Energion Direct

Blog

  • Tainted Love

    by Chris Surber

    GomorrahI was on a long drive recently while thinking about denominations and division in the Church when the song “Tainted Love” by Soft Cell came on. (Ya I get it… I’m a theology nerd stuck on 80’s pop…) I’ve heard those lyrics a thousand times but I heard in a new way. One part of the song goes like this:
    “Once I ran to you (I ran). Now I’ll run from you. This tainted love you’ve given. I give you all a boy could give you. Take my tears and that’s not nearly all. Tainted love (oh). Tainted love. Now I know I’ve got to. Run away, I’ve got to. Get away, you don’t really want any more from me. To make things right. You need someone to hold you tight. And you think love is to pray. But I’m sorry, I don’t pray that way.”
    There was a time when I loved religion. I once found a great deal of comfort in the sights and smells of religion. I found the charm of incense irresistible. Big steepled church buildings enthralled me for their grandeur and seeming connection with the divine. Formal liturgy once made me feel connected to something bigger than myself. I used to meander into the oldest church buildings I could find to pray and contemplate Christ. My intentions were good but now I don’t pray that way.
    I don’t pray in dusty sanctuaries because they feel holy. I still love church history but for different reasons now. I no longer pray as a way of feeling connected to the past but as a way of understanding more fully what God is doing today. Religion of a dry and dusty kind is tainted love. It’s seldom even a vehicle for the living breathing love of Jesus put on display in real terms.
    Religion of a light show and smoke filled auditorium isn’t any better. It’s just a new wave of love tainted by the sights and smells of modern culture. Just because you get rid of the pews and the oak pulpit doesn’t mean you got rid of religion. You just changed the methods, but the motivations and means are very likely exactly the same as they’ve always been – getting our way.
    In my book, Gomorrah was Religious Too, I wrote, “We have it backwards in the Church today. We venerate the church sanctuary built by human hands while we denigrate the sanctity and the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We rely on our religion rather than His provision. The more modern local church is not less idolatrous in our day. In places where we have traded out stained glass for folding chairs, we elevate the method of ministry over the purpose of ministry. We rejoice over things that are not worthy of rejoicing.”
    Religious love is tainted love. If we want to have the power of God in our life in a way that really matters we’ve got to get beyond religion – whether it is of a dusty pipe organ or a contemporary rock variety. Tainted religion is tainted religion. Authenticity doesn’t come from taking off a suit and tie, and reverence to God doesn’t come as a natural result of wearing them.
    Religion that pleases God and brings real transformation power into our lives is a matter of the heart. It’s a matter of our heart connecting to God in Christ by faith and to fellow followers of Jesus by the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. Run from religion into the arms of Christ and the fellowship of other followers of Christ.
    Spit out the Kool-Aid of tainted religion and get back to those most basic principles of authentic Christianity. Pick up your walking stick, get shoulder to shoulder with some other people whom God has saved by faith in Jesus, and get busy following Him in this tainted world.

  • “Christmas Lite”

    “Christmas Lite”

