Andrew Rozalowsky, blogger, seminary student, cancer survivor, and lover of God’s Word, interviews David Alan Black on the subject of scholarship in service of the church.
I am convinced that the number one problem in the Western church today is that we are not very good at making disciples of Jesus Christ. We are too distracted with other things– our hobbies, our jobs, our leisure time, and yes… even our families can distract us from following Jesus in the way of the cross. Jesus calls us into a living and vital relationship with him, but instead we prefer to keep that relationship at a distance, a sort of email pen pal.
Take a few moments and read the blog and then let us all carefully consider what God is calling each of us, and each of our fellowships, to do for his Kingdom.
Bruce Epperly comments on the lectionary this week:
… we can recognize that worshipping creatures rather than the Creator leads us from life to death.
What is really important? Do our behaviors follow our values? For example, most parents say that family comes first; but often family and relationships come a distant second to our professional lives. Moreover, though we speak of cultivating positive relationships with our children, we often spend more time on the I-pad or cell phone than playing with them at the local playground. To be whole, our values and behaviors need to be in synch. Practically speaking, the word “god” answers the question, “What is really important to you?” and this can be a matter of life and death, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Read the whole thing. Then consider: What kind of idolatry might there be in your life? Might it lead you from life to death?
Energion author Heath Taws, who is also Director of Youth and Children’s ministries at Spring Run Presbyterian Church in Midlothian, VA, challenges us with some thoughts he had while visiting the Redwood trees in California.
When I think about these trees, I think about how we should be doing evangelism. All of us know someone in our Church or in our friend circles who is like a giant redwood. That person stretches their roots out and supports the weaker trees in the Church or in the community. Not only that, but they provide water and nourishment for the trees who are going through dry times in their lives. They seek out the trees who are disconnected from the root system, and they go after them. They keep offering their roots, they keep offering their water, and ultimately, they want to connect them to the source tree.
Read the whole thing. What do you think? Is this a good model for evangelism?
One of the phrases used frequently in this discussion was “social justice.” Energion author Elgin L. Hushbeck, Jr. was listening, and commented to me that he objected to the term “social justice,” because, he said, once you added the adjective, it was no longer actually justice.
I, in turn, suggested that this sounded like a good topic for a volume in our new Topical Line Drives series, and the result was the book What is Wrong with Social Justice?.
Unsurprisingly, other authors disagree with Elgin’s position, and we’ve started a discussion on the topic. Besides the video above, you can read a review of Elgin’s book by Energion author Bob LaRochelle. Here’s some extracts:
In the interest of full disclosure, it is important that I tell you that over the course of much of my life, I have held the position that social justice is important. In fact, I have long seen the pursuit of social justice as a ‘given’, i.e. as a constitutive aspect of both my religious faith and of my responsibility as an American citizen. I still do!
As I read Mr. Hushbeck’s brief work, part of Energion Publication’s Topical Line Drives series, I found myself deeply impressed with the quality of his presentation. His approach to government and his application of Biblical teachings to questions of justice within a society are well thought out and demonstrate strong, heartfelt religious conviction and philosophical consistency. As he notes, some of us who identify as liberals and are Christians all too readily characterize more conservative Christian believers as lacking appropriate compassion for the poor and marginalized. This characterization is often unfair and most certainly does not apply to Mr. Hushbeck.
With respect to one of the major social issues of our time, health care, I would contend that there is something UNJUST when one’s health or the health of one’s children might be totally contingent upon one’s income and, in the case of those children, the income of one’s parents.
This discussion should not be just about the terminology we use, but rather about how we deal with significant issues in our society, and what those issues are. Is justice to be applied to groups or to individuals? Can we provide health care to all irrespective of income (as the last extract from Bob’s review suggests) and still be “just,” “fair,” or “equitable” in how we deal with individuals?
Bob LaRochelle and Elgin Hushbeck are going to try to help us work out some of these issues when they discuss this topic in a Google Hangout on Air on October 28, 2014 at 7:00 PM. Don’t miss it!
One of the more controversial books I publish is titled Except for Fornication: The Teaching of the Lord Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage. (It’s in the Areopagus Critical Christian Issues series)There are a number of people who have asked me why I chose to publish this book. Come to think of it, I’ve had questions about quite a number of books, but those that are anywhere on the outer edges of my triangle (), very conservative, liberal, charismatic, or _______, generate the most puzzled comments.
