Styrofoam Theology: Part 4- The Bible
Oct 15th, 2009 by John
As a pastor trained in some of our best evangelical institutions–Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary–you can bet that I was taught emphatically about the Bible. My training was during the years that “expository preaching” was elbowing out all other forms of sermonizing. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards, as two examples, would not have been called to any pulpits I was familiar with because they did not teach the Bible book by book, verse by verse.
One of the givens about the Bible is its alienness to us. I mean, first year Bible college students learn about the Bible’s formation: written over millennia in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (with a Hittite and Persian term here and there), in Ancient Near Eastern cultures as foreign to USAmericans as Islamic jihadists, and by authors with both low and high literary skills. Yes, all of this formation was under the supervision of the Holy Spirit of God. For the Bible to be “yes, that’s the Book for me…,” one must cross massive language and culture chasms, geographical and temporal chasms, genre and thought-form chasms. I mean, who today names their kid Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and why would a personal name like that even exist? What would be his nickname? Shallie or Hash or Baz?
What’s up with no mention whatsoever of Sadducees and Pharisees in the Old Testament, yet when you start the New Testament, they are like bees in a hive? Where did they come from?
I’ve discovered that there are many ways to approach the Bible–like scholarly, pastorally, devotionally, exegetically, historically, lectio divinally, geographically and stupidly. USAmerican evangelicalism’s penchant for dumbing down is nowhere more evident than the average believer’s knowledge of the Bible (and this with the best expository preaching in the world going on every Sunday). It makes you wonder.
Let’s sit in a circle and read a Bible passage. What does it mean to you, Susie? And how about you, Joey, what did you get out of it? Many Christians care more about the exegesis of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution than they do the Bible. What the Bible text “means” to Susie might be down-right heresy, but who’s to tell? And, Joey, bless his heart, can’t even pronounce “propitiation,” and even if he does get it out, he’s probably clueless to the wonder of the term. Joey? He got confusion out of the text. Ah, isn’t the Bible grand?
Somehow the fact of the Bible–it is here–and the presence of the Spirit–He is here–means for many that “the church” is free to sit in a circle and share downright meaninglessness. And, hey, with “the priesthood of all believers” at play, no authority exists to correct sheer stupidity being peddled as good Bible study. “But, John,” you reply, “We can find all good things biblical on-line. We don’t need scholars and pastors and leaders telling us what the biblical text means. We got laptops.” As if all the stuff on line just, presto!, appeared.
Even when the exiles returned to Jerusalem, when the Scriptures were read by Ezra, some chosen Levites interpreted the meaning of the Law so that the people could understand it (Nehemiah 8:8). The exiles had lost facility in Hebrew and needed help with the text. These are Jews and this is their Torah in their land. The only chasm to cross was language, but it had to be crossed. Think of us so far removed in time, space/geography, language, culture and thought-form sitting down with the Bible. It is not People magazine. “But, John, we have the Spirit to guide us into all truth.” True. But you can read the Gospels all day and not get Spirit-direction on where the heck Pharisees and Sadducees came from…generally and historically speaking. (Unless, of course, you received a miraculous revelation, but I doubt that’s going to happen.) And the minute you turn to a Bible study tool to help you, you reach for an authority, a human authority. Oops.
Read the excerpt from Justin Martyr, written about 150 AD, describing an early church service (before the Constantinian revolution). It is chapter 67 of his “First Apology” and is one of the earliest descriptions of a Christian worship service.
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place [no, this can't be!] and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read [the Scriptures], as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president [the one who stands before] verbally instructs [just who does he think he is?], and exhorts [!] to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president [sounds clearly pastor-like]in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president [who is this guy?], who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
Instruction (from the Word), exhortation and succour/comfort, collection. A leader. 150 AD. No pooling of ignorance. Well, well.
Popularity: 2% [?]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Gilbert, dbgooglereader. dbgooglereader said: Styrofoam Theology: Part 4- The Bible: As a pastor trained in some of our best evangelical institutions–Moody .. http://bit.ly/1mIZp8 [...]
Hey John
,
So, what you’re saying is, the only way we can be sure to have a proper interpretation of Scripture is to hire a pastor or someone seminary trained? Otherwise we might not know what a Pharisee or Sadducee is – even though knowing those things has nothing to do with the Gospel or following Jesus. I suppose we could hire any historian, not just a seminarian. That is, if we cared about finding out where these crazy Pharisees came from.
By the way, if you’ve been a pastor since 1975, how many of your members have learned enough from you to be able to properly interpret scripture without you?
