Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts

Monday, August 28, 2006

Books for Bible Seminar

Since Troy asked so nicely, I'm posting here some of the books that I'm using for next week's seminar on the Bible. This is by no means a comprehensive list, and I am - despite my apparent reputation in the blogosphere - by no means a Biblical scholar. There are certainly books left off here which may be more useful than some of the books listed here. But the books listed here are books which have in some way or another shaped the seminar I'll be giving at Fourth Ave UMC in Louisville, KY next Wednesday, to kick off our Wednesday Evening Forum series. I will try at some point to also put together a list of the books that my pastor, Dr. Jean Hawxhurst, used for her doctoral dissertation on roughly the same topic. I know that we have several books in common, but I'm sure that her list is more thorough than mine.

Whose Bible is It?, by Jaroslav Pelikan.

Probably the most important book for my seminar, this is my source for almost everything concerning the formation of the Biblical canon. Subtitled A Short History of the Scriptures, it is just that. Short enough to be readable for lay people, it is still thorough enough to anticipate most of the questions I brought to it. It is a history of both the formation of the Bible and the way in which the Bible (which is not a single book, but that is for another time) has been read through history.

Making Wise the Simple, by Johanna W.H. van Wijk-Bos.

This text, written by my Scripture professor in seminary (again, for the record, I am a seminary drop out - please don't mistake me for someone with a Master's degree, as has happened here before), helped shape my approach to the Torah. It aims for a distinctly Christian interpretation of the Torah which remains faithful to the Jewish roots of Christianity. It is one of the most thorough books I've ever read, fittingly from someone who once told me that while my exegesis is creative, I need to read the text much more carefully.

The Heart of Christianity, by Marcus Borg.

Much of how I approach the life and ministry of Jesus comes from this member of the Jesus Seminar, who teaches at Oregon State University. The Heart of Christianity takes many of his insights in Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, and places them within the what he calls the Emerging Paradigm of Christianity. Borg is one of two authors I've read who urge a way of reading Scripture which is bound neither to literalism or fundamentalism on one side and detached historical and textual criticism on the other side. Everything that I've written on reading scripture for meaning rather than literal-historical truth value starts with Borg.

Unleashing the Scripture, by Stanley Hauerwas.

Hauerwas is a theological ethicist, not a Biblical scholar, but this work is one of the more lucid guides I've read on how to read the Bible. Like Borg, Hauerwas urges readers to not get attached to either quintessentially American way of reading scripture mentioned above. For Hauerwas, as I've mentioned here before, the Bible is meant to be read (and heard) in the context of a community of faith. The final section of my seminar is titled "Reading the Bible in Christian Community," and it owes a great deal to this book.

The Old Testament, by Peter C. Craigie.

This was one of the texts used in my Scripture class in seminary. While it is full of more information than I could ever process surrounding the collection of works which Christians call the "Old Testament" and Jews call the Tanakh, I only use it for my sections on Source Theory, which may not even make it to the final draft of the seminar. Whether I end up using it in the seminar or not, however, it is a great resource for anyone looking to better understand the Hebrew Scriptures. I'd try to find it in an academic library, because as it is used as a seminary text, it is bound to be expensive.

Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman.

This book is a source of great frustration to Christians, who are wont to point out with me that the sensational title is a bit misleading since no part of the book concerns a passage of scripture in which Jesus was supposedly misquoted. The title seems, in other words, totally divorced from the content of the book, designed more to inflate sales than anything else. That said, I found this book, which the author claims is the first work on Textual Criticism written for a general audience, very helpful. I know that Ehrman has a bone to pick with Christianity, but despite accusations of bias from other scholars whom I admire, I thought that most of the content here represented honest scholarship shaping the religious views of the author rather than the other way around. Ehrman and I disagree about God and Jesus, but I can still respect, and use, some of his work.

Worthy is the Lamb, by Ray Summers.

Written in 1951, this is still the best work to date on apocalyptic literature. The subtitle lays out the difficult work of the text: Interpreting the Book of Revelation in its Historical Background. Summers' main contention is that for any work to be considered the Word of God, it has to first and foremost be the Word of God for the people who first received it. As such, while many popular interpretations of Revelation focus on its predictive nature, finding its meaning in our present and the future, Summers looks to events surrounding the writing of the text for insight into the perplexing nature of John's Apocalypse.

The Four Witnesses, by Robin Griffith-Jones.

