Jesus in Judges

I remember reading Carl Sagan’s “Contact” way back in the early ‘90s before Jodi Foster made it sexy. Sagan’s writing is frankly ham-fisted, and his protagonist is a thinly disguised version of himself (by thinly disguised I mean lacking a Y-chromosome, although even Ellie’s personality in the novel is notably masculine). All literary criticism aside, Ellie turns away from the Bible during her critical formative years. Her reason stems from the gross immorality described in the Old Testament, particularly in the book of Judges. Ellie is absolutely correct that Judges contains gross immorality. However, the curiosity she displays toward stars and Pinocchio and ants and aliens is notably lacking when it comes to the Bible. She walks away, never seeking to understand it better.

But what is going on in Judges? We certainly see a cycle throughout the book as the children of Israel pursue worthless idols, only to be oppressed until they cry out to YHWH who sends a judge to rescue them. And the wheel in the sky keeps on turning. If Judges were the only book in the Bible, we might be justified not only in chucking the Bible, but in despairing altogether. Here is a group of people called out of slavery, empowered to status of nation, who was given personal leadership and instruction by YHWH God himself. Despite this advantage, the children of Israel were hopeless and evil.

Consider the end of the book of Judges with me. The last judge mentioned is Sampson, a man of faith, but also a man of wickedness. In his death he made a great slaughter of the Philistines. One might expect the Israelites, freed from this oppression, to turn back to God, but instead what follows is five chapters of wickedness. In chapter seventeen, we read the curious tale of a man named Micah who stole his mothers money (quite a lot of it - 1,100 pieces of silver). His mother invokes a curse upon the thief, and the son returns the money. The mother responds by blessing the son in the name of YHWH. She then takes 200 pieces of the silver and gives them over to the silversmith to make an idol. Micah takes the idol, and some other relics, and makes his own religion. He even ordains his son as a priest. At this point the author reminds us that there was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in his own eyes. This sentence is repeated at the end of the book, and its inclusion here is an indication of just how evil the author considers Micah’s actions to be.

Now Micah was not a Levite, but by happy chance a Levite came to stay with Micah, and Micah ended up ordaining him as a priest in his false religion as well. The author tells us that Micah thought YHWH would surely prosper him, because he had a Levite as a priest. This tells us that Micah knew YHWH’s commands before starting his religion; at least he knew that only Levites were supposed to be priests. Yet there seems to be no compunction by Micah at all to steal from his parents, make an idol, form his own religion, manipulate YHWH for personal prosperity, etc. Consider how many commandments were broken here: you shall not make any graven images, you shall not take the name YHWH in vain, honor your father and mother, and do not steal come to mind. There was no fear of God before his eyes.

The story gets better. The next chapter begins again with the author’s warning that there was no king in the land. What happens next is an interesting tale. The people of Dan haven’t got any land yet, and so they send some spies out to look for a city to take. Coming upon Micah and the Levite and the shrine, they inquire if they will succeed. The Levite tells them to go in peace, for their journey is under the eye of YHWH. Ironic, but true. The spies find a good, wealthy, peaceful city, and return to tell the tribe of Dan. The tribe sets out to conquer the city, and on the way they steal the idols and Levite from Micah. They set up the idol in the city and it became the village church. So we see more theft, more idolatry, more war, and more self-reliance. And there was no king in those days.

Guess how the next chapter begins? If you guessed “when there was no king in Israel”, you get a gold star. This story features another Levite, this one sojourning with his concubine. The concubine is unfaithful, and returns to live with her father. The husband goes to fetch her, and as they are returning, they stay in a city of Benjamin. While there, the house they are staying in is surrounded by the men of the city who demand to have relations with the traveling Levite. The language Judges 19 is intentionally similar to the language of Genesis 19. The man of the house even offers his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine, much like Lot. The wicked men of the city take the Levite’s concubine and gang rape her all night. She crawls back to the threshold of the house, where the Levite finds her dead in the morning. In response, the Levite carves her body up into twelve pieces and mails her to the twelve tribes of Israel.

