The Mind of Brian

My final class was on John the Baptist (believe it or not, a whole class devoted to him). It was an interesting class, having a tough time really describing what I did that would not a) be boring or b) be purely academic. If you are wondering, John could not only survive on locusts and wild honey/tree sap because he would get scurvy (someone has researched that).

What I learned that I never really had considered before was how John appears in all the gospels but in many different ways; the evangelists all describe him in light of the way that they want to present Jesus. For example, in Matthew, Jesus and John say the same things and stand together, which (I argue) connects Jesus to the OT and shows that he is the one who brings forth the true teaching of the OT. In Mark, John is suffering Elijah. In Luke, Jesus has more similarities to Elijah, but John is portrayed in some ways as the first believer (he leaps for joy in the womb). In John, he is the one who testifies to Jesus and serves to witness to him. In these ways, we see that John is a very important figure in the origins of Christianity that we can often overlook or merely regard as some crazy lunatic splashing arround the Jordan river.

Something I like about him is the fact that he seems to testify to Jesus from his place in history; he proclaims one who is coming, seems to think that it is Jesus, but then has doubts (see Matthew 11). Jesus affirms John’s place, but also points to the fact that there is a greater knowledge to come through him. Maybe that serves as a great reminder to us that no matter where we stand in the biblical knowledge or “strength of faith,” we can testify to Jesus–in a variety of ways depending on the “story” that we are seeking to tell others about Jesus’ identity.

His baptism of Jesus (for “us” to fulfill righteousness if you read Matthew…which is clearly I spent the most time) is also interesting, in that Jesus’ ministry came through the actions of John. While I totally believe in the soverignty of God (I would be a card-carrying Presbyterian….if we had cards), I also see how God’s plan moves in and through us–we get to participate though we are all too human. Maybe not what the evangelists were trying to say with John but a good point to me.

So, two questions to ask John in the future: 1) What was it like to be such a key figure in the drama of redemption? 2) What goes well with locusts and wild honey?

Well, I made it through finals and it looks like they will ask me back to Loyola next semester, so now I can relax a little and think about how my semester is shaping my soul and my future ministry. One class I took was ”Scripture, Tradition, and the Theologian” (Beth loved that title–she thought it sounded so exciting…..not!). It was an “integrative” seminar with Masters students and PhD students in Bible, Constructive Theology, and Ethics. We talked about how to use and interpret the Bible for theology; i.e. what role(s) it should play in theology in light of tradition–reading various attempts to use it and explain its significance in church history–from Orgien to Augustine to Aquinas to Luther to Kant to Schleiermacher to Barth to Ricoeur (even Kevin J. Vanhoozer!). The approach of many of my colleagues is that you need to discuss the Bible in theology but need not agree with it (Paul may be wrong, but it is the elephant in the room that must be addressed). In addition, the apporach to he authority of the Bible is found in its use as Scripture to norm the Christian life and, thus, it is functional, not doctrinal, in authority. This goal is to eliminate evil and promote the good (see David Kelsey) by imagining the world portrayed by the text (see Ricoeur). Implied in this discussion is that there is a difference between the Bible and Scripture (the Bible is a collection of literature while Scripture refers to its role in the Christian church). Part of the goal of the class was to have us think through what our task as Bible scholars is and also our approach to the text; I resonated with much of the discussion, though modified through my theological beliefs. Here are my conclusions:

There is a different between my role as  Bible scholar and Christian preacher/pastor. As a Bible scholar, I am trying to find out what the discourse of the author says. What does Matthew mean? That is an objective endeavor, which is why I dialogue with Christians and non-Christians alike in this process (it is public and academic). In some ways, though, I think the Bible scholar must also be a Biblical theologian; what sort of world is the author trying to convey to us. My job is to find out the testimony of Scripture; to what are they witnessing? I see the Bible scholar less as a historian (as scholars often talk about themselves) and more as a literary critic; the job of the Bible scholar is not to say “did the virgin birth happen? did Christ really rise” but “what does the author say about the meaning and significance of this event?” As a preacher, I engage the meaning of this testimony for today; as a Protestant, Presbyterian, and evangelical preacher, I take the discourse to be authoritative in the ideas that it is conveying; they testify to the truth. This is not a literalistic, fundamentalistic sort of approach, though, more of a redemptive-historical/drama of doctrine approach, diving deeper into both the realities expressed and how these work out in the world today. I still fall into the Hirsch-ian idea of meaning of the text and significance, with the original discourse of the author’s intent (in speech-act theory) being the meaning and the significance being the idea conveyed from the “re-authoring” of the text as part of the canon of the church; how does it interact with other authors? How does it speak to us today? I think this helps clarify my approach to study and preaching. Sorry if that is too technical

How’s another thing I thought about; while Bible’s authority is more than functional, we can’t overlook the function of it and consider what the goal of the Christian life is when we read and then preach from it.  The goal is to lead us into participating in the Redemption of God in light of the reality of Christ entering into human history (I like you right now Karl Barth!), which is promoting the good and eliminating the evil as defined by God (this is my way of expressing Westminster’s idea of glorifying God by enjoying him forever). In this way, I follow some of the ideas found in Dr. Vanhoozer’s reading (for those who do not know, he was my theology 101 prof at Trinity and influenced me at that formative stage). I guess I still am a KJV reader and follower–though maybe not KJV only

Questions, comments, cries of outrage? And for the record, I think my views still align with the overall teachings of the Reformed understanding of the Christian faith…so don’t worry about me! However, hopefully now I have a more well thought out and articulated vision of what I believe.

So, I am knee deep into the academic grind (hence the lack of posts) and I am trying to sort through all sorts of questions (my classes have raised some good ones-maybe I will address some later) but something that I keep coming back to is, “Where my place is in the academic world?” and “What it does for my soul?” It is interesting being in the theology department at an academic school (not seminary) in general, as being a “Bible scholar” has the pretensions of spirituality without any of the substance. That is, we engage in discussion of the text (kind of, as often it is more of what I would call “behind the text”….but that’s not the point of what I am saying here right now) but we don’t really engage in discussion of the subject, which is the spiritual life. We don’t pray. We trust our own understandings and pride ourselves on our knowledge and credentials. We look at what texts say as opposed to what texts mean; we seek to deconstruct texts to get at the original form or meaning, discuss them, discuss how they might have been shifted, but then make no consideration on whether this is right or wrong for us today (history with no implications). And being in at a Catholic school, we can talk about our differences (I am the token Protestant) and laugh and talk about how it affects the questions that we ask and not whether the differences are ones of substance or style (I just coined that….I like it, I might keep it in my expression inventory). In many ways, we end up putting ourselves over the text (or at least our methodologies) without what I would really say is listening to the text (the message of it). And the question I continually ask (myself) is, “Can we even read the Bible this way? Can it be read in a context outside of the context of faith (not discounting “Bible as literature” classes but maybe nuancing them, as in you can only understand the Bible when you consider its place of faith)?” This divide didn’t really happen until the 20th century (and even then not complete) as pastors were the ones who were the scholars (isn’t it interesting that now pastors are more inclined to be “businessmen” when they used to be teachers and professors, including some of the best Greek scholars while now pastors almost pride themselves on not being Greek scholars and then trusting the authority of others on the subject…but now I once again move into a different issue, discussions of the church and the anti-intellectualism or divide that comes between church and the mind.)

Not sure if all that makes sense, but those are the sort of questions with which I struggle right now, as well as the constant wondering if I have to sell my soul to the liberals in order to succeed in scholarship (and what exactly constitutes selling my soul and leaving my convictions and ideas). I have been growing and considering new ideas, challenging old paradigms of thinking, considering new ways and methods on their own, and getting a better grasp on much of the Synoptic Gospel literature (particularly John the Baptist). So on many levels, it is worth it, but sometimes I wonder what has happened to me, to the study of the Bible, and to the church.