Here are some excellent reasons (in my opinion):
- It passes scholarly muster.
- It will challenge the way most of us think about a number of scriptures.
- It deals with an issue that should be front and center in the church right now.
- It’s clear and concise.
Notice that I left out “I agree with it,” and “you’ll like it.” I suspect most readers won’t. That’s something odd for a publisher to say. But of the goals of ministry—comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable—I tend toward afflicting the comfortable. Whether I agree with it is quite irrelevant.
Today Dave Black, one of the editors of the Areopagus series, posted a note on his blog about this topic. I’m going to quote his post in full (with permission) and invite discussion. (Everything between the horizontal lines is quoted from Dave’s blog.)
9:48 AM Russ Moore asks a very good question: Is Divorce Equivalent to Homosexuality? His answer is both balanced and biblical. Where I might demur is here:
But divorce and remarriage is not, beyond that, applicable to the same-sex marriage debate. First of all, there are arguably some circumstances where divorce and remarriage are biblically permitted. Most evangelical Christians acknowledge that sexual immorality can dissolve a marital union, and that innocent party is then free to remarry (Matt. 5:32). The same is true, for most, for abandonment (1 Cor. 7:11-15). If the church did what we ought, our divorce rate would be astoundingly lowered, since vast numbers of divorces do not fit into these categories. Still, we acknowledge that the category of a remarried person after divorce does not, on its face, indicate sin.
I am curious as to how widely this view represents the thinking of evangelicals on this debated issue. 1) I think a case can be made, scripturally, that even when divorce is justified on biblical grounds, remarriage is still forbidden by Jesus as long as the first spouse is still alive. And 2) an instance of divorce-remarriage (where the first spouse is still living) would, on its face, constitute sin (adultery). The irony is that, while evangelicals are rightly concerned about the homosexual agenda in our society, they are moving away from a high view of marriage, thus leading to what Moore calls “the charge of hypocrisy.”
The preaching on divorce has been muted and hesitating all too often in our midst. Sometimes this is due to what the Bible calls “fear of man,” ministers and leaders afraid of angering divorced people (or their relatives) in power in congregations. Sometimes it’s due to the fact that divorce simply seems all too normal in this culture; it doesn’t shock us anymore.
So, my message to my fellow evangelicals, in a nutshell, is this: cherish your marriage! Not in a sinful or prideful way, of course, but simply as a precious gift from God that needs to be nurtured and protected. Be daringly committed to your spouse, and hold fast to the vows you once took before God and others. Warning: Do not read this is as a screed against divorced or divorced/remarried Christians. I know of two divorce situations involving Christian friends of mine that are ripping my heart out right now. Those who have read my book The Jesus Paradigm will have no trouble understanding why I feel so deeply for Christians who struggle in life. I realize that my view on remarriage is a minority view in Christian circles, but given the overall theological, psychological, and spiritual implications of divorce and remarriage, I think this one point of disagreement is worth registering.
Thanks to Russ for his stimulating and courageous essay. I’m sure those with interest in this topic will read it with great benefit. In the meantime, let’s all keep reading and thinking ….
So what do you think? How can we cherish our marriages? How can we be true to the teaching of Jesus?
I’m not asking whether you think Markan priority is likely, but rather whether you think the level of confidence in it amongst biblical scholars is justified.
David Alan Black has just posted a blog about it, which I copied to WhyFourGospels.com (allowing me to link to the specific post), discussing this very question. Dave’s position is not in doubt. I publish his book Why Four Gospels? in which he outlines his case for the fourfold gospel hypothesis.
I often avoid giving my opinion in these things, but let me just note that I believe one’s view depends to a large extent on how one weighs external vs. internal evidence, and, of course, your evaluation of particular forms of external evidence. If you favor internal evidence, then you’re likely to support Markan priority. If you think it unlikely that the church fathers either knew or accurately reported information about the authorship of New Testament books, you’ll likely support Markan priority. If not, well, not so much!
I did such study of the New Testament as I did under people who took Markan priority as a given. I was barely aware that there was an alternative, and paid it very little attention. One might think that my mind was changed by publishing a book on the topic, but that actually came second. My belief that Markan priority was essentially a given was shattered by reading William R. Farmer’s The Synoptic Problem. I followed that up with looking at some other material by him and others.
