Richard Beck on Disenchantment and Death

Imagination. Photo by Thomas Hawk at Flickr. Creative Commons License

We haven’t quite been able to keep up with each of Richard Beck’s posts in his series on being a “post-progressive,” but today I’d like to make just a few more comments about some of what he says. I know a number of you have been reading Beck regularly and pondering his critique of his progressive Christian friends. I think it’s important stuff, not least because it reminds me that life moves on.

The evangelical Christianity of the mid-20th century morphed into evangelicalism, which produced a flow of people moving into post-evangelicalism, some of whom embraced “emergent” Christianity and more “progressive” forms of faith. In recent years progressive voices have come to the fore primarily because of the increasingly partisan political divides in the U.S.  As evangelicalism became more thoroughly connected to the religious and political right, so progressives reacted against that and became more vocal, supporting ideas and positions identified with the religious and political left.

But now some people, specifically Richard Beck (a self-identified “progressive” Christian), have begun to question the direction this movement is taking and to suggest that it might be time for a “post-progressive” perspective, offering course corrections and, indeed, some fundamental reworking of so-called progressive Christianity.

Here are the links to Richard Beck’s recent posts on this subject:

Part 1: Moving On
Part 2: Reconstruction
Part 3: Church
Part 4: Bible
Part 5: Enchantment
Part 6: Love
Part 7: Salvation
Part 8: Science
Part 9: Sexuality
Part 10: Class
Part 11: Hope

I would like to conclude my reflections on Beck’s critiques by considering what he says about “enchantment” and “hope.” As one who works as a hospice chaplain, these two areas were of great interest to me because they speak to the heart of what I encounter every day.

The Need for Re-Enchantment

By and large, progressive Christianity is characterized by disenchantment, a skeptical stance toward robustly metaphysical and supernatural expressions, experiences, events, and beliefs within Christianity.

I’ve described already how many progressive Christians struggle with doubts concerning the existence of God. But it’s not just God, it’s a whole suite of supernatural beliefs: the activity of the Holy Spirit, miracles, the power of prayer, angels, demons, the Devil, and the existence of an afterlife.

And when progressive Christians do use supernatural language, it’s generally given a disenchanted meaning. For example, prayer is largely understood with progressive Christianity as being a therapeutic exercise. We don’t expect miracles from prayer, but prayer, as a form of meditation, can be an effective coping strategy in facing life stressors. In a similar way, visions of evil are also disenchanted. Evil isn’t caused by supernatural agents like the Devil, evil is caused by systemic forces of oppression. Similarly, heaven isn’t an otherworldly destination or reward, heaven is a political vision, the kingdom of God manifested in a just and peaceful world. And a final example. The death of Jesus on the cross didn’t fix any metaphysical problem regarding our sin and God’s righteousness. The death of Jesus is primarily a moral demonstration we follow and emulate, an example of what love looks like. Jesus only saves us through moral persuasion and emulation.

In short, progressive Christianity tends to unpack faith in disenchanted ways, either therapeutically, morally or politically. No reference to metaphysical or supernatural realities is required.

H. Richard Niebuhr once critiqued “modernist” Christianity by saying, “A God without wrath brought human beings without sin into a kingdom without judgment through ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” In other words, he thought they had removed the very aspects of the faith that made it the faith. In the midst of the great fundamentalist and modernist schisms among Presbyterians in the early 20th century, J. Gresham Machen wrote Christianity and Liberalism, in which he argued that “liberal” Christianity was not just incorrect at the margins but so devoid of the actual teachings and traditions of the church and the Bible that it amounted to a different religion.

Richard Beck is more generous to progressive Christianity than that, however, he sees in the movement many of the same problems. For Beck, disenchantment is a step on the way — a necessary step for many — but not a place to call home. It’s part of the “deconstruction” process we talked about in an earlier post (see also HERE). As Beck warns, “…the general trajectory here is toward a loss of faith or a faith that is functionally agnostic or atheistic. I also think that it’s impossible to be a Christian without some metaphysical and supernatural beliefs and commitments.”

For some of us who chose a different post-evangelical path, namely a more “ancient-future” one, I can testify that re-enchantment has come about primarily through embracing a sacramental view of life and by celebrating that with the actual practices of sacramental faith in a historic and liturgical faith community.

If one can simply come to the Table and find that Christ is made known to us in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:31), if one can dip a hand into the basin and know that this water is for us “the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5), if one can learn to follow the liturgical year and walk with Jesus through the Story of salvation year after year after year, then one’s spirit may become re-enchanted with the fact that, as Fr. Stephen Freeman says, “We live in the altar.” The sacraments don’t make things into what they are not, they reveal them for what they truly are.

Progressive Christianity, Richard Beck complains, has essentially bought into the Enlightenment worldview that virtually eliminates imagination in favor of empiricism. But “Christ plays in ten thousand places” (Hopkins), and for all our social justice work and political action, the world will be none the better if we do not join him in his play.

The Need for Hope in the Face of Death

In Richard Beck’s final post on the post-progressive perspective, he writes:

In countless talks with progressive Christians who have lost their faith, or who are on the edge of losing their faith, I’ve observed that death is increasingly triggering massive faith crises. Especially the death of children, teenagers, young adults, and even those in middle age. When death comes to anyone who has not lived into old age trust and faith in God is increasingly shaken.

Something about our relationship to death has changed, and this seems to be a modern phenomenon. To be sure, death has always been a challenge to faith. But for most of Christian history, the faithful have turned toward God and the hope of the resurrection for solace in the face of grief. Today, many progressive Christians don’t turn toward God for comfort, we turn away from God with angry accusations.

In fact, the reigning pastoral advice among progressive Christians is to avoid all mention of heaven in comforting the bereaved. To mention heaven to the grieving is increasingly taboo, and often described as hurtful and harmful. To be clear, I’ve seen the consolations of heaven deployed clumsily, too hastily, and too tritely, in ways that, yes, have been hurtful and harmful. Still, among progressive Christians it’s getting to the point where any mention of heaven is considered problematic and unhelpful. Again, in the face of death it seems progressive Christians are increasingly grieving as if they had no hope.

This is a subject that goes far beyond the bounds of critiquing progressive Christianity. But it is related to the disenchantment discussed above. The ultimate test of whether we have a “disenchanted” or an “enchanted” faith comes when we face death. Death presents us with the ultimate unknown and the ultimate unseen, impossible to measure empirically. It brings us face to face with the most fundamental and most “enchanted” of Christian teachings — that Jesus rose from the dead, giving us the hope of life in the age to come.

Beck summarizes well how our view of death has been altered dramatically by our isolation from it in the modern world. Our very unfamiliarity with death tends to cause us a greater angst when it invades our lives. We are more fragile and it causes us to question God in ways heretofore less common.

But it’s the lack of a genuine eschatological perspective that gives progressive Christians, in particular, trouble. Expressing doubts about the unknown and the unseen, as well as the traditional Christian teachings about such matters, is almost a badge of honor among progressives. It is the very definition of who they are. As a result, as Beck says, “In the disenchanted, progressive Christian experience the only comfort we are allowed to offer each other is therapeutic. We can listen to each other. Sit in silence with each other. Carry each other. Be there for each other. But we cannot offer hope.” As you know, listening, sitting in silence, and supporting others is at the heart of what I do and encourage others to do, but Beck is right. There is more. There is Christ. There is resurrection. There is hope. No matter how poorly it has been presented by Christians, the hope of the gospel remains.

Now I happen to think that the teaching of Christian eschatology has gone off the tracks in a thousand different ways, and that we must present a far better vision of the Christian hope than we have been given. In particular, dispensational and other popular versions of the future hope have promoted cartoonish visions of escapism that are now — rightly — scorned as silly and unhelpful. That many of these have been co-opted for political purposes is a shameful and, frankly, embarrassing legacy of American evangelicalism. And I can testify firsthand to the ground level misuse of trite religious clichés to batter the grieving into submission.