This is a truly gruesome tale, and it leads to a war against Benjamin. But is the author simply commenting on the state of affairs while suspending moral judgment? Ironically many moderns would consider such a historiography preferable, but when it comes to the Bible, they want to see moral outrage. Is the author actually condoning this behavior? The answer is “none of the above”. The author is proving his thesis - there was no king, and everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

The author’s immediate sociological point is that the children of Israel simply refused to obey God. They needed a state empowered to enforce justice and ensure morality. I’m sure the author had much material from which to draw; the fact that he chose these stories to prove his point should tell us something. Both stories begin with single individual Levites, and result in war. There is a snowball effect being demonstrated, and the result is the grossest kind of injustice and oppression. The Danites slaughtered an entire city, one described as “peaceful”, and set up an idol. They had become the people they were supposed to drive out. The Benjaminites gang-raped a girlfriend and as a result 25,000 Benjaminites and 40,000 Israelites died in war. Israel took an oath not to give their daughters in marriage to Benjamin, and so they had to come up with a plot to keep Benjamin from dying off. Their solution was to murder all but the virgins in Jabesh-Gilead, and give the virgins to the Benjaminites for marriage. In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

The promised land was no longer a refuge for oppressed slaves, but a Nietzschean power game. In all these stories the weak lose, and the strong abuse. The children of Israel needed a king to enforce justice and righteousness.

But the larger theological picture is found when we read this book in context. You see, Israel would get many kings, and the result was not justice or righteousness, but oppression and unrighteousness. Over and over the prophets lament the injustice, oppression, unrighteousness, and evil of Israel and Judah. The people needed a good king to enforce goodness, but they also needed more. They needed good hearts. This is where Jesus steps in. Jesus is that righteous King who will enforce justice and lift oppression. But he is more than that! Jesus is a king who will take the hearts of stone out of his people and replace them with a heart of flesh, who will write his law on their hearts, and know them personally. Evil, injustice, oppression - all sin - is conquered by the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Glory!

You see, Ellie saw the trees and missed the forest. Judges - indeed, most of the Old Testament history - describes great sinfulness. But the big picture is that God is working to resolve this sin issue; a thing no people can do to themselves. What advantage had the Jew? Everything! They had a personal encounter with YHWH, they had his laws, they had his presence, they had his protection and provision. Yet for all this, they were hopelessly enslaved to sin. Even a theocracy could not solve their evil. They needed personal intervention by YHWH himself, and it came in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

This is what we celebrate on Christmas day, on Christmas day. This is what we celebrate on Christmas day in the morning.
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.

Thinking in a Blogger's World

How do you approach theology? Do you begin with a specific denominational creed and show how you think the Bible supports it? Do you start from scratch, just "you and your Bible"? Do you read those authors that "sound right", or that make you feel good, or that address your particular concerns, or that have the most intellectually satisfying answers? The principle that governs reformed theology is Sola Scriptura - the idea that the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice. However, this "sola" is not "solus". We are a people of the book, to be sure, but such a distinction comes with certain demands. You see, almost every American evangelical has got some "Biblical" reason for teaching what they teach. However, it doesn't take a brain trust to realize that many of these teachers are directly contradictory - even hostile. Even if we agree that Bible needs to be our final authority for faith and practice, we need to address how we understand the Bible.

This all comes back to epistemology - the study of truth and how/if we can know it. There is certainly a difference between Christian and unchristian epistemology, but it would be inaccurate and unhelpful to talk of Christian "epistemology" as if there is (or should be) only one. The truth is (pun intended) that Christians have always had different perspectives on epistemology. The Bible itself, however, describes Truth as Jesus Christ, and knowing the truth as a relationship with God incarnate. In contrast, most Westerners think of truth as a series of binary propositions that are either true or false.

