as it addresses the ways biblical authors and contemporary theologians alike understand the process of revelation and hence the authority of the law. Benjamin Sommer maintains that the Pentateuch’s authors intend not only to convey God’s will but to express Israel’s interpretation of and response to that divine will. Thus Sommer’s close readings of biblical texts bolster liberal theologies of modern Judaism, especially those of Abraham Joshua Heschel and Franz Rosenzweig.

This bold view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and attests to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of the human subjects under divine authority. Yet, even though the Pentateuch’s authors hold diverse views of revelation, all of them regard the binding authority of the law as sacrosanct. Sommer’s book demonstrates why a law-observant religious Jew can be open to discoveries about the Bible that seem nontraditional or even antireligious.

If You've Ever Wondered Why the Bible

Contradicts Itself: A Jewish Solution

http://www.peteenns.com/if-youve-ever-wondered-why-the-bible-contradicts-itself-a-jewish-solution/

by Pete Enns

January 13, 2017

Readers of this blog will know that I think Christians (namely evangelicals) can learn a lot from how Judaism (in its varied forms) looks at the nature of the Bible and its interpretation. Bottom line: Judaism tends to be more flexible in accepting the Bible’s diversity and contradictions.

The question this raises, though, is how a book that is considered to be revealed from God can contain such non-Godlike properties as contradictions and internal debates among its authors. As I never grow tired of arguing, this conundrum is the bane of Evangelicalism’s commitment to biblical inerrancy.

Enter Benjamin D. Sommer, an orthodox Jew and professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary in NYC. In his latest book Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition, Sommer explains how Torah can be both a divinely authoritative book while also exhibiting these human traits.

Sommer’s answer is summed up in the phrase “participatory theory of revelation” or “participatory theology,” by which he means: the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will (p. 2).

Or, to put a fine point on it, according to Torah, revelation involved active contributions by both God and Israel;revelation was collaborative and participatory. (p. 1)

And that is why you have, for example, contradictions in the laws of the Pentateuch between Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy: they are all interpretations of the divine revelation.

OK, Ben. You have my attention. The Bible is a paradoxical (and messy and complex and un-untanglable) convergence of divine and human involvement. In Christian terms I call this an “incarnational” understanding of the nature of the Bible. The Bible isn’t dropped out of heaven. Its “full humanity” is a non-negotiable and necessary property of Scripture, and should accepted as such with all its implications.

I read Sommer as a true kindred spirit, a notion underscored by the fact that, as he recently pointed out to me, we both went to the same high school (though we didn’t overlap). Small world. But while he was studying Hebrew in high school I was watching Gilligan’s Island and trying to make the baseball team.

Anyway, here are some brief quotes from the introduction to get a feel for Sommer’s point.

My thesis is a simple one. Many biblical texts that describe the giving of Torah move simultaneously and without contradiction in two directions: they anchor the authority of Jewish law and lore in the revleation at Sinai, but they also destabilize that authority by teaching that we cannot be sure how, exactly, the specific rules found in the Pentateuch relate to God’s self-disclosure (p. 1).

Read that slowly: the diversity in the authoritative Torah destabilizes that authority.

This paradox of revelation in the Pentateuch, Sommer argues, lies in fact that the Pentateuch itself gives voice to both stenographic [i.e., “dictation”] and participatory theologies of revelation (p. 2). In fact, biblical authors and editors expend considerable ingenuity weaving those threads into biblical accounts of the events in Sinai (p. 6). The writers/editors of the Bible intend for readers to struggle with the notion of revelation.

Benjamin Sommer

What I also deeply appreciate about Sommer’s approach is debt to historical critical scholarship for helping recover the biblical voices that were lost or obscured as a consequence of the way biblical books were edited in antiquity (p. 5). Sommers is not an advocate of giving priority to the final, canonical form of scripture but of seeing scripture itself as a complex, multi-layered tradition.

The payoff for such a view of the Bible, in addition to accounting for how the Bible actually behaves, is a wise caution concerning the nature of any theological quest:

It [the approach to scripture he has been advocating] involves a degree of doubt that renders religious practice tentative and searching rather than apodictic and self-evident. It ought to lead to that most important religious virtue, humility, rather than promoting a characteristic less rare among religious people than one would hope, self-righteousness (p. 6).