Re. Martyr: I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here. It seems like you are reading today’s definition of pastor into the word “president”. Note, the word “president” is probably better translated “the one presiding”. I haven’t read The Apology wholly, but this text that you’ve quoted doesn’t say that the same solitaire man presided over these ceremonies every Sunday (like we have now). It seems just as likely that several gifted individuals could preside over these meetings on any given week.
I would also like to point out that the final sentences of this quote go directly against Scripture (Romans 14) – if this is expected to be prescriptive at least. If it’s just their own personal way of doing things that the mass of them agreed upon, then fine.
God Speed,
Lew
Lew,
I am not telling you to do anything. But I would be careful about cavalierly dismissing biblical terms as unimportant since the words “Pharisee” and “Sadducee” are part of the inspired, holy text of Scripture. And these sects participated significantly in the life of Jesus. And since you asked, along with preaching sermons, I spent many, many years in adult education in the church teaching Bible Study Methods to people so they could handle the Scriptures diligently,not stupidly. I didn’t read anything into “president.” I just noted that what the “president” did sounds a lot like pastoral ministry to me. That’s all.
Lew,
Peace to you.
I think it’s ironic that your site is titled “Jesus the radical pastor” and yet you are determined to uphold the hierarchal system of leadership Jesus both preached and acted against.
Especially when Jesus took off his outer garment (which I think would have probably included the tassels per Deut 22:12,Mat 23:5) and knelt down to wash his disciple’s feet he pretty much did exactly the opposite of what the clergy/laity system is designed to do.
Wes,
I have no problem with Jesus’ redefinition of how the hierarchy operates in the kingdom of God. But his redefinition not the same as elimination. That is what I don’t think you accept. Hierarchy is not the enemy; how it operates in the world versus the kingdom is the issue. Peace.
[...] pastors, leadership and the priesthood of all believers (so far with Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & Part 4). John, himself a pastor, is down-right angry with some of the talk he has heard in some [...]
i understand why the Catholics were so upset about the Bible being translated into common languages and placed into the hands of people to interpret themselves. It wasn’t simply because they wanted them to remain in ignorance, but because “private” interpretation would lead to the splintering of the church. Everyone is a scholar now, and they all end up in different places. i don’t know if it is necessary for a pastor to interpret the Bible, but i certainly do believe it is necessary to have access and ability to do cultural and language studies that are relevant to the text, as well as knowing the historical and traditional interpretations of a text in order to have a clearer understanding of what the text meant in that time and context and then move toward practical contemporary application.
i find that those who don’t take these issues into consideration are the one’s who “know what the Bible says” and are quick to point out “misinterpretation” and accuse others of “deviating” from the Word. It is utterly frustrating.
Yes, i do believe we need someone who is trained in interpreting ancient Jewish texts to give some useful guidance. Otherwise every interpretation is the authoritative one, usually derived through the interpretive vision of contemporary. non-contextualized glasses.
That being said, we do sit around in a circle and i ask people how they understand the text i’ll be preaching on that week. i use their thoughts and illustrations in the sermons. Yet, i’ve always done my homework thoroughly and am able to help keep us on the topic, as well as the context. i also get to determine what ultimately comes forth in the message on Sunday morning and i ensure that it is true to the original meaning of the text based on careful research.
So if an education in theology is needed to understand the scriptures, and not all theological institutions interpret scripture the same way, not all pastors from these institutions can do an equal job and helping us laypeople understand the scriptures. And if we could somehow determine which institution is interpreting scripture the “best”, not all graduates are of equal ability, so we should only study under the best to make sure we are in fact getting the most accurate interpretation of the Bible. So is it you John, or should we look elsewhere?
Keith (#8-9),
I had a group of people, too, that read through the Scripture texts that I would preach from. I ask them what stood out to them in the text and how they thought the text would work in their daily lives. All this is application and needs to be buttressed with good biblical study like you say you do. That is great. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Jeremy (#10),
Ouch! The chip on your shoulder poked me in the eye. And you convinced me…absolutely no education whatsoever is needed for one to understand the Scriptures. The Bible is as clear and understandable as Reader’s Digest. Are you happy?
John,
I’m sorry for my cynical response; my disappointment got the best of me. It was not intended to be insulting.
Jeremy (#13),
I was taken aback somewhat by your comment. It didn’t strike me so much as insulting as, you named it, cynical. I don’t think people need an “education in theology” as such, but some helpful practices in Bible study methods do go a long way in helping people handle the Bible fairly intelligently.