I think my life is in need of some sort of excitement. As painful as it may be to admit, I think I must be a pretty boring person—or at least, I’ve become stuck in a sort of rut. Now, I am the sort of person who likes routines, but I don’t like those routines to become ruts. And I think that’s what’s happening. So I ask myself, “How do I get out of the rut?” Here are a couple of things that might help:
• Change my running routes
• Determine to stop vegging in front of the TV and read.
• Write more
• Keep my eyes open for fresh perspectives
• Absorb as much as possible at the up and coming conferences.
• Find a project to push me
Maybe these will help. Or maybe, I’m just hopelessly boring. Oh! I hope not.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Haiti
Like many today, I’m somewhat stunned by some of the images and information coming out of Haiti after yesterday’s earthquake. After last year’s work and witness trip that most of my family went on, Haiti has had a special place in our heart. We have some very good friends who spent many years as missionaries in Haiti. Our church district has adopted Haiti for the next few years. There just seems to be lots of connection with the country, and most of all the people. Our prayers go out to the people, the relief workers, and all affected. But not just our prayers, we need to find a way to help in a very concrete and tangible way. Now is the time to put our faith into action.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Insisting on our One Meaning
I just read a great post by A. K. M. Adam on the problem with insisting on a single meaning in any given text. He articulates the point far more clearly than I could, so I encourage you to check out his post on “One Meaning to Rule them All.” On additional thought that came to mind, though, as I read through his post is that of creating Others. When we insist on the possibility of only one meaning (which, of course, is the meaning we support) we cut others off; we marginalize people. This might be an interesting avenue of thought. Meanwhile, though, I suggest you check out AKAM’s far more lucid thoughts on the subject.
Friday, January 08, 2010
The Bible as Scripture
Often the word “Bible” and the word “Scripture” are used interchangeably. One talks about reading the Bible and reading Scripture as meaning the same thing. Yet as Joel Green argues, when one is reading the Bible it does not necessarily follow that one is reading the Bible as Scripture (Green 3). The difference lies in the aim or purpose. To interpret the Bible is to discover what it meant in order to figure out what it means. Interpreting the Bible treats the text as an object to be dissected. To interpret Scripture is to engage the text in a way that allows it to shape a person’s identity (Green 5). To interpret Scripture is to recognize its function and purpose as being primarily that of character formation.
It is completely possible to read and interpret the Bible without being a Christian. It is even possible to interpret the Bible accurately without ever claiming to believe in what the text claims. Interpreting the Bible in this sense is akin to reading the Bible as one would read any other book. Interpreting the Bible would be no different than interpreting Homer’s Iliad. This approach to interpreting the Bible is in a large part due to the influence of the modern scientific methods on the interpretive process, which insists on objectivity. This quest for objectivity tends to turn the biblical material into an object to be examined (Green 13). It is after information, not transformation. On the other hand, the interpretation of Scripture is after transformation.
The interpretation of Scripture begins not with the quest for objectivity, but with the recognition that one is approaching the process of interpretation from very specific biases with very clear presuppositions. The Scripture is read and interpreted as God’s word, not merely as one more piece of literature among many. The Scripture is read and interpreted recognizing our theological purposes and prejudices. The Scripture is read and interpreted as a Christian (Green 5-6). Yet even here, the Scripture is not read and interpreted merely as a means to discover doctrinal or theological nuggets; it is interpreted to shape and form character.
It should be noted that the formation of the Christian canon was not the function of an Ecumenical council deciding which texts were authoritative and should be included. Rather, it was the recognition of how certain texts were already functioning authoritatively because of the formative role they played within the community of faith (Thompson 3). It was, and is, Scripture’s role in forming character that is the basis of Scripture’s authority. This formative function of Scripture is also indispensible for the evaluation of the interpretation of Scripture. In other words, the church, as interpreter of Scripture, must look for ways to embody its interpretation in “worship, practices, and responses toward others” (Thompson 12). Joel Green notes that, “Narrative is not just a ‘story’ but also an ‘action’” (Green 168).
Interpreting the Bible is about distilling information from a text. It treats the text as a repository of facts—historical, doctrinal, or theological. It requires no faith investment on the reader’s part. As a matter of fact, it prefers it that way. Interpreting the Bible is over once the meaning has been located and extracted. Interpreting Scripture, on the other hand, approaches the interpretive process from an unabashedly Christian perspective. It recognizes its theological presuppositions as integral to the interpretive process. It invites the interpreter to think with the Scriptures, not about them (Green 59). Interpreting Scripture invites response. Without response the interpretive processes is incomplete.
*Green, Joel B. Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
*Thompson, Richard P. “Scripture, Community and Conversation: Rethinking Theological Interpretation Canonically.” Richard P. Thompson. 2007.
