Category Archives: Hermeneutics
younger than the happy meal? evangelicals, abortion and ahistoricism
An interesting and revealing article appeared on a Patheos blog some days ago claiming that the current and standard Evangelical view on abortion, that human life unquestioningly begins at conception, can in fact be traced to a point no less recently than 30 years ago.
In his post, entitled The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal, Fred Clark shows quite convincingly that the contemporary black-and-white approach to abortion, an approach that has been taken for granted by many as simply biblical, was not in fact the view of conservative Evangelicals 30 years ago.
One of notable Evangelicals includes Normal Geisler (Trinity Evangelical Seminary, Dallas Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminar) who, in his 1971 book Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, argued that, “The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.” His view changed radically in subsequent years.
Clark also points to a 1979 Christianity Today article, edited by Harold Lindsell (whom Clark calls a “champion of ‘inerrancy’ and author of The Battle for the Bible“), in which a unnamed Dallas Seminary professor labelled the Catholic position on abortion “unbiblical” and wrote:
God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.
This was considered by Evangelicals an orthodox position. How things have changed.
I should make clear right now that I am refusing to offer a personal view on the issue of abortion in this post. If anyone is wishing to judge me based on my view, you can stop reading right now since ou won’t get it – abortion per se is not my interest here.
The problem with the abortion debate is the utter ahistoricism inherent in much of the rhetoric – most people are not willing to examine nor even acknowledge the historical antecedents of their own views. This results in a basic historical ignorance and the mistaken view that one’s perspective is somehow directly derived from the Bible without need of reference to 2000 years of subsequent history and cultural trajectories.
In and of itself the constant implication that a particular view of abortion is a defining mark of Evangelical, nay, Christian, theology is quite disturbing. So too is the division caused by the issue – I know of no human being who views abortion as a moral good, rather the debate centres on if and when it might be necessary.
I constantly find myself aghast at the incomprehensibility of the conservative/fundamentalist obsession with abortion and homosexuality, particularly when the biblical material on these issues is so sparse (arguably absent in the case of the former). In contrast I find myself more horrified by the lack of concern for more pressing global issues such as poverty, greed, violence and environmental stewardship, especially considering the weight of biblical precedent for such foci (in the case of poverty there are over 2000 references in the Bible, demonstrating at the very least a comprehensive concern).
How did we arrive at this situation where the dominant conservative approach to the intersection of Bible and culture is so unbalanced toward, statistically speaking, minor issues? I’m sure the answer is highly complex, and I do not imagine I can even begin to answer it here.
Needless to say that the stereotypical conservative hermeneutic has become so selective and propositional that it has failed to discern the “big picture” of the biblical narrative, preferring to focus on fairly narrow issues of morality. Moreover it seems that this hermeneutic has become the slave of a socio-politically conservative agenda.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that the primary proponents of this agenda are those that experience little in the way of social marginalisation. As a result they are unable to stand against many forms of real injustice that affect them directly. Moreover, given that their legacy is definitive global chaos in the form of issues such as poverty, environmental destruction and corporate greed, it is unlikely that their hermeneutic will make space to confront such issues.
Since such people are, historically speaking, not generally female or homosexual, is it any wonder that the inner-desire for righteous antagonism finds its resting place in issues that focus on women and gays – the very people they are not? These issues become the perfect social evil to rail about self-righteously.
No need for suffering in the name of justice, for incarnation. No need to be legitimately pro-life across all aspects of life. All that is required is the equivalent of a theological sniper rifle.
Sadly the Bible is cooped by this agenda, and history is blindly assumed to be on side. After all, what we believe now has always been the case, right?
MCA
reflections on piper’s “masculine christianity”
Hello readers! It’s nice to be back on board life.remixed after a week of work travel – apologies for the gap.
Since I’ve been away for a little bit this post will be reflecting on an event from last week. Though it is a little old, I feel that this event deserves some treatment, particularly since I have been asked about it a number of times.
On Wednesday last week the Christian Post ran a story entitled John Piper: ‘God Gave Christianity a Masculine Feel’. It reported that Piper, at the 2012 ‘Desiring God’ Conference (which he founded), declared “God has given Christianity a masculine feel.”
The full transcript of the sermon records that Piper, speaking to a room full of pastors, backed up this claim by saying:
God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son. The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2). God appoints all the priests in Israel to be men. The Son of God comes into the world as a man, not a woman. He chooses twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men; and that in the home, the head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33).
The sermon goes on, concentrating largely on the ‘masculine’ life of 19th-century English bishop John C. Ryle. I will refrain from quoting it at length (click the link above for the full text). Much has been written on other blogs, so I will simply offer some points of interest as to why I think Piper’s claims are simplistic, exegetically sloppy and ideologically-driven. Read the rest of this entry
q&r: luke 19 and the parable of the minas
A Facebook message I received today read simply:
Luke 19 – parable of the 10 Minas. Please explain?
Straightforward. I like that.