Ah, another paradox: a commitment to biblical authority should lead to humility about one’s grasp of the Bible. Christians take note.

Bottom line, this is a wonderful book that will provoke any Christian concerned with the questions, “What is the Bible, anyway, and what do I do with it?”

Personal Beliefs and How Religion Blinds Us to the Spirit of God

I wrote the other day on Facebook some thoughts for contemplation coming into the new year. Its subject was on being willing to be open to God's movement on our hearts against the stubbornness that persists against His will. It will precede the postmodernism and pyrotheology online courses I hope to study since I'm laid up for the next week or two (I had foot surgery last week before Christmas).

What I wish to get away from is the religiosity of Christianity in order to find the Spirit of God within our worship. Being symbolic human beings I realize we will always need constructs and earthly reminders to help us with our daily commitments and beliefs. But what is hoped is that the latter does not control the former. We see this a lot in Jesus' ministries when he accused the Pharisees of putting God's altar before God's people; God's service ahead of His Spirit; and their religious duties above God's grace and mercy. Jesus hated religion and wished to teach a deeper discernment in His followers that goes beyond what we see or think into His very Spirit that flows and moves beyond our symbolic realms into the heavenly.

Of course my one concern here is to not become either so cultic, or so mystical, as to create yet another Gnostic Christian group, but to see people over-and-above our "spiritualized" or "religious" commitments of doctrines and beliefs. That is what Jesus taught. That if one "loves God" it'll be seen in one's "love for one another." Where religion can blind us to the needs of the other, God's love and Spirit opens those blinded eyes to see, hear, and touch again the visible held invisible before us when bound by our own spirits of pride and strife.

R.E. Slater

December 27, 2016

Here was yesterday's post:

Before dropping into the routines of this coming year I always like to remember the possibilities for godly peace and goodwill that attempts to precede this time of year in the Spirit of Christmas. That we are as responsible for its continuation as is the "other troubling us" in listening to each other without shouting over the victim of our rants or treating the other as objects of our vilification and disdain. This can be especially difficult during this time of year when reevaluating who or what we wish to be in relationship to our families, friends, co-workers, and responsibilities looming before us. 

This personal-social net of entanglement echoes back to us its possibilities for positive Spirit-born disruption but in doing so will most certainly create tension between us and our social contacts. To be both bold and brave against the stream of public perception wishing to maintain and enforce a perceived status quo is quite unnatural. But for vision to be heard or seen requires forward movement if reconciliation is to be found when no one else is willing to lead.

In looking forward to a new year it these acts may thus require personal change where necessary; and should it not come - or we fail to remain true to that inner voice of enlightenment - than we delay or quit its affect not only upon ourselves but upon those standing in the path of Spirit-led de-construction.

R.E. Slater

December 26, 2016

Paul Tillich, The Protestant Principle, and Interpretive Doubt vs. Religious Authoritarianism

Because of (1) the polyvalence of words, (2) the ambiguity of time and space between ourselves and the oral traditions of the bible, (3) our own existential beliefs, behaviors, and predilections, (4) the many interpretive beliefs and experiences of the church over its history, and so forth, it cannot be said that the bible is our sole authority. It is but a cherished ideal we strive for sublimely observed in the behavior of God's people whether or not they fulfill Jesus' ministry of love and service to others. Otherwise, we must move together as the people of God observing one another's differing beliefs, striving for unity, and seeking the solidarity Jesus brought to humanity through His death and resurrection.

The rule of thumb then is this - "to resist any attempt to set up an absolute authority over knowledge." Even if it is the bible. The Roman Catholic Church teaches there are four authorities for Christians to observe: the bible, the church's traditions, its history, and our own human experience. But when this is not observed the church no longer is acting humbly but as a sovereign authority establishing (or enforcing) what it believes to be "God's will" rather than God's actual will.

Too often the church places itself into God's role of rule as history sadly attests again and again and again. As example, look at America's present 2016 elections as "Christians" elected to create a stronger church-based dominionism or reconstructionism into a secular democracy interpreting what it believes to be "God's Will" into society. This ideology goes beyond simply reducing governmental expenditures towards actually enforcing a perceived "Christian idea" of what, and how, a society should live. Some of that idea is the exclusion of the LGBT society from civil law, the just war theory of protectionism in the name of safety and security, the oppression of sovereign people groups and countries in the name of naked capitalism, and the refusal to work in joint global community with other nations of the world because of our differences with them.