    by Steve Kindle

    Pastors in the Liturgical traditions find that Advent has been smuggled out of the church, and in broad daylight to boot!
    The Liturgical Year is a way of educating the people about the biblical story of salvation needed to offset the nearly universal illiteracy of Christendom in its formative years, until almost modern times. The Church Calendar (or Liturgical Year) was devised many centuries ago as a way to provide not only information, but also psychological and emotional involvement with the story. It is a pageant with the congregants acting out the story as it unfolds.
    It’s no accident that the church year begins with Advent. It is a time devoted to preparing the church for the coming of the Christ into the world. All of salvation history leads to this climax. You might say that the Hebrew Bible is prolegomena, and the New Testament is its realization. The key to the success of Advent is in the adequacy of the preparation. In the early centuries of the Christian church, many Christians would spend 40 days in penance, prayer, and fasting to prepare for baptism. Eventually, this became the practice now incorporated into the Advent Season. For the already baptized, it serves as a means of repentance, recommitment, and hope for a better world. That is, if Advent is understood and used for these purposes.
    Let’s face it: spiritual disciplines are mostly an afterthought these days in mainline Protestant circles. In too many congregations, lay people prepared to assist in worship are hard to come by. Church services that run over an hour, and sermons more than 20 minutes long, are unwelcome. Advent requires introspection and spiritual inventory taking. It also requires a modicum of patience. Americans in general find these difficult.
    Our culture is no friend of Advent, either. It’s hard to sing, “O Come, O Come, Immanuel,” when the radio and shopping malls are blaring Christmas carols all day, even beginning before Thanksgiving. The television stations are running Christmas movies and specials weeks before, as well. Black Friday, Local Business Saturday, Cyber Monday, all focus on getting ready for Christmas with a material bent, not really in preparation for the “spirit of the season.” When the first of the Twelve Days of Christmas finally arrives on December 25th, we’re done with the whole thing, and throw it out with the present wrappings and drooping Christmas tree. Most people in the church I know are surprised when I tell them that Christmas has just started. They are too pooped to care.
    Every church I served followed the Liturgical Year, and I normally preached from the lectionary. Come Advent, I strictly adhered to the preparation motif with the blessing of the worship committee. But that’s as far as the blessing went. Complaints arose immediately that I was dampening the Christmas spirit by not singing the carols. Try as I might to educate about the purpose of Advent, I always lost out. I realized that the time to inform the church about Advent is not during Advent.
    But the biggest loser in all this is not Advent; it’s Christmas. Or, better put, the people who do not adequately prepare for the coming of the Christ into the world are the big losers. Christmas, for them, remains bound up in family reunions, present giving and receiving, tree decorating, rum drinks, and “chestnuts roasting on the open fire.” None of these is inappropriate in itself. It’s what’s omitted that causes the loss. This ushers in “Christmas Lite.”
    One of the objections to a strict Advent observance came in the form of this query: “Why do we have to prepare for Jesus to come when he’s already arrived?” The short answer (and perhaps the best one) is that for many in our world, our country, our city, even our family, Jesus has yet to arrive. He is still standing at the door, knocking, waiting to be invited in. And in a very real way, Jesus is still standing outside our door, wanting to be given the full run of our lives, not just the areas we currently allow him access to.
    Without a full-featured Advent, we hasten the arrival of the Christ, who arrives too soon and is as exhausted as we are. We have not prepared for his arrival, are not sure what to do with him, and can’t wait for him to leave, along with all the other guests the season has accumulated. Besides, we have to get all those unwanted presents back to the stores so we can exchange them for what we really want. And it doesn’t seem to be Advent anymore.

  • WHAT IS TRUTH?

    by Herold Weiss

    John coverMore than any other biblical book According to John is concerned with the necessity to distinguish what is true from what is false, what is genuine from what is spurious. Throughout the gospel one finds declarations concerning “the true light,” “the true bread,” “the true food,” “the true Israelite,” “the true shepherd,” “the true disciple,” “the true worshipper.” It would appear, then, that there are false manifestations of all these things. These statements, even while cast metaphorically, are discrete claims to be taken seriously. Moreover, the gospel establishes that “God is true,” and that the Son brought “grace and truth” to women and men. Jesus among human beings is identified as “the way, and the truth, and the life.”
    The gospel makes clear, however, that the truth it is concerned with is not that which stands because it passes the test of non-contradiction. Neither is it an abstract universal that exists apart, of at least distinct, from all its instances. Today the search for truth is concerned to establish the facts in any given case. We are the inheritors of the Western tradition that is interested in dissecting nature and in establishing what happened in the past. These efforts are constrained by restrictions as to what counts as evidence on which conclusions may be drawn. There is a prevailing skepticism about any claim to absolute truth because there is no evidence that can support such a claim. Of course, the basic characteristic of both scientific and historical truths is that they are to be discarded as soon as new evidence establishes that something else is to be taken as true. This new truth, of course, is also liable to becoming obsolete. Our modern search for the determination of what is going on in nature and in history assumes that truth has to do with knowledge, that is, with true information. Thus our search for the truth is bound to what is bound by space and time.
    In According to John, on the other hand, Jesus promises his disciples that the truth they will encounter will make them free. Freedom, however, is not something to be known. It is something to be had. Like the truth that Jesus promised his disciples, freedom is something to be experienced, something to be lived. The establishing of this basic distinction between what is in the realm of knowledge and what is in the realm of being is one of the great treasures to be found in this wonderful gospel. In fact, it would seem that it was written to answer Pilate’s question at Jesus’ trial, “What is truth?” Pilate’s question assumes that truth is to be known. Jesus assumes that truth is in the realm of being. What he promises his disciples is life, not more information.