However, when we think carefully about this post-enlightenment theory of truth, we begin to see some holes in it. In the first place, what do we mean when we say that a certain proposition is true or false? Consider the pedantic and uncontroversial claim that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun. If we got that proposition on a true/false quiz, we would answer true with little epistemological angst. But in what way is that bit of information true or false? When we say that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun we are asserting something as being an accurate measure of reality. This proposition entails other propositions. For example, we are also implying that we have the capability of measuring reality accurately. This implication tells us something about our "true/false" binary epistemology. When we say that it is "true" that the earth is 93 million miles from the sun, we are saying that the approved proposition is coherent with our standard of observation and measurement.

What has this got to do with theology? Well, believing Christians have always believed that the Word of God is true, and that our theology should be an accurate representation of what the Bible teaches. Of course, if we talk about "true" theology, we are really talking about coherence with our standard of observation and measurement.

One theologian says one thing, another says something different. Who we believe will be determined by our standard of measurement. One such standard for reformed folks is that a given teaching must cohere with the teachings of Scripture. This in turn requires a hermeneutic or model of Scriptural interpretation.

This means that when we talk about our beliefs and theology, there are two tests of effectiveness. The first test is that our beliefs be internally coherent. The second test is that our beliefs be externally coherent.

The first test involves the structure of our theology, and whether or not it makes sense. For example, if we say that the Bible teaches one thing, and we also say that the Bible teaches something contradictory to the first thing, we have to examine our philosophy of the Bible and our philosophy of interpretation. Is it possible for the Bible to contradict itself? Are we understanding the Bible correctly? Is there some other viable interpretation? Etc., etc. Or, internal coherence may have to do with our plausibility structure. For example, I know many Presbyterians who hold to Sola Scriptura, but still baptize infants. This practice is internally inconsistent, as hermeneutical priorities must be rearranged in order to defend infant baptism.

The second test has to do with the way that our theology interacts with and makes sense of the external world. If, for example, we believe that the Bible teaches that the sky is purple, we have to re-examine our thinking and interpretation. When the Bible says "purple", does it mean "blue"? Are we misinterpreting the word "purple"? Are our perceptions of color so tainted by the fall that we can no longer distinguish between purple and blue? Is color a relative interpretation, rendering the issue irrelevant?

These two tests help us work on our theological presuppositions and measure their effectiveness. However, we are not "naked in the dark" (having quoted Tolkien in an epistemology blog, I now consider my life a little bit more complete). There are three measures which help us to evaluate our theology. These three measures are Language, History, and Theology. The first measure involves the text of the Bible. Does our theology cohere with the actual language of the Bible? This is more than simple-minded word studies. This involves the nature of language and written communication. The second measure is history. This measure involves the history of the church and what it has believed and practiced in the past. This measure is based upon the idea that the Holy Spirit is faithful to guide his people into all truth as Jesus promised. the final measure is theology. This measure examines the historic creeds and articles of the past and seeks to show where a particular theology might fit in theological context.

The problem is that all of this careful thinking is passe. We live in a blogger's world where quick and frequently updated opinion is king. We live in an age where evangelicals - and I am talking about leaders, pastors, and professors - have facebook statuses and twitter feeds and blogs that opine loudly about what people should believe. And yet these digital platforms are rarely used to explain why, exactly a person should believe. Do this quick homework - visit three or four blogs written by evangelical academics that you know of. Read a few posts and ask yourself how often a clear and robust reason is articulated for why a person should believe whatever is being said. I think you will find a paucity of this kind of writing.

Unfortunately, this goes way beyond evangelical blogging to the broader culture of a nation that doesn't like to break a mental sweat. My suggestion is that instead of joining the shallow 24hr news networks and blogs we set out to really inform and transform people. Don't settle for simply asserting your opinion in public. Explain why and how you think the way that you do. Take a little time to produce excellence. And if may be so bold, perhaps you might want to take some courses in logic, rhetoric, and writing.