It was not too difficult to envision the church's gross reaction to domestic and global events. People make up the church and it is people who need revisioning as much as society. Without repentance and humility this necessary work of the Spirit cannot come except in all its awful forms of bloodshed and corruption. Nor should we presume that God is judging us when this results but is the handiwork of our own very hard - and very religious - hearts intent on circumscribing the world in our own image. The judgment then is not of God but of our own hands. A judgment God forewarns us of - of saving us from ourselves lest we fall into the hell of our own destitute sin.

R.E. Slater

December 20, 2016

Seminary PL29: Tillich's Protestant Principle

article link

by Ken Schenk

December 4, 2016

This is the fiftteenth post on church management in my "Seminary in a Nutshell" series. In this series, I first did a section on the Person and Calling of a Minister. Now this is the twenty-eighth post in a section on the Pastor as a Leader (see at the bottom).

The previous post in this series looked [at] Zwingli as an example of a leader who didn't compromise on a number of issues that he might very well have. This week now shifts to think about church splits and their causes. Today, we look at one of the Protestant causes of church split--having a text as the medium of final authority.

---

1. There were relatively few church splits prior to the Reformation of the 1500s, when Martin Luther inadvertently caused the separation of the Lutheran church from Catholicism. Until the 300s, Christianity was not legal and so did not have any real chance to centralize its organization. It was more of a network for the first two centuries.

But it would largely be one church for over a thousand years after that point. If you were a western Christian in the year 1000, you were part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. 1054 was the first really big organizational split, when the Orthodox East split officially from the Roman Catholic West. But for the next 500 years after that you were either one or the other.

2. That all changed after the year 1517. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) of that moment was both spiritually empty and politically weak. It did not have the power to burn Luther at the stake as it had Jan Hus a hundred years earlier in 1415. He had political protectors who were strong enough to protect him.

One of Luther's key battle cries was "Scripture only." If you could not prove it from Scripture, he could not be compelled to believe it.

Of course he was fooling himself. He continued to believe a number of legitimate theological positions that come as much from tradition as Scripture. The Bible might support infant baptism, but you cannot prove it from Scripture any more than you can prove from the Bible that you should only baptize those who are old enough to confess faith consciously. But Luther continued to believe in infant baptism. For communion, he believed in "consubstantiation," that Jesus was truly present in the bread and wine of communion. But where is that clearly stated in the Bible?

You probably cannot prove the Trinity from the New Testament, although the seeds of Trinitarian belief came from the Bible. The church answered questions like the relationship between Jesus' human and divine natures in the centuries following the New Testament, because the NT did not have explicit statements on questions of this sort. We are seeing a hint of the problem of Protestantism here.

3. The problem of Protestantism is this. Of course we would say that our final authority is God and Christ. But Protestants often operate as if the only access we have to that authority is through the words of the Bible. At the same time, we have no "magisterium" like the RCC--no authoritative teacher to give us the authoritative interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, Protestantism has as many de facto ("by the nature of the situation") authorities as it has interpreters of the biblical text.

So we have a final authority, as it were, that is inevitably co-opted by individual interpreters, individual churches, and by Christian denominations. We subtly substitute ourselves for the Bible and God without realizing it. We think we are simply reading the Bible and doing what it says, but we are as often as not bringing our own traditions, personalities, and situations to the text and reading it as a mirror of our own thoughts and desires.

4. An individual who wrestled with some of these issues was Paul Tillich (1886-1965). A German who struggled with the authoritarian context of his childhood and then Nazi Germany, he formulated what he called the Protestant Principle. In his mind, it was the extension of Luther's doctrine of justification by faith to all realms of human thought. "Justification by faith" is the idea that we cannot earn a right status with God. Rather, God accepts us on the basis of our trust in him.

Tillich applied this principle to our certainty of knowledge. We cannot know the truth with absolute certainty. Rather, as good protesters, we are justified by our doubt in any human authority that tries to establish itself as absolute, thus showing our faith in the transcendent beyond the human. We show our faith by our "ultimate concern" and our rejection of any human absolute.