     

  • WHAT ABOUT THE SACRAMENTS?

    by Herold Weiss

    John coverToward the end of the first century the Christian Church established rituals through which members could cleanse themselves from sin and receive the benefits of the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives. These are called sacraments. The Church also set apart persons with special powers who could mediate the power of the Spirit to the rest of the members. This established a distinction between the laity and the clergy. Eventually, it institutionalized different ranks among the clergy and defined their competency to administer the sacraments.
    Most sacramental theology is based on the gospel According to John. It has become standard practice to use the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus and the discourse in which Jesus contrasts the descent of manna from the sky during the Exodus from Egypt with the descent of the Son of Man in the person of Jesus as the basic sources for the theology of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The legitimacy of the use of these verses for such a purpose, however, is challenged by the way in which the conversation with Nicodemus and the discourse about the breads that descend from heaven are actually interpreted with the gospel itself.
    Besides, in the accounts of the encounter of Jesus with John the Baptist, Jesus does not come near John and John does not baptize Jesus. On the other hand, this is the only gospel which reports that Jesus became a baptizer. The activity of Jesus the Baptizer caused the disciples of John to become upset because the one who had benefitted from John’s generous endorsement had become a competitor and was taking away John’s audience after him.
    Moreover, the last supper Jesus ate with his disciples, as told in this gospel, was neither a Lord’s Supper nor a Passover Seder. In this account of the meal, Jesus does not call attention to the bread and the wine and pronounce words to sacramentalize them. Unlike the reports in the synoptic gospels and the letter of Paul To the Corinthians I, Jesus does not attach special significance to the moment within a historical horizon. These details in the narratives of the last supper found in these other sources are what make the meal into the Lord’s Supper. Besides, in According to John, when on the following morning Jesus was being tried before Pilate, the Jews did not enter the praetorium for fear of defiling themselves and thereby rendering themselves unable to eat the Passover meal that night. In other words, Jesus ate the last supper with his disciples on the day before Passover. This means that the last supper he ate with his disciples could not have been a Passover meal. In other words, as told in According to John the last supper did not enact or establish a ritual.
    So, what does the gospel According to John teach about the sacraments?

  • READING AS CONTEMPLATION

    by Herold Weiss

    John cover            It is not uncommon for a person who has not read the Bible to ask a Bible reader for advice as to where to start. Most books are read starting at the beginning. Reading the Bible this way, however, may prove quite a challenge. If one does that it may not take long to find it hard to concentrate on the reading. Quite often the person asking for advice is told, “Start with the Gospel of John. It is simple and interesting.” That is true, and reading According to John for its narrative can prove quite beneficial. The simplicity of its language and its limited vocabulary make it quite accessible. Teachers of New Testament Greek invariably use texts from this gospel as examples for learning Greek vocabulary and grammar. The familiar expressions make it an ideal text for beginning students of Greek.
    In the process of coming to terms with the story of Jesus told in According to John, the careful reader soon realizes that there is something going on underneath the surface of the story, and this discovery sparks the desire to dig down to the deeper levels of meaning that echo on the surface. Curious readers who decide to explore the treasures buried underneath will soon discover that the simple vocabulary is the carrier of heavy loads of meaning. They will find that the narrator had an ample supply of plays-on-words, a good ear for irony, that the dialogues consistently leave Jesus’ interlocutors in uncomfortable positions, and that the community in which this gospel took shape was philosophically literate. Of course, the linguistic alchemy is not there to impress readers with the superior talents of the narrator. It is there at the service of radical and profound theological claims.
    The richness of According to John is not easy to tap because it is cast in a symbolic universe that is strange to us. The Johannine community apparently had serious disagreements with the Jewish community within which it had been conceived and with the Christian communities that were being formed around the main apostles. Coming to terms with the peripheral Christian community that defined itself by means of this document is a basic requirement for reading this gospel intelligently. With the help of a good historical guide, however, reading According to John can be an act of contemplation.

     

  • Are You Stereotyping Your Opponents?