Luckily, I decided to take this book, which had been sitting on my shelf untouched for a couple of years, to the beach with me. It has really helped me dig into and reflect on the text of the four canonical Gospels. I can't say that this is the best, or most insightful book on the Gospels, but it is lively, well written, deep, and most importantly it stimulates my thinking. The best thing you can say about any treatment of any part of the Bible is that it helps you form and refine your own thoughts about that part of the Bible, and I can certainly say that about this book.

Monday, August 21, 2006

The Bible as a Weapon

I don't have time to offer any insightful commentary on this, and I suspect that none is needed. Anyone who bothers to read my blog probably already understands just how misguided a totally literal approach to the Bible, with no appreciation of context, is. That said, I saw this, from the AP, as I got on my computer to check my email before a meeting this afternoon:

Church Fires Teacher for Being Female

WATERTOWN, N.Y. (Aug. 21) - The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job - outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on Aug. 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.

"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.

"If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."

Lambert has publicly criticized the decision, but the church did not publicly address the matter until Saturday, a day after its board met.

In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.


_______________________________________

Update: 9-22-06, 12:07 pm

For the sort of commentary and analysis that I just don't have the energy to provide at the moment (along with a level of Biblical expertise that I'm not likely to ever have) see Ben Witherington's take on this story here.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

What the Lord Requires (time warp edition)

In my last post - that ever contagious Book Meme which Liam says is spreading like the flu - I said that the book that I would most like to see written was Drawing Water Out of Rocks: Reflections on Scripture by my real-world self, Chris Baker. In truth, slowly and not so surely, that book is being written, if you can say that the process of birthing it really is "writing." I have written some new material for it, which has sometimes been included in this blog (see the sidebar on the right), but most of the process has been going through old sermons and seeing what can be salvaged.

Because I started preaching at such a young age (hell, I quit at a young age!) many of my early sermons are very immature, and I wish that they didn't exist. Still, I have, in my free time, been pouring through them, editing liberally, and trying to turn them into something that can be used now. Why don't I just start from scratch? I often wonder. Why do I insist on digging up artifacts from my past? Perhaps because I am trying to connect who I am now to who I was then. Perhaps because, even though my steps were and are clumsy, I was, then as now, moving toward a way of thinking about God that is worth communicating to others.

During Adam's nap today I got to look at one of the last sermons from my "early" period. I gave this sermon, titled "What the Lord Requires" as the guest speaker at a church pastored by a good friend of mine, while I was still a youth minister in Louisville. The text came from Micah 6:6-8, and at that time I always preached from the NIV, finding it the most "user-friendly" translation. I have since switched to using the JPS when preaching from the Tankh, and using the NRSV when preaching from the New Testament. I have not yet mustered up the energy to alter the text of the sermon, so I still use the masculine pronoun to refer to God. I have even included here a note I wrote to myself to remind me of the sort of introduction I wanted to give. I have also included the numbering system from the outline that I used to construct the sermon, and have left the parts that I saw find to bolden in the bold font used in the original sermon. This, then, looks exactly like the sheets of paper I held in front of me as I delievered this sermon years ago.

This should, in other words, be a time warp of sorts. Perhaps you can help me edit this one so that it will conform to the tone of the more recent scriptural reflctions which will some day be part of my long-suffering "book."

__________________________

(Place Micah in its historical context – it was written after Israel had split into two kingdoms, and after much of what had been Israel was conquered by the Assyrians. It was written in a time of great fear, by a people who believed that they were being punished for their sins against God. The first three chapters outline they ways in which the people have sinned against God; but then the book takes a more hopeful turn. By the time we hit chapter 6, the subject of this morning’s message, Micah writes about how people should approach God, how they can be reconciled to God, and what God desires from them.)

I. How do we approach God?

1. Different religions have many different names for God, many different ways of describing God, and many different rituals designed to help believers approach God. Some religions, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim that God is One; others, like Hinduism and polytheistic indigenous traditions claim that God is many. Some religions claim that beliefs about the nature of God are vitally important; others, like Buddhism, find beliefs about God irrelevant. Among the world’s various religious traditions, then, there are a number of diverse ways to approach God, and the subject of God.

2. Even within our own Judeo-Christian tradition there are a number of ways to approach God. While we believe in one God, that God in whom we believe has many names, found in both the Old and New Testaments, the Jewish and Christian Bibles. We call God Father, Maker, Saviour, Redeemer, Lord, Creator, Sustainer, and a whole host of other names and titles. While we as Christians believe in one God, we have also created the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity, dividing that one God into three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All of these doctrines point out the universal truth, that God acts in many ways, and that there are a variety of ways to approach God.

