There are many questions under this topic that I would like to discuss (many of which press on my heart for resolution). Yet, in this post I will refrain to one.
As a new pastor (i.e. campus minister), and a recent seminary grad, I am constantly striving for my studies to impact my ministry in a positive way. I routinely check out commentaries and other resources from the campus library in an attempt to accurately understand my text and communicate its message to my students. I go in with high hopes, in search for clarity, insight, direction, and affirmation. And often I receive one of these. However, much more frequently I am frustrated and leave the experience feeling as if I have no idea what I'm doing. I pull 3 to 4 books at a time knowing that their usefulness to me will be limited either by my lack of comprehension or their irrelevance to my earnest questions. Yesterday, I read an article that spoke to this dilemma, giving me a small measure of comfort.
"Limping Away with a Blessing: Biblical Studies and Preaching at the End of the Second Millennium" was in article produced by Interpretation in 1997. In it, Professor of Preaching and Worship at Knox College, Stephen Farris, traces the divergent history of Biblical Studies and Homiletics. Where up until the 20th century, pastor/scholars like Augustine, Luther, Schleiermacher, and Barth would publish broadly in Biblical Studies, Homiletics, and Systematic Theology, the last century brought about an unprecedentedly level of specialization. Concurrently, the latest exegetical fashions of Biblical Studies have had an overwhelming influence on preaching without in any significant way its research being guided by the concerns of the church. While recent focus on the literary nature of scripture has produced new powerful preaching styles, that focus has often eclipsed discussion of the historical and theological nature of the scriptures. Farris issues a call for Biblical Studies scholars to remember the origin of their field: Theology. Even if this isn't their currents reason d'être, it should never be forgotten as a conversation partner. The article closes with an ancient metaphor for the preacher in his/her study: Jacob wrestling with the Angel of the Lord at Peniel (Genesis 32:24-32). Farris says, "The role of biblical studies, in turn, is to teach the wrestler preacher a few new holds...Any method of interpretation will suffice as long as it is God to whom we are listening in these texts."
As I reflect on Farris' words, I am struck with how true they are to my experience. I am often overwhelmed and underserved by the interpretative approaches presented in commentaries and theology books. It is good to know that my trouble is not all due to my inadequacies. It has now become clear to me that many of these scholars are not writing for me but for themselves! I will continue to use these resources, as they are the ones available, but I know now that I must also seek out those who will "teach me the holds," even as they pursue their other academic interests. Perhaps Farris will be one of those teachers...
Monday, November 17, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
Christian Hope
Two days ago, I preached an old (revised for the occasion) sermon on hope. As I was contemplating the subject, I came to see that the subject of hope in the New Testament epistles is always associated with eschatological realities. Some associations of hope are clearly with the return of Christ, like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 & Titus 2:13, but others connect with other aspects of the coming Kingdom (Romans 8:18-25, 1 Corinthians 15:17-58, Ephesians 1:17-19, Colossians 1:5, Colossians 1:23, Colossians 1:27, 1 Peter 1:3-5). Then, there are passages that don't mention the word "hope" but heavily convey that idea, also grounded in eschatological realities (e.g. Philippians 3:20-21; 2 Peter 3:8-13).
How far our associations with hope are from the Bible! Most Christians I know (myself included) hope for many things, and whether they are physical or spiritual they almost always deal with this life . I never hear Christians talk about how they long for Christ to return, our resurrection bodies, for creation to be restored, etc. In fact, when I consider my heart, I hope he doesn't come back before I am able to live a full life! I know its hard to anticipate Christ's imminent return after 2000 years of waiting, but somehow I still feel it's very tragic how rarely my thinking, speaking, or acting expresses my hope for that Day.
I long to follow the admonishment of Peter:
"Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons out you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home." - 2 Peter 3:11-13
How far our associations with hope are from the Bible! Most Christians I know (myself included) hope for many things, and whether they are physical or spiritual they almost always deal with this life . I never hear Christians talk about how they long for Christ to return, our resurrection bodies, for creation to be restored, etc. In fact, when I consider my heart, I hope he doesn't come back before I am able to live a full life! I know its hard to anticipate Christ's imminent return after 2000 years of waiting, but somehow I still feel it's very tragic how rarely my thinking, speaking, or acting expresses my hope for that Day.
