doesn't really matter.
I know - here I go again stirring things up. But hang with me on this for a minute and see what you think.
I've been in countless "devo" sessions over the years, I've heard numerous teachings on the "spiritual disciplines" (prayer, "quiet time" and fasting) and spent untold hours meditating on the scriptures. And if I'm blessed to live awhile longer, I'll do alot more of all these things. They're all great and necessary tools to live in anticipation of the kingdom to come.
But my earlier efforts were misdirected, and I'll bet for some of you, yours are too. Because I contend that "what the Bible says to me" is irrelevant.
That's because the question "What does that passage say to you?" conveys the sense that the meaning of the text is primarily between God and you.
That sounds nice and warm, doesn't it? It's a special feeling - God speaking directly to whatever situation you're currently dealing with via the 2000 to 3500 year old text of scripture.
The problem with such a view is that it produces all manner of interpretations, most of which are in direct contradiction to one another. And God doesn't appear in person to set the record straight on what He or Messiah or their rabbis actually meant.
Why do you think we have somewhere between 20,000 and 35,000 Christian denominations on the planet?
In the "what does the Bible say to you?" view, we're allowed take the passage to mean basically whatever we want it to mean. And we're usually happy to do so.
I believe a better question to ask of scripture is this:
"What did the text mean to its original recipients, and what should that meaning then mean to me?"
Do you see the difference? It appears subtle or even nonsensical at first - but the more you look, it becomes clearer and clearer.
One simple example of this is the phrase "born again". Of course, it comes from Messiah's conversation with Nicodemus, where he declares to the confused Pharisee, "You must be born again!".
Remember the movie Rocky IV? Apollo Creed declares, "God, I feel born again" as he enters the ring with Ivan Drago, the impossibly huge Russian fighter. Clearly, Apollo believed the phrase "born again" to mean "I feel like I did 15 years ago, when I was young and strong and had a fleeting hope of not having my face smashed into tiny pieces!".
Of course, if you saw the movie, Apollo's born again experience lasted about 7 minutes before he was summarily extinguished, Drago nearly separating Creed's head from his body.
And what do those words of Jesus mean to you? Do you agree with the deceased movie character, or do you have a different interpretation? What's the right way to use such a passage?
My point is, we must find out what Messiah's words meant to Nicodemus (which requires understanding some details about Nicodemus, his worldview, his vocation, the culture and events of the time, etc). That way, we can imagine what Jesus' words did to Nicodemus when they entered his ears.
Here's a hint: The command "you must be born again":
- came from the Jewish rabbi Jesus
- to the big-time Jewish religious leader Nicodemus
- in a Jewish religious culture
- that promoted membership in God's Kingdom as an automatic right
- granted by being born a Jew - a descendant of Abraham
Think on that for awhile. Let's put ourselves in Nicodemus' position as best we can.
Then - when we understand as best we can what the command "You must be born again" meant to Nicodemus - then we can ask the question "what does that meaning mean to me?".
Whaddya say?
Seeing is Believing, or Is It?
Feel free to ignore this article if you haven't been following our discussions on epistemology, or if you haven't been out to our weekly chats in awhile, or if you're tired or hungry - or if you have anything better to do at all. :)
But for the rest of you - here's a news flash.
I think I've finally uncovered, or perhaps merely understood, the underlying systemic reason for the decline in modern approaches to Christianity (the term "modern" describing the Enlightenment program of logical positivism) as compared to the emergent, or postmodern-flavored approaches.
Put simply, the modernist approach to Christianity will never satisfy a person today, affected by the postmodern critique, who is 2000+ years distant from the people, places and events that define the worldview.
Here are a few questions that I think make my point.
1) Did following Messiah while he was on the earth depend more on a priori knowledge, or more on a posteriori knowledge?
2) Does following Messiah now, 2000 or so years after his departure from earth, depend more on a priori knowledge, or a posteriori knowledge?
I believe the answer to #1 is "more a posteriori than a priori knowledge".
The first-century inhabitants of Palestine heard Jesus' claims, saw the signs he used to prove those claims and ultimately, they experienced him firsthand. They knew what he looked like, what he liked to eat and where he liked to hang out.
So, because of their experience with him, their belief that he was Messiah involved lots of hindsight (posterior knowledge) with some foresight (prior knowledge) involved when it came to his claims about the future.