Progressives have a right to react to all of this. Deconstruction of “Christian hope” as it has been promulgated is inevitable in such a wasteland. But once again, this is a stop along the way, not the destination. As people like N.T. Wright are doing for us in recent years, we must work hard at rebuilding a robust sense of what Christian hope means and imagining that hope in more fruitful ways.

And, as always, learning to love those who are struggling with all of this.

Sermon: Luke 10:38-42

Sermon: Luke 10:38-42

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, ‘Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.’ But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.’

• • •

The Lord be with you.

I’d like to begin this morning by talking about the events of our own day, then working back to the biblical story we just heard.

This is a historic weekend in the history of our country, in the history of the world. Fifty years ago yesterday, Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin got into the Lunar Module called the Eagle, left behind crew mate Michael Collins in the Command Module, and descended to the surface of the moon. A little while later, Neil Armstrong went down the steps of the Eagle and became the first person to ever step on the moon. “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind,” he said. Fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin soon joined him, and they began to do the exploratory work they had traveled 239,000 miles to perform.

That was fifty years ago, and there are many here today who watched that amazing event on television. It was the culmination of years of planning, preparing, coming up with technological innovations, and putting together an effort that was unrivaled in its complexity and scope.

It took 400,000 people working together to send those astronauts to the moon, make it possible for them to land and walk on the lunar surface, and return to earth.

It involved remarkable technological developments, including the world’s biggest rocket; the world’s smallest, fastest, most nimble computer; the first worldwide, high-speed data network; spacesuits and space food and a moon-ready dune buggy.

It also involved a lot of people doing incredibly laborious tasks by hand. Take the spacesuits for example. They were made of 21 layers of nested fabric, strong enough to stop a micrometeorite, yet flexible enough to allow the astronauts to move freely on the moon. The spacesuits were made by Playtex, who convinced NASA that they knew something about making garments that were both form-fitting and flexible! Each layer was sewn and assembled by hand with intricate and delicate skill.

Then there were the tires on the lunar rover. Goodyear came up with the technology, using a mesh made of piano wire in the shape of a tire. This gave the rover traction and allowed some of the dirt to slip inside. As the wheels turned, the mesh flexed open, the dirt dropped back out and the wheels returned to their tire shape. Each tire required 3,000 feet of piano wire.

Of course, the three astronauts participated in years of grueling preparations. And Neil Armstrong almost didn’t make it. As part of the training for Apollo 9, Armstrong was testing the lunar module when it crashed, and he ejected only 200 feet from the ground.

I don’t think we can fathom how complicated and precise this mission had to be. And in the end, it all fell on the three men out there in that spacecraft, hurtling through space and then finding their way in a place no human being had ever been before, making sure everything went perfectly. Any one of a thousand small glitches could have meant their death and the failure of the mission.

And yet one of the astronauts was able to see beyond all that to something even more important. Like Mary in our Gospel story today was able to see beyond all the busyness and anxiety of serving guests in one’s home, one of the astronauts was able to grasp something beyond all that was happening around him.

Buzz Aldrin, a devout Christian, developed an idea as he was preparing for the moon mission. He talked to his pastor about it and they made a plan. Each astronaut was allowed a small personal preferences kit, in which he could carry some small items for his own use. Aldrin packed his, didn’t say anything to anyone about it, and then blasted off on Apollo 11.

As he and Neil Armstrong began their descent to the moon in the Lunar Module, the Eagle, they noticed that the original landing area that had been chosen was full of large boulders, Armstrong took the controls, skimmed across the Lunar surface, and manually found a safe spot to touch down. When they landed at Tranquility Base, they had only 17 seconds of fuel left.

The two astronauts sat in the lander for awhile, waiting for the signal to go down the ladder and on to the powdery surface of the moon. It was time for Buzz Aldrin to act on his plan.

He got his personal preference kit and put it along with a small note card on a small table surface in front of him in the capsule. Then he called Houston.

“Houston, this is Eagle. This is the LM Pilot speaking. I would like to request a few moments of silence. I would like to invite each person listening in, wherever and whomever he may be, to contemplate for a moment the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his own individual way.”

In the silence, Buzz Aldrin reached into his bag and pulled out two small plastic packages and a silver cup. From one he removed a piece of bread and from the another a small container of wine. He poured the wine into the chalice. And then he read the words of Jesus: “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me, and I in him, will bear much fruit; for you can do nothing without me.” (John 15:5)

And then Buzz Aldrin took communion.

He had prearranged with his pastor and his church that the congregation in Houston would gather to share communion as close to the same time as possible. And so as he took the Body and Blood of Christ he felt a connection not only to the God of the universe who had come in Christ to redeem him but also to his church family back and to the church everywhere on earth.

And so, the first liquid ever poured and drunk on the moon was the Blood of Christ. And the first food eaten there was Christ’s Body.

Buzz Aldrin got it. Like Mary in our Gospel today, he perceived what was most important. Even as he participated in one of the most transcendent and historic experiences human beings have ever known, Aldrin paused, listened to the words of Jesus, and received God’s grace and peace through taking communion. As Jesus said of Mary, Buzz Aldrin chose the one thing that was needful, the most essential relationship of all: his relationship with God through Christ.

Aldrin has said often that he believed what God was doing in the NASA program was part of God’s eternal plan for humanity. And when push came to shove, in the most extraordinary circumstances, when his life and mind was filled with all kinds of other thoughts and feelings, by faith Buzz Aldrin slowed down and chose Jesus.

There are a thousand memorable things to celebrate when it comes to Apollo 11. But I can’t think of anything more significant than that one humble act on the moon. Buzz Aldrin’s church back in 1969, Webster Presbyterian Church in Houston, Texas, continues to celebrate Lunar Communion Sunday on the Lord’s Day closest to the anniversary of the moon landing. They’re joining together at the Lord’s Table together this morning.

Today, we get to join them and the church in all places and all times. This is the one thing needful, the one essential thing. With Mary, we come to sit at Jesus’ feet. With Buzz Aldrin, we come to abide in Jesus, the true Vine.

May the God who created the heavens and the earth bless us and keep us. Amen.

And now, may the Word of Christ dwell in us richly, in all wisdom, and may we do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Amen.

The IM Saturday Monks Brunch: July 20, 2019

This is a replica of the plaque which the Apollo 11 astronauts left behind on the moon in commemoration of the historic event. The plaque is made of stainless steel, measuring nine by seven and five-eighths inches, and one-sixteenth inch thick. The plaque was attached to the ladder on the landing gear strut on the descent stage of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM). Covering the plaque during the flight was a thin sheet of stainless steel which was removed on the lunar surface. Photo Credit: NASA

We have only one subject today…

Today is the 50th anniversary of the day when human beings first stepped foot on the moon. Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins flew their spacecraft to the moon, and then Armstrong and Aldrin took the lunar lander to the surface. On July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong descended the ladder, put his foot on the moon’s surface and said, “That’s one small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind.”

I was 13 years old. The only thing more exciting to me that summer was that the Cubs were in first place and it looked like they were going to win the pennant. Alas, the “Miracle Mets” passed them and this young boy’s dreams were dashed. But we went to the moon! And I was one of millions of people who were glued to the TV set watching every movement, intent on every word spoken. Like the little boy in this wonderful photo, I was transfixed.

Photo by Steve Strange at Flickr

A few facts you might not know about Apollo 11 and its story…

  • Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, lunar module pilot, walks on the surface of the Moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (LM) “Eagle” during the Apollo 11 exravehicular activity (EVA).

    Neil Armstrong almost died during training for Apollo 9, when the lunar module he was testing crashed.

