The precariousness of Christian truth

I am beginning to realize that my initial attraction to the thought of Rudolf Bultmann was almost exclusively spurred on by my radical skepticism about the historical reliability of the Bible. Bultmann’s insistence on the existential contemporaneity of Christ made real in the proclamation of the gospel is, I think, a tempting way out of dealing with the historical precariousness of the gospel accounts.

No matter how attractive it is to turn Christianity into a system of belief independent of historical events, I have come to believe that this is a profoundly problematic route to go in. Indeed it is far safer to seek a way to “ground” Christian truth independently of contingent and empirical propositions. However, the truth of the Christian faith is unavoidably tied up with the historical actuality of certain contingent, empirical events. And so, it makes perfect sense why conservative biblical scholars exist and why people like Bart Ehrman scare so many Christians. Frankly, I think most of conservative biblical scholarship is both remarkably fearful and usually rather delusional. But one can at least understand that what motivates these scholars, in part, is the conviction that history actually matters and has some bearing on the truth of the Christian faith. On this point, I think they are quite right. It is much safer for us to maintain the image of an eternal changeless God and avoid the reality that the truth of Christian convictions is dependent on certain historical events that, as Donald MacKinnon once put it, “could have been otherwise.”

David Burrell On Why Job Has Nothing to Say to the Problem of Suffering

I just discovered this new interesting looking book by David Burrell just released entitled Deconstructing Theodicy: Why Job Has Nothing to Say to the Puzzle of Suffering.

I pulled this blurb off the Brazos websites:

Maimonides called Job a “strange and wonderful book.” For many readers, “strange” might well suffice. Though Job has been characterized as a theodicy, to the sincere reader the book can fail to satisfy the soul’s longing for answers to the problem of suffering. Perhaps that in fact is the point of Job–there are no satisfactory propositional arguments for why people suffer.
In this compact-yet-rich volume, philosopher of religion David Burrell shows that Job actually deconstructs the theories of theodicy proposed by commentators over the centuries. This is seen in the fact that Job’s three friends themselves offer theodicies, but are rebuked in the end; whereas Job, who seeks only to speak to God, is granted his audience. Rather than providing an exegetical commentary, Burrell engages in theological and philosophical reflection on the major movements of the book. Deconstructing Theodicy also contains an interfaith perspective with the inclusion of a chapter by Islamic scholar A. H. Johns on the reading of the Job figure in the Koran. Burrell then goes on to examine the treatment of Job in four classical commentaries and finally explores Job’s contribution to faith and theology as an affirmation that God hears and heeds our cries of anguish.

Can We Prove the Resurrection?

Ben Meyers over at Faith and Theology has contributed a thoughtful post on “proofs” for the resurrection and why they are theologically misguided. It is well worth reading…

The Symbolic Jesus

I just read a review by Milton Moreland in the lastest edition of the Review of Biblical Literature. He reviews a book I never heard of but sounds fascinating. The book is written by William Arnal and it is called The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism and the Construction of Contemporary Identity. According to Moreland, the volume looks at the way “recent debates about the Jewish identity of Jesus actually inform the careful observer about issues related to contemporary identity.” Indeed, a common observation made by critics of historical Jesus work is that the Jesus uncovered tends to mirror the scholar.

Arnal argues that recent claims that some scholars have denied the the Jewish identity of Jesus are totally ungrounded. Instead, he finds these claims themselves to be worth looking into. As Morland puts it, “Since the Jewish identity of Jesus has not actually been questioned, then what is fueling the claim?” Arnal believes that these false claims are symbolically loaded, “consisting of issues of identity and self-definition: scholarly, political, religious, and cultural.” He suggests that the figure of Jesus has become a “symbol on which to project contemporary cultural debates.”

Arnal discusses the many varying reactions to the popular film by Mel Gibson, the Passion of the Christ. He explains that symbols are complicated and the “effects of cultural symbolism, the actual work symbols do as they are received and appropriated, is often indirect and non-linear.”

