Inspiration and Incarnation: The OT and Ancient Literature (p. 2)

The first "problem" that Enns tackles in Inspiration and Incarnation is that of the Old Testament's relationship to other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature. Enns demonstrates the difficulty in three areas:

• Creation and the Flood: Is Genesis Myth or History?
• Customs, Laws, and Proverbs: Is Revelation Unique?
• Israel and its Kings: Is Good Historiography Objective or Biased?

Tackling each of these areas is far more than I can begin to attempt in the format of a blog post. Instead, I'll post a few excerpts and then offer some thoughts of my own.

To give a hint of where this discussion is going, it is worth asking what standards we can reasonably expect of the Bible, seeing that it is an ancient Near Eastern document and not a modern one. Are the early stories in the Old Testament to be judged on the basis of standards of modern historical inquiry and scientific precision, things that ancient peoples were not at all aware of? Is it not likely that God would have allowed his word to come to the ancient Israelites according to standards they understood, or are modern standards of truth and error so universal that we should expect premodern cultures to have understood them?(p. 41)

I question how much value there is in posing the choice of Genesis as either myth or history. This distinction seems to be a modern invention. It presupposes - without stating explicitly - that what is historical, in a modern sense of the word, is more real, of more value, more like something God would do, than myth.(p. 49)

I could go on - there is a wealth of information in this section. For anyone who has done any amount of reading in ANE literature, there isn't a lot of surprising information - I was familiar with most of the texts that he was referencing just from my seminary training alone. He draws on examples that are fairly common knowledge, such as Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, and the code of Hammurabi. But the point that he makes is profound. Enns is proposing that evangelicals, by and large, have entered into the text with an assumption about what scripture is and does, and that our doctrine of scripture is shaped far more by those assumptions than it is by the text itself. This is most telling in his discussion of the ancient approach to historiography, and in particular the contrasts between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. Enns uses the example of the differences in Nathan's challenge to David; I can just as easily see the same dynamic in the telling of the census of the fighting men. Evangelical exegesis has often bent over backwards to reconcile these passages. But the simple fact, on first reading, is that they contradict each other - the texts present different factual summaries of the same events. And this has caused no end of difficulty for evangelical interpretation - but the reason for this difficulty is found, not in the text itself, but in the approach to scripture that makes contradiction a problem! Put succinctly - the fact that the accounts in these books differ is only a problem because we make it a problem. We assume that God has the same epistemology as we do, and that his conception of truth is the same as ours. So, for example, when Samuel-Kings and Chronicles give different facts about the same events, the assumption is that both cannot be true as written - it must be explained as to how these accounts can both be true while saying different things.

But what if, for example, "true" historiography in the ancient sense isn't historiography that is factually accurate in the way that we would think of accuracy? What if "true" historiography is the telling of the tale that presents the desired perspective most compellingly? What if the interpretation of the event is more important than the event itself? And what if all of these things mean that two accounts can tell different facts about the same event and yet still both be "true"? The point that Enns is making is that the Bible isn't the word of God because it is completely different from its context. In fact, it speaks very compellingly in contextual forms, including the approach to history and interpretation of events. And evangelicals have not wrestled with the implications of that contextuality for a robust doctrine of scripture - in fact, by obscuring the difficulties, we have participated instead in a sort of docetic bibliolatry, a belief in a scripture that is so far removed from the human author that it only appears human but, in fact, is nothing of the sort.

Technorati Tags: books, Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns, scripture

Inspiration and Incarnation (p. 1)

I mentioned last week that I wanted to spend a bit of time blogging through Pete Enns's book Inspiration and Incarnation. This is a fantastic book that addresses in a very honest, direct, and respectful way the difficulties that evangelical doctrines of scripture create for exegesis. In his words:

My concern is that, at least on a popular level, a defensive approach to the evidence tends to dominate the evangelical conversation...I want to contribute to a growing opinion that what is needed is to move beyond both sides [of the liberal-conservative debate] by thinking of better ways to account for some of the data, while at the same time having a vibrant, positive view of Scripture as God's word. By focusing on three problems raised by the modern study of the Old Testament, my hope is to suggest ways in which our conversation can be shifted somewhat, so that what are often perceived as problems with the Old Testament are put into a different perspective. (p. 14-15)