I long to follow the admonishment of Peter:
"Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons out you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home." - 2 Peter 3:11-13
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Tradition: Oral and Written
I am a Protestant Christian. I believe the Bible is the foundational, indisputable rule for the Christian Life. As a Protestant, then, I had to take pause at a verse I never read before (or at least one that I simply did not remember):
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
What caused me to take pause was not the fact that Paul urged the Thessalonians to remember and obey the things he shared with them on his visit(s), but that he referred to them as "traditions."
Most radio preachers speak of tradition as if it were a four letter word. From my seminary training at Fuller Theological Seminary, I have come to accept that word (as well as "religion") as an acceptable, and indeed positive word in a Christian's vocabulary and Church History. However, I'm not sure if I accepted the legitimacy of Apostolic oral tradition until I read this verse today. Many questions come to mind:
1. Where do these oral traditions originate? From Paul's ministry team, or did he receive them?
2. Are these oral traditions completely distinct from the written ones given to the Thessalonians ("...by our letter")? The verse seems to suggest this, however 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is an example where oral and written tradition overlap.
3. Could one church's written tradition be anothers' oral tradition (and vice-versa)?
Lastly, Protestants enshrine written tradition and are to varying degrees skeptical of oral traditions. But, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 seems to hold them on the same level, at least in Thessalonica. I believe there is good historical reasons to privilege written tradition, but might it be possible that oral traditions should be given more respect than they current hold in Protestant circles?
In his written tradition, Paul does not seem to make mention of any material or spiritual difference between his oral and written traditions. This leads me to believe that the key issue must always be authority, and Paul links the authority of his oral and written traditions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 with their origins in the Apostolic team.
It seems to me that the "platform" (i.e. written or oral) must be a secondary issue. The primary issue must be origin.
But questions remain:
1. How can the origin of oral tradition be reasonably established?
2. If Apostolic origin is the key, does that mean that everything the apostles every said or taught orally was always correct? (we hold this standard for what they wrote – i.e. the scripture)
3. If the apostles were infallible in what they wrote, and the platform of the written word does not make their teaching any more legitimate, does that mean that they must also have been infallible in what they taught orally?
4. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel message gave birth to the church (Acts 2), the Apostles (Acts), and the written tradition–i.e. scripture–and oral tradition. To what extent can the Holy Spirit and the Gospel message be used to test the orthodoxy of oral traditions circulating today?
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
What caused me to take pause was not the fact that Paul urged the Thessalonians to remember and obey the things he shared with them on his visit(s), but that he referred to them as "traditions."
Most radio preachers speak of tradition as if it were a four letter word. From my seminary training at Fuller Theological Seminary, I have come to accept that word (as well as "religion") as an acceptable, and indeed positive word in a Christian's vocabulary and Church History. However, I'm not sure if I accepted the legitimacy of Apostolic oral tradition until I read this verse today. Many questions come to mind:
1. Where do these oral traditions originate? From Paul's ministry team, or did he receive them?
2. Are these oral traditions completely distinct from the written ones given to the Thessalonians ("...by our letter")? The verse seems to suggest this, however 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is an example where oral and written tradition overlap.
3. Could one church's written tradition be anothers' oral tradition (and vice-versa)?
Lastly, Protestants enshrine written tradition and are to varying degrees skeptical of oral traditions. But, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 seems to hold them on the same level, at least in Thessalonica. I believe there is good historical reasons to privilege written tradition, but might it be possible that oral traditions should be given more respect than they current hold in Protestant circles?
In his written tradition, Paul does not seem to make mention of any material or spiritual difference between his oral and written traditions. This leads me to believe that the key issue must always be authority, and Paul links the authority of his oral and written traditions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 with their origins in the Apostolic team.
It seems to me that the "platform" (i.e. written or oral) must be a secondary issue. The primary issue must be origin.
But questions remain:
1. How can the origin of oral tradition be reasonably established?
2. If Apostolic origin is the key, does that mean that everything the apostles every said or taught orally was always correct? (we hold this standard for what they wrote – i.e. the scripture)
3. If the apostles were infallible in what they wrote, and the platform of the written word does not make their teaching any more legitimate, does that mean that they must also have been infallible in what they taught orally?
4. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel message gave birth to the church (Acts 2), the Apostles (Acts), and the written tradition–i.e. scripture–and oral tradition. To what extent can the Holy Spirit and the Gospel message be used to test the orthodoxy of oral traditions circulating today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