Although Arnal looks at those NT scholars who are explicitly anti-Semitic, he makes a more general observation that “Christian historical scholarship on Jesus and the gospels has, predictably, in the interests of Jesus’ unique genius, tended to emphasize the contrast between him and his environment.” He identifies this as a more covert form of denigration of the Judaism.

Interestingly, Arnal launches a critique on contemporary NT scholars N.T. Wright and E.P. Sanders. He asks why these scholars have accused other scholars of “producing a non-Jewish Jesus,” when there is no evidence that anyone has been arguing this.

In his third chapter entitled, “A Manufactured Controversy: Why the ‘Jewish Jesus’ is a Red Herring,” Arnal shows that scholars who have been the recipients of such attacks, such as Crossan, Horsley, Borg, and other Jesus Seminar cats, have never denied that Jesus was a Jew. Arnal argues that the problem has nothing to do with Jesus being Jewish, this is beyond question and so cannot be the real problem. Instead, he argues that the accusing scholars simply think “that his being a Jew is not being presented in the right way.” He suggests that the real problem lies in how we understand “Judaism.” He argues that the accusations being made are based on a “theoretically misguided” and anachronsitic” definition of Judaism, which sees it as a readily identifiable, unified, religious tradition.

According to Moreland, “Arnal is interested in the way that Jesus has been
“invoked as a cipher” for modern identity.” He goes on, “Regarding scholarly identity, Arnal argues that this recent debate about the Jewish identity of the historical Jesus is often a result of the desire of contemporary Anglophone scholars to distinguish themselves from the “theological agenda of Bultmannianism.” In order to distance themselves from the “Bulmannians” scholars basically create this caricature of those who think Jesus was not Jew (Crossan, Funk, etc.).

In Moreland’s words,

Arnal argues that for some scholars “Jesus the Jew . . .stands as the clearest possible indication that Christianity is not anti-Jewish, properly, and so is not implicated in the Holocaust” (50). The idea that Jesus was a particular type of
Jew—one who “concern[ed] himself with the Temple cultus and not only shows an
affinity to Judean Judaism but [was] actively engaged with it in Jerusalem itself (55)”—is important to modern political identity in as much as the identity of Jesus is symbolically linked to contemporary ideas about the state of Israel, Jerusalem, and the Jewish state…The traditionalist “Jewish Jesus” agenda is linked to a desire for a distinctive cultural identity and the rejection of“postmodernism.” Implicit in the desire to define ancient Judaism within very strict parameters is a wish to have “stability of culture” and “distinctiveness of cultural identity.” Arnal concludes that, “Here cultural distinctiveness and identity is being offered as a response and challenge in the face of conditions in which precisely these features of identity are becoming more and more questionable (71).”

Wow, when I read this review I got really excited! What wonderful and creative research! Evidently, the book is pretty short so perhaps I might have time to read it myself. There is so much rhetoric against historical Jesus work that it becomes overwhelming sometimes. Indeed, there are certainly theological cases to be made against the project, but as this book demonstrates the arguments used by conservatives are plagued with strawmen.

Beyond Fundamentalism

The late biblical scholar, James Barr, is best known for his demolishing of the linguistic fallacies of the so-called Biblical Theology movement in the 1960s. In The Semantics of Biblical Language Barr shows the lack of linguistic backing behind the assertions of the Biblical Theology movement. It truly is a wonderful book.

Barr is one of my favorite thinkers. In many ways, Barr got me “into” theology in the first place. He was an ardent critic of Brevard Childs’ “canonical approach” on the grounds of historical-criticism. When I spent most of my time reading biblical scholarship, I read almost everything Barr ever wrote. His volume on Christian fundamentalism remains one of the best introductions to the subject from a biblical critic’s perspective. Barr cared very deeply about the future of Christianity and saw fundamentalism as a major issue in the contemporary church. From a pastoral perspective he wrote Beyond Fundamentalism, which is a serious attempt at helping people “escape” from the pitfalls of fundamentalism.

