We’re done with science and Christianity for a while, and I have no plans to return to the science of origins.
I just want to reflect a bit on one of the deeper issues underlying the last few posts before moving on to very different topics.
One of the common ideas expressed in the Churches of Christ and Protestantism in general is the notion that any person can pick up the Bible and interpret it correctly all by himself or herself. This is obviously just not true, and we need to stop saying it.
You see, we’ve bought into the Modernist error of radical individualism, which is not biblical. The Bible is God’s gift to the church. Paul wrote most of his letters to or for churches — sometimes groups of churches. Revelation was directed to seven churches. The Torah was studied by the Jews in the synagogue — not at home.
It wasn’t until the invention of the printing press that owning an individual copy of the scriptures was even imaginable, and it was years later before copies became inexpensive enough for individual ownership. For over 3,000 years, from Moses to Gutenberg, scripture reading was a community activity.
Even the King James Version is known as the Authorized Version because King James authorized its use in the churches of England.
Therefore, hermeneutics — the exegesis and interpretation of the scriptures — is much more the work of the church rather than the individual. And there’s not a one of us expert or wise or spiritual enough to interpret the text alone. I mean, how would anyone dare to take the very words of God and interpret and apply them all by himself, as though the Bible were given to just one person or that one person might have all the wisdom needed to truly understand God’s holy words?
Some readers will doubtlessly find these sentiments disturbing, but isn’t this exactly why we read commentaries and consider the opinions of men and women more expert than ourselves? Not that a commentary is the final word, but that neither am I or you either. Not a one of us is.
And so, the more that the church is engaged in interpreting the text, rather than individuals, the more likely we are to exegete well, and by “church” I don’t just mean my small group or Bible class, my denomination, my congregation, or even my generation.
We must be humble enough to hear the voices of interpreters from other traditions and other ages, realizing the Modernist approach we bring to the scriptures is often more of a barrier than a window to the heart of God.
Now, this being obviously true — or else our church libraries would not be filled with commentaries from centuries past and from many other denominations — we have to remember that God reveals himself through more than scripture. Scripture is a “special revelation” of God, but he reveals himself through his Creation, the earth, the stars, and even the human heart.
Therefore, we have to invite to the conversation archaeologists, geologists, astronomers, cosmologists, historians, and all sorts of other experts. In fact, our Christian colleges and universities should be at the very forefront of research in these fields because the sciences teach us about God — or are we afraid of what we’ll find? I mean, when we refuse to look into the microscopes and telescopes, we reveal our lack of faith. If we don’t think we’ll learn about God from science, then we just don’t believe his Bible.
(Rom 1:19-20 ESV) 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Psa 19:1-5 ESV) The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, 5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
But we don’t believe that. We’re afraid that science might contradict the scriptures and even disprove God, and therefore our universities focus on the liberal arts and refuse to do scientific research. We’ve decided that the heavens really don’t declare the glory of God. And so we leave serious astronomy to the atheists and then complain that we can’t let our children grow up to be scientists because all scientists are atheists (which is not true, but only despite our anti-science, weak-faith attitude).
I believe with all my heart that the more powerful the telescope or microscope, the more science will teach us about God. I believe that because I’ve read my Bible, and that’s what it says.
Please stop insulting me by asking whether this means I don’t believe in miracles. Did David and Paul believe in miracles? And yet they declare by inspiration that the Creation not only declares the glory of God, but it does so in such detail that those without the Bible justly stand condemned by the revelation of God through nature.
We need to get over this notion that science stands opposed to the scriptures. It’s anti-scriptural. And we need to get over the idea that all truth is found in science. No, science is a subset of God’s self-revelation to humanity.
Obviously, just as the scriptures must be interpreted and exegeted and applied by the entire church, wisely, prayerfully, and spiritually, so must science. Science is no more self-interpreting than Genesis, Job, or Jeremiah.
There are those who interpret science to prove that there is no God, and there are those who find in the scriptures “proof” that there is no God. Obviously, anything can be interpreted incorrectly. But we have no more business leaving science to the atheists than giving them the Bible to interpret for us.
It’s not theirs. It’s God’s! And therefore the proper interpreter of both the Bible and science is the church.
But just as the church raises up experts to master Hebrew and Greek and the cultures of worlds of the authors of the scriptures, the church must raise up experts in biology and cosmology and geology. And by “experts” I mean men and women who do research and publish papers and speak at scientific conferences and who add to the knowledge of mankind about God’s Creation just as our expert theologians do with respect to the scriptures.