    by Henry Neufeld, Publisher

    A serious problem in dealing with stereotypes is that there are almost always examples of individual who truly fit the stereotype. When a bigot sees such an example, he or she points at that person and says, “See! They really are like that!” Of course, the problem with the stereotype is that so many otherwise similar people do not fit it. But the bigot feels justified by the affirming example.
    Very often the stereotype describes behavior that is actually reprehensible in those individuals that practice it. The problem is to discuss improper behavior without stereotyping certain groups of people. I recently wrote a post in which I said that there is no crime so heinous that we should punish someone who didn’t commit it. Stereotypes generally punish, or at least place at a disadvantage, people who are innocent.
    In Bible study we find similar stereotypes. There are the biblical literalists, who always take everything literally, no matter how difficult it is to do so. They produce ludicrous results by their attempts to take everything literally. Liberals and progressives wonder why these people go to the Bible in the first place if they’re going to ignore culture, history, obvious differences, and clear indications of figurative material.
    On the other hand, we have the liberals or progressives. They don’t take things so literally. In fact, the stereotype is that they are people who simply ignore whatever portion of the Bible that they want to, and don’t actually care what the Bible says at all. Literalists wonder why these people even bother to read the Bible at all, because they obviously just ignore everything it says.
    The two groups have a hard time understanding one another and discussing with one another. Why? Because in too many cases they don’t look carefully at their own approach to the Bible so that they can see their own biases in action, and at the same time they don’t understand the approach that their opponents are taking. Is it any wonder that the arguments get very heated? There is no argument so heated as one in which the participants are not even addressing one another’s position.
    Despite the danger of stereotyping, we have to use labels. That’s the problem with communication. We have to make judgments and group people and things in order to talk about them. We use the word “house,” but divide it into mobile homes, pre-fab houses, and regularly constructed houses. In our perceptions, do we group pre-fab houses closer to mobile homes or to regularly constructed houses? Do we consider mobile homes to be “houses” at all? If you pay close attention to this sort of vocabulary you can learn significant things about the way someone views the world.
    So we’re still going to use “biblical literalist” and “progressive” as labels for the way certain groups interpret the Bible. Just remember that these two labels describe groups of people who do not all follow the same pattern. While there are literalists who do crazy things to maintain their literalism, there are also literalists who take quite a different approach. In fact, not everyone who claims to take the Bible literally takes the Bible literally. It depends on how you define “literally.”
    There are progressives who simply dismiss certain scriptures. I encounter this sort of person in the hallways of United Methodist churches. When they say, “I don’t take that literally,” they are using “literal” in the sense of “real” or “important.” “I don’t take that literally” might mean “I don’t think that applies to me now,” or “I don’t think that’s an important point.” They do not mean “I take that figuratively rather than literally.” Often they are no more capable of telling me why they don’t take it literally than the literalists I meet are capable of explaining why certain things that look very figurative should be taken literally instead.
    Those are very “up front” and perhaps even thoughtless ways of applying the respective approaches. If you go behind the scenes, you’ll frequently find that the text in question is one that the casual literalist believes contains a critical teaching, to be defended at all costs no matter what, while the casual progressive does not want the text to apply. Neither is willing to give serious consideration to how and why it applies.
    I like to illustrate this by asking people to read Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 19:33-34. I occasionally run into people who want one to apply and not the other, some who would like both to apply and some neither. So sit back and ask yourself why you would like to treat each text as you do. Once you have thought out a way of applying (or not) the texts as you prefer take that same set of principles and apply them elsewhere in scripture. Does this work with Leviticus 11? Does it work with the command of Jesus to love your enemies?
    The question I have for you is whether you can be consistent with whatever approach you take throughout scripture. How often as you read do you require an ad hoc explanation?
    Very few, if any of us, read and apply scripture without the use of ad hoc explanations. There’s a good and a bad reason for this. (Well, probably more than one of each, but I need to keep this discussion within limits!)
    The good reason is that scripture is addressed to a variety of times and situations by a variety of people, each of whom heard God not just as God is, but as they were. Thus we need to hear the whole story, and see not just the words on the page, but also the narrator, the recorder, and the transmitter of those thoughts as we strive to hear God’s voice coming through it all.
    Any simple approach to scripture will run into serious speed bumps as we find scriptures that simply don’t simply fit the pattern we expect. When we come to those speed bumps, we all, whether literalist or progressive, find a way to get around what the Bible seems to clearly teach in that case. Our methods differ, but the result is the same; we remain as we are. We refuse to behold so we are not changed (2 Corinthians 3:18).
    And then there’s that sneaky little word “seems.” Because we need to each find a way that lets us look honestly at a passage, an experience, or a story, and then apply whatever does apply to our own lives. I’m not trying in this short space to tell you precisely how this is to be done, and I want to be clear that I believe there are things that don’t apply to you. There are, in fact, scriptures that we seriously need to question. Anyone who claims to “do everything the Bible teaches” likely hasn’t really looked at everything the Bible teaches.
    The idea here is to find a method that makes you be honest with the text. If you’re saying this does not apply, make sure it is not because you just don’t feel like applying it.
    The bad reason is that you require ad hoc explanations in order to avoid things that you just don’t want to do. Not that you think would be wrong. Not ancient ideas that you think would result in immoral action if applied in the present. Just things that you don’t like.
    The goal is self-honesty first. When and how you apply or do not apply scripture should be on a principled basis. If it is, you will likely grow spiritually as you study, irrespective of where you started. And in this case, the journey is more important than the destination.
    As a final note, I do have a filter I apply to scripture, one I think is itself quite scriptural. I describe it in Hanging Biblical Interpretation. But what filter did I apply in order to discover this filter?