In terms of scholarship, Barr never failed to produce wonderful and ground-breaking work. Late in his life he wrote a wonderful introduction to the major currents in biblical theology called The Concept of Biblical Theology.

Barr also presented the Gifford Lectures in 1991 and published them in a book called Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. In his lectures Barr argues that the Bible itself supports and utilizes a what could be called natural theology.

I’d recommend the work of James Barr to anyone because he is just a joy to read. He is brilliant writer and is one of the most hilarious authors I’ve ever read. It is not common for biblical scholars to be funny, but Barr certainly is.

His book Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism is an extremely helpful work on the authority of Scripture.

James Barr was a scot who at the end of his life lived in Nashville where he was Professor Emeritus at Vanderbilt. I always wanted to go down to Nashville to visit him, but never got the chance. He died almost a year ago at the age of 82.

A Review of Hauerwas’ Commentary on Matthew

Stanley Hauerwas has recently published a “theological commentary” on Matthew with Brazos Press. I bought it a few weeks ago and quickly read it. I am always skeptical of “theological commentaries” or “theological reflections on the Bible” for they are often either shallow theologically or historically. Of course, the problem of a biblical scholar writing a theological commentary is that usually he or she fails to have adequate theological training. The reverse is true for the theologian who though may be theologically articulate, has little training in the biblical languages, textual-criticism, or any of the other historical-critical methods. The reality is that this is the natural consequence of specialization. As an avid reader of Hauerwas and a student of the historical-critical method I was particularly interested in this commentary. The following is my review of the book:

Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006.

In recent centuries the task of writing biblical commentaries has almost exclusively been left in the hands of “the experts.” Due to the ever-increasing specialization of the theological disciplines and the high value placed on the pursuit of uncovering the “truth” via the utilization of modern historical-critical methods, biblical scholars have found themselves holding (even if inadvertently) a virtual monopoly on the content and nature of the Bible. To be sure, the recognition that a great historical wedge exists between the first century and the present day is nothing new, but the belief that truth about God can be known only if Christian convictions are disentangled from our reading of the biblical text, surely is. Of course, the “hijacking” of the Bible by disinterested biblical scholars has not gone on without a great deal of protest. Indeed, many theologians and biblical scholars alike have pointed out the “bankruptcy of the historical criticism.” However, many of the recent attempts to read the Bible both historically and theologically have failed to do either justice. As a result of specialization and the disinterested nature inherent in historical-critical methods, many biblical scholars have lost the ability to couple their historical findings with useful theological insight. On the other side of the fence, “like stroke victims,” theologians have forgotten the skills of careful interpretation.

The editors of the “Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible” series were not unaware of this dilemma, but they have nonetheless taken the risk to, once again, invite theologians to reflect on the Bible, not as disinterested critics but as theologians. Perhaps an even greater risk was taken when the series editors asked Stanley Hauerwas to write the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, for in his own words, “few could be as ill prepared as I was for this task”(18). No doubt reflecting the feelings of many theologians Hauerwas laments in the preface of Matthew, “…most of the habits that come with being a theologian in modernity do not help us know how to write a theological commentary”(18). Nevertheless, true to form, Hauerwas rises to the challenge bringing his theological creativity and theo-political critique to every page of this commentary.