It’s long past time for the church to stop tolerating ignorant, long-disproved science, just as we should not tolerate ignorant, disproved theology. We need to take God seriously enough to believe his promises and honestly study what he has made, believing with all our hearts that we will find God there.
And it’s nothing but very, very bad Bible to pit science and the Bible against each other, as though God could contradict himself. And if it’s not immediately obvious how the two correspond, the solution is not found in burying our heads in the sand, but in believing God’s word and therefore digging deeper, studying more, and opening our minds to new possibilities. We just might be reading the Bible with 21st Century assumptions when we ought to read it in light of the audience for whom it was written.
Which means we need expert help. Which is okay. That’s why God gave us each other, and tens of thousands of Christians dedicated to studying such things just so we can understand God’s word better. He saved us into his church for many good reasons, one being that not a one of us can figure this out alone.
What an arrogant person you seem to be in this article. Clearly, you seem to have issues with “normal people’s” ability to effectively understand the Bible. Remember that Jesus as a child read and was able to clearly understand the Jewish writings available to him at the time. Are you saying that Jesus needed an expert to interpret such things to him?
Eric, are you saying that Jesus had no special understanding of scripture when, at twelve, he engaged in midrash with the teachers at the temple and astonished them? That His entire lifetime of astonishing people with His authoritative teaching is no different from what ours should be? And isn’t that the height of arrogance to presume that our knowledge and reasoning equals God’s?
Jay, Your thesis assumes that modern science is without flaws. “Science” has historically been seriously wrong many times in history. Stephen Hawking believes now that science has proved there is no God. The church has also been seriously wrong. I stand alone before God on judgement. I am accountable for what I believed and how I lived. I don’t fully trust the church or science to get it right.
Regardless of how far science takes us, after the last fact science can show us, beyond the farthest star, and deeper than the smallest particle, there is God. That is the reason I do not fear science.
At the same time, scripture is not a science book. As to creation, it teaches us who, not how. For so-called “creation scientists” to be pouring through its pages to find bits and pieces of “proof” for their chiseled in stone notions denotes a fear and an obsession that the existence of God and God’s glory depends on their puny, shallow research, which conjures up “conclusions” that are sometimes laughable.
I see two little “gods” in the minds of some. There is the one that angry atheists are usually fighting, and the one that legalists and fundamentalists are trying to prove and hold up. And the truth is they are pretty much the same “god”. Neither the bitter atheist nor the small thinking fundamentalist attempt to accept God as greater than the one in their minds. But the grand announcement, “God is always more than we can ever imagine God to be”, is a challenge to every mind. It is the acceptance of this challenge that keeps us in awe.
“The Biblical words about the genesis of heaven and earth are not words of information but words of appreciation. The story of creation is not a description of how the world came into being but a song about the glory of the world’s having come into being. ‘And God saw that it was good’, Gen.1:25. This is the challenge, to reconcile God’s view with our experience.” Abraham Joshua Heschel
John, I have to read Genesis as it is written. When it says “God created… I pay attention to how scripture describes it. I don’t allegorize it.
Keith, what is it you see that is so amazing in what Luke wrote. Seems like the curiosity of a twelve year old, and the understanding of one who, I am sure was being prepared since he could talk.
Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
Luk 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
I admire scientists who share my love for God. I recommend these “creation scientists” as being honest seekers after truth. Any “scientist” who is not also a believer in God is very apt to come to WRONG conclusions in his/her study and teaching. How greatly to be admired are those scientists who realize that God is Creator of all things, and who believe the Bible is truthful regarding human history and the history of our universe.
We are blessed in this generation with access to the teaching of many past searchers after truth, and in particular with accurate translations in our language of God’s revelations. We don’t need to take a vote in order to know what the Bible teaches. We each can study and think for ourselves. Jay recommends group study and group discussion about things we call science. But we will face judgment as individuals. Even if we arrive at different conclusions than our group does, we’ll not be judged in groups, but surely as individuals.
So while it’s good to study together and discuss matters that matter, it’s still true that what we think individually is what is most important. If we convince others to agree with us, that’s all right. If we fail to convince others to agree with us, we still stand on what we individually believe. Surely we should care what others believe, and surely we should seek to understand their thinking. But we’ll each be judged by what WE believed and did rather than what our congregation or small-group or larger group believed.
Eric asked, “Are you saying that Jesus needed an expert to interpret such things to him? ”
Keith, returned the favor by asking a different question, “Eric, are you saying that Jesus had no special understanding of scripture when, at twelve ”
Great example of individual thinking and understanding. Or interpretation of what is implied.