  • It took 400,000 people to make the moon mission happen.
  • The spacesuits they wore were made by Playtex, who convinced NASA that they knew something about making garments that were both form-fitting and flexible! The division that emerged from Playtex still makes spacesuits for NASA.
  • The Apollo computer was the first computer of any significance to use integrated circuits — computer chips.
  • Goodyear made the tires for the lunar rovers, using a mesh made of piano wire in the shape of a tire, which gave the rover traction and allowed some of the dirt to slip inside. As the wheels turned, the mesh flexed open, the dirt dropped back out and the wheels returned to their tire shape. Each tire required 3,000 feet of piano wire.
  • When the original landing area turned out to be full of large boulders, Neil Armstrong took the controls of the Lunar Module, skimmed across the top of the Lunar surface, and manually found a safe spot to touch down. When they landed at Tranquility Base, they had only 17 seconds of fuel left.
  • Buzz Aldrin said the moon smelled like burnt charcoal.
  • Only three people in the country were trained and licensed by the FAA to fold Apollo parachutes — Norma Cretal, Buzz Corey and Jimmy Calunga — and they handled all 11 Apollo missions. Their skills were considered so essential that NASA forbade them from ever riding in the same car together lest they all perish in an accident.
  • The heat shield on the re-entry vehicle was made of a special resin that was held in a honeycomb framework consisting of 370,000 individual cells. These had to be filled one by one by hand. The labor was done mostly by women who came to be called “gunners,” and they required two week’s training before they could work.
  • Upon re-entry, the Service Module separated from the Command Module, which held the crew. The Service Module was supposed to have then performed a series of maneuvers to take it out of the way, so that debris from it breaking up would not endanger the Command Module. However, this did not happen, and luckily, the crew made it home safely. The problem wasn’t discovered until much later and it was learned that Apollo 8, 10, 11 and 12 all had the same unrecognized flaw. Any one of those missions could have ended in disaster.
  • The crew was quarantined for 3 weeks after returning from the moon for fear of “moon bugs” they might have brought back to earth.

The journey of Apollo 11 in pictures…

Moonbound Apollo 11 clears the launch tower

•

Earthrise viewed from lunar orbit prior to landing

•

American broadcast journalist and TV news anchor Walter Cronkite keeps his eyes on his monitor as NASA’s Apollo 11 mission touches down on the moon, July 20, 1969. (Photo by CBS Photo Archive/Getty Images)

•

•

Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, Apollo ll mission commander, at the modular equipment storage assembly (MESA) of the Lunar Module “Eagle” on the historic first extravehicular activity (EVA) on the lunar surface. Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. took the photograph with a Hasselblad 70mm camera. Most photos from the Apollo 11 mission show Buzz Aldrin. This is one of only a few that show Neil Armstrong (some of these are blurry).

•

Aldrin saluting after planting the American flag

•

Aldrin assembles seismic equipment

•

Panorama view of Apollo 11 Lunar surface photos taken by Astronaut Neil Armstrong at Tranquility Base of a crater Armstrong noted during the Lunar Module descent. The panoramas were built by combining Apollo 11 images starting with frame AS11-40-5954 through end frame AS11-40-5961. The panoramic images received minimal retouching by NASA imagery specialists, including the removal of lens flares that were problematic in stitching together the individual frames and blacking out the sky to the lunar horizon. These adjustments were made based on observations of the Moon walkers who reported that there are no stars visible in the sky due to the bright lunar surface reflection of the Sun.

•

The lunar module approaches the command module to dock after lifting off from the moon, with earthrise in the background

•

Apollo 11 astronauts, still in their quarantine van, are greeted by their wives upon arrival at Ellington Air Force Base

Apollo 11 had competition, won the race…

Apollo 11 was not alone out there in space circling the moon. The Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, in an attempt to outpace the U.S. effort, reached the moon before the American ship entered orbit. The unmanned spacecraft was there to land, scoop up moon rocks, and return to earth with the first samples from the lunar surface. It was the USSR’s last ditch effort to win the “space race.”

The Luna program began long before we here in the U.S. set a course for the moon — back in 1955. Amy Shira Teitel gives an overview of its accomplishments:

…The climax of the program as [Sergei Korolev] conceived of it was a sample return mission.

The sample return would be fairly simple. A modular spacecraft with a descent stage, ascent stage and Earth return vehicle would land on the surface. Once there, an instrument would then collect a sample and transfer it to the Earth return vehicle. Sample collection complete, the ascent stage would fire, sending the sample on its way back towards Earth. The descent stage would stay on the lunar surface.

…The first Luna mission launched on January 2, 1959, and from the start the program was a stunning success, especially given how early it was in the space age. The program accomplished a number of space firsts: the first flyby (Luna 1), the first spacecraft to impact the Moon (Luna 2), the first spacecraft to photograph the Moon’s far side (Luna 3), and the first spacecraft to land on the Moon (Luna 9), first robotic sample return (Luna 16) and first robotic rover (Luna 17). Yes, a handful of Luna missions ended with crashes and some never even reached orbit, but progress was steady and overall the program was a stunning success.

Luna 15 was at least the second attempt at a lunar sample return mission; a previous effort in June had failed to reach Earth orbit. But it wasn’t limited to sample return. On its way to the Moon the spacecraft would study circumlunar space, the lunar gravitational field, the chemical composition of lunar rocks, and take a bunch of photographs.

NASA was concerned that Luna 15, which they figured would get to the moon about the same time as Apollo 11 might disrupt their communications with the U.S. astronauts. Luna 15 did indeed beat Apollo 11 to moon orbit, arriving on July 17, 1969. When the Eagle landed, Luna 15 was still in orbit, making 52 trips around the moon in all. But as the U.S. astronauts prepared to leave the moon’s surface, Luna began getting ready to descend. And descend it did, though it would never return to earth. Before Armstrong and Aldrin lifted off, Luna 15 crashed into Mare Crisium, the Sea of Crises.

Soon the Americans left the surface, reunited with the Command Module and Michael Collins, and returned to earth triumphant.

The first food eaten on the moon was holy…

The “personal preferences” bag taken by Buzz Aldrin, in which he took communion elements and a chalice.

“This is the LM pilot. I would like to take this opportunity to ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way.”

Those were Buzz Aldrin’s words shortly after the Eagle lunar lander touched down on the moon on July 20, 1969. Reaching into his astronaut’s “personal preference bag,” he pulled out a small chalice, wine, and bread, read John 15:5 silently to himself from a note card, and then partook of the Body and Blood of Christ.

“I poured the wine into the chalice our church had given me,” he recalled in a 1970 article for Guideposts magazine. “In the one-sixth gravity of the moon the wine curled slowly and gracefully up the side of the cup. It was interesting to think that the very first liquid ever poured on the moon, and the first food eaten there, were communion elements.”

Aldrin’s church, Webster Presbyterian Church in Houston, known as the “church of the astronauts” because so many astronauts and NASA employees found a faith community there, still celebrates Lunar Communion Sunday every year on the Sunday closest to the July 20 anniversary of the moon landing.

What if Romans 9-11 is really the main point of Romans?

Pastorally, this means the entire narrative of Romans 9-11 is not about who gets saved in the deeply personal sense but about who the gospel agents are in God’s redemptive plans. It’s about where we are in the plan of God for cosmic redemption.

• Reading Romans Backwards, p. 65

• • •

What if Romans 9-11 is really the main point of Romans?

For many years I had no idea what to do with chapters 9-11 of Romans. In fact, I don’t recall that many of my teachers ever offered much insight either. When you start with a fundamental understanding of Romans being about the soterian gospel for individuals, this section, which offers a big picture view of  Israel and the Gentiles in the light of Christ, seems like a square peg in a round hole.

Most of the time, I’ve heard texts from this section used…

  • To talk (usually argue) about the doctrine of election — Rom. 9:11-18.
  • As part of a gospel presentation calling people to faith in Christ — Rom. 10:9-13.
  • To reinforce the importance of preaching the gospel and missions — Rom. 10:14-17.
  • As part of an argument for a dispensational view of eschatology and the centrality of Israel — Rom. 11:25-26.

