Suggestion: The Queer Bible Commentary
Comments
-
I continue to be amazed and pleased with the respect being shown here, despite differing convictions and interpretations of Scripture. The clear motivations of love are evident. Blessings to all as well all seek to honor God with our lives and learn from Him, through whatever means He has for teaching us, which might include each other from time to time, and might surprise us in their sources from time to time. Whenever someone doubts that they could learn truth from someone else that they consider wrong or obstinate or whatever, I always like to remind them of the story of Balaam who learned God's truth from his ass (donkey). [:)]
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Josh, I think you have missed the point of advocacy theologies in general whether 3rd world, prison, homosexual, feminist ... We all read and interpret Scripture through the lens of our own experience - and often forget how different that experience can be. My favorite example is the Dhalit Commentary written for the untouchables of India. Similarly, we only understand exegesis that is rooted in the vocabulary and experience of our lives. The most moving example I have seen is a exposition on the woman at the well by a Latin American whose only water source was an unreliable community well. The purpose of a book such as the QBC is to interpret scripture in the language and experience of a particular community with the additional hope of making that interpretation more understandable to a wider community. It has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting false interpretations or sin or bending God's truth.
You may disagree with the interpretation of the commentary in precisely the same way you disagree with other commentaries - by reading them closely, tracing their arguments for their interpretation and weighing those arguments against your arguments for a different conclusion. Note I say weigh arguments not compare beliefs - the latter results in a simple "I'm right, you're wrong, I can turn off my brain now and start reading".
We all approach Scripture through the lens of our own experiences, presuppositions and prejudices - we can try to minimize it, but we can't eliminate it. I suspect what makes some of us uncomfortable with what appear to be primarily "advocacy theologies" is a concern that they may intentionally maximize the extent to which personal experience shapes our understanding of Scripture. We can't completely set aside our own ideas and preferences and just hear what God is saying, but it's a worthy goal to pursue. For me, at least, the issue isn't whether a book is written by an author who understands the Bible the same way I do, but whether they share that same goal of setting ourselves aside to listen to God. That has nothing to do with sexual orientation, cultural background, or economic setting. But some works are presented in a way that, rightly or wrongly, makes me wonder if they're intended to use personal experience as the standard for interpreting Scripture, rather than to use Scripture to interpret personal experience. They may well not do that, and I might benefit from them greatly. But when they're presented that way, I'm more likely to pass them up for something else that appears to me to be more helpful.
0 -
I agree that there is plenty of trash available ... I define trash by the quality of the research and thought. And yes, I distinguish between ignorance and trash. And for those who suspect I equate logic to thought I don't ... I'm a huge fan of Edmond Jabes ...his The Book of Shares (Religion and Postmodernism Series) is one of my all time favorite books on religion.
But even the good stuff, there is so much that we must pick and choose what to read balancing what we enjoy, what we need, what others' think we need ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
EastTN said:
We all approach Scripture through the lens of our own experiences, presuppositions and prejudices - we can try to minimize it, but we can't eliminate it. I suspect what makes some of us uncomfortable with what appear to be primarily "advocacy theologies" is a concern that they may intentionally maximize the extent to which personal experience shapes our understanding of Scripture. We can't completely set aside our own ideas and preferences and just hear what God is saying, but it's a worthy goal to pursue. For me, at least, the issue isn't whether a book is written by an author who understands the Bible the same way I do, but whether they share that same goal of setting ourselves aside to listen to God.
I'm interested in the work of Stanley Grenz and John Franke on this subject. How can we determine truth in theology? They collaborated together on a book called Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, which I've been wishing would be available in Logos. In the central section of it, they discuss the three interweaving sources of theology: Scripture (the norm from which our theology derives), Tradition (the way we pass down our hermeneutical approaches to Scripture), and Culture (the context in which we do our theology).
Like you said, we can't completely set aside our own experiences and the culture in which we live and which shaped our presuppositions. I think what Grenz and Franke are saying (though I haven't read the whole book) is that we in fact sometimes need that culture in order to critique cultural blinders that shaped theology that was passed down to us. Not that all theology that preceded our generation is wrong, nor that our culture or community or personal experience is better any any past one. But that it's the dialogue of all of these three factors together which continually refresh and form our theology.