    Henry Neufeld is the author of many books.  They often discuss biblical interpretation. Look them over here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-n-s/henry-e-neufeld

  • Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at Energion Publications

  • What Does It Mean to Believe?

    by  Edward W. H. Vick

    Philosophy coverThe question is: What does it mean to believe?
     The following sentences express some themes of the thirteen chapters of the book.
    Ask yourself these questions:
    What do I believe?
    Is it the same as what I say I believe, or think I believe?
    Is my belief reasonable?
    Is it justifiable?
    Is it true?
    Are these three different questions?
    Have I accepted what I believe without thinking about it?
    Can I believe something I do not understand?
     You will agree that some beliefs are rational and some are not.
    When you accept something as true (Is that what you mean by ‘belief’?) you may or may not have considered whether it is rational, whether you understand what you believe, why you are believing it, or to what extent you are being reasonable about your belief.
    Before continuing to read, you might like to take a specific example or two, preferable of a topic discussed in the book and ask some of the above questions about it, for example, miracles, self deception, identity, personal Identity, survival.
    Now you have had an opportunity to ask yourself serious questions about belief and believing. If you have already given yourself answers to questions about what and why you believe you are on the verge of or have already been doing philosophy. So if you are interested you can be even more serious by looking at specific topics and by examining them at greater length. Be warned that you will need to master the vocabulary appropriate to the topic in view, and should not always be content with simple answers.
    Philosophy for Believers addresses various issues in thirteen chapters, each one dealing with a particular subject of belief. What we shall now do is to take one of these topics for consideration.
    Here is a representative statement of belief: I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.
    Certain considerations immediately arise. To consider whether our dealing with them will be reasonable, we must ask the following questions:
    What assumptions am I making?
    How do I understand the key terms I am using?
    Is the language I am using, understood in the way I understand it, adequate for the explanation I am trying to achieve?
    Are the steps in my reasoning logical, i e., is the reasoning valid?
    In particular: Does the conclusion I draw follow from my reasoning?
    To return to our statement of belief: we notice at once that it is very short and because it is so concise it invites various interpretations. The ordinary believer says and remains content with the simplicity of the confession and holds to the restatement:
    I believe we shall be given new life and that life will be never ending.
    The questions that arise from this simple creedal statement give rise to a multitude of philosophical problems. Our task is to specify which of the interpretations we can reasonably consider.
    Start with your initial assumptions, among them possibly answers to the following questions:
    How shall we conceive the idea of resurrection?
    What evidence do we have that resurrection is possible?
    What do I have to believe to accept that it is possible?
    What sort of life is eternal life and how is it related to my present life?
    Will I be the same person in the hereafter as I am now?
    Same person? So what constitutes identity, personal identity?
    Now let’s take examples of a process by which you reach your conclusion.
    You will note that some terms are in italics. These are the basic terms that require detailed consideration and definition. Only then will constructive and consistent argument be forthcoming and leading to a reasonable conclusion.
    Example 1: I believe in the immortality of the soul
    Assumptions:
    bodies do not survive,
    souls may survive,
    the soul constitutes the person
    God is active in the process.
    Argument:
    the constituent of the self
    the soul is inherently immortal
    connect the idea of immortality with the idea of the self
    Conclusion:
    The life everlasting is the life of the immortal soul. The soul survives eternally.
    Explanations required:
    Concerning the source of the assumptions, and how they are to be justified
    How to justify speaking of the soul as the constituent entity of the self
    How to conceive of the soul as immortal
    How to conceive of the possibility of retaining identity in the after life
    How to think rationally about eternity
    We now consider an example of a different interpretation of the same initial creedal statement.
    Example 2: I believe in the resurrection of the body.
    Assumptions:
    The idea of the soul is misconceived
    It is not needed to give an account of what constitutes a person
    It is therefore not needed to account for personal survival
    Speak of the body to conceive the survival of the person, i.e. of resurrection
    Search for a rational way of conceiving the identity of the surviving person with the original person
    God is active in the process
    [A hidden assumption (and all that it implies) may well be that the idea of bodily resurrection is what is taught in Christian Scripture and so should be the proper subject of rational explanation. However the philosophical treatment must stand on its own rational feet.] Argument:
    The idea of survival is to be connected with the concept of the body
    The concept of bodily survival can be conceived rationally
    This is achieved by introducing the idea of personal identity, continuing after death though resurrection
    The concept of replication achieves the desired result
    Resurrection of the body to eternal life is a reasonable belief
    Conclusion:
    You will note that some terms are in italics. These are the basic terms that require detailed consideration and definition. Only then will constructive and consistent argument be forthcoming and lead to a reasonable conclusion.
    Explanations required:
    Assumptions should not be taken for granted. Since we are engaged in a philosophical exercise, even if a primary source of a key assumption is that it represents the teaching of Christian Scripture, the argument will rest on the validity of the reasoning involved, i.e., the validity of the logic by which the conclusion is reached.
    We have taken the theme of chapter 11 as our subject. There are thirteen chapters altogether, each one dealing with an interesting theme of both general interest and also of interest to Christians. These chapters are supplemented with tutorials and Work Sheets. This makes the book suitable for use in the classroom, as well as for individual study.
    Having considered the above explanation I propose you attempt an answer to the following question:
    How does philosophical discussion affect the understanding of your belief?
    Suggestions:

    1. make some general statement(s).
    2. take a single belief that is important for you and examine it.