Unlike modern historical-critical commentaries, Hauerwas’ Matthew is not concerned about historical questions. In fact, he does not even address basic questions regarding authorship, origin, or the date of the Gospel. Instead, Hauerwas approaches the gospel as a text of the church that witnesses to the revelation who is Jesus Christ. He does not attempt to get “behind” the text or get in the mind of the author in order to find the “real” or “historical” Jesus. Rather, Hauerwas is comfortable working with the final form of the text. Because Matthew wrote in order to “make us disciples of Christ” we must in obedience “submit to Matthew’s discipline”(19). Thus, Hauerwas’ first goal is to retell the story faithfully by writing “with” the author of Matthew.While retelling the narrative first told by Matthew, Hauerwas seeks to script “our lives into the story.” Of course, by ‘our lives’ Hauerwas is referring to himself along with his foreseen audience, that is, Christians living in the United States. In his many books and articles Hauerwas has decried what he perceives as “the accommodation of the church to America,” or what his mentor John Howard Yoder referred to as “Constantinianism.” This commentary is no different; Hauerwas refuses to ignore the “privatization” of Christianity in the United States and the need for a more truthful and faithful politics. He calls for nothing less than the complete renunciation of worldly politics to be replaced by the politics of the kingdom of God. Hauerwas demonstrates that the politics of Jesus runs counter to the politics of the world. He points out that the United States is not an exception to the politics that defines the nation-states of the world, for all states secure power over others through the use of violence. For Hauerwas then, the message of Jesus as outlined by the Sermon on the Mount “is not a list of requirements, but rather a description of the life of a people gathered by and around Jesus” (61).

In the commentary Hauerwas’ recent interest in the life and work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is also evident. Threaded throughout the work are dozens of quotes from Bonhoeffer. Hauerwas is convinced by Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on the importance of “truthful speech” and the visibility of the church. In his comments on Matthew chapter five Hauerwas talks about what it means for Christians to be the salt and light of the world. He agrees with Bonhoeffer that the church must become a people capable of truthful speech, which must always be “as visible as light in the night, as a mountain in the flatland” (63). Truthful speech is not a private affair; for Christians, visibility means nothing less than participation in an alternative politics: one that challenges the politics of death by living faithfully and obediently according to the Beatitudes.

If it has not yet become obvious, Hauerwas’ Matthew is thoroughly theological. He has not written a traditional verse-by-verse commentary. Instead, this book is much more like reading a novel. Hauerwas moves almost seamlessly from description and narrative to constructive and prescriptive theological reflections for today’s church confronted by globalized consumerism. Although he wants to be faithful to the text of Matthew, he is not overly concerned about the “intended meaning of the author” or historical context. He is looking for how the narrative told by Matthew challenges our modern assumptions about the truthfulness of democracy and liberal individualism. He does not try to adapt the content of Matthew to our new historical context; rather he points the church back to the assumptions of Matthew and the early church – that Jesus is the Son of God.Hauerwas does not state his methodology, and if there is a consistent approach, it is difficult for this reviewer to discern. At times, one wonders whether Hauerwas simply does not care about the results of historical biblical scholarship or whether he is just ignorant. At the beginning of his commentary, for instance, Hauerwas talks about the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew: “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ.” He seems to think that Matthew has in mind the actual book of Genesis or at least the origins of humanity. It becomes clear that Hauerwas thinks this way because he makes certain assumptions about Matthew’s Christology. Whereas most modern critical scholarship has argued that Matthew has a “low” or underdeveloped Christology that would have no concept of a pre-existent Jesus, Hauerwas seems to presuppose that Matthew would have affirmed the traditional creeds of the church. Once again, it is difficult to know whether Hauerwas is ignorant of scholarship on this issue, or whether he just does not care. After all, he is writing a theological commentary that attempts to bring Christian convictions to the text.

Despite the existence of a few more historical errors like the one above, Hauerwas generally manages to be faithful to the content of Matthew. His lack of historical commentary actually allows more space for theological reflection on the narrative of Matthew, something which Hauerwas does exceptionally well. Surely a better understanding of modern research on the subject could have strengthened this commentary, but this does not take away from the theological insights of the commentary. In the tradition of Yoder, Hauerwas helps to shed light on the social and political significance of the gospel. Furthermore, he reshapes our concepts and assumptions about what is private and what is public about faith. Above all, Hauerwas wants to point out that the church is called to a higher standard of speech and living. In order to be faithful to Jesus he calls the church to become better witnesses to the kingdom of heaven by speaking truth and the peace of God in a world that secures kingdoms through deceit and violence.

The Latest From Our Anonymous Commentator (and a response from yours truly!)

Anonymous said…

What you are neglecting to mention is that all of your hermeneutics are flawed.