For example, some decades ago in Christian circles in the American South, it would have been unquestioned that Scripture clearly supports slavery. They didn't realize that their own culture was shaping their hermeneutics. From where we're standing today, we can see that obviously biblical interpreters in that era were products of their times, and we in our century can get beyond those particular cultural blinders (though surely we have our own). But in that period, they would have thought that they were just taking the Scripture literally for what it said, without imposing their own viewpoints on it. It took an actual cultural change to see that slavery was wrong and that despite certain passages in Scripture that seemed to view it as normal, actually the broader sweep of Scripture was towards freedom from slavery.
So we could say that our goal is to completely set aside our own ideas and preferences and just hear what God is saying. But God has used our experiences of the Abolition movement and our current culture's distaste for slavery, in order to help us read Scripture in a certain way which today we think is probably a better interpretation of it than the one which reigned 150 years ago. It might be possible that God is using the current sweeping cultural change on the issue of homosexuality to bring about changes in how Christians view the Scriptures on that particular subject. It might not be. But it might be. This cultural change might be a temporary blip. It might be something Christians should fight tooth and nail to their dying day. But it might end up being something like the Civil Rights struggle that ultimately worked out for the good of everyone involved (though there are still people fighting it, Christians even, which is sad, I think). It's hard to see clearly when we're still in the midst of it. Proceeding with charity and with a tentativeness about our theological conclusions on either side of the issue is the only sure way to keep growing in grace and understanding.
Here's a relevant quote from another book by Franke which Faithlife does carry, The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose: A Postconservative Evangelical Approach (it's in pre-pub now as a Logos edition, but I have it already because I bought it when it was a Vyrso title).
As to the nature and progress of doctrine, according to Olson’s characterization, traditionalists emphasize the close identification of central doctrinal affirmations with what is “directly taught in Scripture.” Therefore, they tend to see doctrine as lying at the heart of the enduring essence of Christianity. For traditionalists, it is not “experience or liturgy or forms of community but belief in a set of doctrinal affirmations that can be translated without substantial loss across cultures and languages throughout the centuries and across continents.” In this way, doctrine is the “enduring essence” of Christianity, and thus traditionally accepted doctrinal formulations constitute a first-order language of revelation. Given this understanding of doctrine as a first-order language of revelation, traditionalists view doctrinal progress as “digging deeper into the historic sources and translating them for contemporary people.” Thus, progress is viewed as the “effective spelling out of past achievements in theology.”
Because evangelical traditionalists believe the doctrinal products of their theologizing communicate the essence of Christianity and are normative for Christian faith, they tend to view the theology produced by those who do not share their particular evangelical convictions as being of little positive value in the development and formulation of theology. Rather, such theologies must be exposed as false, heretical, and dangerous in order to safeguard the theological boundaries of the church. Likewise, traditionalists tend to be resistant to the incorporation of culture as an integral part of the theological enterprise, believing that doing so will lead to the sort of cultural accommodation they see in various forms of liberal theology.
Evangelical reformists differ strongly with traditionalists on these issues. Reformists understand evangelicalism as a “centered set” category rather than as the “bounded set” of the traditionalists. They insist that the boundaries remain “open and relatively undefined” and look to the broad, central evangelical commitments as providing coherence for their approach to theology. While nurturing a respect for the rich theological tradition of the past, reformists “recognize the fallibility of every human tradition and the need for ongoing reformulation of human perceptions of truth.” Therefore, reformists look to the future and seek legitimate change within the continuity of the past as the basis for the continuing vitality of evangelical theology.
John R. Franke, The Character of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005).