  • How is the Bible authoritative?

    by Edward W. H. Vick

     9781893729100sThe question is:
      How to explain that the Bible has authority?
    That the Bible is unique is not the question. But why is it unique? Ask different people and you will get different answers, for different people read the Bible for different reasons, approaching it in different ways according to their particular contexts and their particular interests, subject to different influences. Are there, among the many and various answers given to the question, correct ways of addressing it?
    Most Christians would say that the Bible has unique authority. Some simply accept this proposition and think no further about it. They would not be thinking in terms of authority at all. They turn to it for comfort in sorrow, for help in day to day life, for devotional purposes. When is it appropriate then to speak of the Bible as having authority? Others, in accepting biblical authority, seek to give an account of why it has that authority. One account has a long history within different contexts and is held by many conservative Christians today. These claim that the Bible is inspired, that the inspiration is from God, and so the Bible has divine authority. This belief is elaborated in many different ways. This book indicates that these many ways make the concept of inspiration a most ambiguous idea, and one not suited for the purpose of establishing biblical authority. Since this is the case we must ask why and then pursue the quest for an alternative answer. Bur first we must answer the question, What sort of authority are we attributing to the Bible? or Is it a unique authority quite different from others, scientific, historical, moral and independent of them?
    The Bible tells vast numbers of stories. It speaks in many different kinds of symbolic language,
    A common designation for the Bible is that it is the ‘Word of God’. What is sometimes said to follow from this is that it is his communication, however he made it, to us human creatures through intermediaries whom he chose and with whom he worked in special and often unusual ways. The frequent model for the explanation of inspiration is that of the prophet. The details of the process are explained in different ways. Some downplay the human element in the process by which the human agents came to produce the writing.
    This explanation claims that Scripture has authority on account of the origin and the process of its inspiration. Not all explanations express the extreme view that the very words were provided to the passive but receptive agents who then wrote down those words in their language.
    But however the words got into the mind of the prophet and later onto the scroll or page, the process was inspired. Our language was not one of the original ones. So the process of translation was also inspired.
    This book provides evidence for the confusing ambiguity that results when this line of thinking is proposed. A traditional belief about the Bible can be expressed in three propositions:
    (1) It discloses truths about God and the world not available elsewhere.
    (2) It is authoritative, equally and in all its parts.
    (3) It is exempt from error.
    When we ask ‘How is the Bible used?’ if ‘used’ is the proper word, we find that very different answers are given. The words and sentences of Scripture get interpreted in many ways. Can we find right and wrong ways of answering this question?
    Give your answer to this question. Think of what it implies
    The simple believer seeks consolation, guidance, assurance in Scripture. The church seeks doctrine and derives it by interpreting selected writings of Scripture to frame a set of teachings, which are then often seen to share the authority of Scripture. Scholars have their own interests and methods in approaching Scripture. For example, they may be seeking the solution of historical issues. Other examples include researching  context and dating of particular writings, analysing how the text has been transmitted, searching for evidence for historical events referred to in Scripture, exploring how an accurate text is to be constructed from the evidence, finding and presenting the historical and cultural background of the writings and of oral traditions that ended up as components of the ‘books’.
    Some approach the Bible with no interest in the historical or contextual background of the texts being read. Others have a scheme of interpretation already in mind as passages of Scripture are read and pieced together with other texts and used as ‘proof texts’ to create doctrines.
    The claim that Scripture has unique authority is universally believed by the Christian. But there are right and wrong ways of defining and then accounting for that authority. This book examines that issue in some depth, as well as addressing itself to the other issues raised above, as it examines carefully the idea of inspiration. For conservative sections of the church assert that the Bible has authority because it is inspired. This claim calls for careful examination. It must take account of the fact that the concept of inspiration is a highly ambiguous term. So it must be carefully articulated. For it lends itself to a series of category mistakes. The book examines these by setting out the meaning of authority in this context. An inspired writing has no authority unless its ideas are transmitted to a receptive subject, society, or circle. It has authority only as it is read and interpreted. And it can be interpreted in different ways.
    The answers to the question about inspiration are multiple and complex, and very ambitious, like the concept of authority it seeks to underwrite.
    Why is the doctrine of inspiration constructed and what is it then employed to achieve?