It is completely possible to read and interpret the Bible without being a Christian. It is even possible to interpret the Bible accurately without ever claiming to believe in what the text claims. Interpreting the Bible in this sense is akin to reading the Bible as one would read any other book. Interpreting the Bible would be no different than interpreting Homer’s Iliad. This approach to interpreting the Bible is in a large part due to the influence of the modern scientific methods on the interpretive process, which insists on objectivity. This quest for objectivity tends to turn the biblical material into an object to be examined (Green 13). It is after information, not transformation. On the other hand, the interpretation of Scripture is after transformation.
The interpretation of Scripture begins not with the quest for objectivity, but with the recognition that one is approaching the process of interpretation from very specific biases with very clear presuppositions. The Scripture is read and interpreted as God’s word, not merely as one more piece of literature among many. The Scripture is read and interpreted recognizing our theological purposes and prejudices. The Scripture is read and interpreted as a Christian (Green 5-6). Yet even here, the Scripture is not read and interpreted merely as a means to discover doctrinal or theological nuggets; it is interpreted to shape and form character.
It should be noted that the formation of the Christian canon was not the function of an Ecumenical council deciding which texts were authoritative and should be included. Rather, it was the recognition of how certain texts were already functioning authoritatively because of the formative role they played within the community of faith (Thompson 3). It was, and is, Scripture’s role in forming character that is the basis of Scripture’s authority. This formative function of Scripture is also indispensible for the evaluation of the interpretation of Scripture. In other words, the church, as interpreter of Scripture, must look for ways to embody its interpretation in “worship, practices, and responses toward others” (Thompson 12). Joel Green notes that, “Narrative is not just a ‘story’ but also an ‘action’” (Green 168).
Interpreting the Bible is about distilling information from a text. It treats the text as a repository of facts—historical, doctrinal, or theological. It requires no faith investment on the reader’s part. As a matter of fact, it prefers it that way. Interpreting the Bible is over once the meaning has been located and extracted. Interpreting Scripture, on the other hand, approaches the interpretive process from an unabashedly Christian perspective. It recognizes its theological presuppositions as integral to the interpretive process. It invites the interpreter to think with the Scriptures, not about them (Green 59). Interpreting Scripture invites response. Without response the interpretive processes is incomplete.
*Green, Joel B. Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
*Thompson, Richard P. “Scripture, Community and Conversation: Rethinking Theological Interpretation Canonically.” Richard P. Thompson. 2007.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
God is Love
I’ve been reading this book by John D. Zizioulas called, Being as Communion, and I’m finding it very helpful in pushing my thinking about God, personhood, and the church in new and broader ways. For one, the author approaches these issues from an Orthodox perspective, drawing deeply from Easter Patristic theologians—particularly the Cappadocian’s. One of the topics addressed early on is that of God’s being, especially as related to God’s ontological freedom. This becomes important when we think of the two ideas of (1) God is love, and (2) God loves. The first is an ontological statement—God’s being is love. The second is a statement concerning God’s actions, what God does—God loves. The problem I wrestle with is the notion that God loves, not out of choice, but out of necessity. If this is the case, then is God free?
Interestingly, Zizioulas indicates that “the only exercise of freedom in an ontological manner is love.” But he also indicates that love is not something that comes from or is a property of God’s substance, but is God’s substance. Substance, though, must be understood in terms of communion. It is not an object or a thing, but should be understood as having a relational character. For this reason love is not so much a qualifying or descriptive property of God but is “the supreme ontological predicate” that constitutes God’s substance. Love is God’s mode of existence. This mode of existence came about not out of necessity, but out of a choice. That God exists as Trinity means God exists in communion, a communion freely willed by the Father—God as Father chose to “beget” the Son and “bring forth” the Spirit. In this God exercises God’s ontological freedom. God’s freedom, then, comes from God’s being. Because God’s ontological freedom is based on God’s existence as love—the free choice of the Father’s begetting and bringing forth—love does not mediate against God’s freedom, but is the condition and exercise of that freedom.
*John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985)
Interestingly, Zizioulas indicates that “the only exercise of freedom in an ontological manner is love.” But he also indicates that love is not something that comes from or is a property of God’s substance, but is God’s substance. Substance, though, must be understood in terms of communion. It is not an object or a thing, but should be understood as having a relational character. For this reason love is not so much a qualifying or descriptive property of God but is “the supreme ontological predicate” that constitutes God’s substance. Love is God’s mode of existence. This mode of existence came about not out of necessity, but out of a choice. That God exists as Trinity means God exists in communion, a communion freely willed by the Father—God as Father chose to “beget” the Son and “bring forth” the Spirit. In this God exercises God’s ontological freedom. God’s freedom, then, comes from God’s being. Because God’s ontological freedom is based on God’s existence as love—the free choice of the Father’s begetting and bringing forth—love does not mediate against God’s freedom, but is the condition and exercise of that freedom.
*John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985)
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Maybe I'll try this again
Well, school is done for now. Graduation is in May, but I'm finished with all the classes. So I was thinking that I might need someplace to put down some of the ideas that surface from what I'm reading. I suppose it's a discipline thing. In school, I read and then have to write about what I read. It's a good way to digest and think through things. Now that school is done, that accountability is missing. Anyway, I just thought I might give it a try here. And I think I'll start first thing tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)