In typical presentations of Romans, the letter is outlined something like this:

  • Introduction: The gospel (1:1-17)
  • The need for the gospel because all have sinned (1:18-ch. 4)
  • The answer: The gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ, which leads to sanctification and glorification (5-8)

Then, if you skip chapters 9-11, you have:

  • The application of the gospel for believers and the faith community (12-16)

And if that were the entire epistle, it would make sense to understand Romans as a theology of personal salvation. Ah, but there’s the rub. That’s not the entire letter. Paul snuck chapters 9-11 in there, a section in which he quotes more scripture than anywhere else in the letter, writes more fervently than anywhere else, and develops a passionate, complex argument that has nothing to do with the “Roman Road” of personal salvation.

What if we should take this section more seriously and think of it as more fundamental to Paul’s argument than we have in previous readings?

What if Romans 9-11 is not parenthetical, as so many treat it, but actually essential to why Paul is writing this letter to Rome?

What if, indeed, Romans 9-11 is really the whole point of Romans? the climax of its teaching rather than some additional “extra” that Paul throws in just to answer some questions about the bigger picture as it relates to personal salvation?

In the second section of his book, Reading Romans Backwards, Scot McKnight talks about how Romans 9-11 is designed to remind his listeners in Rome — house churches made up of both Jews and Gentiles — of the story in which they have now become participants.

The story Paul told [in Rom. 9-11] was not the story his converts grew up hearing unless they were Jewish. His Greek and Roman converts grew up on Homer or Virgil, on Hesiod or Thucydides or Herodotus or Livy, on Plato and Aristotle or on Cicero or Seneca. They knew about Romulus and Remus, about Julius Caesar and then the emperors, not about Abraham and Moses and David and the prophets. They knew Rome and Athens and Carthage, not Jerusalem and Capernaum; they knew Octavian, not David and Goliath; and they knew the laws that found their way into Justinian’s Digest, not the laws of Moses and their halakhic innovations. If the story matters, then Paul’s converts would need a fresh education in the story of Israel and the story of the Messiah and the story of the church, one not unlike the story that becomes Luke-Acts.

The importance and need for a fresh story led Paul to tell the story of Israel graciously, surprisingly, sovereignly expanding into the church in Romans 9-11. Story forms both identity and community, and the story Paul tells is one that forms a narrative for peace. It was surely the case with Israel as it was with the earliest churches, but their stories were not identical. In reading Romans backwards as a hermeneutical tool that keeps the pastoral and ecclesial situation close at hand, we contend that Paul’s narrative in Romans 9-11 both articulates and legitimizes the lived theology of Christoformity of 12-16. The story Paul tells is the symbolic universe he wants the Strong and the Weak to inhabit together. (p. 59)

Here are some of the key insights Scot sees in Romans 9-11.

  • The key to reading Romans 9-11 is to notice Rom. 11:13, which begins, “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles.” This indicates that Paul has been speaking to one audience up to this point, and now he is redirecting his next remarks to another audience. Scot thinks that Paul has been addressing “the Weak” before 11:13, and now he turns to “the Strong.” These were the two groups in conflict in the Roman house churches. The Weak were predominantly Jewish believers who practiced Torah and who were were upset that their Gentile brethren had begun introducing Torah-unfriendly ways into the churches. The Strong were predominantly Gentile believers who had no tradition of keeping Torah and did not feel it necessary in order to follow Jesus. They tended to look down on their Jewish brethren.
  • Romans 9:1-29. As Paul talks about God’s election of Israel to be his people and his agents on earth, he emphasizes the surprising nature of God’s electing grace. As Scot puts it, “These elections demonstrate that God’s plan is not uniform, not predictable, and that individual Israelites dare not assume that they are next in the redemptive historical line of God’s plans” (p. 69). The current inclusion of the Gentiles by God’s electing grace is compatible with the surprising way God has worked throughout Israel’s own history. While remaining faithful to Israel, God has opened up an unforeseen door and invited those who were “not God’s people” to become part of “God’s people.” The lesson, as SM summarizes it, is: “[The Weak] need to make room at the table for the gentiles as those who now share elective privilege.“
  • Romans 9:30-10:21. Paul also speaks to the Weak about what many of their fellow Israelites had missed, and which, surprisingly, many Gentiles were now understanding: that because Jesus the Messiah has come, right standing with God now comes through faith in him and not by keeping the works of the law. For the Weak, it was their observance of Torah that reassured them of their identity as God’s chosen people. However, God has accepted the Gentiles now without making Torah-keeping the stipulation; God has done so solely by faith! The Weak must realize this, turn their own focus toward Jesus and stop criticizing their Gentile brothers and sisters for their lack of Torah observance. In Christ, they all stand together now on equal ground with equal status, solely on the basis of faith.
  • Romans 11:1-12. Paul has one more thing to say to the weak. They are surely asking, “If faith, not works, upgrades gentiles before God to the level of Israel, has Israel lost its privilege in the plan of God? Put bluntly, has (not) God rejected Israel?” (p. 77). Paul gives them examples and quotes from the scriptures to show that it is not so. God remains faithful to his promises and will not reject Israel.
  • Romans 11:13-36. At this point, Paul turns and addresses the Strong. Here is SM’s summary of what Paul says to them: “To the Strong, Paul says God is faithful to Israel both in including gentiles and in promising a future redemption for Israel. The Strong cannot become arrogant and think they alone are privileged because their God, who is the God of Israel, is faithful to the covenant. In fact, God’s calling of Israel is irrevocable. That irrevocability, however, takes surprising turns, including the Messiah and gentile inclusion and a future turning of Israelites to Jesus as Messiah. Since God is faithful to Israel, the Strong are to embrace the Weak as siblings in Christ” (p. 88).

Romans 9-11 may be one of the finest examples of profound theology addressing a down-to-earth pastoral situation that we have. It is absolutely not parenthetical to the argument of Romans; it is central.

God’s Good Earth: The Case for an Unfallen Creation, by Jon Garvey, Chapter 6 – When Life Was Good, Chapter 7 – Creation Fell in 1517, and Chapter 8 – Tracking the Fall of Creation

God’s Good Earth: The Case for an Unfallen Creation, by Jon Garvey

Chapter 6 – When Life Was Good, Chapter 7 – Creation Fell in 1517, and Chapter 8 – Tracking the Fall of Creation

We will continue our review of God’s Good Earth: The Case for an Unfallen Creation, by Jon Garvey.  Today is Chapter 6 – When Life Was Good, Chapter 7 – Creation Fell in 1517, and Chapter 8 – Tracking the Fall of Creation.  Jon notes that many evangelicals are astonished to hear it suggested that for three quarters of church history the doctrine of a fallen creation was either unknown, or very much a minority view.  I know I was surprised to hear it; I had unconsciously assumed the “traditional” view was… well… traditional.  As Jon demonstrates in Chapters 6 and 7, it turns out not so much.

As he surveys the material, one thing to keep in mind is that before the nineteenth century there was a universal assumption of young earth chronology.  So the effects of the fall were inextricably tied to its effects on humankind.  However, beginning in the mid-1700s, early geologists began to realize that the earth was much older than the previous assumption, based on Genesis, of 6,000 years. James Ussher published his famous chronology in 1650 of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Old Testament.  However, as scientists like James Hutton and Charles Lyell began to make detailed observations and carefully reasoned geological arguments, they began to show that the Earth was perpetually being formed; they recognized that the history of Earth could be determined by understanding how processes such as erosion and sedimentation work in the present day.  Young earth creationists are fond of portraying the revolution in geology as a battle of “worldviews” and “falling away” from the faith.  The truth is much more mundane; the “new” geology was much more successful at predicting the location of minerals and fuels needed for the industrial revolution taking place.  The “new” geology worked, the old geology, based on the assumption of a world-wide flood, was a complete failure at predicting the location of mine-able deposits i.e. it’s all about “show me the money”.  Since Hutton and Darwin, it is necessary to account for the state of the natural world before humankind – what used to be a matter of 5 days is now realized to be billions of years.