Language Translation in the NIV2011

Well, it is no secret that the original NIV and TNIV are being replaced next year. Of concern to some is the language employed by the translators, especially given the gender inclusive choices of the TNIV. In some cases I think the NIV2011 got it right. For example, the NIV2011 translates 2 Tim. 2:2 as "...entrust to faithful people" in place of the more common "...entrust to faithful men." I think the NIV 2011 got this right for the following reasons. First, the collective pronoun used here is masculine, but the other Koine literature we have uses this pronoun for collections of people - the collections can be all male, all female, or mixed gender. I don't doubt that in the context of 2 Timothy this collective refers to a group of men. However, I believe in a translation philosophy that is as formally equivalent as possible. The rhetorical and artistic purposes of an author are destroyed when the context is used to add information that is not in the original word. Consider The Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas. The first chapter introduces a "young man" ("jeune homme"). Later in the chapter we learn that this man has certain characteristics - between eighteen and twenty, tall, slim, with "fine dark eyes" and "ebony black hair". We also learn that he has the responsibility for carrying out the pilot's orders (a mistranslation, really, since the term "pilot" refers to fresh water and estuarine vessels, while the commanding officer of an ocean going vessel is referred to as "captain", but I digress). Part of the author's purpose is to gradually reveal details about this young man. It would spoil the purpose to translate the introduction of the young man as "a young boatswain". Certainly the more descriptive term is accurate based upon the context, but that isn't what the text says. In the same way, I think the translation "faithful people" is a more accurate translation of the word used, even though it does refer to men in the context.

A more interesting language choice is found in Matthew 5:32. This verse says that "anyone who divorces his wife makes her commit adultery" - at least in the TNIV. The NIV2011 changes it to "makes her the victim of adultery". This is not the Revenge of the PC Feminists. Rather, it intends to make a distinction found in the original Greek. In the original text, the verb for committing adultery here is passive. In other words, the subject is being acted upon. Now I have not put the effort into really researching this, but what I do know indicates that this is probably a poor translation. In the first place, John 8:4 refers to "the woman caught in adultery", and that is the same passive voice verb. It doesn't work for this verse to be referring to the woman as a victim of adultery. It may be that the language evolved with the idea that a woman is a passive participant in sexuality, an idea which is not without precedence in our own language and culture. Further, the original NIV translates 1 Cor. 6:9 as "male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders", however the original text is "malakoi oute arsenokoitai" - which the ESV renders with the phrase "men who practice homosexuality". In the footnotes the point out that this phrase translates two words which refer to the active and passive partners in consensual homosexual acts. The words themselves are not active or passive - they aren't even verbs - but the language provided a difference between the partners based upon their action of giving or receiving. It is possible that the same kind of distinction is built in to the verb for adultery. So while this is a preliminary analysis, I have to disagree with this translation choice. I am sure more learned men will soon analyze the NIV2011 in greater depth than I could.

Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Today, our legislative branch presented the President of the United Sates a bill repealing "don't ask, don't tell", and our Chief Executive signed it into law. No doubt this will spark a brisk discussion between the right and left regarding the moral status of homosexuality. What might be left behind in the dust-up is the purpose of DADT. DADT was signed into law by President Clinton, who is by no means against homosexuality. The difference between that president and this one is that President Clinton has got a firmer grasp of reality. He is driven, primarily, by a certain ruthlessly efficient pragmatism. Our current commander in chief is driven primarily by ideology. So why would President Clinton sign DADT into law? Most likely the President had been informed somewhat of the situation that soldiers face every day. If you are not aware of what a soldier's life is like, please go watch "The Hurt Locker". It is pretty close to an accurate representation of the modern soldier (although a chaplain was painfully absent in the film, being replaced by a psychologist - something not only inaccurate, but integral to the psychological progression of the characters, but I digress). The point is that these young men work - even play - with deadly weapons designed to kill. At one point in the movie, two disgruntled grunts (pun intended) casually discuss detonating an artillery shell in order to ghost their disliked superior. They spare the man, but the point is taken - murder is pretty easy when a group of men are playing with PETN in a giant sandbox. At the end of the day, DADT was about protecting homosexuals from being murdered. Sure, there is a "morale" issue, but that is DOD speak for "everyone will be too busy watching their backs to watch the enemy." As a Christian, I am concerned about any law that empowers and normalizes sinful behavior, but it is a mistake to think that repealing DADT first of all empowers homosexuality. Rather, it first of all empowers hatred and murder. I pray such isn't the case, but I am not hopeful.