    1. to identify the source of Scripture. God inspires the prophet or other functionary,
    2. to identify the process of communication: God speaks,
    3. to account for the condition of the ‘writer’ in the process: the subject ‘hears’ and responds,
    4. to account for the composition of the original: how the various texts were put together.
    5. to account for the unique status of the original product: these texts are set apart from all others
    6. to account for the unique status of the writing that results: it has divine authority
    7. to claim the authority of writings translated from the original documents.
    8. to underwrite the authority of those who interpret the writings.
    9. to support the obligation that both the doctrines and those who teach them be believed.

    When the church, for example, interprets Scripture and produces a set of doctrines, it often claims that those teachings share the authority of the Scripture itself. Then the idea of ‘inspiration’ may be employed to underwrite the obligation to accept the teachings of Scripture as interpreted. So arises a tradition of interpretation.
    Two sources of authoritative doctrine (= teaching) thus emerge, Scripture and tradition, often associated respectively with Protestant and Catholic. Whether this division is proper and how it might be made is given attention in this book, which insists that to understand the issue you must seriously consider the procedure of the hermeneutic involved. Any appeal to Scripture for doctrinal purposes must recognize that how you interpret will determine the outcome of the doctrine invoked. So you must ask what assumptions have been invoked in the process.
    It is because Scripture is interpreted according to different principles taken as normative that differing teachings emerge. Scripture is claimed as foundation for many divergent hermeneutics and for the doctrines they produce. Scripture has authority for those who so interpret it and for those who accept the proffered interpretations. The authority of Scripture is conditioned by the acceptance and employment of particular methods of interpretation. So both Protestants (of many different stripes) and Catholics agree. The results of interpretation of Scripture that each provides become normative, and the term ‘tradition’ is quite appropriately used of the results. Protestants appeal to tradition in appealing to the authority of their teaching, Catholics have made appeal to tradition an essential part of their outlook. Both are concerned that theirs is the correct way of interpreting Scripture. To speak of understanding the Bible is to attempt to find a profitable way of interpreting Scripture. Recognize that Scripture contains a great variety of writing, a multitude of stories and symbols, indeed a lot of non-literal writing and it becomes impossible to claim that everything is to be interpreted literally.

  • Is Jesus coming "soon"?