Eric, in my opinion implied that Jesus didn’t need any help as an individual without placing a time on what he asked. Then Keith comes along and places a time on what Eric said, If either implied that Jesus knew all things at any age, especially the age of twelve (They are wrong).
If Keith has implied that Jesus knew all things at the age of twelve, Keith makes Luke tell an untruth in the following.
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
No matter the “church ” you attend (if any at all) your individual beliefs accompanied by your individual actions will determine your future.
Jay seems to have changed his mind since we had this very discussion not long ago. So now I guess the “church ” you attend does matter. which is it Jay the church or the individual.
Jay, sorry for insulting you in the last post. I’ll be more careful with my questions when I’m wrestling with a subject like this last one. Knowledge is good and that’s why I read your blog. I can’t tell you how many times I have discovered my understanding of scripture has been wrong over the last 60 years. Thankfully, none of us will be judged on how much of the Bible we interpret correctly.
i have learned how to say i’m not sure, and i just don’t know.
although …
fulfilled prophecy and the cross through the faithfulness of God’s messiah resurrected according to scripture is the hinge-point on which,”my faith in the father Stands through the Spirit”.
1 Cor. 2:12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God.
2:13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.8 2:14 The unbeliever9 does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Keith, I suggest that you ask Ray and focus your anger/outrage on him instead. After all, he started this thread. I merely contributed a logical extension to his ridiculous comments.
But keep in mind, that you are using Biblical scriptures to validate your point, while Ray uses them to denounce the likelihood of a worldwide flood having occurred during Noah’s lifetime.
So let’s here your comment on whether you think that all Biblical scriptures are accurate, or not.
Lamond – you give me too much credit, but thanks.
I was merely pointing out that Ray over-stepped with an intellectual faux pas that is so parochially illogical that is almost laughable. But I like your explanation of my comment much better, especially in regard to Keith’s flippant quip which I suspect was only intended to try to put me on the defensive.
I will take the liberty of re-posting your excellent points below, simply because your wisdom is evident:
Eric, in my opinion implied that Jesus didn’t need any help as an individual without placing a time on what he asked. Then Keith comes along and places a time on what Eric said, If either implied that Jesus knew all things at any age, especially the age of twelve (They are wrong).
If Keith has implied that Jesus knew all things at the age of twelve, Keith makes Luke tell an untruth in the following. Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
At least the Eunuch was humble enough to say that he couldn’t understand it unless someone explained to him… and who among us hasn’t been taught something ? I find it interesting that the HS speaking through Peter says that His speaking through Paul is at times difficult to understand. That should give anyone pause.
Which brings up a question that I have…. What did John mean by this … [1Jo 2:27 ESV] But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie–just as it has taught you, abide in him.”
I’m Ray and I neither started this “thread” nor expressed doubt that a world-wide flood occurred. “Jay” is very close to “Ray” but Jay Guin is not Ray Downen. Jay is right on a great many things he writes about, and surely all who read him recognize that truth. I think he is wrong in disagreeing with Genesis. I think he is right on most other matters. I object to having my name used when it’s not “Ray” being spoken of. I’ve not noticed any other Ray than myself writing here.
Price,
The NT authors use “truth” routinely to refer to the truth about Jesus, the truth revealed in Jesus, the truth taught by Jesus, the truth that is Jesus — that is, the gospel.
Hence, when John uses “true,” he is speaking particularly of “true to the gospel.” Which teach us about everything — but note the “about.” It’s not that we become all-knowing, all-understanding, but that we are given a true place from which to see and understanding everything else truly even if not completely.
Skip writes,
No more than my thesis assumes that modern theology is without flaws. We sometimes read the Bible incorrectly and we sometimes read the scientific evidence incorrectly.
When scientists say that science speaks against God, they are being very poor scientists — and well outside their field of expertise. Which is why I said that the church, not Hawking, should be the interpreter of science just as it’s the interpreter of scripture — but this requires doing the homework necessary to be competent in the field.
The church is not monolithic and cannot have a single, agreed position. There is no protestant Pope. Therefore, the church’s interpretation will always be an ongoing conversation, not a final dictate, and this is a good thing, I think.
Eric wrote,
Are you saying that because Jesus could interpret the scriptures perfectly at 12 that you can? Is that really how you want to argue your case?
No, I’m saying that we need to work together to interpret the text. This is why you’ll see me frequently cite to the works of others, because I want to invite others to the discussion. I want to know what the great interpreters of the text have to say. I want to sit at the feet of the experts and learn from them. And I don’t dare reach my conclusions all alone. Nor do I feel confident in my conclusions until I’ve put them out there for the world to criticize.