He strongly resisted any attempt to set up an absolute authority over knowledge. He saw this dynamic as the problem with the Catholic system with the Pope as absolute authority, and he saw this problem with fundamentalism that sets up the Bible as an absolute authority. The heart of Protestantism for Tillich was an ongoing protest against such absolutes, including treating the Bible as an absolute.

The denominational landscape that has resulted from the Protestant Reformation is thus predictable. Tillich sees this fragmentation as a result of failed attempts to arrive at absolutes in the human realm, even in the Bible.

5. Much of Tillich's thought seems dated now. Like all of us, he was a product of his time. But we can reformulate his insight in order to shed some light on the never-ending splits that Protestantism has experienced over the years. According to Martin Marty, there are well over 20,000 Protestant denominations or collections of churches in the world. The overwhelming majority of these claim to get their beliefs from the Bible as their absolute authority. What is going on here?

Church splits tend to feed on two key factors. The fundamental cause is of course fallen human nature. We are prone to peacock. We are prone to beat our chests and to fight to see who is the stronger or to back-stab to remove a rival. We say we are fighting for the truth. We say we are fighting for God. More often than not we are fighting for ourselves, our own needs and drives.

In Protestant churches, we often play out these fallen human games as if we are fighting over interpretations of the Bible. We say the Bible is clear and our opponents say the Bible is clear. But the Bible is really just the playing field for our fallen human urge to defeat anyone who does not submit to us or who stands in our way.

6. The "polyvalence" of words enables these cock-fights. Polyvalence is the potential of words to take on more than one meaning. Words can take on many different meanings and nuances, and the Bible has many, many words. So it is not only possible, it is virtually certain that there will be never-ending disagreements over what the Bible really means at multiple points.

Protestant church splits have often played themselves out on this playing field. First, there is the ambiguity of the words themselves. Then there is the fact that the Bible is made up of dozens of books written at different times and places. These books do not say exactly the same thing, so there is plenty of room for fitting them together differently. Lastly, they were written for audiences that lived thousands of years ago, so there is the matter of bridging the gap from their time to our time.

All these factors make the interpretation of the Bible a many-splendored wonder. It is no wonder at all that we have tens of thousands of groups who all disagree with each other. Do you baptize infants or only people old enough to know what they are doing? Do you baptize by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring? Is baptism necessary or only a symbolic ritual? Does it actually change you somehow? [*In the early Christian tradition the believer identified with their faith through water baptism - res]. Can you be rebaptized? Whose baptism really counts? How soon after faith should you be baptized?

Welcome to dozens of denominations, all of whom think they are simply following the Bible.

7. Whether we admit it or not, tradition is also in play here. A non-denominational church is simply a church that isn't telling you what tradition it draws on. A few questions and you will quickly be able to tell whether it is basically Baptist, basically Pentecostal, or basically whatever. It's probably Baptist. There is no church that really only follows the Bible alone.

So one way to stop church splits is for us to become aware of ourselves, not only as fallen human beings but also as interpreters of the Bible. Not every hill is one to die on. We have been handed a historical situation in which we have countless little Christian groups. We start where we are.

There are times for Christians to agree to disagree and to go their separate ways. If we stop thinking of our denominations as the final answer on all matters of theology and practice and rather as communities who are in the same tradition and walking in the same direction, we will make great progress. We do not need to split even when we disagree on matters that are not essential to our identity--and we should not consider too much beyond common Christian faith in that bucket. [1]

The Anglican Church has found a way to exist together despite a wide range of differing beliefs. [2] Baptists of course are congregational in form, so [these assemblies] find their unity in association [with one another] rather than [in] organization [as a group]. In my tradition, the Wesleyan tradition, there are several sub-groups that could "easily" unite to form a common organization ideologically (Wesleyan, Nazarene, Free Methodist, etc). But it is just as well for us to walk together in unity as different denominations, since that is the hand history has dealt us. What we do not need is more Wesleyan denominations. [3]

So we would do well to know that we stand in Christian traditions. We are not simply reading the Bible unfiltered or without many, many influences at work on us. Much of what we think is essential Christian faith is really a matter of specific communities of faith who see faith and practice the same basic way. We can agree to disagree without de-Christianizing each other. Our attitudes toward each other are more important to God than dotting our theological i's and crossing our theological t's.