I believe the answer to #2 is "more a priori knowledge than a posteriori knowledge".
Today, we cannot hear Jesus make claims, we cannot see Jesus perform signs to prove his claims, and we cannot experience him in-person. Thus, our belief that Jesus is Messiah involves lots of foresight (prior knowledge) with some hindsight (posterior knowledge) thrown in relative to the historical documents that tell of Jesus' life and work.
In other words, the way we come to Jesus today is substantially different than the way the first century Jesus-followers did. We come with much less certainty about the whole thing - plain and simple.
"OK", you say, "but what does this have to do with the death of Christian modernity?"
Well, I believe the modernist, fundamentalist church chant of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" flat out ignores this simple issue.
By and large, this generation isn't satisfied that "some old book says something, so that makes it true". We can't verify Jesus' claims in any way as his first-century acquaintances could.
So then, our position is by default much more about a priori faith or hope - not absolute certainty.
Today's church ignores this by and large. It's largely stuck in a modernist "I've got all the facts nailed down, and if you don't agree - you're goin' to hell" approach that simply can't satisfy a thinking postmodern person.
Now lest someone fret about this, as I've stated many times before - this is just fine, it's as it should be, it's OK!
Because, after all, Christianity is a faith - it's a worldview that places a whole lot of emphasis on what is to come in the future.
Check out this vignette from John 20:26-31.
It's all good!
Father, I pray for my friends and I - for the continued courage to believe in your story and in your Messiah - so that we may one day inherit your Kingdom to come.
But for the rest of you - here's a news flash.
I think I've finally uncovered, or perhaps merely understood, the underlying systemic reason for the decline in modern approaches to Christianity (the term "modern" describing the Enlightenment program of logical positivism) as compared to the emergent, or postmodern-flavored approaches.
Put simply, the modernist approach to Christianity will never satisfy a person today, affected by the postmodern critique, who is 2000+ years distant from the people, places and events that define the worldview.
Here are a few questions that I think make my point.
1) Did following Messiah while he was on the earth depend more on a priori knowledge, or more on a posteriori knowledge?
2) Does following Messiah now, 2000 or so years after his departure from earth, depend more on a priori knowledge, or a posteriori knowledge?
I believe the answer to #1 is "more a posteriori than a priori knowledge".
The first-century inhabitants of Palestine heard Jesus' claims, saw the signs he used to prove those claims and ultimately, they experienced him firsthand. They knew what he looked like, what he liked to eat and where he liked to hang out.
So, because of their experience with him, their belief that he was Messiah involved lots of hindsight (posterior knowledge) with some foresight (prior knowledge) involved when it came to his claims about the future.
I believe the answer to #2 is "more a priori knowledge than a posteriori knowledge".
Today, we cannot hear Jesus make claims, we cannot see Jesus perform signs to prove his claims, and we cannot experience him in-person. Thus, our belief that Jesus is Messiah involves lots of foresight (prior knowledge) with some hindsight (posterior knowledge) thrown in relative to the historical documents that tell of Jesus' life and work.
In other words, the way we come to Jesus today is substantially different than the way the first century Jesus-followers did. We come with much less certainty about the whole thing - plain and simple.
"OK", you say, "but what does this have to do with the death of Christian modernity?"
Well, I believe the modernist, fundamentalist church chant of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" flat out ignores this simple issue.
By and large, this generation isn't satisfied that "some old book says something, so that makes it true". We can't verify Jesus' claims in any way as his first-century acquaintances could.
So then, our position is by default much more about a priori faith or hope - not absolute certainty.
Today's church ignores this by and large. It's largely stuck in a modernist "I've got all the facts nailed down, and if you don't agree - you're goin' to hell" approach that simply can't satisfy a thinking postmodern person.
Now lest someone fret about this, as I've stated many times before - this is just fine, it's as it should be, it's OK!
Because, after all, Christianity is a faith - it's a worldview that places a whole lot of emphasis on what is to come in the future.
Check out this vignette from John 20:26-31.
"After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.'We can't touch Jesus' wounds, or in any other way verify his claims as Thomas could. But that's OK - Jesus said we're blessed as we believe without 100% verification.
Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.' Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.'
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."
It's all good!
Father, I pray for my friends and I - for the continued courage to believe in your story and in your Messiah - so that we may one day inherit your Kingdom to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)