And that’s one reason for the blog. I get to learn from the my readers. They get to learn from each other. It’s a conversation. And if I didn’t see value in the conversation, I wouldn’t be commenting here night after night.
Atheists, scoffers and others say the Scriptures are nothing more than a collection of fairy tales and fables passed from generation to generation. They contend the Bible has little credibility. Christians, however, believe it is the very word of God Almighty. And there are those who believe parts of the Scriptures are true but not all of it.
King David’s existence has been doubted by biblical skeptics. Until 1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. Then in 1993 archeologists found proof of King David’s existence. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as “House of David” and “King of Israel” proving that he was more than just a legend.
In 2005 Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar found King David’s palace relying on the Bible as one of her many tools. She says: “What is amazing about the Bible is that very often we see that it is very accurate and sometimes amazingly accurate.”
In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C. celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. “Israel is laid waste” it reads. This lets us know the Israelites were a separate people 3,000 years ago.
The names of twenty-nine kings from ten nations are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time. Every single name is transliterated in the Old Testament exactly as it appears on the archaeological artifact syllable for syllable, consonant for consonant. The chronological order of the kings is correct.
There are a number of ancient inscriptions that have provided valuable insights into biblical history. Among these are the Gezar Calendar, the Samaria Ostraca, the Siloam Inscription, the Lachish Letters, and numerous Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions. Among the most important of these are the royal inscriptions of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings. We have inscriptions of the Assyrian kings Sargon II and Sennacherib describing their sieges of Samaria in 721 and Jerusalem in 701, respectively, as well as inscriptions relating the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar’s conquests of Jerusalem in the latter years of Judah.
Over 100 ostraca inscribed in paleo-Hebrew script were found in the citadel of Arad. This is the largest and richest collection of inscriptions from the biblical period ever discovered in Israel. The letters are from all periods of the citadel’s existence, but most date to decades of the kingdom of Judah. Dates and several names of places in the Negev are mentioned, including Be’er Sheva.
Among the personal names are those of the priestly families Pashur and Meremoth, both mentioned in the Bible. (Jeremiah 20:1, Ezra 8:33) Some of the letters were addressed to the commander of the citadel of Arad, Eliashiv ben Ashiyahu, and deal with the distribution of bread, wine and oil to the soldiers serving in the fortresses of the Negev. Seals bearing the inscription “Eliashiv ben Ashiyahu” were also found.
Some of the commander’s letters were addressed to his superior and deal with the deteriorating security situation in the Negev. In one of them, he gives warning of an emergency and requests reinforcements to be sent to another citadel in the region to repulse an Edomite invasion. Also, in one of the letters, the “house of YHWH” is mentioned.
Skeptics of the Bible often stated that if the Bible were true then we should be able to find the ancient city of Ur. This city is where Abraham lived, located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers near the Persian Gulf. The skeptics had the upper hand in their argument until Ur was found in 1854 A.D. It was discovered that Ur was, at one time, a prosperous and powerful capital city and a major hub for trading. The city, it turns out, not only existed but was sophisticated and organized.
The excavations of Ur also produced a workshop were twelve different kinds of clothing were produced. Tax receipts were found that had been meticulously kept. The Ziggurat of Ur, the main structure for religious practices in the city, was built 400 years before the birth of Abraham. The discovery and excavation of Ur is another important confirmation that the Bible is accurate in its details.
The Genome Project, mapping human DNA gene, has conclusively proven that all human being are from the same race. That is, we all are ultimately descendants of the same couple. The Bible declares that all descended from Adam and Eve. Some science does catch up to the Biblical truth.
There is plenty of historical proof that the Bible is historically accurate. And the more these biblical proofs show up scientist will be humbled and begin to admit that they’re not always right.
Jay, thanks for pointing out how we have incorporated our Western individualism into our understanding of God and how to relate to Him. And how foreign that is from the very scriptures we purport to explain to others. It is the acme of pride to think that what I, in my intellect, can ferret out of an ancient book somehow approaches God’s revelation of himself to mankind. As you note, knowing God has never been an individual academic event. We are the body of Christ, and we need one another, for God has given revelation to all the parts of the body… even to those parts who tacitly think they are the brain…
I am very curious about the backward dating of an artifact that is found, I can see easily how we can reverse engineer time through genealogy that has been documented to place a date of an individual in a BC. format, but are there artifacts that have dates transcribed that use the format of a count down to Christ? If not then how is a date in BC format determined from the inscription? I guess a better way of asking would be what is used as a starting or ending date for any numerals identifying a date that would be inscribed on an artifact? What kind of calendar was in use in the time era that we identify as BC.