Next Week: Avoiding Church Splits and Exits

- ks

---

[1] There are broad traditions that exist--Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Reformed, Baptist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal. Each of them have general distinctives that locate a church in that tradition. Beyond these distinctives, belonging to a specific subgroup is surely more a matter of finding a community we feel at home with than a fight over absolute truth. A Christian would ideally be able to worship in any of these churches.

[2] The Anglican Church has everything from evangelical Anglicans to Anglo-Catholics to charismatic Anglicans to non-realist Anglicans. The liturgy and geography provides the unity.

[3] Although it is quite possible we will get a "Wesleyan" split if the United Methodist church splits in the next two years. The fight here is over homosexual practice, a key ethical question of the church in general these days and a key historical issue given the virtually unanimous position of the past that is under debate. It is certainly an issue that seems more worthy of "agreeing to disagree" than what color to paint the inside of the church.

Book Review - Stephen Backhouse, "Kierkegaard, A Single Life"

Amazon link here

Book Description

Discover a new understanding of Kierkegaard’s thought and his life, a story filled with romance, betrayal, humor, and riots.

Kierkegaard, like Einstein and Freud, is one of those geniuses whose ideas permeate the culture and shape our world even when relatively few people have read their works. That lack of familiarity with the real Kierkegaard is about to change.

This lucid new biography by scholar Stephen Backhouse presents the genius as well as the acutely sensitive man behind the brilliant books. Scholarly and accessible, Kierkegaard: A Single Life introduces his many guises—the thinker, the lover, the recluse, the writer, the controversialist—in prose so compelling it reads like a novel.

One chapter examines Kierkegaard’s influence on our greatest cultural icons—Kafka, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Camus, and Martin Luther King Jr., to name only a few.

A useful appendix presents an overview of each of Kierkegaard’s works, for the scholar and lay reader alike.

Additional Resources - Wikepedia

Soren Kierkegaard

Philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard

Book Review - Larry Hurtado, "Destroyer of the gods"

Amazon link here

Book Description

"Silly," "stupid," "irrational," "simple." "Wicked," "hateful," "obstinate," "anti-social." "Extravagant," "perverse." The Roman world rendered harsh judgments upon early Christianity―including branding Christianity "new." Novelty was no Roman religious virtue.

Nevertheless, as Larry W. Hurtado shows in Destroyer of the gods, Christianity thrived despite its new and distinctive features and opposition to [the Roman culture].

• Unlike nearly all other religious groups, Christianity utterly rejected the traditional gods of the Roman world.

• Christianity also offered a new and different kind of religious identity, one not based on ethnicity.

• Christianity was distinctively a "bookish" religion, with the production, copying, distribution, and reading of texts as central to its faith, even preferring a distinctive book-form, the codex.

• Christianity insisted that its adherents behave differently: unlike the simple ritual observances characteristic of the pagan religious environment, embracing Christian faith meant a behavioral transformation, with particular and novel ethical demands for men.

Unquestionably, to the Roman world, Christianity was both new and different, and, to a good many, it threatened social and religious conventions of the day.

In the rejection of the gods and in the centrality of texts, early Christianity obviously reflected commitments inherited from its Jewish origins. But these particular features were no longer identified with Jewish ethnicity and early Christianity quickly became aggressively trans-ethnic―a novel kind of religious movement. Its ethical teaching, too, bore some resemblance to the philosophers of the day, yet in contrast with these great teachers and their small circles of dedicated students, early Christianity laid its hard demands upon all adherents from the moment of conversion, producing a novel social project. 

Christianity's novelty was no badge of honor. Called atheists and suspected of political subversion, Christians earned Roman disdain and suspicion in equal amounts. Yet, as Destroyer of the gods demonstrates, in an irony of history the very features of early Christianity that rendered it distinctive and objectionable in Roman eyes have now become so commonplace in Western culture as to go unnoticed. Christianity helped destroy one world and create another.

Additional Resources - Wikipedia

Early Christianity

Christianity in the First Century

Christianity and Paganism

Additional Links

Structuring Theological Revolutions

I came across this article yesterday and thought to pass it along. Basically it confirms what we have been doing here at Relevancy22 for the past many years in discovering an updated contemporary theology more congruent with today's church and world.

