You know those commercials where there are guys walking harmlessly in and out and among slow-motion automobiles while collisions and accidents are taking place all around them?
One of these days, the Allstate Insurance guy is going to back into the Mercedes-Benz guy while they are filming commercial spots at speeds approaching that of light itself, and the resulting impact will vaporize both of them.
If you’ve read my blog for very long, you already know I am crazy about my wife, my kids and Eureka Springs – especially the ES&NA Railway, where I proposed and she said yes.
So any time I can get all of them together, it’s especially wonderful for me, and last weekend I did.
We did the trolley buses, the toy stores, the great places to eat, the excursion railway ride, and even the Passion Play. It’s called the Great Passion Play. Maybe I’m too critical, but if I were still writing advertising copy for clients in Eureka Springs, I would only rate it as the Pretty Good Passion Play.
It is outdoors, in a wonderfully hilly and wooded setting with terrific sets, special effects, costumes, animal and human extras, and cast. Since it’s pre-recorded and the actors just mime to the dialogue, it loses some of its power to me. And the script is a little odd at times. While it’s been carefully edited to remove any reference to “the Jews” that might sound anti-Semitic, some moments and lines have been added to Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem that you won’t find in a Bible I know of.
There’s the healing of the little crippled girl in front of the temple, who leaves her crutch behind and races into Jesus’ arms. Do you remember that moment in scripture? It might have happened. But I don’t think anyone wrote about it.
I don’t remember Jesus having a tussle with Satan in the tomb, either – but the dialogue and special effects sure did imply it heavily!
And I guess I just was a little put off by the voice talent who recorded the role of Jesus. If Jesus’ voice broke occasionally, I think it would add dramatic effect to some of the moments portrayed. But this actor’s voice was faltering in just about every blinkin’ line!
But, you know, we went there for the kids. And it was just about right for them. Matthew, the consummate teenager at 14, kept trying to divert my attention from his moist-eyed empathy by asking how certain special effects were done. And 11-year-old Laura – very quietly, afterward in our hotel room – was asking her momma what all it means to be baptized.
You see, for all the things this would-be writer would try to “set right” in the Passion Play script, there was a lot that was already “right” about it – and it didn’t shy away from baptism at all.
Listening to Angi quietly and gently speak with Laura about baptism while Matthew and I overheard is one of those Eureka moments that will always be precious to me.
Now, to divert your attention from any moist-eyed empathy you might have experienced reading this: Matthew’s YouTube video of good ol’ diesel locomotive #4742 smashing coins on the tracks as it passes – and featuring a one-second cameo by Laura:
I don’t believe that anyone of His days-as-mortal would have called Jesus “politically-correct.”
If He had been, He would have said things like this:
“Let the little children and the young people and the middle-aged and the old folks come to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these – and, of course, everyone in-between.”
“Blessed are the meek, as well as the bold and those who are sometimes self-confident and sometimes not, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
“When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Also invite the rich and middle-income neighbor and you will be blessed, because they might assume it’s pot luck and bring something.”
“Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. Or at least whoever believes in something.”
“You might be slightly mistaken or misled because you are not completely familiar with the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Sort of all unisex, you know.”
“I tell you the truth as I see it: Unless you eat the something that simulates the flesh of the Son or Daughter of Man or Woman and drink a fluid which reminds your of his or her blood, you have only some life in you.”
“Sell a few of your possessions and give to the poor and keep the rest as wise stewards, lest you become poor and must receive gifts from others. Provide purses or wallets for yourselves that will not wear out, a secure investment in heaven or nirvana or the afterlife that will not be devalued by inflation, where no borrowing-but-not-returning unfortunate comes near and no moth or butterfly nibbles.
“I am one of the ways, one of the truths, and one of the lifestyles. No one comes to the Parent but by his or her own path.”
Wow. That would really be teaching with authority.
My blogging buddy David U. has been encouraging me for months, if not years now, to write a book.
Sorry, David. This ain’t it.
But it is a work that’s designed to help you, your small group, and/or your church to study a really, really good book titled Pilgrim Heart by Darryl Tippens.
You can find it at http://www.bible.acu.edu/leafwood/pg.asp?ID=93, or by going to the Leafwood Publishers site and searching for “group guide.” It’s beautifully produced, and still priced to keep you out of the poorhouse.
And it really is a three-in-one book: a 17-week / one-quarter-year study written by Angi and me (okay, mostly by Angi), a weekend retreat study created by minister Tom Robinson and member Julie Short of Manhattan Church of Christ NY, and a 40-day congregational study by minister Steve Martin of the Tri-Valley Church of Christ in Livermore, CA.
So you could conceivably share it with your small group over a church-study quarter, and they would become enthusiastic enough to share it with their elders and church leaders over a weekend, and they in turn would share it with your church in a 40-day study, all from the same book.
All right, I’m dreaming. Yet I still think any size group (or person!) could benefit from the study of the communal spiritual disciplines that Darryl describes, over any period of time, with or without this Group Guide.
Maybe better with than without.
