Monday, December 7, 2009

Asking the right questions?

"Asking the [Bible] the right sort of questions, and avoiding asking the wrong ones, is a key not only to understanding the Bible as a written expression of God's Word, but it also prevents us from creating more troubles in interpretation than are necessary" (Ben Witherington III; The Living Word of God, 25).
** ** ** **

I have provided, as bookends for this post, two quotes that I hope can emphasize the point I am trying to make:

I hope that in post-modernism we as Christians may be able to regain a view of the Bible that was damaged during the modern era. Following the Enlightenment much of Western Christianity bought into the worldview of modernity. One of the results of this was an emphasis on "Systematic Theology." Systematic Theology was a way of approaching theology that followed the scientific method. Observe the following quotes from two prominent Christian Systematic Theologians:

“…the theologian must be guided by the same rules in the collection of facts, as govern the man of science.” - Charles Hodge

“the laws of methodology are as essential in the science of systematic theology as in any other science” - L.S. Chafer

“... the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other” - Hodge

I won't take the time and space right now to argue with these quotes other than simply saying that I think this approach to theology has had some very destructive results (if you want some of these ideas just ask and I can comment on them). One of these results is, in my opinion, the largely pointless debate of creationism/evolutionism.

One of the biggest follies Christians have committed is attempting to claim scientific truth in the scriptures. Just ask Copernicus, Galileo, etc...

Obviously this is a hugely dense topic with a tonne of baggage so there's no way I can deal with this with any justice in a blog post but for now I will just highlight one or two points.

Genre, people... genre. In most cases it is not very difficult to identify the genre of any given passage of scripture. For example, to argue that the earth is flat because Ps. 135:7 talks about the "ends of the earth"; or to say that the sun goes around the earth because Ps. 104:22 says that "the sun rises"... to argue these points is just plain silly. Why? (aside from the fact that science has clearly proven otherwise) Because it is poetry! Why on earth would one attempt to derive scientific fact from a sacred poem? Maybe it's just me, but you'd think that a religious poem would be trying to address something other than the natural sciences.

Here's the thing: the Bible has it's own agenda. In a sense it is providing us answers to questions that we may not be asking. So part of the interpretive task for any and every Christian is to find out what questions we need to be asking it (see top & bottom quotes). When we come to the scriptures with our own questions/hypothesis we are almost guaranteed to be misinterpreting it.

It is coming out of this that "Biblical Theology" has risen. The emphasis in Biblical Theology is to read the Bible as a whole and to discern what God's agenda is in the written Word and then yield our agenda's to His.

In short: Systematic Theology starts with our questions and looks to the Bible to answer them while Biblical Theology starts with the Bible's answers and asks us to change our questions.

[This is not to say that all Systematic Theology is bad or that all Biblical Theology is good; nor is it saying that Systematic Theology isn't Biblical or that Biblical Theology isn't in some sense systematic. They are just two different approaches]

So, if we are to even begin to address the creation/evolution debate we need to come to the creation account with no agenda (as much as is possible) on our own part. Or maybe I should say, our only agenda needs to be to hear the answers that God provides us with and then ask if we've been asking the right questions.

I'd like to keep going but I'm not sure how much more you poor readers will keep reading... maybe more next week.

Please provide me with your thoughts and comments :)

** ** ** **
"Even when only partly understood, the Bible remain(s) bigger than the niches to which it (has been) relegated. For it requires that we be hearers of the Word,
listening for what it asks us, not bringing our questions to find the Bible's answers, but prepared to have our current questions revised or even discredited by its own" (James McClendon; Ethics, 37).

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course we need to remember that even those who do Biblical Theology end up using systems. Systems are what allow us to say anything at all. What I love about Biblical Theology is the idea that we allow the scriptures to tell us what questions we are asking. You mentioned Creation and Evolution as one place. But think about the gospels and the incredible number of inconsistencies that are there. Did Jesus clears the temple at the beginning or the end of his ministry? Or what day did Jesus die on? Because that's not the same... and this is only the beginning. The Bible is full of conflicting accounts, and when we try and read the Bible with a modern historical/scientific minds we will run into all kinds of troubles. I think one of the best things that Post-modernism offers us is that it allows us not to be bothered when everything doesn't fit the system.
Nate McCorkindale

Anonymous said...

So Tim...are you saying you're an evolutionist? :-)

Tim and Annalisa Sawatzky said...

Nice work Mr. Braun. I loved Systematic theology in school, but Biblical theology was definitely my favorite class. I think it is good to look at both ways of thinking. But you are right, when we bring our questions to scripture, it is really easy to make a verse say something it was never intended to.

Tim S.

Tim and Annalisa Sawatzky said...

Oh ya, and that globe thingy on the side is starting to creep me out a bit. It never moves! Just stares at me with an upside-down Africa stare. Weird.

Tim S.

Anonymous said...

"Pointless debate of creationism/evolutionism."

Man, I feel shot down! I find that extremely interesting. And you say its pointless! How 'bout you, Scott?

Now if you mean pointless because we accept that God created the Earth and the stars and everything else; the way he created things is irrelevant. There are so many other things in the Bible that are more important, like how we obtain salvation.

Tim, can you address Nate's claim about conflicting passages and inconsistencies in the Bible?

Thanks,
Rick

Timothy Braun said...