Two New Books

This is not really a book review for two reasons - I am highlighting two books that I am finishing up at the same time, and I don't have the discipline to turn out a proper book report. Not that you, gentle reader, give a hoot. Everyone who suffered through high school knows that book reviews are boring. So call this a Ménage à trois of a reader and two good books.

Radical by David Platt

This book is one of those somewhat rare gifts to the church that actually demands that the reader follow Jesus. In this case, the subtitle reveals the author's purpose: taking back your faith from the American dream. This book attempts to do just that - to demonstrate how the American dream stifles true discipleship. I was immediately happy to see this book, and when I read it I was not disappointed. I have a few quibbles - the writing is poor (sorry, David!), and so is the editing in my opinion. Sentences - even paragraphs - are begun with conjunctions, modifiers are occasionally misplaced, and the entire book consists of simple sentences. In the words of Gertrude Stein, "Why should a sequence of words be anything but a pleasure?" My final analysis of the book, however, is somewhat chilling. After listening to many of my brothers rave about the book, I came with great expectations. What I discovered was not radical at all. Platt is simply expounding Christianity 101. What is chilling is that this book is even needed at all.
Rating: 8.5

Doctrine of the Word of God by John Frame

I devoured the "Theology of Lordship" series, and this latest book does not disappoint. This book examines the orthodox view of Scripture from the lens of Frame's "Theology of Lordship" perspective. Along the way Frame interacts with all the major philosophical and theological hurdles that the doctrine of Scripture faces. In the forward Frame calls this his best work ever. I have to agree. This book is simply dynamite. It is scholarly and comprehensive, so don't take it lightly (even though, at less than 700 pages, it is significantly thinner than the previous two volumes). Still, no matter your education level, background, intelligence, or reading capability, you should probably read this book. However, this glowing endorsement does come with a few warnings. First, this book works best if you read the rest of the series first, or at least "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God". This book presumes and builds upon the ideas found in the rest of the series. This book also contains a dense vocabulary and rigid philosophical structure. These characteristics serve the book well, but do require some basic knowledge to navigate meaningfully. Words like "perlocutionary" and "nouminal" may be informed from a dictionary, but other terms, such as "particular sufficiency" are not only unavailable in a common dictionary, but are easily misunderstood due to the essentially common meanings of the term's constituent parts. It should be pointed out, however, that the book is never dry, but rather lively, and constructed of excellent sentences and thought flow. Quibbles? Well, believe it or not, my greatest quibble is with the dust jacket. Seriously. In the first place, under the title on the cover is the block caps sentence "FOREWORD BY J.I.PACKER". None of the other volumes have anything like this, and who really cares? Packer has nothing to do with the Theology of Lordship, and he endorses just about everything, so why would it be advertised so obnoxiously? Packer's name, although smaller font than Frame's, appears first, which seems odd. Furthermore, on the spine, underneath the series title, is the label "Volume 4". This is also hugely annoying, because none of the other volumes have any kind of numbering on their jackets. So now I have four books on my shelf, and one sticks out glaring in its difference. Great job, P&R. Also, in the foreword to "Doctrine of God", Frame says that he rather envisions Doctrine of the Word of God to take first place in the series. While he does not repeat this sentiment in the foreword to Doctrine of the Word of God, the editors have made sure that I can never display this volume first without everyone thinking it is out of sequence. Am I being petty? Maybe, but I think that for the price of this set and for the quality of its contents, the exterior should also be a polished jewel.
Rating: 9.5

Left Wing Baptists?