Angi and Darryl go way back to OCU days together. She has written several books before – textbooks in her specialty field of communication, organizational culture and conflict management – so her expertise shines in this study guide; mine is but an editing glimmer here and there. Certainly the creators of the weekend retreat and 40-day study deserve cover credit far more than I do.
So I guess I need to earn that grace gifted to me on this first publishing effort, and write something more worthy of it. I owe it to them.
And, of course, to David.
I’m not a Greek-speaker.
I don’t speak Greek.
Might make me weaker
as a seeker
But it helps to keep me meek.
My blogging friend Fajita, with his usual fine knack for getting to the point and nailing it with a single blow, named several reasons for people using the wrong interpretational “tool” (hermeneutic) in his comment to the previous post. The middle one was:
selfishness – using an inappropriate tool in order to arrive at a conclusion that fits a personal or organizational goal.
Guilty as charged.
I’ll bet you are, too.
We Christians have a tendency to proof-text … to lift a single passage of scripture out of its comfortable, contextual home and try to make it sit up, roll over, and speak; to make it say more – or less, or even something different – than it actually wants to say in order to prove our pet point.
Oh, we recognize that Satan can do and has done and will do the same thing. But that’s when scripture is mishandled by the hands of the enemy and twisted into a growling, snarling beast. Not when it’s in our loving hands.
So we do it under some misapprehension that when it’s done by those who love God and love scripture, it’s not wrong.
That, as a scholar like Fajita would recognize, is intellectually dishonest. It is disingenuous.
And it’s a fine line.
When someone asks a question about a matter on which scripture is abundantly clear, is it wrong to share with them that clarity without making them read an entire chapter or biblical book? I don’t think so. Jesus pulled a few words of psalm and prophecy out of the canon of that day to make His point – more than once, to be sure.
But, to say that something is mandated, permissible, or forbidden because scripture does not specifically mention it is dishonest. It’s pushing your agenda. It’s proof-texting at its worst.
Why not just be honest about it? Why not just say, scripture is silent and possibly indifferent on the subject? Why not enumerate your reasons for the way you believe on the subject and just say, “This is my preference. This is what draws me closer to God and what I do to keep my conscience clear before Him”?
To me, it’s clear that there were all kinds of questions upon which the church of century one could have easily split, and epistles were written to try to prevent it. Gentiles could eat meat sacrificed to idols with a clear conscience; the idols meant nothing to them now. Jews could not; those idols represented Satan and his hordes. The instruction was, “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
It was not a hard-and-fast rule. Under certain circumstances, that would require being sensitive to the conscience of others. Under other circumstances, it would necessitate demonstrating your belief. In all circumstances, it would demand loving brothers and sisters in Christ and engaging in dialogue with each other in order to understand each other better and draw closer to God together.
There was never an instruction in scripture to be right about everything. Not then. Not now.
In a discourse that establishes God’s ability to judge perfectly and be right as opposed to man’s disqualification to do so, Paul writes the Romans, “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” At the risk of proof-texting, I believe he encourages us to be humble with regard to our own judgment, and recognize God’s perfect judgment.
In fact, I believe that the whole of scripture has as a long-running subtext, from beginning to end, the recognition that we are not up to the task – and God alone is.
That’s why we need to back off of our microscopic inspection of other’s eyes in order to see clearly the log in our own. (Hey – there’s a blog title in that somewhere!) That’s why we need to be able to confess that we’ve been wrong and repent. That’s why we praise God for His perfect balance of righteousness and mercy expressed in His Son, Jesus.
That’s why there is no room in our methodology to retreat to separate camps of like-minded ones and loudly proclaim “Here’s what I think and I’m right about it because God says so. Look right here at this isolated verse! Look at it with my hermeneutic! See it my way, or go to hell!” Nor is there room to smugly observe the other camp, joke and judge: “They just don’t get it.”
That’s why there is all kinds of room in our methodology to say, “Here’s what I believe and why. What do you think? How does it read?”
That’s why, even though Jesus was the embodiment of God on this world who could have thundered the proclamation of His truth to all mankind simultaneously, He still left us the methodology of asking questions, telling stories, and reading scripture – together.
Call it a perfect example.
How do you read it?
What does a comprehensive hermeneutic look like? How does it work?
Why not try it out on a familiar passage:
“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other.” – John 15:9-17
What’s the command? I’d say it’s “Love each other,” repeated for emphasis. “Bear fruit.”
What’s the example? “…As I have loved you.” He showed us what that means. But first, He told us.
What’s implied? Jesus wants me to lay down my life for my friends, just as He has. That we should bear fruit that outlasts us, just as He has. That the Father wants to give us what we ask for in Jesus’ name.
What’s the narrative? The context is the last Passover. Jesus has just washed his disciples’ feet. He has told them that He will soon die. He is reassuring them. He is instructing them. He gives one command. He explains what that means.
What’s the story? Jesus is promoting his followers from servants to friends, letting them in what God the Father has told Him. Is the story bigger than just what happened here? Are His words only for His followers then, but not now? When He says, “You are my friends if you do what I command” tells me that we are in mind here, too; and that may be the reason that the Holy Spirit urges John to tell this part of the story that the other gospel writers do not.