Charles, unless I am badly mistaken, some learned people closer to the time of the book’s origin has already attempted to make this book less complicated for people like you and me to understand. and if you don’t trust their findings, pray tell why would you trust those of today who have an agenda to set. I am certain I once read that Jay said why do we think we could do a better job than those closer to the time of happening. I get the feeling that the only thing I need to do to get some here to change their mind, is agree with them. I guess you might call it the Obama syndrome . Or reverse psychology .
Larry, I seem to recall that in Clarke’s Commentaries, he begins the discussion of many of the books by giving the dates. He does so by saying what year it was of this king, and what year it was of that king, etc. It has been awhile since I’ve read it but I think he even gives which year after which Olympic games and that other city games. That is one way that dates are related to the present. But the clencher is by correlating with astronomical observations. The Babylonians in particular kept very good records and they are the lynchpin by which the ancient world is dated. By putting all of this together, scholars have a pretty reliable idea of when things happened in relation to our times. Also,artifacts whose dates are verified by this means have been used to calibrate and check carbon dating.
Grace, that is a very thoughtful response. Thank you for the info. In watching the new Cosmos this weekend, it occurs to me that only the religious or scientific people that insist they are right in their understanding of nature or the Bible are the ones that are unhappy with other groups on the subject of origins. I think even Neil de Grasse went out on a limb a little too far with some of his statements, not necessarily on the science but his conclusions that the science voided the biblical perspective and that we must move beyond our old faith ideas. For me the opposite is true. My faith makes me more curious about how God made things.
Thank you, Jay, for some material which can be used to strengthen our faith.
Jay, unfortunately, the Church of Christ is currently so badly fractured it is hard to identify “The Church” and when you add in the various Christian Denominations the ability to identify “The Church” is further hidden. I suspect that all of us read the writings of various Christian authors but there is no mechanism to collect the thoughts contained in these writings into a coherent system of belief. If the Church of Christ can’t do this in our own denomination, what chance do we have of getting all of Christianity to converge on Christian thought much less scientific thought?
The Scientific community is becoming as badly fractured as the Christian community. Politics have always had a place within the scientific community but perhaps never more so than now. The chase for funding usually leads to satisfying a political ambition and usually there’s a money carrot out there for those who are so inclined. I guess what I am trying to say is the truth is out there but our civilization is more successful in chasing after political and monetary ambitions than the truth. I think this is “the truth” both within and outside of “the Church”. This is one reason I discontinued my activity as a engineering consultant after I retired… I came to the realization that my work was expected to fit within the bounds of what my employers wanted and expected me to produce. That expectation was not congruent with “the truth” sometimes.
Laymond observed, “…some learned people closer to the time of the book’s origin has already attempted to make this book less complicated for people like you and me to understand.” That certainly was kind of them, Laymond. If you could provide me with a few of their names, I could thank them better. Probably too much to ask to peek at the original overly-complicated versions. Shucks, what am I saying? I’m much too simple to understand anything beyond our current dumbed-down edition.
Doug,
Your point is conceded, but we can’t do better unless we realize what the ideal is.
Larry,
You might enjoy this post from Jesus Creed:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2014/06/09/paleography-and-carbon-14-dating/
Ancient writings, such as Bible manuscripts, are often dated by the style of handwriting, called paleography. Some have questioned this method, which often affirms a very early date for key Bible manuscripts. Recent Carbon 14 dating has confirmed the validity of the method.
Carbon 14 has been criticized by YE Creationists for artifacts pre Flood, due to the presumed changes in solar radiation, as I recall, but Carbon 14 isn’t used much earlier than that because the short half-life of Carbon 14. The radioisotopes don’t last more than a few thousands years.
Well Charles when they translated it from Hebrew into English it made my life less complicated, Just so happened I have been to busy trying to earn a living, to learn Hebrew or Greek . and not many in the crowd I run with had that much time on their hands either.
Jay,
I read the Jesus Creed reference and I saw nothing that claimed dating any objects older than 6000 years. The fact that Carbon 14 dating verified a close relationship to the expected date of the Papyri is interesting.
I also followed the link to look at those 10 largest craters, one thing that really caught my attention was the hole where a supposed object impacted was empty. What type of material could contain enough density or weight to impact the soil in this fashion then become non-existent? I mean someone spoke of the hole being equivilant to many tons of TNT, sounds like an explosion to me. Why would there be just crater walls outlining a small portion of the area? I would have thought that the body of material displaced by the impact would have been distributed in a huge diameter surrounding the impacted area, heavy material close to the edge but lighter material for a great distance. In other words many of these pictures contained no evidence of the displacement of soil. More like a Ice Cream scoop just carved out a hole and transposed the contents somewhere else.