The Church Fathers, an 11th-century Kievan Rus’ miniature from Svyatoslav’s Miscellany

In his survey of pre-Christian Jewish sources, Jon notes that neither Philo of Alexandria nor Flavius Josephus alludes very much to the fall.  Philo allegorizes the serpent as “human desire” and the curse on the soil as an allegory to “cultivating vice”.  No change to the natural world is mentioned.  The first of the church fathers to write about creation was Theophilus, bishop of Antioch from 169-183.  He does talk about carnivores who “transgress the law of God, and eat flesh, and injure those weaker than themselves” but then notes the carnivores are a “similitude” (or type) of sinful humans, thus allegorizing them, not attributing evil in themselves.  Irenaeus, the second century writer, who deals at length with the creation, according to Jon doesn’t say anything about animal violence.  However, in his commentary on Isaiah 65:11, Irenaeus seems to assume the prophecy about lions eating straw is a return to a vegetarian situation before the fall:

And it is right that when the creation is restored, all the animals should obey and be in subjection to man, and revert to the food originally given by God (for they had originally been subjected in obedience to Adam), that is, the productions of the earth.  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V XXXIII, Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Library, Vol V, 366)

Jon reviews Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Lactantius (240-320), and Athanasius (296-373); all who maintain the natural creation is in its original condition as it was first created. The Cappadocian Fathers, Basil (330-379), Gregory of Nyssa (332-395), and Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) all held that each animal is distinguished by its own distinctive characteristics and these characteristics, including flesh eating, are not the result of human sin, but of divine wisdom.  As mentioned in Chapter 3, John Chrysostom (347-407) is an exception who does find, in his commentary on Romans 8, that the fall corrupted creation.

Jon gives an extensive treatment of Augustine (354-430), since he is one of the most influential theologians in church history. The core of Augustine’s thinking is that we see evil in creation only because we lack the big picture both of God purposes, and of creation’s functioning.  He quotes long sections from the Confessions and City of God to make his points.  Augustine had 3 points:

  1. Augustine only considers harm in relation to humanity. Aware of nature’s harshness, he simply saw no theological problem to address there, and no “privation of good”.
  2. Some things may harm us because we deserve punishment; yet the things that execute such punishment are not in themselves evil, but good.
  3. Those who see evil in God’s present creation are heretics who see an “opposing principle” in nature, responsible for its “evils” independent of God’s determining will e.g. the Gnostics.

Jon reviews the viewpoints of John of Damascus (679-749) and Anselm (1033-1109) and ends the chapter with Thomas Aquinas (1225-1275), one of the most important “doctors of the church” who had huge influence on both Catholic and Protestant doctrines.  Aquinas says:

In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state (before the fall), have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals.  But this is quite unreasonable.  For the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and the falcon.  Nor does Bede’s gloss on Genesis 1:30 say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some.  Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals.

Note that he also cites the seventh-century Saxon monk Bede’s commentary to show that Genesis 1:29-30 had not been taken as a universal command to vegetarianism by this orthodox predecessors either.

In Chapter 7- Creation Fell in 1517, Jon shows a profound reversal in the theological picture appears in the writings of the Reformers.  John Calvin (1509-1564) appears to suggest a wholesale corruption of nature by the sin of man.  Alistair McGrath (A Scientific Theology, Vol. 1: Nature, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001, 174-175) states:

In this respect Calvin departed from the view of Aquinas and the Catholic tradition generally, which understands nature as showing the signs of imperfection that need to be brought to perfection by grace.  Calvin went much further: creation has been corrupted by sin, suffers along with humankind disorder and death, and awaits its final restoration by the redemptive activity of Christ.

Luther (1483-1546), in remarks in Table Talk, resembles Calvin’s position:

Though by reason of original sin many wild beasts hurt mankind, as lions, wolves, bears, snakes, adders, etc., yet the merciful God has in such manner mitigated or well-deserved punishments that there are many more beasts that serve us for our good and profit, than those which do us hurt… in all creatures more good than evil, more benefit than hurts and hindrances.

And in his commentary on Genesis, Luther says:

… because [the earth] does bear many hurtful things, which but for man’s sins she would not have borne, such as the destructive weeds, darnel, tares, nettles, thorns, thistles, etc., to which may be added poison, noxious reptiles and other like hurtful things brought into the creation by sin.

For my own part I entertain no doubt that before the sin of the fall the air was more pure and healthful, the water more wholesome and fructifying, and the light of the sun more bright and beautiful.  So that the whole creation as it now is reminds us in every part of the curse inflicted on it, on account of the sin of the fall.

Note that none of what he says may be found in Scripture, as Luther himself admitted elsewhere, with the exception, on one interpretation, of the advent of “thorns and thistles”.  Jon ends the theological survey of Protestant voices with that of John Wesley (1703-1791).  Jon says that Wesley:

… takes the doctrine of fallen creation to new heights (or depths) of lurid description, achieving at last the kind of teaching frequently seen today.

In Chapter 8 – Tracking the Fall of Creation, Jon attempts to explain what led to the change in the viewpoints of Christians that were held for the first fifteen hundred years of the church.  Jon believes the main explanation for this change lies in sociological forces, specifically the rise of Renaissance humanism.  The Renaissance is noted for recovering the knowledge of the ancient classical texts.  This humanism, from its inception, encompassed the idea that “Man is the measure of all things”, which is a quote, by Plato, of Protagoras (490-420 BCE).  Protagoras was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. He is numbered as one of the sophists by Plato. In his dialogue Protagoras, Plato credits him with inventing the role of the professional sophist.

Protagoras also is believed to have created a major controversy during ancient times through his statement that, “Man is the measure of all things”, interpreted by Plato to mean that there is no absolute truth but that which individuals deem to be the truth.  Well, well, well, it seems that post-Modernism is quite a bit pre-modern after all.  Jon says:

In the early Renaissance classically informed humanists embraced the new anthropocentrism whilst seeking to retain their Christian identity, by seeing Adam as embodying this divine humanity’s autonomous freedom and creativity, whilst playing down or denying its corruption.  The fall therefore came to be seen, at least in part, as a good thing in enabling humanity’s development.

Prometheus

Adam came to be viewed more as Prometheus, the Titan who created humankind but then gave fire to them and was punished by the gods.  This image continued for centuries—for example Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was, rather ironically, subtitled The Modern Prometheus.  Her husband’s Prometheus Unbound employed the myth to glorify revolution.  Jon quotes Alistair McGrath, who agrees with this assessment of the centrality of the Prometheus myth from Bacon through to the Enlightenment, particularly in relation to attitudes to nature:

The rise of technology was seen as paralleling Prometheus’ theft of fire from the gods.  Defining limits were removed.  Prometheus was now unbound, and humanity poised to enter a new era of autonomy and progress.  The rise of technology was seen as a tool that would allow humanity to control and shape its environment, without the need to respect natural limitations. (McGrath, Re-enchantment of Nature, 78).

However, Reformation religion was, Jon says, in part a conscious revolt against this vaunting of human autonomy.  He says:

The ratcheting up of the description of evil and the increasing involvement of Satan, until it reached the level we have seen in Wesley’s time, could be seen either as embellishment over the years, or perhaps as an unconscious reaction to the ever more autonomous and divinized self-image of humanity, and the deliberated exclusion of God, as the Renaissance became the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment our own self-obsessed age.  In either case the doctrine of the fallenness of creation turns out, to our surprise, to be an unintended by-product of the very same human-centered ideology that brought our secularist and materialist culture into existence.

Jon points out some implications of the prominence of a Prometheusian mythology replacing the Christian archetype of Adam; a summary of the whole humanist project, he thinks, since cultures mold themselves by their myths.

  • Adam’s morality based on God’s commands vs. Prometheus autonomy despite the gods’ authority.
  • Adam lived in obedience to God despite the one sin vs. Prometheus’ self-determination above all things.
  • Adam was wise and righteous, but then became corrupt vs. Prometheus brought refinement and progress.
  • God was the great Artificer of everything and Adam his imitator and assistant vs. Prometheus is now the Artificer and a Designer is denied any place in the closed system of nature.
  • Adam’s work was to tend and keep creation vs. Prometheus, in Baconian fashion, to torture it for its secrets and bend it to his will.
  • Adam knew that every creature must give account to God vs. Prometheus expects God to give an account of his treatment to every creature.
  • Prometheus is Nietzsche’s Ubermensch, Galileo the mythic martyr of science to religion, the indomitable will of the people, and the improver of a botched creation through genetic modification or transhumanism.