The Parable of the Ten Minas is a well-known parable whose popular interpretation has God as the nobleman and Christians as the servants. In this reading faithful servants are those who are productive. We all have different levels of resources, and this is taken into account by God. Ultimately though the faithful are rewarded and the unproductive are punished.*
The problem with this reading is that it portrays God as a cold, cruel, greedy elitist. It assumes that the nobleman in the parable, who is a wealthy character, should be equated with God. As I have said previously this is a mistake; Luke consistently portrays the rich in less than flattering ways throughout his Gospel:
- … he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. (1:53)
- … woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. (6:24)
- … the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich towards God. (12:21)
It would be strange if Luke suddenly equated God with a rich man.
If the nobleman is not God, and the story is not about productivity, what exactly is going on in this parable? Read the rest of this entry
bible infallibility & the act of reading
Someone on my Facebook News Feed wrote the other day something along the lines that God used fallible people to write his infallible Word (the Bible) and so people should stop thinking they are smarter than God (I assume by questioning this apparent fact).
I don’t mean to disrespect this person (if they are reading this, hello!) …
… but I do wish to ask questions about this way of thinking.
To me the idea of an infallible Bible is riddled with problems. This is not because I doubt the power of God in any way, but rather because I doubt the ability of humans to write anything that is infallible, even under divine inspiration.
(Yes that’s right, I am differentiating infallibility and inspiration – they are not the same thing.)
Some may argue that God can overcome the shortcomings of humans to achieve his will, including the composition of the biblical text. This is however a problematic claim – does God override the will of the person to do so? Why use a person at all?
We could explore this for ages, so I’ll move on to my main question Read the rest of this entry
select your character: identifying with bible “heroes”?
I am often amazed at the parallels we draw between ourselves and characters in the Bible.
We are taught as early as Sunday school, and certainly in much contemporary preaching, to identify with the so-called “heroes” of the Bible.
Just as Moses trusted in God and performed great signs, so too can we if we trust God too!
Just as David slew Goliath, so too can we overcome our “giants”.
Just as Jesus challenged the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, so too should we challenge hypocrisy.
Now, I’m not necessarily denying the basic truth of these statements… Read the rest of this entry
old testament violence: is God really genocidal?
On this blog I have written a good number of posts on violence in the Bible, arguing for a robust theology and practice of nonviolence based primarily on the ethics of Jesus.
The number one question I have received in response to these posts has been, “But what about violence in the Old Testament?”
This is an important question, for it is not simply about whether the Bible advocates violence – it is about whether or not God himself is violent. Read the rest of this entry
hell raiser: francis chan and “erasing hell”
A few months ago I watched this video and I’ve been meaning to write something on it, though I’ve had it on the backburner for a while.
The video is a preview/advert for Francis Chan’s now-released book, Erasing Hell. I should note I have not read the book, nor do I plan to in the near future (PhD studies… they ruin everything). For this reason I do not know in any definite way what Chan’s view is on the subject of Hell, nor is it directly relevant to this post. I should also note that I am not interested in discussing the content of the book, but only of the video.
The video begins with an air of humility, including the use of biblical metaphors to demonstrate how much lower we are than God, just as clay to the potter. So far so good. Read the rest of this entry
what are “the powers”? the demonic in the new testament
Much has been said and written about the demonic forces that are mentioned sparsely throughout the New Testament. Perhaps it is no coincidence that we live in a world absolutely fascinated by the supernatural. Either way the topic of the demonic, or “the powers”, not only generates strong interest, it also has a powerful bearing on how we approach “spiritual warfare” (a topic I am soon to address on life.remixed).
The demonic is referred to many times in the New Testament. It would be impractical to list them all here. “The powers” on the other hand, often associated with the demonic, are only mentioned a handful of times in in the New Testament:
Is this what "the powers" refers to?
1. The apocalypses in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 – “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” (Mark 13:24-25) Read the rest of this entry
revelation & rethinking the millennium
One understanding of Revelation, including the Millennium (20:1-6). Simple, wouldn't you agree?
Surely one of the most controversial and debated sections of Scripture is that of the Millennium in Revelation 20:1-6. Different perspectives in the Church today argue adamantly for their understanding of the Millennium despite the relative unimportance and narrative space given to it by Revelation’s author. Nonetheless this argument is in many ways representative of the larger debate regarding eschatology and how to interpret the Bible, thus it is crucial in terms of the practice of the Church in the twenty-first century world.
So, ignoring some of the more speculative elements of the Millennium, my question is what do we make of this thousand year period described in the last biblical book? Is it in fact a literal time period, or a symbolic one? Read the rest of this entry
thoughts on islamophobia and fundamentalism
Anders Behring Breivik
How easy it is for Australians to jump to the conclusion that Islamic extremists are responsible for all forms of terrorism. The latest tragedy in Norway represents a prime example of this.
(In saying this I do not mean to in any way negate the scope of the tragedy, or divert attention from the horrific 91+ deaths of mostly young people; I merely intend to discuss one aspect of the issue from the point of view of this blog’s theme.)
The New York Times claimed that initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants (with, it seems, no credible evidence for this).
The UK’s Guardian suggested that, “The most tempting and immediate conclusion was that it would be a jihadist group,” (again with no credible evidence).
Australia’s Andrew Bolt put his suspicions out in the open Read the rest of this entry