3. Just as there are a variety of ways in which religious systems approach God, there are also a variety of ways in which religious people approach God, and it is this – these ways in which individuals approach God – that seems to be Micah’s concern. When we approach our God in prayer, both as individuals and as a church, we come with many different attitudes. Some of us come humbly, knowing that we are sinners in need of God’s grace, and knowing that the grace of God can never be earned, just freely given and freely received. Others, however, approach God as they would approach a politician or business partner, looking for some kind of leverage in a high stakes negotiation. We say, “Lord, if you do this, then I will do that. But, if you do that, then I will do this.” We sometimes come to God as though we were entitled to come before Him, as though we have some shots that we can call. In other words, sometimes, when we approach God, as individuals and as a church, we forget the basic truth that Micah wishes us to understand from 6:6 – that however we approach God, we must approach God knowing that God is God, and we are not God. It is God who is in charge, God who calls the shots, God who holds all the cards, God who runs the universe. God is God, and we are not.

II. What sacrifice do we bring to God?

1. So often, because we wish to negotiate with God, desiring to somehow earn God’s favor, we approach God with some kind of tangible sacrifice. In our bargaining prayer we say to God, “If you will only do what I want, then I will never commit this particular sin again.” Or, “If you will only answer my prayer, I will give up this particular bad habit or material possession.” We offer God so many different sacrifices – things which have great value to us – to try to earn some kind of favor or make up for some kind of mistake. And, of course, we are not alone in this. Every major religion has a tradition of some kind of sacrifice to God, or the gods, or the forces of nature, or whatever. For as far back as there is recorded history, we humans have tried to offer up things that have value to us to some kind of power higher than us, to curry some kind of favor with it. We used to do this to try to make the crops grow, or to keep enemy armies from invading us. Now we do it to make more money, or to feel a little less guilty for a bad habit or evil action. But we always tried to negotiate with God with our sacrifice.

2. But, of course, as Micah points out as he lists the various kinds of sacrifices that he could bring to God, our sacrifices become more and more ridiculous. “Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil?” What would God do with the rams, with the oil, even if Micah had them to offer, which he doesn’t? “Shall I offer the firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” It is, of course, easy to sacrifice the life of another for our own sin. It is not so easy to sacrifice our own life.

3. But the sacrifice that the Lord requires is just that – our own life. Our very own life. Not in death. God does not seek to destroy us. Instead, he wants us to sacrifice ourselves in life, so that he can remake us. The sacrifice that God desires from us is found in the very way that we live. The sacrifice that God desires from us is the sacrifice of our own wills, of our false claim to be masters of our own destiny. God wants us to sacrifice our control. The sacrifice that he demands from us, then, is no sacrifice at all. It is, instead obedience. The key to a healthy relationship with God, then, is to approach God knowing that He is God, and that we are not God. And knowing that, we should also know that God desires our obedience, not our sacrifice. God does not want us to offer up ridiculous things to try to make up for the fact that we consistently sin against Him. Instead He wants us to be obedient, to accept His grace, and to stop sinning.

III. What does the Lord require?

1. So, knowing that God is God, and we are not God, and knowing that God desires our obedience rather than our sacrifice, how can we, who so often stumble and fall in so many ways, be obedient to God? What does it mean to be obedient to God, anyway? Or, in other words, exactly what is it that the Lord requires of us?



1. “act justly”

The first thing that God requires of us, according to Micah, is that we “act justly.” The concept of “justice” has always been important to people. It is the hallmark of all great societies. But it is often left undefined. All people use the word justice, but they do not always use it in the same way. Frequently our inability to “act justly” comes not just from laziness or a lack of desire, but from honest ignorance. We use the word justice, often, but do not always know what we mean by it.

In my opinion, justice both implies and requires three things:

1. To do what is right.
2. To not do what is wrong.
3. To encourage others to also do what is right and not do what it wrong.

We are morally obligated, and called by God to not only avoid doing what is wrong, but to actively do what is right. That is why the Epistle of James tells us that “anyone… who knows the good he ought to do, but does not do it, sins.” But not only are we responsible for our own acts, and also our failure to act, we are also responsible for the influence we have on others. We are not only obligated to avoid wrong and to do right, we are also obligated to encourage others to avoid wrong and to do right, and we are obligated to restrain those who are doing wrong. This is the obligation of justice.