Far better to present your opinions with the caveat…’My interpretation is…’ and you might want to add…’at this point in my life’…for trust me it will CHANGE because life is change.

The written word can augment hidden hubris, and this is the patronizing and defensive tone that seems to underline rebuttals to Mack’s more deferential postings…

I will remain anonymous. I am well read, fearful of the aggression of insistent post-moderns and de-constructionists.

It sounds like I’m a bit older than you and if you’d like me to take you seriously, you would learn to speak with more humility and less authority. Nobody listens to bullies unless coerced. Are these entries bullying? I’d ask you to re-read them and let me know.

If you don’t think so, I will leave you to your ivory tower posturing.

Ry’s response:

1. If you think an individual’s “hermeneutic” is flawed, please clearly indicate why.
2. No one has made the claim that views don’t change.
3. I take it for granted that when someone expresses an opinion that that is that persons opinion. I find it redundant to use “the caveat…’My interpretation is…’” or “‘at this point in my life’” for these simply point out the obvious.
4. Indeed, “the written word can augment hidden hubris” and that is why we dialogue…for clarity!
5. You state, “I am well read, fearful of the aggression of insistent post-moderns and de-constructionists.” I’m not sure how these two clauses fit together. I’m glad to know that you have read a lot. As far as I know, no one has made any comment related to postmodernism or deconstructionism, which makes this comment particularly curious. For the sake of clarification, could you point out something that has been said that suggests that someone is a “post-modern” and a “de-constructionist.”?
6. You have entered our conversation. We have not entered yours. You have purposely not revealed to us your name or your views on the subjects that have been addressed. With these things in mind, why is it that you think that we are concerned about you taking us seriously? I have you given you the benefit of the doubt, by responding to everyone of your comments and dealing with each concern individually. I have taken you seriously not because of your age, your humility, how many books you’ve read, or the eloquence of your language. I have taken you seriously because you are a human being, created in the image of God. I have taken you seriously because I believe that conversations about faith and theology are an important part of being human. If you continue to make ad hominem remarks that lack substance, then I will continue to respond. Not because I am trying to place myself above the rest, but because I am trying to be faithful to the call of Jesus Christ.

Mack

Mack said…
I’ve been away for a while and glad to see so many aboard.

There are lots of ideas here to tackle, but here are a few thoughts.

First, in fairness, the ‘violence’ I was refering to was in reference to the discussion on reconciliation (was there divine punishment from which mankind needed salvation?), and not in reference to just-war, pacifism, etc, as interesting as that discussion is.

Next, the issue I’d like to address goes to EJ, Halden, and Ry’s comments. Halden and Ry suggest that we need to reinterpret the OT using Jesus as our guide. They suggest that we pick and choose through the texts to understand God’s intent. It sure sounds lovely and inspired to say, “The criterion by which we make these choices must take the person of Jesus and his teachings as the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice,” but practically speaking, if we are picking and choosing which texts we will follow, and which one’s we can disqualify as being only cultural nuances, and if we are interpreting Jesus’ teachings, even corporately, are we not simply re-writing Christianity? Ry even said, “history shows us that many times humans use their gods for self-interested… ends”. What stops the inspired person from re-interpreting Jesus’ teachings and making these teachings mean whatever they want, to satisfy their own self-interested ends? History shows that this happens and that it is dangerous. I would agree with Jonathan that rejecting some parts of the Bible, or only accepting some parts, is a precarious move. Our own perceptions of right or wrong (cultural, religious, moral) will inevitably inform our interpretation. And before very long Christianity means nothing more than what we want it to mean.

As such, and as much as I hate to say it, I would suggest that the integrity of Christianity as a religion relies on an adherence to all the texts. If one chooses not to agree with all parts of the texts, that’s fine, but one must know that you cannot belong to mainstream ‘Christianity’ and should actually question whether it is appropriate to still be labelled ‘a Christian.’

Mack said… and A Response from Ry

We’ve been having a great discussion on the authority of the Bible in Christianity and hermeneutics. Please feel free to jump on in!