I am not convinced of everything Dave writes in Why Four Gospels?. I’m less concerned with issues of historicity than he is, I believe. (Note please that I did not say “unconcerned with issues of historicity.” I do believe that historical foundations are important.) But despite some remaining issues, such as that I do not see a convincing explanation for the state of the text of Mark, I think Matthean priority is more probable than that there was a hypothetical document ‘Q’.
So what think you all?
We recently released a new book in the Topical Line Drives series, What is Wrong with Social Justice?. In it Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. presents his case that “social justice” is not actual justice. In fact, he claims, it is inimical to true justice.
Energion author Bob LaRochelle has a somewhat different view. While he appreciates the tone and quality of Elgin’s argument, he continues to disagree with the main point.
Join the discussion on Bob’s blog or here.
Also: Watch here for information on a Google Hangout on Air that will feature Elgin and Bob discussing their differences on this issue. The hangout will be on October 28 at 7 pm central time.
Bob Cornwall, author of Unfettered Spirit: Spiritual Gifts for the New Great Awakening, has published an extract on ordination (The Biblical Call to Ordained Ministry). I think this would be a good launching pad for a discussion of the nature of ordination and what this means about church polity, if anything.
Read Bob’s post first, but then think about this: Are there any functions of the church that should require the participation of an ordained minister? What are these things? Why does ordination only apply to one called to exercise pastoral gifts? (Does it?)
From Dave Black Online, used by permission.
7:45 AM Today I’m taking a much-needed break from scholarship. I’m going to spend the next few days getting the farm into shape for the haying season. My new ride mower (that was dead-on-arrival) was replaced yesterday, and I am hoping against hope that this new machine will start. The yard grass is already reaching Eden-like proportions, and I’d rather not bush-hog it if I can avoid it.
Let me just say a word about this weekend’s Pericope of the Adulteress Conference on campus. A number of factors made it, in my opinion, a fabulous success. First, there was the high quality of scholarship represented by the five speakers.
That level of expertise provided the rest of us with an enormous opportunity that is often absent when these matters are being discussed or debated. Second, the lecturers all spoke with the greatest clarity — and charity. The buzz in the room was definitely a positive one! This is partly because the speakers all knew each other fairly well; some have collaborated on writing projects for years. Constant association with one’s colleagues cannot help but build a sense of genuine collegiality. It is partly because the speakers respected each other, and it showed. Third, it has been shown that the majority of people base their academic positions on exposure to various points of view. Hermeneutics is not so much a crisis; it is more a process. This may well be the most critical aspect of the conference: it both broadened and deepened the conversation in significant ways. Fourth, it is abundantly plain that the vast majority of people who attended left with a deep sense of satisfaction and even joy at having witnessed such cordiality and amiability. Each of our speakers is a warm, committed, unembarrassed Christian, representing different Christian traditions to be sure, but nonetheless “Christian” both in their approach to the text of the New Testament as Scripture and in their deportment.
Maurice’s perspective draws from a lifetime of experience in encountering actual manuscripts rather than from the many books on the subject. Some may find him too detailed, but this is a good fault for a textual critic! For far too many Christians, textual criticism is a meaningless ivory tower pursuit or else simply the prolegomenon to something far more important. Maurice showed us that nothing could be further from the truth. He has spent a career showing average evangelical Christians how important and relevant textual criticism is to our understanding of sacred Scripture.
Just as politics is too important to leave to the politicians, so textual criticism is too important to leave to the experts. They may know more than you do, but you are the ones who will have to decide, week in and week out, whether or not you teach or preach this disputed word or that debated passage. No, we cannot leave textual criticism to the scholars. Each church member has a job to do. And that job includes personal involvement, to some degree at least, in deciding between textual variants. I dread to think of the opportunities I constantly miss through my failure to dig deeper into the text on this level. Years ago one passage brought this home to me, and it will always stand as an example of the relevance of textual criticism for the church. In some manuscripts of Matt. 5:22 we have a Jesus who condemns all anger, while in other manuscripts we see Him forbidding only causeless (eike) anger. What a difference a little Greek adverb can make! To put it another way, our views about the legitimacy of anger for the Christian are dependent to a very great degree on our understanding of textual criticism. We have to engage in it!