Jon concludes:

But what if my thesis is correct, and the whole concept of natural evil is no more than a re-imposition of ancient pagan pessimism over innovative Christian view of a creation marred only by what sinful humanity itself does to it?  What if the harm that nature causes us is, as the Father’s taught, the result of God’s righteous judgment rather than of nature’s participation in evil?

In that case, we have distorted Christian doctrine very badly to accommodate it to a worldview that is, in fact, diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview.  It was the desire for autonomy that led humankind into exile from the garden.  If directly or indirectly, the quest for that autonomy has led us to doubt or deny the goodness of God’s creation, then there must be serious consequences.

 

Wednesday with Michael Spencer: Gods Words and the Word

Wednesday with Michael Spencer
In which Michael cuts through the noise and makes a central point about the Bible.

I believe that confessional Christianity wisely focuses on the ultimate, final purpose of the Bible, and not on the mechanism used to achieve that result.

This is wise, because there will always be vast disagreement over the nature of the Biblical material, and what kind of books they are. This diversity of views has always been true, and will continue as the Bible is studied.

What must be noted, however, is that those who see, for example, the Gospels as exact reports of conversations and events, and those who see the Gospels as literary creations drawing portraits of Jesus for theological purposes, will both sit under the teaching of the Word, with open Bible and open hearts, listening for the Spirit to illuminate the Word so that Christ may be known, worshiped, obeyed and loved.

We may disagree on whether the Bible meant to tell us the age of the earth in scientific terms. We may disagree about dinosaurs on the ark. We may disagree over why there are two temple cleansings by Jesus at two different times in his ministry. We may disagree over whether there are multiple authors to Biblical books. We may disagree over whether all of Jesus’ exorcisms were demon possession rather than physical/mental conditions unknown at the time. We may disagree on these things and still say:

All we know about Salvation by grace through faith by Christ comes from the Bible. That is what I believe. I have a view on Genesis, and a view on Job and a view on the Gospels. My views are, as best I can understand it, in line with what I believe these books are, and what they were written to be. I want to understand these texts so I can clearly hear their message. But at the end of the process, I read the Bible as God’s Word to me about the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. I come to scripture to know Jesus, and to hear the Word of my salvation.

An Evangelical Takes Evangelicals to Task about Inspiration

An Evangelical Takes Evangelicals to Task about Inspiration

Today, let’s consider more from Craig D. Allert and his book, A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon. As we do, here are just a couple of reminders:

  • Craig Allert is an evangelical who teaches at an evangelical university, Trinity Western Seminary.
  • Here is his affirmation about scripture: “I affirm the authority of the Bible as God’s revelation to humanity, and as such I affirm that it is the final source for the believers’ faith and life.”
  • Nevertheless, Allert says this about evangelicalism and the Bible: “…we evangelicals have come close to deifying this collection of texts with little to no understanding of how they came to be collected into the Bible. Even when evangelical treatments of Scripture cover the issue of canonicity, this near deification of the Bible sets the agenda.”
  • In contrast, his position is this: “My position is that a high view of Scripture demands an understanding and integration of the Bible’s very formation. The Bible’s living authority in the life of believers is implicated in this formation because the Bible was formed and grew within the community of faith. This means that the Bible did not drop from heaven but was the result of historical and theological development.”

• • •

In his chapter, “Inspiration and Inerrancy,” Allert deals with some of the most important fundamental commitments of evangelicals regarding the Bible and questions the accepted narrative. For evangelicals, two concepts, “inspiration” and “inerrancy” are key. With regard to inspiration he writes, “Many have stated that the only criterion for the canonicity of the New Testament documents was inspiration, and that when the church recognized this inspiration, the New Testament canon was a done deal” (p. 147).

Allert is skeptical of this approach, noting that the idea of “inspiration” in the early church was broader than simply the inspiring of the sacred writings that became the canon of scripture. Knowing that evangelicals like himself will base their arguments ultimately on what the Bible says on the subject, Allert examines some of the most common texts regarding scripture and inspiration, making two extremely important points.

1. There is no “Bible” in the Bible.

2 Tim 3:15-17 — “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable…”

Craig Allert convincingly makes the point that, first of all, “Scripture” here does not and cannot mean “the Bible,” for there was no “Bible” at the time these words were written. Nor does it refer to the Old Testament canon, for the church at this time had not yet inherited an OT that was complete as a single document. Certainly, the early church had “scriptures” or “sacred writings” that they looked to, but to posit that they had anything like what we know today as “the Bible” is anachronistic.

2. “Inspired by God” — your guess is as good as mine.

Secondly, Allert notes that the word theopnustos, translated as “inspired by God” or in some versions as “God-breathed,” is a hapax logomena — a word used only once in the New Testament, and possibly one that was even coined by the author of 2 Timothy himself.

If you break down the word etymologically, it yields “God-breathed,” but etymology is not determinative of meaning. For example, if I, a minister and hospice chaplain, carry a “briefcase,” it is unlikely that I am using it daily to transport legal documents to and from court. In 2 Timothy here, it is probable that the author is talking about the divine origin of scripture — yes, the sacred writings we have been exposed to come from God, he affirms — but to build any kind of detailed definition of “inspiration” from these words is a questionable enterprise.

Here is Allert’s conclusion.

When it comes to the issue of inspiration, the biblical data are surprisingly vague on a theory of inspiration. They certainly affirm that Scripture is inspired, but how that inspiration functions is not explained. When the biblical passages used to undergird verbal plenary inspiration are understood in light of the later formation of the canon, this should tend to correct some unwarranted presuppositions about what the Bible does and does not say; it also affects the related concept of inerrancy.

The presupposition that any reference to Scripture is to be understood as a reference to canon is foundational here. If we make this assumption, we actually end up questioning the canon that we employ today as God’s Word. As we have seen, the church fathers often refer to noncanonical documents as Scripture. If we were to make the assumption that Scripture equals canon, we would be forced to adopt a much wider canon than we acknowledge today. No evangelical that I am aware of would make this argument.

If we were to argue that the church fathers were wrong to claim scriptural status for these documents or that they belonged to the postapostolic (i.e., corrupt) church, we would be faced with a further difficulty. We would need to explain how the Bible can remain the pure and uncorrupted word when it was canonized in large part by supposedly corrupt church leaders in this church. How could the leaders in this church have been correct about what went into the canon but wrong about the scriptural status of other books? If we trust them for the canon, how can we distrust them on the issue of noncanonical documents? Our reliance on the Bible as our guide for faith and life certainly implies that we affirm that those who collected Scripture into the canon did so because they were led by the Spirit in the church.

There is nothing that necessitates understanding Paul’s appeals to Scripture as an appeal to a closed canon. There is little warrant for this anachronistic presupposition. The fluidity of the New Testament documents even into the fourth and fifth centuries should caution us about making broad claims concerning what the biblical data says about “canon.” The Bible does not speak of how the various documents came to be included into a canon. So when a claim is made that the definition of inspiration requires a “careful study of those biblical texts that speak of the formation of the canonical literature,” we see this presupposition at work. (p. 171)

How We Got the Bible: An Evangelical Scholar Speaks

We’ve talked about (and critiqued) the evangelical view of how we came to have the Bible. I want you to see a video today to show you that I have not given you a caricature of their position. As you watch this, please note how Prof. Grudem completely omits the human side of the process of the writing, editing, and compilation of the biblical books and the history of canonization. It’s a short step from this approach to “the Bible dropped from heaven” understanding of many laypeople in the churches.

This is almost a perfect representation of the “binder” mentality we talked about in our post about Craig Allert’s book.