Enns's basic premise is that evangelical approaches to scripture, by failing to deal with the issues that he will raise in an intellectually honest way, actually contribute to a devaluing of scripture and a failure to submit to its authority by attempting to make it into something other than what it is. The issues that he raises fall into three categories:

• The Old Testament and other ancient literature: Why does the OT so closely resemble other ancient near-eastern (ANE) literature? Does that mean that the OT isn't unique? "If the Bible is the word of God, why does it fit so nicely in the ancient world?" (p. 16)
• Theological diversity in the OT: Why does the OT appear to have different perspectives and, at times, "say different things about the same thing"? (p. 16)
• The way in which the NT authors use the OT: Is the NT's use of the Old really fair? It appears odd at best, arbitrary at other times, and simply distorting at others.

The rest of the book is an attempt to place these questions in the context of other ANE literature. In some sense, it may be fair to say that what are issues for us were not issues for the ancient readers of the text - it's rather a failure to understand why the authors said and did what they said and did. More to come!

Technorati Tags: books, Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns, scripture

Philly Cohort Gathering for July

One of the things I've been missing over this past year is the opportunity to be a part of the Philadelphia Emergent cohort.  I was able to attend several gatherings last summer before my fall semester began, and I was really impressed with the group.  I wrote about my first meeting here - Dr Joseph Mangina from Wycliffe College in Toronto spoke for nearly an hour on the book of Revelation.  It was phenomenal - and I found myself really impressed with a group of folks that were packed into Scott and Fairlight's living room, completely engaged and immersed in what was being discussed.

My first gathering in almost a year was interesting.  We talked for a bit about what we wanted to see happen in the cohort.  Personally, I didn't have a lot of stake in the conversation - I felt a bit out of my element given that I haven't attended for so long.  But it did prod my thinking for a bit - what is it that I enjoy so much about getting together with this group?  There are lots of things, really - everyone has always been incredibly hospitable and welcoming, which makes it easy for an introvert like myself to plug in.  And there's substantive discussion taking place.  Several of the folks present mentioned that they loved having a place to get together with other folks and talk theology.  Let's face it - we theology junkies don't have that many outlets, you know?  But Scott said something that has stuck with me, that I've been pondering all weekend.  He mentioned that the group is really fairly diverse, as far as cohorts go.  And I think that's true - it's not a group full of "angry young men", as I've often heard these things described.  So far, we haven't gotten together to sit around and rail against everything "modern" or "traditional" or any of the other descriptors that are commonly used to label things we don't like.  It's a group from many different traditions and denominations, some practitioners, some academics, and some (like myself) who are still searching for a niche.  But if you're interested in what God is doing in the Philadelphia area, and you want to get together with other folks who are likewise interested and engaged, then I have no doubt that you'd find yourself welcomed warmly.

Technorati Tags: emerging church, philly cohort

New Friend

For those of you who were interested, I've posted a few pics of my new pipe...

Technorati Tags: Butz Choquin, Cybele, pipes

Removing the Label

Tonight I'm enjoying something that I've neglected for far too long. I'm sitting on my deck enjoying a little something that I picked up in London to commemorate my graduation - a new pipe, specifically a Butz Choquin Cybele, if you're interested in such things, a horn-shaped pipe with some really stunning hardwood inlay in front of the stem. This is my maiden voyage with this particular piece of briar, and it's doing quite admirably. It's smoking a bit hot, though, because I'm trying some Rattray's Hal o' the Wynd that's a bit too dry for my liking. It's an older tin that I should just pitch, but I can't seem to bring myself to do so. The problem, though, is that if I don't, I might damage the pipe - it's too dry to smoke at a safe temperature, instead burning hot which carries the risk of damaging the briar in the pipe.

