False Dichotomies and the Bible

False dichotomies are everywhere! Am I fat or ugly? Pick one (but keep it to yourself). More seriously, some want to argue that the church must be loving, not concerned with orthodoxy. Which would you pick if you had too - love or orthodoxy? Isn't there a middle ground that is more biblical?

When it comes to biblical interpretation false dichotomies also plague the discussion. Some argue that God has revealed himself in his mighty acts of history, not the specific words of the Bible (thus the word are undervalued and somewhat unimportant). Other argue God has revealed himself in the words of the Bible, not in the acts of history (thus the historicity of the events are undervalued and unimportant). Which would you choose - did God reveal himself in the words of the Bible or in the events?

Let me relieve the tension now - you don't have to choose! The Bible is not only a record of God's mighty acts, it is one of his mighty acts. It doesn't just tell us of his redemptive missions, it's a part of his redemptive mission. In fact, the Bible isn't just Word, as though it were inactive and powerless, it is action. When God speaks, he acts.

Here is how V. Phillips Long says it in his The Art of Biblical History:
"[quoting Morgan] 'it is quite consistent to claim that divine Providence both directed events in a certain way in Israel's history and controlled the traditions that grew up to interpret those events in such an unerring way that they were correctly interpreted: one can, that is, consistently locate revelation in both events and traditions' . . . This seems to me to be the most promising approach - divine revelation should be located in both historical events and the interpretive word with mediates these events to us . . . For some time now the hermeneutic pendulum in biblical studies has continued to swing back and forth between the two poles of event and word. . . What is needed, I would argue, is to bring the pendulum to a halt in the middle, where it does not lose touch with either historical event or interpretive word."

He then concludes:
"God, the 'lord of history'; the prophet, His 'qualified interpreter'; the result: authoritative testimony to event through word."

Every word of the Bible is an act of God!

Song of the Week

This isn't a song that is real popular, but I love it. It's called the Martyr's Song (Todd Agnew), however, the imagery of God's delight in welcoming his saints home is not only applicable to martyrs, but to all the saints: "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints" (Psalms 116:15, ESV). Ted Dekker makes this imagery incredible vivid in The Circle Trilogy (Black/Red/White). I haven't liked anything else Dekker has written, but loved the Circle Trilogy (great pictures of sin, grace, redemption and God's joy).

Two Great Hits from Jake

These hits came in two different games, but he's turned into quite a little hitter! He's six, playing in the 7-8 yr. old league and doing well. Hopefully, I'll be able to post some Caleb highlights soon.

McCormick's Creek

What an awesome day! The boys and I headed out to McCormick's Creek State Park at 9:30 this morning. We hiked, watched dragonflies, played in the creek, saw a whitetail deer, a few small fish and scores of minnows, had a picnic lunch, played on the playground and made it home in time for naps. That's my kind of day!

Beware of Over Interpreting

I'm not sure if it's a women thing or what, but I know Lynn has a propensity to over analyze everything I say - especially when we're in punchy moods. In those times, my words are parsed, my tone is analyzed, and what is don't say is almost as important as what I do say. Frustrating (and I know I'll get in trouble if Lynn reads this).

I wonder how the biblical authors would react if they had the chance to sit in on a Greek class in seminary, or read one of those voluminous commentaries that have hundreds of pages of footnotes about possible (read obscure) meanings. I finished reading Moises Silva's very refreshing book God, Language and Scripture. It was refreshing because one of his main concerns is the over-interpretation of Scripture. He provides endless, and often humorous examples of how texts can be over-interpreted.

One of the common mistakes is focusing on how words came to mean what the do (etymology, etc.) and reading that history of meaning into the text. For example, the word 'gossip' comes from the word 'godsip' and referred, originally, to the context of godparents and the family 'chatter' associated with christening events. Obviously, when we speak of gossip columns, celebrity gossip, etc., that original meaning isn't in mind at all. We don't import all that history into the choice and use of our words, nor did the biblical authors. One example of this is the commonly held notion that 'ecclesia' (or 'ekklesia') means 'called out ones'. It is formed from two root words - 'ek', which can mean 'out', and 'kaleo', which can mean 'to call'. Sounds straightforward - kinda like a German word, say Fahrvergnügen, means 'driving enjoyment'. However, while Greek is a language that compounds words easily, it's a mistake to view all meanings as so transparent. After all, butterfly in English doesn't meant 'butter that flies'. The word ekklesia was a secular word that simply meant assembly (as is evident from secular Greek writings and from the Bible; see Acts 19:32, 39). Such over-interpretation is common in some circles, and we can all fall into that trap if we have a word study bible or a even just a dictionary! We don't need to be so cute with our interpretation of Scripture.

What's my point? I am deeply concerned about two trends in Biblical interpretation. One, that people can bend a text to mean whatever they want it to mean (argggh. The rise of 'specialty' study bibles is a plague! Does the Bible mean something different for men, for women, for addicts, for teens, for those from an African heritage, for women of color - all available at Barnes and Noble). My second concern is that biblical interpretation becomes the task of the 'professionals'. The reformation snatched the Bible out of the hands of the elites (churchmen) and put it in the hands of the lay people. The reformers articulated the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture, etc. Yet, it seems like we are increasingly in danger of putting the Bible back into the hands of the elites - now the Bible scholars.

What I loved about Silva's book was that he argued for a common sense, big picture approach to the interpretation of the Bible. While not completely discounting the importance of historical research into the development of language, the importance of precision, etc, he highlights the importance of context and for a 'common sense approach' to reading and interpreting the Bible, especially the original languages.