Dr. Wayne Grudem was a professor at the seminary I attended while I was there. His view is essentially how I was taught throughout my evangelical education. Grudem since has become a leading voice in evangelical theology and is currently Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona.

•

Another Look: A Horse of a Different Color

Another Look: A Horse of a Different Color

This post was originally part of a series in which we reviewed this book:

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible
by E. Randolph Richards & Brandon J. O’Brien
IVP Books (2012)

Misreading Scripture is one of the most important books we’ve reviewed and recommended here at IM. I heartily encourage you to read it. It will change the way you approach the Bible.

• • •

“That is a good horse,” said the man as he watched it pull the farmer’s plow with strength.

“That is a good horse,” said the girl at the circus as she watched it do a series of amazing tricks.

“That is a good horse,” said the guide as he pointed the novice rider to one that he recommended for the trail ride.

“That is a good horse,” said the rodeo rider as he picked himself up and brushed himself off after having been thrown to the ground.

“That is a good horse,” said the bettor as he went to pick up his winnings after the filly he chose won the race.

“That is a good horse,” said the owner of the horse farm as she walked up to the prospective buyer who was purchasing a special gift for his daughter.

“That is a good horse,” said the guest at the table of his Kyrgyz hosts who had just finished the meal he had been served.

Five words. The same five words. And yet, five words that convey entirely different meanings because they are spoken in five different contexts and cultures.

Is the horse good because it is a dependable worker? Is the horse good because it is entertaining, having been trained to do unhorse-like things? Is the horse good because it is gentle with new riders? Is the horse good because it provides a top challenge for a skilled rodeo rider? Is the horse good because it runs fast? Is the horse good because it would be a suitable gift? Or is it good because it tastes good?

Is it a good farm horse? circus horse? trail-riding horse? rodeo horse? racehorse? pet? meal?

E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien remind us that reading is not as simple as we imagine, and that reading a book like the Bible is an even more complex task.

We can easily forget that Scripture is a foreign land and that reading the Bible is a crosscultural experience. To open the Word of God is to step into a strange world where things are very unlike our own. Most of us don’t speak the languages. We don’t know the geography or the customs or what behaviors are considered rude or polite.

…Another way to say this is that all Bible reading is necessarily contextual. There is no purely objective biblical interpretation. This is not postmodern relativism. We believe truth is truth. But there’s no way around the fact that our cultural and historical contexts supply us with habits of mind that lead us to read the Bible differently than Christians in other cultural and historical contexts.

One of my favorite examples the authors give involves the familiar story of the “Prodigal Son.” They cite a professor who did an experiment in reading this parable from Luke 15. He had students in his small seminary class read it and then retell the story to a partner. Not one of the students mentioned the “famine” in Luke 15:14 which precipitated the son’s return home. Finding this omission intriguing, he repeated the experiment in a group of one hundred people. Only six mentioned the famine. All of the participants were from the United States.

On another occasion the professor had the chance to repeat the experiment with a group of fifty students in St. Petersburg, Russia. Forty-two out of fifty mentioned the famine! The authors point out that Russians had experienced several famines in their recent history. It was a part of their life and something with which they were familiar, whereas those from the United States had no such background.

Americans tend to treat the mention of the famine as an unnecessary plot device. Sure, we think the famine makes matters worse for the young son. He’s already penniless, and now there’s no food to buy even if he did have the money. But he has already committed his sin, so it goes without being said that the main issue in the story is his wastefulness, not the famine.

…Christians in other parts of the world understand the story differently. In cultures more familiar with famine, like Russia, readers consider the boy’s spending less important than the famine. The application of the story has less to do with willful rebellion and more to do with God’s faithfulness to deliver his people from hopeless situations. The boy’s problem is not that he is wasteful but that he is lost.

The authors’ point is not that one of these interpretations is “right” and the other “wrong.” Rather, they only want to suggest that we read the Bible out of our cultural context. We can’t help but do so. We need to be aware of this and do all we can to factor in our cultural blinders when we advance our interpretive conclusions.

However, there is a problem according to Richards and O’Brien — the most powerful cultural values that affect us are those of which we are least aware. It’s like an iceberg. We are able to identify only some of our presuppositions and conscious assumptions. However most of these powerful, shaping influences are below the surface, out of our sight. “The most powerful cultural values are those that go without being said,” claim the authors. We are fish that take little notice of the water in which we live. When we read the Bible, we tend to fill in any “gaps” of understanding with pieces from our own cultural perspectives — subconsciously.

The horse that you see may be a horse of a different color to me. And neither of us may really understand why.

The IM Saturday Monks Brunch: July 13, 2019 — Jehu Edition

The IM Saturday Monks Brunch: July 13, 2019 — Jehu Edition

“The driving is like the driving of Jehu son of Nimshi—crazy!” (2 Kings 9:20 MSG)

I’ve been teaching my grandson to drive. Today I’m going to warn him against driving like Jehu.

This Brunch is dedicated to King Jehu, patron saint of road rage, who rampaged and slaughtered his way through ancient Israel until Ahab and Jezebel (think Bill and Hillary) and all the other radical feminists and socialists and their supporters were wiped out of the land. It was Jehu who said, “Come along with me, and witness my zeal for God!” (2 Kings 10:16)

And so today, we will squeal our tires, peel out, and terrorize the land with pronouncements on the corruption and evil that threatens the things we love. Interspersed of course, with coffee and general conversation amongst the saints.

Welcome to Brunch. Don’t forget those seatbelts.

• • •

IT’S BLASPHEMY, I SAY!

Umpire Brian deBrauwere huddles behind York Revolution catcher James Skelton while wearing an earpiece during the first inning of the Atlantic League All-Star Game on Wednesday in York, Pa. (Julio Cortez/AP)

A computer officially called balls and strikes for the first time in the game’s history in the United States at a minor league all-star game. Major League Baseball in February signed a three-year agreement with the independent, eight-team Atlantic League to install experimental rules in line with Commissioner Rob Manfred’s vision for a faster, more action-packed game.

…On Wednesday, home plate umpire Brian deBrauwere wore an Apple AirPod in his right ear that connected to an iPhone in his back pocket. A computer in the press box communicated to that device whether the pitch was in or out of the strike zone, and deBrauwere relayed the calls to the field as a normal umpire would.

• Jacob Bogage, Washington Post

I, for one, am most certainly NOT ready for this. The glory of baseball is its human drama, and that includes human umpires and disputes between umpires and players and coaches over calls. Human error is a necessary part of human drama, and the angst, anger, regret, conflicts, and broken hearts that result are, in my view, a vital aspect of life.

I DON’T WANT MY BASEBALL SANITIZED OF ALL HUMANITY!

Besides, I can testify that my life would be immeasurably poorer if I had not had a chance to witness guys like this close up and personal in the days of my youth. Good ol’ Earl went after those umps like Jehu…

•

What think you, Richard H?

• • •

UPDATE FROM J. MICHAEL JONES…

Some of you may have been following along with J. Michael Jones as he battles cancer (follow the link above or the continuing link on the IM Bulletin Board), but some may have missed his latest update.

So here it is. Stand up to cancer like Jehu. And continue to pray for and support our brother:

It appears that I have pseudo-Host Vs Graft Syndrome. For patients like me, who received their own stem cells, this problem, while with severe symptoms, is usually easily treated. The team reached this conclusion by all the other test being negative and how profoundly I’ve responded to three days of high dose steroids.

So, I went from feeling horrible on Monday morning to feeling halfway decent this morning. I felt so well that yesterday we did a 5-mile urban hike (Pete Gross House to Lake Union to Pikes Place Market and back).