 I've simultaneously been catching up on my blogosphere reading. I'm woefully behind thanks to my recent blog fast - I think I need to just hit reset on the reader and start fresh. But I'm glad I caught a post from James tonight, because it echoes a lot of what I've been thinking of late. James writes this:

It was one of those moments like the first time you look in the mirror and realize that you are no longer 18 years old and in shape. Your mind may try to convince you that you are still in your prime but the mirror reveals that uncomfortable reality. Similarly, I have always seen myself as somewhat "conservative." But during the conversation with Balmer I realized that I have convictions and beliefs that are firmly outside the conservative label. It was like scales fell off my eyes and I began to see for the first time that there is a large group of self identified Christians who would exclude me from their camp because of the views I have of the Christian faith. In fact, there are some who would not even think my views are Christian at all.

This, I think, describes exactly how I've begun to feel over the past year or so. I've come a long way, in my opinion, in my understanding of many things - the gospel, the nature of scripture, the nature of the church, and the way in which my theology informs my politics. And, on so many of these items, I find myself in an awkward position. Because of my commitment to some quite conservative positions, such as the authority of scripture and the confession of Christ as Lord, I can no longer hold to many of the conclusions that conservative theology advances. I take seriously, for example, that Jesus actually intends for us to love our enemies and, consequently, I've become convinced that I can no longer support conservative positions on war. I take seriously, likewise, the authority of scripture and, consequently, I'm left dissatisfied with many conservative articulations of what I take to be extra-biblical statements about those same scriptures. I could go on - my point, however, is less the particular doctrines and more that a commitment to certain conservative positions results in undermining much of the remaining structure. This, at the end of the day, is what troubles me the most.

I mentioned in my previous post that I was reading a book by Peter Enns called Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. My initial thought was that I was surprised that it hasn't garnered more attention in the blogosphere - it's a fantastic read thus far that I think many who identify with the emerging church would profit from reading. However, as I began to dig a bit, I found that I'm simply not reading the blogs that have discussed it. There's actually been a fair amount of interaction with it, and not all of it supportive, to put things mildly. Mark, a fellow contributor to meremission.org (where I need to actually contribute, I've been thinking ;) has interacted with some of the criticism, much of which has been rather disappointing, to say the least. But I mention this because one thing that I keep reading is that Enns's proposals are not "conservative" - which, I suppose, is to label him as one of those evil "liberals" and thus avoid interacting with what he actually says. Ironically, his book is based on premises with which no conservative would ever argue - the authority and inspiration of scripture. But because the conclusions that he reaches based precisely on those premises are not in keeping with what the gatekeepers of orthodoxy have deemed acceptable, his book is maligned and condemned.

So I find myself in a position where I've been trying to wear a label that really has begun to chafe. I can't stand having to apologize for it or nuance it enough that it fits who I find that I've become. My friend Scott wrote some time ago about something similar - I find that, like him, like James, perhaps it's time to remove the label.

I've put my pipe down for this evening. The pipe performed excellently; however, if I continue, the bad tobacco will ruin it. I'm reminded of an old adage about old tobacco and new pipes - or was that old wine and new wineskins? I think either serves to make the point. Perhaps it's time to move on.

Scripture and Theological Diversity

Recently I began an absolutely fascinating book by Peter Enns called Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Pete Enns primarily teaches at Westminster, but he also teaches occasional courses at Biblical. I had the privilege of taking a course with him that dealt specifically with the New Testament authors' use of the Old Testament. It was absolutely fascinating - it put a lot of pieces together for me in terms of odd things about the NT, while simultaneously opening a whole different can of worms. More on that to come - I plan on sharing more from this book. It's one that I think everyone who's serious about theology, biblical studies, contextualization, and scripture should read.