This is now the third time I’ve helped to organize a conference of this kind on campus, and I must confess to you that all along I’ve had an ulterior motive. We Christians live a good deal of our lives in splendid isolation, rarely interacting with people from differing perspectives or backgrounds. It is sort of a self-imposed monasticism. And it is dangerous. My hope for all of our conferences is that they will become bridge builders. Christians are so varied, and their starting points are so diverse, that it is always good for us to listen to each other. I’m not suggesting for a moment that it is necessary to surrender our long-cherished views or personal convictions in order to engage in dialogue. What I am saying is that none of us has a complete handle on the truth, and so we need modesty. The world is filled with harsh, pushy people who are always trying to sell us something. We are repelled by them, and rightly so. Christianity calls for much more moderation than that. At the same time, Christianity also calls for us to speak with confidence whenever we proclaim the word of God. If that is the case, it follows that we should acquire at least of modicum of facility in the art and science of New Testament textual criticism. No, we may not always know precisely what the original reading is in a place of variation. But at least we can tell our people that we have done our own homework and have made an honest effort to understand the problem for ourselves. Christianity is inescapably intellectual. Engaging in exegesis is not an optional matter for those who “like” that kind of thing. It is an integral part of what it means to be a Christian.
Evangelical textual criticism is not the kingdom (God forbid!). But it is a tool in God’s kingdom that tries to serve and please the King. New Testament interpretation does not end with textual criticism but it begins with it. No wonder the audience over the weekend seemed so delighted and pleased to have been treated to a clear and enjoyable presentation of the major hypotheses surrounding the PA. I hope the time will come when every serous Christian will join the conversation. An excellent entrée into the discipline is Harold Greenlee’s Introduction to New Testament Criticism. My own New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide, attempts to introduce the subject in a simple and clear manner. In all this, it is important to remember that we are not trying to undermine anyone’s confidence in his or her translation of the Bible. We are simply trying to bring home to others the awesome responsibility that interpreting the Bible is. New Testament textual criticism is not an end in itself. The hope is that as we study the text of the New Testament we will go on until we find the pearl of great price as part of our search.
My sincere thanks to all of the wonderful speakers (J. D. Punch, Jennifer Knust, Tommy Wasserman, Chris Keith, Maurice Robinson); to president Danny Akin of SEBTS for his enthusiastic support; and especially to my personal assistant, Mr. Jacob Cerone, whose tireless attention to a myriad of details — sprinkled with a massive amount of live blogging — reminds me daily of why I appreciate him so much.
P.S. For what it’s worth, my own view is that the PA is original. The inclusion of John 7:53-8:11 is well attested externally; it is early (the Old Latin pushes the reading back into the second century); and the passage is sui generis with the rest of John’s Gospel in terms of vocabulary and style. I’m not much of a fan of internal evidence, but I would accept either the “Liturgical Omission” or the “Ecclesiastical Repression” hypothesis as an adequate explanation for the omission of the PA in some early manuscripts. So, in conclusion, I would most certainly preach/teach this passage as Scripture but let’s be honest — there is no unique “evangelical” stance one can take. The issue is a matter upon which good people (including biblical inerrantists) will continue to disagree.
P.P.S. I agree with Dr. Robinson that the elephant in the room was the (often unexpressed) predilection for the Alexandrian text type among modern textual scholars. My friend Keith Elliott once called this the “hypnotic affect of Aleph and B.” (I honestly do not know if he continues to use that language to describe this phenomenon.) I believe it is time to lay this misconstrued concept to rest. The NA 28 is no more to be considered an authoritative text than the TR was 150 years ago. At the same time, I think Maurice’s case for Byzantine Priority is very weak. I’d love to believe it, but the evidence is just not there. I tend to lean more toward Harry Sturz’ view (The Byzantine Text Type and New Testament Textual Criticism) that the Byzantine text, because it is unedited in the Westcott and Hort sense, remains a reliable witness to the text of the New Testament but not the only one. Which is why I’ve been speaking to Henry Neufeld of Energion Publications (who is now visiting with me on the farm) about the possibility of him re-issuing Harry’s now out-of-print book.
Keep thinking, reading, discussing, and living the Gospel!