This morning I felt so well that I was able to walk down to meet Ramsey and Denise for coffee at the Cascade Coffee Works. This was the first time I’ve had a cappuccino since I was admitted to the hospital (before the transplant) on June 9th. There are two reasons I’ve avoided espresso. The first, was that the transplant process made everything taste like a burnt cat turd soaked in bleach. Since espresso taste a little burnt to start with, it was unpalatable. The second reason was that I’ve had (one of my main symptoms) Godzilla-diarrhea (my term for this awful symptom). Espresso has the tendency to move the bowels and I didn’t want to take any chances with that. Since going on the steroids, my taste buds have finished returning to normal and the diarrhea had stopped so it felt safe.

It was truly a milestone this morning to have coffee with Denise and Ramsey (although Denise doesn’t drink coffee).

We met with the team today and we have a new (tentative) plan. We will finish the course of high-dose steroids on Sunday and then start the taper. The concern is that the symptoms will start to return. The studies show that 79% of the time, the symptoms do not return. So, our new discharge date is a week from today, July 17th. Please pray that the symptoms do not return and it would launch us down a new pathway of trying to figure this out, possibly going back into the hospital.

• • •

RIP ROSS PEROT. ARE WE EXPERIENCING HIS LEGACY TODAY?

His television platform was Larry King Live, not The Apprentice, and his persona was genial and folksy, not blustery and dark. But more than a quarter century ago, Ross Perot revealed a truth about the American electorate that Donald Trump would exploit: There is a big chunk of voters who feel disaffected, harmed by free trade, threatened by demographic change, and attracted to an eccentric outsider who promises to upend the status quo.

• Todd S. Purdum, The Atlantic

• • •

ABUSE OF POWER AT ITS WORST…

One might be forgiven for thinking the newest hot show on TV this week was “Battle of the Celebrity Sex Predators.” Jeffrey Epstein (and by connection: Bill Clinton? Donald Trump? Alan Dershowitz? etc., etc., etc.), and R. Kelly — we’ve been made to endure watching some ultimate debauched version of “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”

McKay Coppins at The Atlantic suggests that it is stories like this that foment conspiracy theories about the secrets of the elite.

The more we learn about the allegations against the reclusive billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, the more he seems like a figment of the online fever swamps. The wealthy financier arrested last week for underage sex trafficking is accused of operating an international sex ring that could implicate high-powered men across business, politics, and Hollywood. Every nightmarish detail of his story—from the creepily decorated mansion to the flights on “the Lolita Express” to the stays on “Orgy Island”—sounds like it was conjured by conspiracy theorists.

…It should not come as a surprise that some of America’s most outspoken conspiracists have spent the days since Epstein’s arrest taking victory laps.

“I definitely see it as a moment of vindication,” David Seaman, a chief proponent of the so-called Pizzagate conspiracy theory, told me. “I think this is a turning point.”

“This is just the beginning,” said Liz Crokin, a prominent QAnon devotee, in a video posted to YouTube. “The storm is officially here.”

“I think I’ve been unnecessarily maligned,” said Mike Cernovich, a right-wing social-media personality who has claimed that every A-list actor in Hollywood is a pedophile. “This shows I’m doing real things, man.” (Cernovich was, in fact, among those who successfully sued to unseal court documents related to Epstein.)

Of course, the notion that the Epstein case somehow validates every outlandish assertion uttered by the tinfoil-hat brigade is absurd. But squint at the recent headlines and you’ll see a story—about abuse of power, and elite impunity, and moral rot in the ruling class—that helps explain why a certain breed of conspiracy theorist has gained so much traction in this political moment.

…As Matthew Walther recently wrote at The Week, the Epstein story doesn’t fit neatly into any of the dominant partisan-media narratives. The bad guys belong to both parties. Trump is linked to Epstein, but so is former President Bill Clinton. The case has less to do with any political tribe and more to do with class and status. The story, as it’s been alleged, is one of rich, powerful men careening through the world with complete impunity, treating the young and the vulnerable as props, and protecting one another from accountability.

You don’t have to believe in lizard people or baby-eating politicians to understand why so many are looking at our leaders and letting their imagination run wild.

• • •

PLASTIC MAY NOT BE THE BADDEST GUY IN THE ENVIRO-GANG…

“[P]lastic replaces things that would do even more damage to the climate.” That is the surprising (at least to me) take from a story on NPR I heard this week.

Chemical engineer Beverly Sauer of Eastern Research Group, an independent research company, led one such study that compared a mix of different plastic packaging with substitutes such as paper. “The impacts associated with plastic are generally much lower than the impacts for the mix of substitute materials that would replace packaging,” Sauer says. ERG’s analysis calculated the quantity of raw materials as well as the electricity, fuel, water and other materials needed to make and use paper and plastic packaging. Plastic uses less. And at the end of its life, paper in a landfill may emit greenhouse gases as it breaks down.

Even if, ounce for ounce, some kinds of plastic have a higher carbon footprint than other kinds of packaging, you need less of it. That’s one big advantage plastic has — it’s light.

“The plastic packaging accomplishes its purpose with very little weight of material,” Sauer says. So if a paper bag weighs twice what a plastic one does, she says, “not only do you have to produce twice the weight of material, you have to transport twice the weight of material [and] you have twice the weight of material to manage at the end of its useful life.”

The ERG analysis was done for the American Chemistry Council, which says plastic replaces things that would do even more damage to the climate. “Plastics are often used in products that help to reduce much larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions over their life cycle,” says Steve Russell, ACC vice president for plastics.

• Christopher Joyce, NPR

Of course, carbon footprint is only one thing to consider. The amount of plastic trash in the ocean and in landfills, for example, is a growing ecological problem. But then again, so is climate change. As Susan Ruffo of the Ocean Conservancy says, “You know, we have a history as a species of solving one problem with great intensity, only to figure out that we’ve created another one.”

• • •

PERHAPS HERE’S A HUMBLE ENVIRO-HOPE…

One group of scientists is, however, thinking small. Maggots are being examined as a source of protein by scientists in College Station, Texas, according to The Washington Post.

The larvae of the black soldier fly have “remarkable ability to transform nearly any kind of organic waste — cafeteria refuse, manure, even toxic algae — into high-quality protein, all while leaving a smaller carbon footprint than it found,” according to a story that ran in the Post on July 3. “In one year, a single acre of black soldier fly larvae can produce more protein than 3,000 acres of cattle or 130 acres of soybeans.”

In a week, a “modest” size colony of larvae (1.6 million) can turn a ton of organic waste into 100 pounds of protein and 400 pounds of compost. They will eat almost anything organic: pig manure, human waste, food scraps, waste from distilleries, etc.

This kind of food waste contributes to 7 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2011 report from the United Nations.

The larvae not only eliminate the greenhouse gases, they also become protein that, when roasted, can be used as feed for animals. This would take pressure off ocean species currently being overfished as a source for animal feed. One quarter of all fish harvested from the ocean are fed to fish, poultry, hogs and other animals.

Scientists and engineers are working on ways to make this commercially viable. One Texas company is already breeding larvae for pet reptiles. Researchers hope that larvae will be competitive with ocean fishmeal prices within five years. It would be ideal if the process could be miniaturized for use on farms to recycle animal and plant waste.

Roasted larvae might even supply protein to humans. “They taste like Fritos,” one promoter told the Post.

“They have a pleasant, neutral, nutty flavor to them,” wrote Christopher Ingraham, the brave Post reporter who tried them. “Slather them in powdered ranch or barbecue seasoning and it’s easy to imagine bags of them flying off the shelves in truck stops and convenience stores.”

• Thomas Reese SJ, RNS

• • •

SEEN RECENTLY BY WARREN THROCKMORTON…

In other Mark Driscoll news, the once designated “Young, Restless, Reformed” pastor calls the Five Points of Calvinism “garbage.”

Please Mark. Please. Go away.

• • •

SOME “INTERESTING” RECENT HEADLINES FROM CHARISMA MAGAZINE…

SLOW DOWN, JEHU!!!

• • •

•

Not sure I’d exactly pick that OT king for a Christian lyric. This video was produced by Rocks Worldwide Music, part of a group known as Rock Churches Worldwide.

Friends, check out the sites. What might this tell us about the direction and future of evangelicalism?