Rick, let's get that quote right: "...the LARGELY pointless debate..." It is in no way COMPLETELY pointless (and it is definitely interesting). Of course, all of this is just my opinion so you are more than free to disagree with me. Next week I will flesh out my own stance which will hopefully answer some of your questions (as well as Bryan's).

As far as conflicting passages in the Bible go: there are many. I could list off a bunch of examples but, since we're kind of focusing on creation stuff, what about Gen. 1 vs Gen. 2?

Gen. 1:11-13 says that all plant life and vegetation was created on the 3rd day while humanity was created on the 6th day.

Gen. 2:5-7 describes the creation of man happening "when no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up..."

The timelines of these creation accounts do not line up. People have come up with rather intricate explanations (extrapolations) to reconcile the two but I don't think they need to be (THEY CERTAINLY WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE).

Once again I will draw our focus to GENRE. When you look to the original languages (you can even get a sense of it in our translations as well) it becomes clear that the Bible starts of as a poem.

Gen. 1:1-2:3 is a wonderfully powerful, poetic expression of God's creative work.

Gen. 2:4 shifts from poem to prose; begining the folk-history of God's people.

More on this next week.

Each of these contradictions needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. As long as we do not anachronistically impose our modern standards onto the Ancient Word we rarely have anything to be concerned about.

Scott said...

Thanks Tim for this post and getting the juices flowing. I have always considered myself to be post-modern. The problem is so much of our past has roots in modern dogma that it is sometimes difficult to not bring any baggage to the table, but we try...

Rick, I don't feel sandbagged by this post because it goes along what I'm formulating. I'm not looking for something that will make me feel that believing evolutionism is correct anymore than I'm not looking for something that proves a literal 6 day creation. I'm trying to think genre and big picture, like Tim is suggesting. Micro evolution can be proven, that's a fact. Can the evolution of us as a species be totally proven just yet, I don't think so. But my point is that if it is proven either way, it doesn't mean that christians have to protest against evolutionist's and condemn them to hell. Genesis was first written by a man and described as only a man of the time would know. Like so much of scripture, and Tim mentioned this too, it's poetry, a story.

The biggest beef I have is a lot of churches teach literal creationism and we are getting caught up on the mechanism of creation. I don't want to get caught up on the mechanism of creation. I straight out believe the universe was created by God. The beauty of science is that as it pulls back the layers and we understand more of the mechanism, we get tangible proof that there is no way this could all just line up randomly.

Anonymous said...

Hey Scott & Tim

Humour doesn't type well, especially the Sawatsky humour that has rubbed off on me. I was really just putting a dig in because Tim knows that I have a passion for the topic, espicially with my backgroung in genetics and evolution. and then he says its pointless....

Scott, I agree with your last paragraph. The more science uncovers about genetics and the way things work, the more beautiful and intricite God's creation becomes. And the less likely darwinian evolution was the mechanism.

I can't wait to make more pointless points next week! ;)

Rick

Lisa Sawatzky said...

Rick, I can't believe you spelled "Sawatzky" wrong. Sheesh, some family member you are! :)

Tim, I'll be honest, this whole creation/evolution topic has always made me very frustrated (I'm not great with debates in general though.) People who believe in creation-evolution, or the ones that I've talked to, get so into what they are saying that they discredit the fact that God COULD HAVE created the world in 6 days. I don't know if he did or not, and to me it doesn't really matter because that was the past and now is the present and I have too many other things to worry about, but it bothers me a bit because I really do believe that nothing is impossible for God. So he really could create in 6 days. OR, he may have created over time. I don't know, but do we have to take away from God's abilities by saying that it wasn't possible one way or the other?

I know, I don't belong in a debate of this magnitude, but I just feel like saying to people sometimes, GOD CREATED THE WORLD! I believe that... and I honestly don't care how he did it. But then again, that's why I usually don't comment on these things because to some people this is really important and I shouldn't interfere with what others are wrestling through. I just thought I'd put in my two-cents to say that there are people who are ambivalent to the "how" of creation, as long as the truth remains the truth and we stay consistent on the "Who" of creation. Boy, I hope that made sense. :)

Anonymous said...

Well, Lisa. The only excuse I have for mis-spelling Sawatzky is that it is very cold in my office and my fingers, and possibly brain, weren't working properly.

Rick

Scott said...

I'm not sure that creation looked like evolution either, evolution is still a theory. Creation might actually have taken 6 days, I agree. However, there is also a chance that it didn't. One can't really argue definitively either way, in my opinion. The point is to not dwell on pushing a "church approved" view versus a secular view. Like you said Lisa, most people don't actually care how God created the world. But some people are interested in how the world works and I don't think it has to be in oppositition to our "christian" beliefs. (Christian is in brackets because I simply couldn't think of a better word to describe what I'm trying to say).

Lisa Sawatzky said...

Scott, I agree! Well said. Being pushy is not helpful in most situations.

Rick, I'm sorry your fingers are cold. I'll forgive you for misspelling my name... this time.

Jen Glen said...

I love Lisa's statement...I definitely don't belong in a debate of this magnitude either. Tim, I would LOVE to sit down with you, and perhaps Dallas or Bill, at the retreat and just listen to you guys talk this out. B/c maybe I'm really on the same page...I'm not sure, but I would like to know. B/c I do get what you're all saying. And Scott, I too would love to know what exactly to teach any future children.