Exegesis of Culture

I just started a book by David Wells called Above All Earthly Powers. I've only read the introduction so far, but I'm pushing this book forward on my reading priority based on what I read so far. This simple quote hit me like a ton of bricks tonight:

...theology, if it is true to its own nature, must be missiological in its intent. Its task is not only to understand the nature of biblical truth but also to ask how that truth addresses the issues of the day

I realized recently that I have spent a lot of time, energy and even money developing my skills at interpreting and understanding biblical truths and virtually no time/energy/money on understanding our culture. That is hyperbolic, but by comparison, I've invested nothing in exegesis of the culture.

One the challeges I face in this is knowing who speaks for the culture, specifically the culture of the college student on IU's campus. The culture seems so splintered, so fragmented that it seems impossible to find someone who speaks for the whole. Who are the poets expressing the concerns, hopes, fears and loves of the culture?

Newish CD

I've had this CD for some time now, but I think I bought it at a time when I bought several others and it got a little lost in the shuffle. I don't know how that happened, because this one by Daniel Renstrom stands heads and shoulders above the rest I bought recently. It is short, and it leaves me wanting more - a lot more. Check out the CD Adore and Tremble and listen to Daniel's music on his myspace page.

Context and Interpretation, the Laodicean church

Yesterday I expressed some concern over interpreting passages of Scripture in light of very specific and localized contexts. Believe it or not, it matters not only in how we interpret but also what and how we apply Scripture. Let me use a passage I've become quite familiar with as an example.

In Revelation 3 Jesus threatens to spit the Laodicean church out of his mouth because they are lukewarm. Not a pretty picture. In fact, the picture that is painted of Laodicea is uniquely bad - they are the only church in Revelation 2-3 to which Jesus does have some word of praise. But what does it mean that the church is lukewarm?

The traditional interpretation was that Jesus wished the church was either passionately for him (hot) or entirely indifferent in unbelief (cold). Frankly, this interpretation shipwrecks on the fact that in the passage, both cold and hot are cast in a positive light (Jesus' wishes they were either cold or hot, implying either is a good option). This could hardly be the case if cold meant indifferent unbelief. Also, the context doesn't seem to favor this interpretation because the imagery is of Jesus drinking the hot and cold water and spitting out the lukewarm water. The therapeutic value of the hot springs in Hierapolis was gained from bathing in them, not drinking them (it was actually deemed undrinkable).

Other interpreters connected this criticism of lukewarmness with the Laodicean water supply which was piped in via aqueduct from a distance of six miles from the south. When the water reached the city it would be neither hot (if taken from a hot spring) nor cold (if taken from a cold spring). This position is strengthened by the existence of well known hot spring that were of therapeutic value in the city of Hierapolis, just to the north of Laodicea. Also, there were refreshing cold spring is the city of Colossea just to south. Sadly, the Laodiceans had neither, but were forced to drink lukewarm water. Based on this interpretation amounts to calling the Laodicean church useless. They are neither therapeutic nor refreshing, and Jesus wishes they'd be one or the other because then they'd at least be good for something.

This interpretation, however, also suffers some serious flaws. First, there is no indication that the Laodicean water supply was deemed unfit or even unpleasant to drink based on the temperature of it (it was very hard - see picture of the calcification on the aqueducts). In fact, based on several pieces of archaeological evidence, the water was deemed "sweet" and of "good complexion". Strabo, and ancient geographer/tour guide actually seems to have preferred the water of Laodice to that of Hierapolis, referring to Laodicea's as 'drinkable' (implying Hierapolis' was not). Second, many cities got their water from an aqueduct system, including the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum and Sardis. Its a leap to suggest that the Laodicean water was someone more lukewarm than these other cities water.

Another knock against this interpretation is that it is so tied to the local context that only those who lived in or had visited Laodicea would understand the message. That truly does undermines the clarity and perpescuity of Scripture.

There is a better interpretation that has been offered. It is based on cultural norms that were much more common and even common today. Some have suggested that Jesus' words refer to the very common practice of drinking hot drinks in the winter and cold drinks in the summer. Huh, imagine that - Jesus drawing imagery from every day life. There is actually quite detailed instructions from New Testament times (and even earlier) for how to heat and cool wine for serving, depending on the temperature. When wine wasn't the drink, one would drink hot or cold water. Interestingly, Plato (4th century BC) even comments on this, "when thirst is accompanied by heat, then the desire is for a cold drink; or, if the thirst is accompanied by cold, then the desire is for a hot drink".

Ok, so now to the so what. If we interpret Jesus' words in light of common everyday drinking practices, what does it mean? What is Jesus condemning the Laodicean church for exactly? in essence, they are being condemned for blending in to the crowd. Hot drinks are desirable on cold days because the stand in stark contrast to the environment. Cold drinks on hot days for the same reason. The Laodiceans didn't stand out from the culture in any significant way, so they were not at all refreshing. They were too worldly to be of any good to the world.

Understood in this light, this passage indeed does have a lot to say to the modern church, especially in the west. George Barna has said that never before have so many people professed to be Christians and never before has it made so little difference. Why? Because we who profess Christ don't look or act any differently. In a lecture I heard him sum up the situation that if you followed your average church going evangelical around six days out of a week, you'd see little to no difference between them and their secular neighbors.

Scary stuff. The threat to the Laodicean church, and to every other lukewarm church, is threatening indeed. Jesus will not tolerate in cognito Christian churches.

hermeneutics and theology in conflict

Recently I finished up a class in NT Cities. It certainly wasn't the most provocative class I've ever taken - not too much controversial stuff to get worked up about. Yet, one of the issues we discussed on the first day of class back in March has kept coming back to me.