Dr. Russell Moore's twitter feed tipped me to the video I have embedded below. It is an interesting if long conversation between Robert George and Cornell West, both on the faculty of Princeton University. In case you don't know, George is a conservative, West is a liberal, and both are Christians.

This post is not about the talk (which is worth a listen), but is about how West introduced himself. West introduced himself as being from the Baptist tradition, the "left-wing" of the Reformation. This kind of characterization frankly just "sounds" wrong. "Baptist" (or is it Baptist ©?) seems to conjure images of white men in suits voting Republican. I know that I am being unfair, but these days the "baptist" label has been divorced from history.

So when we hear "baptist" being characterized as the "left wing" of the reformation, some confusion can ensue. It shouldn't. You see, the label "left wing" has also been a bit abused in recent times. "Left wing" does not necessarily mean pro-abortion, pro-socialism, or any of a host of other issues currently subsidized by the Democratic party.

The fact is that when the baptist movement began, especially in Britain, they valued faithfulness to God ahead of all else. They were radicals for sure, and while they did not flaunt their freedom, they freely broke the law of the land where the law of the land broke the law of God. They opposed the status quo and the injustice of the establishment, not because they were poorly-developed tweens with a college-complex, but because their deepest conviction was the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Now this is the point where I encourage you to actually live out your faith in the public sphere, but I would offer this caveat first. Jesus is Lord, but it is not our place to bring everything under His lordship. It is not the place of the church, nor the angels, nor even Christ Himself. It is the will of the Father (1 Cor. 15:27-28). Our job is to be faithful. If we are truly faithful to Jesus Christ, we might just be seen as radical. Even "left wing".

Legitimacy of Labels

This blog is about theology - not politics, sports (go Man Utd!), culture, or philosophy. Nevertheless, sometimes these (especially culture and philosophy) intersect so closely with theology that it becomes necessary to "have a go", as my Brit friends would say.

As my brighter readers may have surmised from the title, this post is about the concept and legitimacy of "labels". For those who are not up to speed on philosophy, trends in thought and education, and hipster trends, let me explain. In pop-postmodern thought (and there is a significant difference between post-modern philosophy and pop-postmodernism) a "label" refers to a group referent. This group referent is then applied to an individual. In pop-postmodernism (hereafter referred to as "PPM"), using labels this way is illegitimate. I contend that claiming illegitimacy is illegitimate. Let me explain.

First, you have to understand that the PPM understanding of labels is different from the modern or even common-sense notion of label. In "normal" usage, a label is a shorthand for a collection of characteristics (i.e. group referent). For example, I might take something out of a bottle labeled "aspirin". The label "aspirin" refers to the compound within the bottle. The term "aspirin" generally refers to the chemical makeup of the substance. In PPM, a label is not merely a group referent, but includes an interpretational element - when using a label, a person is "interpreting" reality, at least a little bit. This is especially true when using labels of humans or other complex subjects.

Now, return with me for a moment to the "normal" usage of label. When I consider the label "aspirin", chances are that I am thinking of a smallish round white pill. These are characteristics that many aspirin doses share, but they are not really what the label is referring to. There is language to describe this difference in classical philosophy, but that is not the point. The point is that when a person hears a label there will very likely be some contingent aspects imported in along with the essential or necessary elements of a group referent. The more ambiguous a group referent, the greater the variability of import. Consider the label "arsenic", for example. I know immediately that the label is referring to poison, but that is not actually the primary characteristic of arsenic. The primary characteristic of arsenic is As33. Thirty-three electrons and protons, forty-two Neutrons. It also happens to be deadly. I may also envision in my mind a greyish powder, the form arsenic usually takes in lab experiments. But this is certainly on the fringe, and may not be the case. Contrast that with the label "middle-class". This is a harder term to describe, and is relative to context. The distinctives of the "middle-class" group change depending upon cultural context. I may think of manicured sod, a pre-fab house, and an SUV, but in reality none of these are "middle-class" but by association.