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
So we could say that our goal is to completely set aside our own ideas and preferences and just hear what God is saying. But God has used our experiences of the Abolition movement and our current culture's distaste for slavery, in order to help us read Scripture in a certain way which today we think is probably a better interpretation of it than the one which reigned 150 years ago. It might be possible that God is using the current sweeping cultural change on the issue of homosexuality to bring about changes in how Christians view the Scriptures on that particular subject. It might not be. But it might be. This cultural change might be a temporary blip. It might be something Christians should fight tooth and nail to their dying day. But it might end up being something like the Civil Rights struggle that ultimately worked out for the good of everyone involved (though there are still people fighting it, Christians even, which is sad, I think). It's hard to see clearly when we're still in the midst of it. Proceeding with charity and with a tentativeness about our theological conclusions on either side of the issue is the only sure way to keep growing in grace and understanding.
Rosie,
thanks for your thoughtful response.
I certainly agree that God can use anything He wants to encourage us to set aside our preconceptions - and that sometimes it takes a pretty big hammer. After all, if the book of Judges teaches us anything, it's that humans are slow learners. For me, at least, there's still an important difference between making a conscious effort to be open to the possibility that God's hand may be at work even in social changes I may not personally like or approve of, and making a conscious decision to interpret Scripture from the vantage point of my own personal situation - especially when that later approach results in interpretations that are more comfortable for me. Please understand, I'm not trying to say that any particular author, book or group is actually doing that. But there are some materials that, at least for marketing purposes, appear to be positioned that way. When they are, it tends to be a turn-off for me.
Apropos of the discussion of "conservative vs. liberal," in the context of Franke's model, I would likely be considered rather conservative. I prefer that term to the one he uses - "traditionalist" - because I'm not especially wedded to particular cultural expressions of community, liturgical forms or styles of worship. But I do believe the gospel message has real doctrinal content that is applicable and transferable across both time and culture. So I imagine that if Paul the rabbi were living today he'd eat kosher in Tel Aviv and pulled pork in Texas, but preach the same gospel in both settings. (Granted, he might use different quotes and illustrations in both places, but they would be in the service of the same gospel message.) This belief that there is a core message to the gospel necessarily shapes my thinking about Christianity. I may have misunderstood important parts of the message, or completely botched its application in any number of specific situations, but I believe it's there, that God wants us to understand it, and that it's the same for all of us.
Anyway, I apologize for going a bit far afield. You just had an interesting enough post that I couldn't help myself. [;)]
0 -
EastTN,
Thank you too for your interesting and gentle response.
EastTN said:For me, at least, there's still an important difference between making a conscious effort to be open to the possibility that God's hand may be at work even in social changes I may not personally like or approve of, and making a conscious decision to interpret Scripture from the vantage point of my own personal situation - especially when that later approach results in interpretations that are more comfortable for me.
This is very wise. I'm reminded of a rule of thumb in textual criticism: the most likely correct original text is the one that is the more difficult reading. That is, scribes who made errors in copying were more likely to have done so to smooth over apparent errors in the existing text. They either consciously ("it couldn't be this; the writer must have meant that; let me fix it") or unconsciously (brain sees what it wants to see) changed it to make it an easier reading. So too perhaps with interpretations. Maybe the interpretation that makes us most squirmy because it convicts us is the more likely one to be correct.
But who are the ones whom Jesus would want to make squirm and feel convicted by Scripture? I think the adage that the gospel "comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable" is also good to keep in mind. In Jesus' day, the Pharisees and tax-collectors and money exchangers in the temple courtyard would have been among the comfortable. They are the ones who were on the receiving end of his scorn. The sexual miscreants (the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the prostitute who poured expensive perfume on his feet and wiped them with her hair), though he expected them to "sin no more" were much more receiving of his grace, precisely because they didn't deserve it and knew they didn't. They would have been those afflicted by major judgement from the society around them, and yet Jesus was comfortable being around them and showing unexpected mercy to them. Our day and age might draw parallels from that.
0 -
Rosie,
I really appreciate your very balanced comments. You're clearly not doing what I'm going to describe in a moment as making me uncomfortable. But you did say something that served to crystallize it for me.
Rosie Perera said:But who are the ones whom Jesus would want to make squirm and feel convicted by Scripture?