If there was so much intense heat contained in the object that traveled through space that it totally burned up, why did not the earth cool enough of the material to leave a residue of the object to represent the shape of the crater of the material? Should this object if burned up have left a residue that could have been identified as something other than soil or rock of the earth?
Does this apply?
1 Corinthians 13: 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
Larry,
http://www.psi.edu/epo/explorecraters/background.htm describes the process of crater formation. The asteroid hits with such speed and force that an explosion occurs, making the crater much larger than the rock plummeting from space.
The best I can tell, the asteroid itself generally disintegrates from the heat — with metallic vapors being flung across vast distances. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/earth-biggest-crater_n_5239343.html
The asteroid that may have killed the dinosaurs (or not) left debris all over the world.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event#Evidence_for_impact
David,
I couldn’t agree more. 1 Cor 13:9 certainly declares that our knowledge of God is presently incomplete. This, of course, contradicts the notion that this statement ceased to apply with the coming of the completed NT canon, but that theory has never really made that much sense to me.
Jay in your own words, can you explain the mission of Jesus, and why his mission was successful, or not ?
Jay,
I agree with your assessment of 1 Cor. 13:9. That verse seems to be the linchpin for many of the distinctive characteristics of the late 19th up to mid 20th century church of Christ.
Reading 1 Corinthians 14 and noticing the length Paul goes to in explaining spiritual gifts and then noticing no caveat whatsoever from Paul during that whole chapter such as “these writings of course will pass away when that which is perfect will come.” to me is telling.
1 Cor. 13:9-10 is a poor foundation to dismiss God’s energies today in my opinion but a very solid one for maintaining a reactionary tradition. So which tradition of men shall we choose and what are the observable fruits?
It’s important to remember the early Church assembled the canon guided by what most closely matched the true faith by using the earliest liturgy ( i.e. an hour or so recitation of OT scripture mixed with hymns sung, Col 3:16) and the writings of the Apostolic fathers (not Augustine of Hippo, not Anselm, not Thomas Aquinas not Reuel Lemmons or Willard Collins or Rubel Shelley for that matter).
Why the Apostolic fathers? It wasn’t a blind tradition; it was because they had the Apostle’s teachings and pattern ringing in their ears. If you believe that the Holy Spirit guided them in the selection of books for inclusion and I do, who would be better to discriminate the four Gospels we have today from the 50 or so “gospels” floating around at the time than these Spirit guided church fathers or their writings? Who would we trust today to do this for us?
For pattern fetishists it’s also important to note that these early Christians were not so dense as to use this Canon self-defeatingly as their sole pattern. It was used in conjunction with that which gave it birth. It makes no sense at all to think that they assumed or actually historically used the Canon only as that which was perfect.
Jay you personally may find this guy makes your case admirably. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_A9sRf89Zc&index=1&list=PL9130BD86406FEA18
Jay, as long as you realize that you are a voice crying in the wilderness… cry on Brother!
As far as the completeness of our knowledge of God (Ist Cor 13:9), if we all take a close look at our lives, I suspect that we will see that the completeness of our personal knowledge of God might have changed quite a lot over our lifetimes. God continues to reveal Himself to us personally and I know that in my case, my ministry has changed considerably as a result. Whereas I once was only concerned with things that occurred within the confines of the Church building, I am now concerned more with things outside that building. I believe that is the result of a better understanding of God and what He wants from me. If God is still revealing Himself to us on a personal level, why not also on a corporate level?
Jay, While we may at times need to work together to properly interpret the text, I have seen most Churches of Christ collectively decide which doctrines were true and the “collective” royally missed the mark on several doctrines. There comes a time and a place where the individual must put their foot down and disagree with the interpretation of the group. Thank the Lord for Martin Luther who did not let the collective opinions dictate what he alone clearly saw in scripture. In the end I must decide for myself what the scripture teaches because in the end I stand alone before the Lord. It is a blessing that every individual can have a personal Bible, not a disadvantage.
So right Skip, but to do so would certainly cause you to be marked as a trouble maker and certainly not qualified to be an elder. Down here there are very few churches of Christ where Jay would be allowed to speak his beliefs and certainly not be allowed to teach.
In my opinion that is why he has this blog so anyone can sneak on here and hear other opinions not allowed in their churches.
AJ, the tragedy here is that I never see more than about 15 different people commenting on this blog. Can we prove a wider audience is being reached?