2. “love mercy”

But we are not just commanded to “act justly,” we are also told that the Lord requires that we “love mercy.” We are, like God Himself, to always temper justice with mercy, in all of our actions and interactions, because justice without mercy always fails to be justice.

We, who presume that we are righteous, are often rightly offended by wickedness in others. And we know that we are called to restrain that wickedness. However, far too often we become obsessed with the sins of others, and forget to temper our so-called justice with the mercy of God, who has shown us mercy. Far from being Jonathan Edward’s “sinners in the hands of an angry God,” we are in fact “sinners in the hands of a merciful God” who has called us to show mercy to those who sin against us just as He showed us mercy when we sinned against Him. Justice without mercy is always a miscarriage of justice, and so fails to be justice at all.

3. “walk humbly with your God”

But how do we, as individuals, family members, church members, and citizens of our great nation, go about the difficult task of balancing justice and mercy in our individual interactions as well as the actions of our families, churches, and our nation? How do we temper justice with mercy in our own lives and the lives of others? To this Micah reminds us that the most important thing that God wants from us is to “walk humbly” with Him. Humility, which comes from our walk with God, and is, in fact, necessary for any walk with God, teaches us something that seems very important to Micah, and to God. It teaches us that God is God, and we are not God. I know that I’ve said that a lot this morning. But, if there’s anything that you take away from this message and the worship here today, I want it to be that point. God is God, and we are not God. Too often we get the roles reversed, and believing ourselves to be God, or to be like God, we take on the responsibilities of God. We judge the actions and the spiritual state of others, forgetting that it is not our place to judge; forgetting that, in fact, we don’t have enough information on which to make a sound judgment; and forgetting that we are no better than the people that we presume to judge. If we are to be who God requires that we be, then we first and foremost have to be people who walk humbly with God. To do that, we need to be people who can freely and honestly acknowledge our own mistakes, and we need to be people who can look past the apparent mistakes that others make. We need to be people who can relinquish any claim or desire to judge others, turning our gaze first on ourselves. Then, when we allow God to finally remove the plank from our eyes, we can see clearly to remove the saw dust from the eyes of another.

To sum up, while, like the Hebrew people in Micah’s time, all of us have in one way or another turned away from God, God not only desires us to turn back to Him, He has in fact empowered us to do so, and provided us with the means to do so. So, we need to approach God, knowing that God is God, and we are not God. We need to approach God bringing not a sacrifice of some kind of our own choosing, but rather the sacrifice of our very lives, and our obedience. And, we need to approach God, knowing that what the Lord requires of us is to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with Him.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Christians debate the moral value of debt and bankruptcy

Here is an excellent piece by G. Jeffrey MacDonald of the Christian Science Monitor on Christian perspectives on the morality of bankruptcy. Do yourself a favor and read it.

My very short take is this: Those Christians who argue that bankruptcy is in all or most cases an immoral failure to take personal responsibility for your financial decisions overlook both the essential Judeo-Christian notion of Jubilee (debts are to be forgiven every seven years) and the myriad of systemic issues which play a role in extreme debt. They are also guilty of favoring the rich over the poor (which James would have a lot to say about) and the powerful over the powerless. Such callousness in the name of personal responsibility overlooks the compassion of Christ, and the Christian duty to care for those who cannot take care of themselves and have no one else to look after them.

Consider James 1:27, which in the NRSV reads

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Religion, true religion, in other words, has both a positive and negative component. While those Christians who condemn people who file for bankruptcy may consider themselves to be keeping the second half, the negative component (and it is by no means certain that they are), they are certainly failing to live up to the first half, the positive component. This positive component calls us to have compassion on and come to the material aid of those who, because of circumstances beyond their control, cannot make a living.

In first century Palestine men were the wage earners. The orphans (fatherless) and widows have in common that they no longer have a man to provide for them. In that culture, then, the real problem was not the symbolic problem identified by those modern moralists who insist that every child needs to have both a father and a mother, a man and a woman, in their lives. Rather it is a very real, very material problem; a financial problem. They are incapable of earning a living, and need compassionate assistance.

Bankruptcy is one of the few legal protections available to debtors who are unable to repay their debts, and it is getting harder and harder to obtain. While it should not be used to escape legitimate and repayable debts, nor should it be used to shirk one's moral duty to live within one's means; it should be available for those whose debts are unpayable either because they are so unreasonable or because the debtor no longer has earning power. Without bankruptcy the poor and economically oppressed have no legal recourse when they are ground under by extreme debt, debt which is often obtained to temporarily sustain life or in response to some unforeseen tragedy.