Peace and Mercy this Advent Season -

R.E. Slater
December 14, 2016

* * * * * * * * * * *

The Structure of Theological Revolutions

http://postbarthian.com/2016/12/12/structure-theological-revolutions/

Theology develops over time—it seems obvious to me, but I have friends who disagree. Every theological doctrine has a history, beginning with the first person to think it and describe it, and then it is refined over centuries by many others. Hans Küng keenly compares the development of theology to the development of science in his excellent book, the Theology for the Third Millennium.

Küng says that Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions applies to theological development. Science has developed through different models over time; the Ptolemaic model was replaced by the Copernican model, and then Newtonian model replaced it, and then the Einsteinian model replaced it, and so on. Each scientific model was made obsolete by later models that described the world more accurately. Küng says that theology has gone through the same revolution of models, such that the Augustinian model was replaced by the Thomistic model and then was replaced by the Reformation model, and so on. Each theological model improves upon the previous model and supplants the previous models.

The conclusion is that abandoning the Reformation model to return to a previous model such as the Augustinian or Thomistic models, would be tantamount to turning back from modern science such as the Einsteinian model to follow obsolete models such as the Ptometiac scientific model. Protestant theology is always returning to the bible, ad fontes, but never regressing entirely to outmoded theological models. We return to the Bible to advance our theological understanding of the Bible, but not to reject theological development, and nor to return to obsolete theological models of long ago.

Hans Küng on Theological Revolutions

In physics we can now distinguish between a Ptolemaic, a Copernican, a Newtonian, and an Einsteinian macromodel. Couldn't we make an analogous distinction in theology between a Greek-Alexandrian, a Latin-Augustinian, a Medieval-Thomistic, a Reformation, and one or several modern-critical interpretive models? [...]

Thus in physics, there would be macromodels for general scientific solutions (such as the Copernican, Newtonian, or Einsteinian model), mesomodels for the solution of medium-range problem areas (such as the wave theory of light, the dynamic theory of heat or Maxwell's electromagnetic theory), and the micromodels for scientific solutions of detailed problems (such as the discovery of X-rays).

The theological analogy for this would be macromodels for general solutions (the Alexandrian, the Augustinian, the Thomist, the Reformation model), mesomodels for the solution of intermediate problem areas (doctrine of creation, grace, the sacraments), and micromodels for solutions of detailed problems (doctrine of original sin, the hypostatic union in Christology). [...]

Even very well scrutinized "classical" theories like those of Newton or Thomas Aquinas have proved inadequate and in need of overhauling. There is no reason, then, to absolutize a method, a blueprint, or model. Instead we have every motive for an unrelenting new search, for permanent criticism and rational supervision: on the way through pluralism to even greater truth. [1]

References:

[1] Küng, Hans. Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View. New York: Doubleday, 1988. 134-35. Print.

Heidi Priebe - 10 Things People Don’t Realize You’re Doing Because You’re An iNtuitive

10 Things People Don’t Realize You’re Doing

Because You’re An iNtuitive

http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2016/11/10-things-people-dont-realize-youre-doing-because-youre-an-intuitive/

Heidi Priebe

November 29, 2016

The MBTI inventory classifies iNtuitive types as those who place more interest (and often more value) in theories, abstractions and the exploration of possibilities than they do in the concrete realities of the world around them. iNtuitive-dominant personality types (mainly ENFPs, ENTPs, INTJs and INFJs) are almost always more interested in what isn’t being said or considered than what is.

But since we live in a sensor-dominant world, intuitive behavior tends to stick out like a sore thumb. Almost every iNtuitive personality will be able to recall many experiences in which their loved ones were thoroughly confused by their reasoning or behavior. Here are ten behaviors people often don’t understand are associated with being an iNtuitive personality.

1. Spurring debates.

iNtuitives don’t fully understand an issue until they’ve considered it from every possible angle. These types aren’t debating because they want to be difficult or impolite – they’re debating because they need to test the validity of the topic by arguing it from every side. They want to see if any holes arise in their reasoning as they go, and some of their best learning takes place through the process of debate.

2. Obsessively planning for the future.

iNtuitives live almost exclusively in the future – they love considering which options may arise for them, which goals they ought to set for themselves, what their lives may look like in twenty or thirty years, etc.

Of course, it’s impossible to plan every detail of one’s life… so the plan is subject to getting readjusted. For extroverted iNtuitives (xNFPs and xNTPs), the readjusting happens almost daily. For introverted intuitives (xNFJs and xNTJs), readjusting happens as needed – but the need tends to arise regularly.