What does it tell us about God’s nature and purpose? There’s a promise attached to this reassurance: If we bear fruit, God will give us what we request in Jesus’ name. That if we obey Jesus’ command, we are His friends.
Now, this is the briefest (and possibly the shallowest!) of all possible exegeses on this verse, but doesn’t it reveal more than if only the first three or the last three questions are explored?
Do you agree that both hermeneutics have value?
In what kinds of scriptures will the old hermeneutic have greater value in revealing God’s message to us? In what kinds will the new hermeneutic have an advantage? Where will both serve us better? What scriptures may remain seen only as in a mirror dimly no matter what approach you use?
It’s time for the war between the old hermeneutic and the new hermeneutic to end.
If you’re not familiar with the terms, the old hermeneutic sees everything in the Bible in the light of command, example or necessary inference. The new hermeneutic sees everything in the Bible in the light of narrative, story, God’s nature and purpose.
The plain fact is, we need both.
Don’t use the old hermeneutic to try to make the Song of Solomon into a prophetic allegory of the love of Christ for His church. It ain’t there.
Don’t use the new hermeneutic to try to explain away God’s justice as expressed in the Law as obsolete under the reign of Christ. He’s still just, and judgment will take place – no matter how much He loves us.
There are times when the old hermeneutic is still indispensible. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t abandon it.
There are times when the new hermeneutic is revealing and enlightening. Don’t trash it. Don’t exclude it.
Because those hermeneutics are the result of our individual preference for approaching not only God’s word, but every other gift of His in this world. We see things primarily rationally, or primarily emotionally. But sometimes – especially when it comes to Biblical interpretation – we go to extremes. If we exclude emotional approaches, we become heartless. If we exclude logical approaches, we become brainless.
The two hermeneutics work together, you see.
Logic alone can fail us – often because of emotional biases. The same scripture can logically lead two people to polar-opposite conclusions. That’s the time to re-examine it in light of all other scripture, with a comprehensive view of God’s loving AND just nature.
Emotions alone can fail us – often because our logic is faulty. Two people can see the same scripture as each wants to, with an unscriptural conclusion that God is only about love or only about judgment. That’s the time to re-examine that scripture illuminated by the whole of God’s word and the revelation of His kindness AND His severity.
And if, overarching both hermeneutics, there is not a recognition of God’s desire for us to be reconciled to Him, to be one in Spirit and purpose, to let Him do the legislating and judging … then we’ve just plain missed the point.
What point?
The point He gave us that Word to “get.”
The point we are to live for each day and each moment.
The point His Son lived and died and lived again in order to get across to us.
Here are just a few reasons I can’t believe that the Bible teaches universal salvation; the salvation of everyone whether they believe, obey, seek God – or not:
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” – Romans 8:28-29
“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” – Acts 4:12
“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ ” – John 14:6
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. – John 3:16-18
“But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.” – Hebrews 10:39
I can’t deny that these verses exist. I’m not permitted to re-interpret them some way that I would prefer that they mean. I can’t explain them away, or ignore them, or pretend that they don’t exist. They say what they say.
God chooses us. We choose Him – or we don’t. As far as I can tell, God doesn’t force a relationship with Himself on anyone. Doesn’t kidnap someone and say, “Be my bride.” Never has.
Nearly as I can tell, never will.
“Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” – Revelation 22:17b
Confession time. I am a long-time, certified, card-carrying conflict avoider.
It’s the way I was brought up. It’s the way I believed. It’s the result of seeing second-hand the major conflicts in my church and first-hand the minor conflicts in my family as I grew up. (My dad was an elder. I couldn’t help but overhear. My mom and sisters were, and are, strong-willed. I couldn’t help but witness.)
And while “conflict-avoider” has become an integral part of my nature, I have come to the conclusion that it is just plain wrong.
As in “sinful.”
Moses was not a conflict avoider. Nor was any good judge nor any good king nor any prophet who followed him.
Jesus was not a conflict avoider. Nor was any apostle nor any missionary who followed Him, in scripture.
Conflict is an unavoidable aspect of the human condition.
God’s word shares all kinds of ways to resolve it. Some are obviously better than others. And a few are absolutely priceless.
Some “for-instances”: Matthew 5:23-26. Matthew 18:15-35. All of John 17. Romans 12:17-19. I Corinthians 6:6-8. Philippians 4:2-9. I Peter 1:22, and 4:8 for emphasis. I Timothy 5:1-2.
Just a sampling.
None of which has anything to do with avoiding conflict. All of which deal with conflict in an imperative, urgent manner.
I know that resolving conflict can have the look of sin. It can tempt sin. It can involve sin. But, handled as advised by God, it doesn’t have to – and not dealing with conflict can lead to even worse problems.
No two people are ever going to agree on everything – you can bank on it.
But God – who is perfect harmony among three Beings as One – can help resolve conflict between and among us, if we are willing to be the instruments of His peace.
Blog In My Own Eye 