The Mind of Brian

Amy-Jill Levine (a Jewish NT scholar) wrote a book called The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. Focusing on Jesus and his place in Second Temple Judaism directly connects to many of my research interests so it made for an interesting read. Levine first seeks to groudn Jesus within the Judaism of his day; he was a Jew and this cannot be forgotten. One only can truly make sense of his teachings within his Jewish context. Since the New Testament traces the Jewish faith of Christianity turning into more of a Gentile majority, this Jewishness begins to get lost. Often scholars sterotype the Jewishness of the day as an empty, cold, and oppressive system that Jesus confronts and changes; Jesus is the opposite of this system; therefore, it is not just the “anti-Jewish” passages (which scholars can debate the exact meaning) that makes Christianity at times anti-Jewish as preachers focus on these elements and, furthermore, people understand Judaism today on this basis (Second Temple Judaism was not exactly the Judaism of the OT and today’s Judaism is not the same as those). This is not completely true because of the diversity of Judaism at the time of Christ; just as there are joyless Christians today, there were joyless Jews but just as there are Christians who really get the gospel, there were Jews who really understood who the God of Abraham was.  We should not sterotype in this regard. She then calls for interfaith sort of discussions recognition the different canons, practices, and interpretations of the groups; since they have different canons (though related) and different traditions, there should be less focus on who is right, as they interpret through different lens in general.

In many ways, this book seeks to unpack some of the “cash value” of what I have been learning about Second Temple Judaism and how it affects the NT and differs from OT and 21st century Judaism. I have seen how I have fallen into some of the traps of ”anti-Jewish” speaking even without knowing and want to better understand Jewish and represent his context better. There is a definite continuity between Jesus and his followers and the OT and the way that the OT was interpreted at the turn of the times (BC to AD/BCE to CE). What Levine does that I would never be able to do is speak about this through a Jewish lens and discuss ways that, unknowingly, we misrepresent Judaism; one must be in a group to truly understand all of its nuances. Which leads me to this question–while Dr. Levine is a fine NT scholar, does the fact that she is a Jew, not a Christian, cause her to misrepresent or mis-represent that church (not necessarily the NT) at times? Just something I pondered while I read this book.

I had a chance to preach this past weekend. While I have always seen myself as a better teacher than preacher, I really feel like I am growing into a style of preaching that relates to people, I enjoy “hammering the gospel” home and trying to use word pictures and illustrations to do so. I have a long way to go, but I am making progress. A constant tension I have is that I want to be thoughtful with everything that I say, not to waste a single word or sentence. I don’t want to be funny to be funny…but I think it is good to throw a humorous comment to reconnect the audience, to break tension, to make people laugh at the situation. It is not to entertain, but to provide a firmer place for the word of God (and reminds us to be joyful). On the other hand, I don’t want to read a manuscript or be tied to notes–I want to look people in the eyes and speak the truth because it either connects with them or makes them more uncomfortable than someone reading a script. This is a delicate tension, because it leads to some ad-libbing at times, it leads to me not phrasing things correctly or succintly (I felt like I ran into that problem yesterday). It also leads to me making an occasional comment that could be distracting or rendered careless. And then I think of Matthew 12:36: ”But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken” and James 3:1 “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

My prayer before I preach and even more yesterday after I preached was that Spirit would impress upon people His Word and ways I helped them to see it, and that He would remove any sort of carless words or unclear comment I made. And now I need to let go and remember that God can do that!

I know I shouldn’t compare myself, that is one of the major problems I have, but I still feel inadequate for the task that I would like to have.  That is, I read about all sorts of pastors and theologians that do their ministry but also seem to be reading constantly and writing incessantly.  For example, I read about John Owen last night and he was writing immense volumes of theology while pastoring.  I have trouble reading a few books and comprehending them while I am in ministry and/or school.  I feel like I am not able to perform the task I want.  Even keeping this blog up.  I don’t know if it is because I waste my time (Owen didn’t have the internet, though a lot of pastors are doing what he was doing in the internet age) or because I am too perfectionist (it takes me too long to do a paper) or because I get too consumed with whatever it is that I am doing.  Regardless, I guess I need to jump start my energy and get more productive for the kingdom…not because I have to but because I want to.

After a week, my big sinus headache is gone–yeah!  Finally…so now I am feeling much better and can think again, just in time to do school work!

I have finished reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, as well as (in about an hour) reading Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion? which is a critique of his book (and really McGrath is one of the best suited critics, he was an atheist who became a Christian and was raised in a place of “religious” violence in Northern Ireland, as well as being a professor at Oxford as well.  It is a pity that Dawkins did not interact with McGrath, as he would be a good dialogue partner).  Why did a read a book by a prominent atheist?  To understand the other side, of how people critique religion and Christianity.  Dawkins is on the forefront of the Fundamental Atheists.  It should be noted that Dawkins is a critic of all religion.  What are some things that I can offer about Dawkins’ book?