One thing in particular that I've been pondering, though, is the nature of scripture. Enns makes the point, and I think rightly so, that although evangelicals claim to take scripture seriously, we often don't. In particular, we fail to do so when we don't allow scripture to speak for itself, but instead force it to conform to a predetermined standard of what we believe scripture should be. Generally speaking, evangelicals don't do well with the diversity of theological opinion that is present in the text. Often, these various perspectives that are obviously present in the text itself are smoothed over and made to say the same thing, not in the interest of hearing what it is that the text actually says, but in an attempt to protect it from contradiction. However, the idea that scripture cannot contain divergent opinions and remain scripture is an assumption, nothing more. Forcing the text to conform to this predefined standard, rather than protecting its integrity, may instead actually prevent us from hearing what it is that the text is actually trying to say.

There are plenty of examples that I could cite to demonstrate what I mean. A classic set of divergent opinions exists between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, for example. However, I'll leave the examples for later posts. What I'm pondering at the moment is the fact that a diversity of interpretations is not necessarily a bad thing. Scripture itself, rather than being monophonic, contains a chorus of voices that all exist in dialog with each other. Often, different authors can be read as saying, "Yes, but..." to another part of the text. And what is significant is that these tensions are not resolved, but are left to stand in the text itself. This should communicate to us in a significant way that we should be open to alternate readings of the text, alternate interpretations and emphases. To do so is not to devalue scripture - it is to take it seriously enough to allow its form to influence the way we understand it.

More on this to come...

Technorati Tags: books, Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns, scripture

Thinking About Success

One of the things that struck me rather forcefully on our trip was the way in which the missionaries who hosted us thought about success. Because of the nature of their work, they have a different perspective than, I think, we've come to embrace here in the States. They're working in a context where the people among whom they're ministering are highly resistant to the gospel. One of them commented that they may have to share the gospel hundreds of times before the person with whom they're talking starts to grasp it. As a result, they're simply not seeing large numbers of converts. They're seeing, instead, one here, one there - a small trickle compared to the overwhelming need. Much of their work is building trust, building friendships - slower work that doesn't show immediate results.

I wonder what we'd do here if we were faced with that sort of context. Americans, I think, idolize efficiency - we want everything to be as fast as possible, as cheap as possible, and produce the best possible result. And those aren't necessarily bad things, to be sure. But I don't think we've necessarily come to grips with exactly how much that mindset defines how we approach the work of the Kingdom. Even among emerging church folks, I hear / read a lot of stuff that says, "We don't care about numbers," followed by a statistic detailing how much a community has grown in its first year or some such. We are addicted to numbers, to fast growth, to impressive statistics. And it's one thing to recognize that, to say it and to think we believe it. But would we really work for a whole year to perhaps see one person come to the faith? I'm not convinced we've really begun to think through whether we're serious about that claim yet.

Next Steps

Saturday, my MDiv cohort had our last class together. I thought I was prepared for it - in fact, I was frustrated that I had to be present at all, given that the coursework related to the trip has been less than stimulating. The trip itself, however, was overwhelming on many levels, and I didn't feel as though I'd had much chance to process. However, I knew this would be the last time we'd be together as a cohort, and one of the group had invited everyone over for food and drinks after class, so I thought I'd make the best of it. And I'm glad I did. Saturday evening, though, the realization that I'm finished started to settle in, and I've been in something of a funk ever since. Not only am I going to miss all the fine folks that I've gotten to know so well over the past three years, but I still don't know what the heck I'm going to do next.

The most frustrating question for me for the past couple of years has been, "What are your plans after graduation?" I thought that something would present itself, that I'd have some sense by now of what it is that I'm supposed to be doing, but unfortunately I don't. No plans, no goals, no next steps, other than to finally finish Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God. Monday, I went back to work - a fine job, to be sure, but not a vocation, at least for me. There's no life there, and that's frustrating. I hate being a cog in the wheel, and I hate the feeling that, if I didn't show up to work tomorrow, the world wouldn't even blink. But a man's got to eat, so back to the mines I go.

There's no real point to this, no witty insight or spiritual veneer that I can throw over this to make it seem more presentable. I'm just in a funk, and I'm having trouble writing productive stuff.

Reflections on London

If you're interested, you can find my journal from the London trip here. More thoughts to come but this will provide a sense of what we encountered and experienced.