Back to the PPM label. In PPM language, "middle-class" is a verbal construct designed to interpret and in some ways tame and/or make sense out of the world around us. Labels, especially as they refer to humans, are illegitimate precisely because they are little more than a mind game. And they are a form of power. Incidentally, this is one of the major forces behind the impetus against free speech. Allowing someone to speak gives them power to shape the world.

Of course, this kind of thinking doesn't work so well for scientists, which is why science remains pretty staunchly modern. I am not modernist, and not a scientist, but I think the angst against "labels" is a cheap cop-out by intellectually lazy PPM youth. Yeah, I went there.

You see, this perspective fails to grapple with two things. First, an illegitimate use of something does not illegitimize its use. A can-opener is a useful tool. Just because I use it to hijack an airplane does not make a can-opener illegitimate. So too, using a label like "middle-class" to denigrate a person is illegitimate. That does not throw the whole project into the trash, however. Second, and perhaps more importantly, every word we use is a collective referent. What is a "fork"? The word itself is a verbal (and in this case written) artifact that stand in place of a collection. And where do we draw the line? People eat with chopsticks, but they are clearly out of line. What about a runcible or a grilling fork, or a "spork"? This same ambiguity around the edges applies to all language. If it is illegitimate to "marginalize and cubbyhole" someone by referring to them with a "label", how legitimate is it to refer to this thing I am typing on as a "computer"?

At the root, however, the PPM model of language adds a lot of good perspective to our discussions - it is absolutely true that the spoken word has a kind of creative force, especially in the minds and lives of humans. Psychologists and counselors have known this for years. But you see, there is an objectively real world out there, and while we can never know anything fully about the world, we can know some things truly - even, I dare say, objectively. It is perfectly legitimate to say that arsenic has an atomic weight of 74.1296 amu, and has a melting point of 817^o Centigrade. And it is legitimate to use the label "arsenic" to describe a compound with these statistics. That, after all, is what a word is.

A Key to Understanding the Bible

When we read the narrative portions of the Bible, we generally follow patterns that have been ingrained in our minds through years of exposure without necessarily thinking them through. One negative effect this has had on evangelicalism is that we tend to think of the narratives as discrete units of "Bible story". These Bible stories are then examined and preached without reference to a larger historical context nor even to the purpose of the original author. Sometimes this preaching is watered down moralism (David and Goliath being a tale of facing the giants in life or some other such nonsense), and sometimes it is quite better. However, there are two elements of the Biblical narratives that must always be grappled with in preaching or just reading the Bible. The Biblical narratives, I believe, are truthful theologizing.

Liberal theology typically failed by recognizing the theology of the narratives while dismissing their truthfulness. This is a bit of a vicious circle, because it means that the original authors, no matter how well intended, were essentially interpreting their life and experience through a fantasy.

Conservative theology often fails in the other direction - by recognizing the truthfulness of the narratives while being entirely ignorant of their theology.

In sounder practice, both elements are held together. It is not ever enough to say "I believe in a literal Adam" or "I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture". The authors of the Biblical narratives had a purpose in their writing, and that purpose was theological. Consider, for example, the different accounts of Judas' death (Matt. 27:3-10, Acts 1:18). Some pounce on these accounts as "proof" that the Bible contradicts itself. The story of Judas must just be made up. Others try to "harmonize" these accounts by adding to (and usually detracting from) the New Testament text. These must be true (by which it is usually assumed that they must also conform to the methods of modern historiography). In reality, these passages are using the same event to teach different (but similar) theological truths. The act of Judas' death is true and historical. But the Biblical authors - and here is the key - are certainly not interested in just relating "bare, historical fact". The authors understand this event in the light of God's completed revelation. Their purpose is to shape your thinking in similar ways. They are theologizing.