Areas that interested me in the book

• Critiques of the “Arguments for God.”  Dawkins devotes a chapter on the usual arguments for the existence of God.  I did not find this chapter too challenging, to be honest.  His greatest reason for rejecting the argument that something had to be the first cause is to say, “Who caused God?” and that we cannot have as an explanation something that cannot be explained.  But that is true with any view of the world, as something has to explain it.  As McGrath helpfully points out, that is the nature of the worldview, it cannot be explained.  So, this is not an end-all, slam down decision.  Furthermore, many of the arguments, for example, given by Aquinas do not prove God but show that there is reason to believe.  That is, the world reflects what would be true if the God that we believe in truly does exist.
• Explanation of Religion and Morals.  I was interested to see how Dawkins’ explains the religion that we see across humanity as well as morals.  He views religion as part of a “misfiring” of our genes—that there is are evolutionary helps in our belief of religion (trusting our elders helps us at times).  But now, that evolutionary value is gone (or something).  In addition, there are evolutionary reasons for morals (they help us survive).  While he can explain morals on that level in existence, WHY do we have this “oughtness” still.  We should not care if people are immoral if it is not going to help me.  Furthermore, according to my understanding of Darwin, might would still make right (these morals are for the weak, who, hey, should be eliminated anyway).
• Indoctrination of Children.  Dawkins really wants people to not teach children religion, to let them choose.  He says we should not call them Christian children but children of Christian (or any other religion).  Teaching them a religion as being right is tantamount to child abuse (he even says that it is worse than sexual abuse….wow!).  Instead, we need to teach them to question everything and to make decisions for themselves based on evidence.  But isn’t that going to be indoctrinating them with something.  By definition, we teach them something.  And to say that a child is to young to truly understand would by nature mean that they cannot know ANYTHING until a certain age.  It is really a new form of indoctrination that he suggests, but he does not seem to see it that way.
• Violence because of religion and really nothing else.  Dawkins seems to say that religion should be eliminated because it leads to violence.  History shows that is often the case.  But history also shows the non-religion leads to violence.  Perhaps the issue is not the belief but the fact that we want to fight; or that people have other motives that they use religion to get across.  Do those who bomb abortion clinics or become suicide bombers truly do so for religion or use it to justify it?  It seems that Dawkins evidence is selective.

Here are some areas of critique that I definitely would have to mention:

• Misrepresentation of Christianity.  He does not dialogue with evangelical scholars, but with popular and extremist Christians.  For example, there is no interaction with guys like McGrath or Ravi Zacharias, and his discussion of biblical scholars does not draw on the likes of John Stott, I.Howard Marshall, Craig Blomberg, or really any evangelical Christian who I would look to as an example of my beliefs.
• Misrepresentation of religion as well.  He seems to lump all theistic religions together.  However, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are different.  In addition, he says that all religion leads to violence, even “moderation.”  (I think the truth is In addition, all religion leads to a “shutting of the mind” in terms of science.  These are accusations that evidentially do not stand up (and he is about evidence).
• Misrepresentation of the Scriptures and of Jesus.  He points out all the bad things that OT saints did, and says that they are our example.  They are sinners!  Furthermore, he does not draw on the OT and Jesus’ critique of religion, or the example of Jesus.  There is really no interaction with how Christians read the Bible, interpretative principles, etc.  Either we are “literal” or we do not believe anything is history.  From a biblical scholar perspective, I am a bit offended at the shallow research that he did.
• Misrepresentation of Scientists.  He creates a dichotomy between science and religion and to hold to both is to be a complete hypocrite, whether you are Stephen Jay Gould (late professor at Harvard) or the pope.  And if you are a scientist who talks about religion, you are most likely doing it for money (if that is not an ad hominem attack, I do not know what is).  He makes statements that these are scientists who are really atheists but trying to sound Christian.  Couldn’t we make the same statement about many Christians who live lifestyles that make no difference, that they are really atheists who put on Christian garb (as most of us do function more like atheists). 
• Misrepresentation of Science.  Dawkins is committed to science being able to explain everything.  However, no discipline can do that; we need different disciplines.  He does not seem to try to use sociology or anthropology, but only evolutionary biology to explain things.  Obviously, he does not think that philosophy or metaphysics exist, but it seems best to say that we need multiple sorts of studies to learn things.  We can look at a piece of art from the mechanical perspective (how), the social (the context and background), but there is something else about art that we look at (the aesthetics).  Can the same be said of the world?

There are other fallacies and issues, but that is where I will leave this for now.  I can say that most of what Dawkins critiques, I would critique about forms of Christianity myself.  For example, exalting the “gaps” of science as showing God is setting it up for rejection, as “gaps” can be filled.  People do dumb things because they think that it is right for religious reasons.  But as a whole, was my faith threatened by Dawkins?  No.  Of course, he says that is because I am a closed-mind, dyed in the wool fundamentalist.  I don’t think that it is the case; I look at the evidence too and am convinced that God is there.  And that God came in Jesus Christ.

Next on my list to read—Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great.

It’s official–I have post-seminary plans.  I accepted a call to be the Director of High School and College Ministries at Naperville Presbyterian Church (where I have attended the last two years and interned the last six months).  It’s exciting and scary at the same time, as I am leaving what I know (school) to go into the crazy, wild, and dangerous world of ministry; I know I am inadequate for the task and that only the Spirit can fulfill it.  So, pray for me, that I might walk with God each and every day, might have a great team to work with the students, and might preach the gospel message at every opportunity.  My whole goal is to fulfill my one phrase job description:  “Point students to Jesus Christ.”