When I went to Bible College I was taught that we needed to study our Bibles “by ourselves and for ourselves.” In other words we didn’t need church leaders, or better yet, denominations spoon feeding us in what to believe. “Study to show yourself approved.” And I think in general that was a pretty good idea. We were to do diligent study and form our on conclusions. Not just accept what good brother so-in-so says. It was a liberating idea. The only problem is when you reach a conclusion that doesn’t fit in with the status quo, then what? You get black-balled and looked at as some heretic. So much for thinking outside the box.
Skip asked,
Absolutely. OIJ had about 19,000 unique visitors last month, with a total of 37,500 page views.
AJ wrote,
Pretty fair assessment. There are very few methods of getting the word of God’s grace to the conservative Churches. Obviously, I won’t be invited to speak or to print articles in the Gospel Advocate. The Christian Chronicle, while largely a very fine publication, only occasionally deals with the progressive/conservative divide. And even then, the magazine format greatly limits the discussion that can be had. And there just aren’t very many bookstores that carry progressive CoC books.
Hence, a blog.
A CoC doctrinal book will struggle to sell 2,000 copies. I sometimes have that many readers a day here. Blogging is vastly more effective, I think, than book publishing.
Wow, great work Jay!
Skip,
I agree that the institutional consensus can be wrong — even very, very wrong — the same is true of individuals as well. But Luther only became successful because others read him and contributed to the discussion. He was influenced by Erasmus (a loyal but dissenting Catholic) and Philip Melanchthon (his right hand man), and more broadly by Augustine and even Calvin. They read each other’s writings and did not interpret in an intellectual vacuum. Luther knew the Early Church Fathers and countless commentators who came later, such as Aquinas.
He took the time and trouble to learn the “tradition” — both the prevailing dominant view and the dissenting views — and then he reached a position. In fact, when he nailed his 95 Theses on the door of his church, he was intending to begin a discussion and debate, not to launch a revolution. But sometimes just asking the right questions opens minds to new truths.
In short, while Luther was a genius and a man of rare courage, his scriptural insights were built on the works of others, especially Augustine (and, obviously Paul). He did his homework and did not claim to be, as an individual, sufficient.
The Churches of Christ have a long history of editors and preachers declaring “truth” in utter ignorance of the interpretive history of the text. They applaud the courage and supposed individualism of Luther — but they don’t read Luther or even credit him with salvation. They don’t read the great commentators of this age or any age. Rather, they consider themselves fully qualify to damn and to save based on a very limited reading of their preacher-school notes as though the epitome of scriptural insight was achieved in the debates of the early 20th Century.
In short, we have a class of preachers/editors who wallow in shared ignorance, who urge their congregations to stay away from any writing other than conservative CoC writings, because they are “sound,” that is, endlessly repeating the same false, easily disproven arguments long made within their insular, closed-minded world.
How does a church member escape the mindset that we have only a few pre-approved questions with pre-approved answers? Well, they invite others to the conversation — not just progressive CoC bloggers but Wright and Hauerwas and Yoder and Gorman and Walton — not to mention Luther and Calvin and many others. It’s not that any of these is the final authority or always right — but they do ask entirely different questions and show us how very unaware conservative CoC theology is.
Doug,
Thanks. Voices crying in the wilderness have been known to shake a few things up.
As a professor of political science, my works is largely a critique of the Enlightenment, particularly the excessive rationalism and individualism it brought. Mr. Guin’s post began with a focus on the latter of these two evils—radical individualism (for further reading on this subject, I highly recommend J. Gresham Machen, particularly his Christianity and Liberalism).
Mr. Guin makes the point that modernity has infected our religion, specifically in our approach to hermeneutics. This assertion is uncomfortable for many of us because we’ve grown up in America, the land of rugged individualism. We emphasize Scriptures like Ezekiel 18, Philippians 2:10-12, and others that make the point of us standing as individuals before God in judgment. Without downplaying those texts, we would do well to pay closer attention to others than we have done in the past. The greatest command is to love one another; love enables us to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This principle should affect the way we give (Acts 2 and 4; II Cor. 8-9), worship (II Cor. 14, Heb. 10:24-25), and live (Phi. 2:1-5). The foregoing verses demonstrate clearly, to me at least, that Christianity does not mesh well with modern forms of individualism. I think most of us could agree on that.