I suspect each and every one of us. If we all fall short of the glory of God, then all of us need to change in some way, great or small, if we're to become more like Him. That I think, at core, is what makes me uncomfortable with how some of the more advocacy oriented theologies are positioned. It just seems dangerous to read Scripture with the assumption that I'm in the "comfort" group instead of the "affliction" group. First, I need both. Second, I could be wrong. I'm not saying that any particular author or group is doing this. But sometimes the marketing comes across that way to me.
0 -
EastTN said:Rosie Perera said:
But who are the ones whom Jesus would want to make squirm and feel convicted by Scripture?
I suspect each and every one of us. If we all fall short of the glory of God, then all of us need to change in some way, great or small, if we're to become more like Him. That I think, at core, is what makes me uncomfortable with how some of the more advocacy oriented theologies are positioned. It just seems dangerous to read Scripture with the assumption that I'm in the "comfort" group instead of the "affliction" group. First, I need both. Second, I could be wrong. I'm not saying that any particular author or group is doing this. But sometimes the marketing comes across that way to me.
Well said. It's probably always best to consider ourselves in the "affliction" group and everyone else around us in the "comfort" group. It's the old "log in our own eye" admonition thing. So I wonder whether advocacy theologies are motivated by people feeling afflicted wanting to move more into a comfort position themselves, or other people writing, on behalf of those they know are afflicted, things that will encourage the rest of us to comfort those afflicted ones? Probably a bit of both, but to the extent that it's more of the former, then probably not a good idea. In other words are the writers of the QBC all gay themselves or are they biblical scholars who care for LGBTQ people as afflicted ones? I suppose it would be impossible to write a QBC without some people on the committee who have that life experience themselves, so I'm sure it's at least some of the former. I do hope the writers were all very deeply in prayer throughout the project, to ensure that it wasn't simply a "we feel afflicted and we want to feel comfortable" kind of project. The rest of us will have to make our own decisions as to whether we would want to search in a book like this based on our best guess as to the motivation of the authors.
0 -
Rosie,
those are great questions. Thanks for your insights!
0 -
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. New ideas based on experience or feeling have no merit when it comes to Biblical interpretation. If that is the way the commentary approaches Scripture it is anything but a scholarly work.
0 -
I agree. But even if the QBC is not scholarly, it does not mean it is any less influential. For me it would have an apologetic use.David Taylor Jr said:There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. New ideas based on experience or feeling have no merit when it comes to Biblical interpretation. If that is the way the commentary approaches Scripture it is anything but a scholarly work.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
David Taylor Jr said:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture.
I would like to suggest an alternative. Even if we grant that propositional theology is a valid approach to biblical theology, few would argue it's the only one. (Otherwise, "devotional" literature and other forms of communication that are meant to move us to a deeper relationship with Christ would be ruled out.) And I would expect two people, say, reading Psalm 8 to have a different experience. Both might be valid, but their interpretive experiences would simultaneously be "correct" and different from each other.
Further, in the process of reading different exegetical efforts from different scholars, no two scholars agree on each and every point. Does this mean that one (at most) is correct and everybody else is incorrect? Certainly not.
0 -
Lew Worthington said:David Taylor Jr said:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture.
I would like to suggest an alternative. Even if we grant that propositional theology is a valid approach to biblical theology, few would argue it's the only one. (Otherwise, "devotional" literature and other forms of communication that are meant to move us to a deeper relationship with Christ would be ruled out.) And I would expect two people, say, reading Psalm 8 to have a different experience. Both might be valid, but their interpretive experiences would simultaneously be "correct" and different from each other.
Further, in the process of reading different exegetical efforts from different scholars, no two scholars agree on each and every point. Does this mean that one (at most) is correct and everybody else is incorrect? Certainly not.
I would suggest that none of them is entirely correct, as no human is inerrant. Some, however, are less errant than others; no one is perfectly consistent by this measure, either.
0 -
David Taylor Jr said:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. New ideas based on experience or feeling have no merit when it comes to Biblical interpretation. If that is the way the commentary approaches Scripture it is anything but a scholarly work.
Those interested in exploring this topic should read Cherry, Shai. Torah through Time: Understanding Bible Commentary from the Rabbinic Period to Modern Times. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2007.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Taylor Jr said:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture.