As evangelicals, most of us are sold on the Grammatical-Historical method of interpreting the Bible. What do the words mean and specifically what did they mean to their original author and audience. So, for example, when we study the book of Revelation, we ask questions like "who would first century Christians thought of when they read John's comments about Babylon? Would the apocalyptic genre have changed how they approached such images?" From those questions, and more like them, we distill principles that can then be applied to us and our context.

But, interpreting your Bibles in this way requires us to know something of first century culture, sometime quite a lot about first century culture. And that is where the rub with our theology comes in. Most evangelicals would strongly affirm the clarity and perpescuity of Scripture - "the message of the Scriptures can be understood by the great masses of people who wish to understand it. God’s Word has been revealed in such a way that everyone, who is willing, can understand it." Westminster states the doctrine a little more carefully, "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: (2 Pet. 3:16) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Ps. 119:105,130)" (Westminster 1.7).

Do you see the rub? In our hermeneutic we say you need to know about 1st century culture, which includes Greek, Roman, Jewish and sometimes Asian cultures. But in our theology we state that anyone, including those who don't know anything about these cultures can read and understand their Bibles.

What is the solution? In my humble opinion, the solution is found in not pressing either too far - not pushing our hermeneutical principles too far and not pushing the doctrine of the perpescuity of Scripture too far either.

I've seen examples of the Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic taken to far. Take the short letter to Laodicea found in the book of Revelation for example. Many commentaries interpret Jesus' harsh words to the city, words about being 'lukewarm' and 'poor, blind, and naked', in light of the characteristics of that ancient city in Asia Minor. The city was a rich city, so rich it recovered from a major earthquake on its own without the help of Rome. The city, quite possible, hosted a medical school and produced and eye salve. Also, the city was famous for its soft black wool. Finally, the city's water was supplied from an aqueduct system that brought it in from the springs six miles to the south.

All of this has lead commentaries to interpret Jesus' words in Revelation 3 as words specifically spoken into the Laodicean context. Problem? I think so. Several. First, the city wasn't that unique. It was wealthy, but other cities surpassed it in wealth. It had a medical school, so did other cities, even some with ophthalmology schools. It was famous for its raven black wool and was offered white garments instead; however, other churches in other cities were also offered white garments. Laodicea wasn't so unique. Secondly, and more importantly, if Jesus' words were so tied to the local context, how would a reader from Thessalonica or Rome be able to understand the message even if they lived in the same time period? Moreover, how would someone separated by centuries and thousands of miles be able to fully understand Jesus' condemning words? In my opinion, this is an example of taking the quest for context too far.

But, on the other hand, we can also overemphasize the clarity/perpescuity of Scripture. For example, think about the Last Supper as recorded in the Gospels, or Paul's commentary on the meal in 1 Corinthians 11. In both one would have to have some understanding of what bread and wine are. But I've heard stories from missionaries in Indonesia who have tried to teach this passage to people who have never seen or tasted bread or wine. This passage would obviously not be very clear to them. These examples could be repeated a thousand times over. One more - all of us, to comprehend the message of Scripture need to know what crucifixion means. It's not a practice common today, not one any of has ever seen. It's a practice specific to the time, but we need to understand it if the message of the New Testament is to be understood clearly.

How do we hold these things, the perpescuity of Scripture and the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic, in proper balance. First, I'm weary of overly specific appeals to local contexts. I believe we should be looking for connections with first century contexts not in local cities, but in the larger Greco-Roman world. If New Testament writers were appealing to and writing to the larger context, there message would be more readily understood, and beneficial, to the wider Christian community. Second, the doctrine of the perpescuity of Scripture is more true the closer our context is to the context of author/first reader.

Does this matter? What does it mean for how I interpret the Bible? I'll come back to that tomorrow and share what I learned from my study of Laodicea.

A Christian Voters Guide

This blog has been on hiatus since January. Time to break the silence, for those five of you that read. Over the past few months I've started several profound posts, just couldn't finish them. But since we here in Indiana go to the polls tomorrow (though I know some have already gone) I thought I'd buckle down and actually finish one.

I'm sure you've seen 'Christian Voter Guides' before. That's not what I'm offering. I'm actually just writing to encourage you to use your 'internal guide' when voting, aka your conscience. Last night as we watched the news I was informed that 70% of Americans say the economy is the number one voting issue for them right now. Wow, wallets do speak loudly don't they.

With so many issues at stake, issues of great moral importance - like prolife/prochoice, war, environmental issues, issues of US foreign policy, etc. - we don't care. We want more money in our pockets so we can live more comfortably. Again, I don't want to suggest that their aren't moral issues at stake in how one manages the economy, but that's not most of the 70% see. They see promises, real or merely political, about lowering taxes, securing jobs, bringing the price of gas to under $500 per tank, etc., and people say, yeah I want that.

Again, please don't misunderstand me. Money is important. I like having it and don't like being without it. However, in reality, most of us aren't going without - without necessities. Maybe we've had to tighten our belts a little and buy less luxuries, but most of us aren't 'suffering ' - it bothers me to hear those in the media talk about the suffering middle class.

So my closing words are simple - vote your conscience, not your wallet. Don't ask, what will make me more comfortable, but what is right and good. And, I believe, when asking that question, Christians can and will arrive at different conclusions. But at least lets ask the right questions.