Nonetheless, when it comes to interpreting Scripture, we can be incredibly individualistic (perhaps thinking the only alternative is Catholicism). We’re taught that anyone can read for himself and understand. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told that the Bible was written at a sixth grade reading level. If we all interpret for ourselves, we inevitably reach fragmented conclusions. I think one thing; you think another. We forget Paul’s plea that there be no divisions among us, that we be perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgment. What could that possibly mean?
Could the individualistic impulse to interpret for ourselves related to the reductionistic impulse to turn the Bible into a set of rules? After all, if the Bible is simply a legal code that tells me all the steps I need to follow in order to get to heaven, then wouldn’t it be unfair if it were too complicated for me to figure out on my own?
On a separate point, modernity brings us more than individualism. We also face unrestrained rationalism and positivism. Not all knowledge can be scientific knowledge. In fact, some things cannot be “known” at all; we can only hope and believe (yes, I know about John 8:32 and 17:17). We would do well not to pretend to know what can only be believed. This does not make us anti-intellectual. I think it is part of humility.
“We forget Paul’s plea that there be no divisions among us, that we be perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgment”.
Paul’s point was to merely call on the Corinthians to compose their schismatic differences. Not to come to a uniform position and stomp out any and all differing views but to completely snuff out the spirit of Eris.
I agree with you that we must objectively interpret scripture as it was meant to be read. Individualism can get in the way. But is All forms of individualism detrimental or only radical individualism?
Our lives, not teachings will bring us together better than anything else. The harder the life and the seeing of more hard things, the easier to feel and believe the same as others that have had similar experiences.
When I see men throw out their chests and start quoting, I usually ask if they have walked in the ones they are condemning shoes?
Many times feeling what is right is easier and more accurate than quoting it.
I wasn’t suggesting that Paul commanded us to be robots. As Madison wrote in Federalist 10, “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. … The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.” Diverse ideas will exist, but shouldn’t we have general agreement on the greater things?
I don’t pretend that this is easy. We often don’t even agree on what is truly fundamental. But as you say, individualism can get in the way. It’s quite difficult to separate what I believe is true from what I want to be true.
Moreover, I have little confidence in an individual’s ability to interpret correctly. I routinely work with students as they interpret the Constitution. It’s about 8,000 words long, written in English, and only around 225 years old. Nonetheless, there are enormous challenges in interpreting that document. The Bible is far more complicated. No matter how honest or intelligent, an individual needs help to interpret either document. Price appeared to be making this point when he referenced the Ethiopian Eunuch.
That said, I’ll admit that individualism has some positives. It respects the intrinsic worth of the person, contending that humans should not be used merely as means to an end. When I recognize that God create me in His image and care for me personally, it can help me understand that the same is true for others.
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis offered some helpful words on collectivism and individualism:
“I feel a strong desire to tell you—and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me—which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs—pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors.”
Jay there is more than one Eric reading your post. This one finds you humble and teachable. Qualities I’ve found to lead to deaper truth. It seems many times as you have said in the past it’s the appearant contradictions that really dug into lead us to higher truths and understandings. Jesus was quick to use His creation to point out Gods truths. Why should we not look there as well testing what we learn by His Word. PS I’m proof that there is someone still trying with a lot of help to understand the Bible.
Ed,
Thanks esp for the C S Lewis quote. As is so often the case, he nails it
I am a scientist and an engineer. I write and interpret technical documentation. I have long since had an issue with how we approach interpreting the bible. To reconcile all science proved or disproved with the claims of the bible may be the wrong approach as well. The bible makes supernatural claims from resurrection of the dead to natural disasters. If we must reconcile all these things to figure the best approach to looking at the bible then I would suggest that eliminates the need to have faith in the supernatural. The question we may ask is; are we attempting to reconcile the science of the day to find reasons to believe or not believe, because that is not a search for truth but rather the emotional security of being right. For example if we can’t scientifically prove how someone can be resurrected the only choice we have is to believe in faith that God is supernatural and can do things we can’t and won’t ever be able to explain. That said harmonizing secular history and modern science is not a bad exercise in determining reasons to believe (not proof). If it was all provable and knowable there would be no need for faith.
On another note it seems that the failure of trying to use one hermeneutic is tied to the pre-supposed ideas and culture and back ground of the people who suggest it. The idea that a literal interpretation is the only way is flawed. The idea that only figurative or narrative interpretations are needed is flawed. In fact very few of the western hermeneutics have revealing the nature of God as the underlying foundation. So if we want to be real honest with ourselves we should do a really good job at laying all pre-supposed ideas and questions aside. For instance many people have a question so they treat the bible like an engineering desk reference or ecclesiastical hand book and miss the major themes that occur over and over again that have nothing to do with the question in the first place which may be a bad question to begin with.