I remember going to Bill Gothard seminars where he used to always say there is only one (correct) interpretation of Scripture, though multiple applications. That's a nice idea that gives us assurance of clarity. But the thing is, even if we disallow any interpretation based on experience (which I agree there is good reason for disallowing), there still are and have been throughout the history of the church multiple interpretive methodologies. The four classic interpretive models as detailed by St. Thomas Aquinas are: historical (literal), allegorical, tropological (moral), and anagogical (mystical or spiritual). There can be multiple valid interpretations of some Scriptural texts. This is known in theology as "the senses of Scripture." Not all senses are present in every passage, and some have only one. But many have different possible meanings.
An example is the story of the ten lepers, in Luke 17. It can be interpreted in three of the above senses. "Literally, it really happened. Ten lepers did cry out 'Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!' So did the rest of the event truly happen as related by St. Luke. Without jeopardizing the historicity of the account there is also rich allegory in the story. The nine Jews who were cured but were ungrateful represent their nation, so graced by God, yet so ungrateful as to miss the time of their visitation. The Samaritan represents the gentile world, who were formerly forgetful of God, but who, with the grace of the New Testament, are grateful. They are the 'strangers' who return to 'give glory to God.' Tropologically, or morally, it teaches us, as a Church and as individuals, to show gratitude to God for the manifest graces He has given us, cleansing our filthiness and healing our diseases." (from "The Four Meanings in Holy Scripture" by Francis Maluf).
0 -
Even merely human works of art, poetry, and literature can speak (on different levels all at once) to peoples from different ages and cultures, remaining alive and relevant over time.
Here's a quote from William Mattison's Introducing Moral Theology, talking about the inexhaustible font of wisdom and grace which is the Word of God:
[quote]
But the wisdom of God is profound beyond our imagination. So it only makes sense that God’s wisdom, which ultimately is one and thus unified, be grasped by different people at different times in different ways. Christians have always espoused what has been called a theological reading of scripture, where the words of scripture can refer to realities beyond the plain senses of the words themselves. The basis of any theological read of scripture must always be the literal words themselves, which act as an anchor to tether our interpretations in truth. Yet as long as that literal sense is respected, application of the words of scripture to our lives or other parts of the Christian tradition can proceed creatively and reverently, confident not only that God’s revelation is one, but also that it is rich beyond our grasp and thus always inviting and nourishing further interpretations.
0 -
David Taylor Jr said:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. New ideas based on experience or feeling have no merit when it comes to Biblical interpretation. If that is the way the commentary approaches Scripture it is anything but a scholarly work.
James and Paul intemperate the same passage of scripture differently. And Jesus often offers a fresh interpretation that does not mean that the older interpretation was wrong. This could easily devolve into a theological discussion that we should avoid. But needless to say one correct interpretation is to put God into a box... and my God is far to big for that. I do value the historical interpretation greatly but from the Church fathers to the reformers there can be vary different interpretations of scripture. It is one of the reasons we have the creeds.
-Dan
0 -
Rosie Perera said:David Taylor Jr said:
There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture.
I remember going to Bill Gothard seminars where he used to always say there is only one (correct) interpretation of Scripture, though multiple applications.
I personally find this a very useful guideline. Another, similar rule that I've also found useful is that a given passage generally has a single meaning or message, but that message may have many different implications. So, for instance, when Paul says in Romans 1:4 that Jesus was "declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead," he's saying something specific (even if we have to work hard with a variety of exegetical tools to recover it across the barriers of time and culture). But the implications of that statement for our lives and our world are endless, as are the connections and resonances with other parts of Scripture. Many, many times I've seen someone talk about the many different "meanings" of a verse when what they were really exploring were its implications.
0 -
For anyone owning a copy of the QBC (be it hard copy or eBook format) I have placed it into a DOCX files so it can be compiled as a Bible Commentary. I will email the document to anyone who asks DWFrancis_AT_aol_DOT_com please place QBC or or the like in the subject so I do not accidentally delete it as junk mail.
-Dan
0 -