3. Viewing the rules as suggestions.

It’s not that iNtuitives are rebellious for the sake of it – it’s just that they analyze why a rule exists before deciding whether or not to follow it. These types despise arbitrary action, so if they perceive a rule to be outdated or ineffective, they have no problem casting it aside and doing things their way instead.

4. Over-analyzing everything.

For the iNtuitive, it isn’t enough to understand how a given issue applies to them – they have to also understand the globalimplications of the issue, or the underlying theory that ties is all together. iNtuitives want to know the intangible explanation for every tangible problem, and it can drive those around them a little bonkers.

5. Placing little trust in authority.

iNtuitives types trust competence over qualification, and they want to make their own judgments about how competent they find others to be. iNtuitives are highly aware of the human tendency to favor convenience and prestige above analysis, and they aren’t quick to trust any established system simply because it’s been in place for a long time.

6. Relentlessly seeking variety.

iNtuitive personalities are naturally drawn to the abnormal, the uncouth and the unconventional. These types spend their entire lives attempting to piece together a comprehensive worldview, which means that they seek to understand as many different oddities as possible. Whether they’re seeking novelty in their studies, their lifestyles or both, these types are always on the hunt for new lenses through which they can view the world.

7. Developing obscure interests.

Since what they don’t know is almost always more interesting to the iNtuitive personality than what they do know, these types are likely to take an interest in niche topics or theories. Many iNtuitives enjoy exploring conspiracy theories or other such ‘unfounded’ methods of reasoning, as they enjoy the ‘mental gymnastics’ aspect of linking seemingly unrelated things together (even though they often don’t believe the actual theories themselves at the end of the day).

8. Socializing selectively.

Extroverted iNtuitives (mainly ENFPs and ENTPs) are considered the most introverted of the extroverted types. Introverted iNtuitives (mainly INFJs and INTJs) may be more traditionally introverted in nature, but put any of these types around in a room together and the conversation is likely to flow on for hours (if not days, if not endlessly)!

iNtuitive-dominant types are often quickly exhausted by engaging with their physical environment, but they are endlessly energized by quality conversation. These types tend to consider themselves to be ‘selectively social’ – they’d rather be alone than around people they don’t connect with, but put them around other iNtuitive types and their social side suddenly emerges with fervor.

9. Playing devil’s advocate.

If there’s a sure-fire way to get under an iNtuitive’s skin, it’s to insist that basically any issue is black or white. These types are quick to assume the role of devil’s advocate in any situation where they feel as though the opposing party is forming an opinion without considering the alternative point of view. These types are prone to vehemently arguing points they don’t even agree with, just to prove that an issue is more complex than those around them are assuming it to be.

10. Pursing an unconventional life course.

iNtuitives are naturally drawn to the strange, the provocative and the unconventional. They may be more prone than sensing types to have an entrepreneurial streak, to engage in non-traditional relationship structures or to experiment with lifestyle choices that are outside the societal norm.

Because these types take a ‘why not’ approach to their lives (or in the case of introverted iNtuitives, their research and learning), they often find themselves unintentionally rebelling from the rest of society. It’s not that they want to do everything differently – it’s just that an iNtuitive’s lifestyle tends to reflect their mindset – and the mind of an iNtuitive is a very strange territory indeed.

Heidi Priebe

Heidi is a staff writer at Thought Catalog. She drinks too much coffee and criticizes all Myers-Briggs types equally. Buy her books or follow her on social media.

* * * * * * * * * * *

New Girl

The 5 Friends Every ENFP Needs In Their Lives

http://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-priebe/2015/07/the-5-friends-every-enfp-needs-in-their-lives/

Heidi Priebe
July 2, 2015

ENFPs – Or extroverted, intuitive, feeling perceivers – are the zany, enthusiastic idea generators of the Myers-Briggs world. Many people get along well with ENFPs but certain types understand them much more intuitively than others. Here is a list of which types in particular the ENFP couldn’t get by without.

1. The INFP

We all need that friend who just gets us on a spiritual level – and nobody understands the ENFP quite as intimately and effortlessly as their introverted counterpart the INFP. These types share all their cognitive functions in only a slightly different order – making communication between them seamlessly intuitive. These types tend to share similar values, a similar worldview and a similar sense of humor. They enjoy a natural connection with one another as one can almost always see where the other is coming from.