The danger of missing the theology element is that without it, we are free to attach any meaning we wish to the text. If the text is only history, we are free to utilize nearly any method for attaching meaning to the text. Ironically, the same is true if the narratives are only theology with no real correspondent in fact. Thus we end up with stories like "David and Goliath" and "Noah's Ark". Instead, we aught to recognize that the Biblical accounts come already interpreted. They are not mere history to be understood as we see fit. Nor are they mere theology to be understood as we see fit. The Biblical narratives are interpreted history - reality through the lens of God's truth.

Some Disturbing Christian Trends

One of the more disturbing Christian trends is the way in which we so quickly profiteer off of our faith. I'm talking about the way in which the great and terrible Truth is relegated to kitsch. It's bad enough that our living rooms are plastered with poly-resin crosses lovingly crafted by slave child labor in China and Cambodia. Our "Christian" "bookstores" are filled with Jesus-action-figures, Bible-themed pencil toppers, and environmentally oblivious plastic junk. Don't get me started on the t-shirts. Some even have the audacity to claim that this superfluous collection of "Jesus-Junk"® gives "teens" (a moniker which apparently refers not merely to a person's age but also to their status as an intellectually vacuous, hormonally unconstrained, psychologically imbalanced hindrance to society that must be condescended to for some unstated reason) a chance to share their faith. Really? So the "my-little-jesus" with real hair is supposed to open an avenue to "sharing faith"? Pass the airline bag. If your teen wants a chance to share their faith, tell them to start living like Jesus. They'll get to share their faith real quick. Or they might get killed. But, hey, it took Jesus three years to get killed, so your little teeny-bopper might just make it to high-school before being murdered.

The phenomenon is pandemic. The worst part of all is perhaps Bible stories. We barely plumb the depths of God's riches in the adult Bible studies, and yet somehow think that we can encapsulate this truth in some cute, brightly-colored, moralistic flannel-graph and cram it down our kids' throats. By dumbing-down God's truth we are not making it easier to understand for kids. We are perverting it.

One of the worst examples of this kind of nonsense is the proposed plan by Answers in Genesis to construct a sort of theme park around a life-sized Noah's ark. I am not making this up. Forget, for a moment, that this project will cost over $125 million (Really? After all Jesus said about money we Christians chose to spend it like this? No funding Bible translations, no sending missionaries, no digging wells or providing medicine or food or shelter. More entertainment.) This whole thing takes a story from Genesis and turns it into a garish parody of Western affluence. There are even plans to have a petting zoo in this ark.

Here's the problem. The story of Noah's ark is not about a big boat, or animals marching two by two, or a petting zoo. The story about Noah's ark is a horrifying account of God wiping out mankind in the fury of his wrath against sin. Noah's ark tells of a time when mankind only thought of evil in his heart continually. Noah's ark tells of a time when God chose to slay people and animals and entire ecosystems indiscriminately in his fury over sin. This ark theme park takes this scandal and tames it. Colors it with bright hues and molds it in poly-resin replicas. Buries the shame, fear, and Truth in an avalanche of fun little kid games. Brethren, these things aught not to be. We just don't care about the Truth of the Bible anymore. Do you think that by presenting Noah's Ark this way you are doing your little kiddos a service? I mean, we even have the audacity to call the story "Noah's Ark"! How about "The Time When God Slaughtered Humanity in Judgment of Their Sin While Graciously Rescuing Noah"?

Sunday school literature portrays cute cartoons of Adam and Eve pouting as they leave a garish primary-colors-only depiction of a garden with an apple tree and a nearly-huggable serpent. The children of Israel celebrate their freedom in color-by-number while the drowning Egyptians are conveniently ignored. Jesus returns in a connect-the-dots rainbow while fluffy lions and snow-white lambs nuzzle. No mention of Revelation 19 or 20.

WWJD? I'm pretty sure he would jettison the lousy t-shirt made by child labor in Cambodia. Our kitsch mocks us.

ESV Study Bible - Massive Sale

Right now, Westminster is offering genuine leather ESV Study Bibles for only $47.49 - that's 50% off retail. The uber-desirable cowhide bound version is also 50% off at $89.98. Get someone a great Christmas gift for half off!