    by Edward W. H. Vick

    Eschatology coverHere is the question for you:
    What do you make of the following sentences taken with the qualification, ‘But we cannot tell you when’?
    The end of the world is nigh.
    Jesus is coming again soon?
    God is about to judge the world and bring in his kingdom.
    *************************
    I am going to tell you a story soon, a parable really! But first some explanations.
    Eschatology has to do with the end. The Greek word eschaton means ‘end’. In Scripture and in Christian theology that means we shall talk about the future of the human species. But while so talking we involve ourselves in the present. Sometimes that present brings very trying times, the desolation, suffering and despair hardly expressible. Indeed Scripture expressed recognition of this and provided encouragement in striking and disturbing symbols. Some whole ‘books’ employ apocalyptic language, their purpose being to offer the hope that God is in ultimate control. For that reason, even if the present has to be lived under galling, violent and destructive conditions, it can be a hopeful present but one calling for continuous courage and patient endurance.
    Since the ‘end’ is in God’s hands, in the present there may be contentment, courage and hope born of patience. Eschatology touches the life of the believer in all aspects of life.
    The believer may live in hope that in the end goodness may prevail over evil. God will act in his wisdom and in his own time. But that time is never disclosed to humans. No one knows the day nor the hour of the final dénouement. There can nevertheless be an incentive in the here and now for constructive efforts, for endurance when persecuted. Such hope for divine intervention when final justice will prevail provides incentive for constructive, courageous and ethical activity in the here and now.
    Some, taking their cue from apocalyptic passages, feel that they have authentic knowledge of the nearness of the Advent, the parousia, the Last judgment. These believers even attempt to calculate from numbers in the apocalyptic writings when the final events will occur. When the event did not take place on the date or dates predicted, they experienced bitter disappointment. There are those today, retaining some of the original fervour, who say that they are living in the ‘time of the end’, a phrase often left undefined, but still serving as a basis for expectation.
    Among the many themes discussed in the book, I now select one for our consideration. For those who take their primary interpretations from the apocalyptic portions of Scripture the issue is about the end of the world and the introduction of the new age. Many believers are ready to say that it will be ‘soon’ but insist that neither they nor anyone can know when the event will take place. They cannot say how long it will be for the waiting to end. While they say they cannot specify a date for the Second Advent, they persist in saying, even with urgency, that it will be ‘soon’. They use various synonyms when asked what ‘soon’ means: ‘imminent’, ‘in the very near future’, ‘without delay’, ‘nigh’, ‘almost upon us’. Such emphatic denial that specific times can be given would seem to make the claim empty, or even not a claim at all. Look a little closer.
    There are some sentences that cannot be false because they cannot be true either. Why not? What kind of sentence could that be? Does it depend on what the words mean or what even a single word in the sentence means, or on how the sentence is put together?
    Finally, here is the parable.
    There was a farmer who had three sons. Each one of them said, ‘Father, I shall come to help you soon.’
    The first one, Bob, said ‘I shall come to the farm soon, this Wednesday in fact.’
    The second one, Tom, said ‘I shall come to the farm soon, within the next ten days.’
    The third one, Hank, said, ‘I shall come soon, but I do not know when and cannot say when. Nor can I give you a set limit for when it will be.’
    Father was well pleased, and went to bed content that evening.
    The sons got together afterwards and fell into conversation. Hank said, ‘Father seems very pleased and is looking forward to my help, even if I did not commit myself in any way. I did not give a particular date, and I did not set a time limit either’.
    ‘So, what do you mean then? That is not a proper way to use the term “soon” is it? It amounts to an empty promise doesn’t it?’ asked Tom.
    ‘I mean just what I said, I don’t know when.’ responded Hank.
    Bob broke in, ‘If you don’t know when, then you cannot say ‘soon’ can you? Or if you do, it can’t mean anything. We know what we mean. We know what we intend. Father knows exactly what to expect of us. But as far as you are concerned, you might as well not be coming to help at all. You have given father hope by saying you will come soon. You have taken away all meaning by saying that “soon” does not mean what the rest of us take it to mean. It is an empty term.’
    ‘So be it’ said Hank.
    ‘But look here,’ exclaimed Tom. ‘You have raised hopes in father but his hopes are not at all well founded.’
    ‘Look!’ said Hank, ‘what is important is that dad is happy. I do not see myself in the near future being able to spare the time. But if Dad thinks and hopes that I shall be helping, that is what is important. Hank smiled and continued, ‘Every time he asks why I have not yet come and when I will be coming I can always go on saying that I am coming soon to help. My “soon” is a kind of elastic ‘soon.’ It is an extensible ‘soon.’ So as long as Dad hopes and I go on saying I will come “soon”, we are both happy. He is happy because he thinks I shall be not long in coming. I am happy not to have to fulfill a definite promise. My “soon” is a different “soon” from your “soon”. ’
    ‘Promise!’ shouted Will. ‘You can’t call that a promise when no-one can possibly know what it means in terms of real time. It can’t be false and it can’t be true. It’s an empty sentence and such sentences can’t be false or true.’
    Bob said, ‘We have given definite information about when he can expect us. You have not said anything at all. You could go on saying your ‘soon’ as long as you live!
    So it was. Hank is still saying his ‘soon’ and Dad is still waiting expectantly.
    Consider hortatory meaning.
    Let’s now look at another example of a sentence that looks at first sight to be stating simple facts but whose primary meaning is something else and ask what that is.
    It’s six thirty and the shops shut at seven.
    If you ask, ‘What is the function of this sentence?’ the answer might very well be that it is suggesting, urging, reminding you that you should be getting off to the shops. It is not just giving you information. It is saying, ‘Let’s go. We’re hungry!
    It is to be taken as a command, a call for response. Commands are neither true nor false. They are not cognitive. So the primary function of a sentence that makes a statement may not be to assert something, to inform you of a state of affairs, even if you take it to be doing that, but rather to arouse you to do something. Its primary function is hortatory. It may state a fact. But the statement of the fact is not the primary intended meaning of the sentence. Its primary meaning is non-cognitive. The essential function of such a sentence is not to state a fact, but by stating a fact to urge you to action: ‘Go and buy some bread while you can! Don’t you know we’re hungry?’ The function of the whole sentence is to provide encouragement, to exhort, to suggest (sometimes urgent) action. That’s what ‘hortatory’ means.
    It has its hortatory function when two conditions are fulfilled. First, that what the sentence states is both true and is understood, and second that the hearer accepts that it states a fact. In our case, the temporal reference (i. e. within half an hour, or at seven o’clock) can be checked and only, if true, can it provide the ground for the incentive to act appropriately. Note that the temporal reference may consist in reference to a specific time, date or to a limit, a stretch of time as in the above case: ‘at seven o’clock’, ‘within half an hour’.
    *************
    What we have here discussed represents one topic expounded in the book Eschatology. Others include:
    New Testament Eschatology
    Prophecy and Apocalyptic
    Different kinds of eschatology
    Words and Meanings
    Jesus of the Gospels, the Eschatological Jesus
    Resurrection
    After the End

    Another book by the author discussing these themes is available from Energion Publications: Edward W. H. Vick, The Adventists’ Dilemma

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.