This relationship is strengthened by the fact that each type leads with the other’s auxiliary function. When the ENFP gets too caught up in the world of ideas and forgets to tend to their emotional needs, the INFP is happy to sit with them and help them work through what they’re feeling. On the flip side, when the INFP gets stuck in an emotional rut, the ENFP is happy to help them brainstorm ideas that pull them outside of their head and get them to take real-world action. These types balance each other out in terms of their dominant and auxiliary functions and the bond they share with each other is downright irreplaceable.

2. The INTJ

The ENFP-INTJ connection was made in heaven. While these two types are theoretically perfect matches for one another romantically, they also make for fantastic friends. The effervescent ENFP lights up the INTJ’s world with a whirlwind of new ideas, whereas the INTJ grounds the scattered ENFP and helps them focus in on what they really want. These two personalities level each other out immensely and give way to some of the most surprising yet fulfilling friendships.

In a world full of people-pleasers, the INTJ is unafraid to cut through the ENFP’s bullshit and tell them exactly what they think of their choices. When done with tact, this is infinitely helpful to the ENFP, who tends to get caught up in their inner world of fantasies and ideals. On the flip side, the ENFP is able to encourage the INTJ to open up, take a few chances and see things from a different point of view. These two types can grow immensely through friendship with one another, as they’re simultaneously able to affirm one another and grow from each other. This relationship in particular is likely to be long-lasting and deep.

3. The ESFP

If there’s anything the ENFP needs from time to time, it’s to get the hell out of their heads – and the compassionate yet fun-loving ESFP is a fantastic counterpart for doing just that. ESFPs and ENFPs are considered to be look-alike types: They enjoy the same activities, find themselves in many of the same situations and are mistaken for one another in high frequency. Both are adventurous, outgoing people-people who enjoy taking on new situations. However, these types differ in their primary function.

The ENFP leads with extroverted intuition – meaning their world is ruled by possibilities and abstract connections. Conversely, the ESFP leads with extroverted sensing – meaning their world is ruled by in-the-moment action and an appreciation for aesthetics. Because extroverted sensing is a blind spot for ENFPs and extroverted intuition is a blind spot for ESFPs, these two types don’t always understand one another but they both feel wholly unthreatened by the other. This allows for an affectionate relationship to develop between the two types – the ENFP can go to the ESFP when they want to enjoy their lives around someone they feel comfortable with and the ESFP can go to the ENFP when they need a different take on an issue they want to analyze.

These relationships are usually incredibly quick to form, as ESFPs and ENFPs can tell quite quickly that they’re very alike. They usually remain close for as long as they are in close contact with each other, but may quickly lose touch once their original reason for connection is severed (I.e. if one of the two moves away), as the connection tends to be more situational than it is spiritual.

4. The INFJ

These two types have entirely opposite cognitive functions, which they use in the exact same order – making each the yin to the other’s yang. Though these relationships may take a while to form, they tend to be incredibly long lasting once they do. The patient, analytical INFJ balances out the zany, creative ENFP in all the right ways. On the flip side, the exuberant ENFP takes the time to truly get to know and understand the guarded INFJ, which they appreciate.

Both types are intuitives first and feelers second, which means they enjoy analyzing situations in detail before coming to a value-based decision – a process both parties thoroughly enjoy. To read more about the magic of the INFJ/ENFP relationship, click here.

5. The ENFP

Try as the other types might, no type is ever going to understand the ENFP as thoroughly and as empathetically as another ENFP. These types intuitively understand the way each other thinks, feels, makes decisions and takes in information. Regardless of external influences, two ENFPs can almost always tap into the other’s mode of reasoning and understand where the other is coming from. And for a type as imaginative and unconventional as the ENFP, being understood is an incredibly rare and valuable experience.

ENFP-ENFP friendships tend to burst into existence quickly, enthusiastically and happily – in classic ENFP fashion. Both parties will be interested in doing similar activities, deliberating over similar issues and spending down time with each another when they need it. Though these two scattered types may fall out of each other’s lives now and then, they will always be keen to pick up right where they left off. The ENFP-ENFP connection is an undeniably magical thing – no ENFP is complete without a close friend of the exact same type.