Mack said…
the issue I’d like to address goes to EJ, Halden, and Ry’s comments. Halden and Ry suggest that we need to reinterpret the OT using Jesus as our guide. They suggest that we pick and choose through the texts to understand God’s intent. It sure sounds lovely and inspired to say, “The criterion by which we make these choices must take the person of Jesus and his teachings as the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice,” but practically speaking, if we are picking and choosing which texts we will follow, and which one’s we can disqualify as being only cultural nuances, and if we are interpreting Jesus’ teachings, even corporately, are we not simply re-writing Christianity? Ry even said, “history shows us that many times humans use their gods for self-interested… ends”. What stops the inspired person from re-interpreting Jesus’ teachings and making these teachings mean whatever they want, to satisfy their own self-interested ends? History shows that this happens and that it is dangerous. I would agree with Jonathan that rejecting some parts of the Bible, or only accepting some parts, is a precarious move. Our own perceptions of right or wrong (cultural, religious, moral) will inevitably inform our interpretation. And before very long Christianity means nothing more than what we want it to mean.

As such, and as much as I hate to say it, I would suggest that the integrity of Christianity as a religion relies on an adherence to all the texts. If one chooses not to agree with all parts of the texts, that’s fine, but one must know that you cannot belong to mainstream ‘Christianity’ and should actually question whether it is appropriate to still be labelled ‘a Christian.’

In response to Mack:

First off, there is no way to stop “our own perceptions of right or wrong (cultural, religious,moral)” from informing our interpretation. We will inevitably interpret scripture in different ways, precisely because we’ve been formed by different experiences. There is a reason why the poor in Latin America interpret scripture with radically different eyes than the rich in the U.S. or Canada. There is no “objective” reading of the biblical text and it is theologically questionable that objectivity ought to be our main goal. The biblical authors constantly reinterpret scripture to support their own viewpoint. Their interpretations are far from the original literal meaning of the text.

Second, the biblical text does not point to itself, but rather to a person, a life, and an event: Jesus the Christ. Jesus as God’s self-revelation is the authority for Christian theology, not the Bible. If we give authority to the Bible, it leads us to Jesus.

Third, no Christian has ever “adhered” to all the texts. Indeed, Christianity has rarely shown integrity, but not because it has lost a view of scriptural authority or inspiriation. Integrity is lost when people compromise their faith in God by creating idols to worship, such as consumerism, individualism, and yes, even biblicism.

Fourth, my views on scriptural authority may seem outside of mainstream Christianity and you may think I am not a Christian. To this, I have no response.

Thanks,
Ry

"A Response to Mack" from E.J. Zufelt

Interesting questions Mack. I would like to address the question about the violence of God in the Old Testament. The first place that any discussion about God’s character has to start is the source of the evidence for the claims that are being forwarded. In the case of your claim, or the claim that I believe you are making, that God, although it may be difficult to understand or accept, is violent (or at least condones and commands violent acts), I see the use of the Old Testament as the source of your evidence.

You claim that the Old Testament provides evidence that God in some way supports or condones violence. I will accept without argument the manifold passagess in the Old Testament where God is said to look the other way when violent acts are carried out, and the more numerous accounts of God directly condoning or commanding violent acts. I don’t believe that for our current purposes we need to get into the symantics of the meaning of violence, I believe that we can all agree on the above. My question, in responce to yours, is: what authority do you give the Old Testament as a whole, the passages refering to violence aside, in providing evidence for the character of God? The very least that we can reasonably say about the Old Testament (note the use of “least”) is that it is a collection of historical documents, whose historical validity is confirmed through several manuscript sources, and that testify to the beliefs and feelings of their authors, or perhaps even the culture of their time. If you are going to forward a more specific claim regarding the usefulness of the Old Testament documents for providing evidence of the character of God, something that I expect you would do of few, if any, other historical documents, you will first need to provide evidence that supports your claim that the Old Testament be used in this way.