Consider this from Luke Timothy Johnson’s Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Church:
On any number of issues it is simply impossible to reconcile what New Testament writers have to say on the same subject. The answer to the question, What does the New Testament have to say about X, is often, It depends on what you have read last. If we ask for example, “What is the Christian attitude toward the State,” we must consider at least the chasm between Romans and 1 Peter on one side, and Revelation on the other. If we ask, “What is the proper Christian attitude toward the world,” we would have an even more complex range of views, running from the irenicism of 1st Peter, through the intricate “as though not” of Paul, to the radical sectarianism of the Johannine Letters.
We meet the same diversity on other questions, down to and including the best way to describe Jesus . . .If we turn to such practical matter as when and how to baptize, or celebrate the Lord’s supper, or organize a community, the sad history of Christianity illustrates just how obviously it is possible to prove anything on the basis of the New Testament, as long as a certain judicious selectivity and suppression of evidence is carried out.
What do we make of this thematic jumble? In the first place, we exercise common sense and make a healthy distinction. If the New Testament writing agree so powerfully on the shape of Christian identity but differ so much on the specifics of its articulation in the world, this might mean two things: The first is that identity is more important that ritual consistency; the second is that the New Testament actually legitimates a healthy pluralism of practice within the same basic identity.
Within such diversity, in turn, we are allowed to exercise the exousia (power/freedom) given by the New Testament itself with regard to Torah. We resist the urge to make only one such opinion normative to the exclusion of others. Rather, as with the opinions of the Talmud, we enter into a conversation with these diverse views and opinions expressed by the New Testament, finding in their areas of overlap as well as in their points of divergence guidance for our own decisions.
. . .Every Christian community, like every Christian, stands to one degree or another in disagreement with some part of the New Testament. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply lying. The issue of biblical authority, therefore, is not whether it gives a consistent blueprint for every aspect of our lives, or that our lives conform exactly with that blueprint. Given the diversity within the canon, any such claim would be specious. The issue of authority is whether the texts are taken seriously as normative, even when–as is often true–they diverge or even disagree.
Taking the text seriously means that in our ecclesial–as well as personal–decisions we are willing to take a stand over against as well as under the text. Do we allow divorce in our community despite Jesus’ clear condemnation of divorce? Then we do not live in accord with this text. To be faithful to the Scripture, we cannot suppress its reading; we must be able to say why we do not live in accord with its clear directive. This means that we must find authorization for our position somewhere else in these writings; sometimes we will be given an option by the divergence of another text or by the exousia (power/freedom) of reinterpretation in the light of new experiences of God’s work in human lives and events. The limit to such exousia, in turn, is set by the integrity of the individual and community identity as measured by the messianic pattern authored by these same writings.
I know there’s a lot here and I’m going to reflect on it some in future posts, but first I’d like to hear how Johnson’s thoughts strike you. It seems to me he’s describing a way of approaching Scripture that is foreign to Bible-reading, Bible-believing Christians. What do you think?
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
Let me take a specific item in this excerpt to make a broader point. With regard to the comment about Jesus’ stance on divorce, my recent studies have lead me to believe he is really focused on describing the type of person we are to become as opposed to introducing a set of “laws”. Now this may be old news to some, but it is definitely a different way to view his discussion.
I know that view makes many people uncomfortable, but I think he is encouraging us to become more than what we can be through following a set of rules or guidelines. We try and lay out enough rules where we do not have to make a decision or have spiritual discernment. While that is a more comfortable position, it certainly limits our growth as apprenticies to applying rules.
I think the view of scripture as rules is at the core of many disagreements, and has been since the laws were first given to Moses. You can find plenty of places where heart is stressed over strict adherence. Was it wrong to violate the sabbath? Yes. Was is right to do good and heal someone who needed help? Yes. So which do you choose? That depends on the type of person you are or are becoming.
The fundamentalist interpretation of scripture has always been an intellectual pitfall for me. I hate that it has been used to separate christians of all faiths. I can appreciate the faith of Catholics, Protestants, and Universalists alike. I can also see that there are many paths to God. My journey can be so different from another’s. I do believe in scripture being God ordained. I’m not sure we use it in the way God intended. I have often wondered if Paul and Jesus were on the same page. We follow Paul’s words yet he was a disciple following the teachings of Christ, just as we are. I assume he came to know Jesus through Peter and others who had witnessed his life and fellowship firsthand. Did he really mean to have us follow each of his words as commands? I think probably not. It is tricky though, do we follow some or all? We do anyway by virtue of being human. Lynn
Wade, I believe you’ve found another hot button. Do you look for them or are they attracted to you? Either way, I’m glad you push them. This is tricky and, if I allow it to be, it can be a source of anguish for me. Trying to reconcile all possible interpretations into one “truth” is way too much for anyone. I believe interpretations are inevitable (maybe even intended) in God’s plan. Anything less removes freewill from the equation. Furthermore, taken to extreme this topic does prove to be venomous to the Christian movement. Nothing takes our eyes off Jesus more than arguing over scripture.
I may have more to say later. For now, I’m tired and intend to exercise my freewill and go to bed.
Keep on keepin’ on.
Lance.
I think Johnson is just saying what most of us think but are too scared to voice. Scripture is hard sometimes. Even Peter thought Paul wrote some things that were hard to understand. It is not as black and white as we so often proclaim. I think it bothers a lot of people, but I really appreciate Johnson’s humble honesty.
Sometimes reading your blog is like trying to eat a 7 course meal – I love every minute of it, but I sometimes I just need to come up for air!
Thank you for sharing these wise words. I will need to digest this for a few days…
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God”. In other words, BE Christ-like. When our following of scripture causes us to be UNLIKE Christ, we’be got something wrong. The Pharisee’s were following scripture when they DIDN’T wanted Jesus to heal the guy on the Sabbath. Following scipture was more important to them that being God-like. There is a higher law than scripture, and it’s LOVE. Jesus showed them that, and he also showed them that people ALWAYS come before policy. He showed them that time after time.
Now how about us? Is that what the world is seeing from us?
DU
That should be “want” and “scripture”……sorry for the errors! My editing skills suck.
DU
I am assuming where Johnson is headed in his thoughts is the importance of knowing context. The guiding principle of sound hermeneutics is context, and because Peter and Paul and John and the other NT writers were all faced with unique geo-religious-political-socio contexts their inspired writngs are addressing these unique geo-religious-politcal socio issues, thus having some differing answers.
That reality alone should greatly affect our Dogma.
Thank you for sharing this excerpt. It touches on something that I feel like a growing number of young people like my self, specifically coming from a completely different background, wish we had a little more freedom to flesh out.
DU points something out that I was actually thinking hard about today. Justice, kindness, and walking humbly with God are ideas that have been slowly replacing my flawed view of what I should do in the world. I only wish more felt the same burning desire for such a change.
Daniel,
Maybe more people do feel the burning desire that you speak of, but are afraid to speak out, and live it out, for fear of judgement by other “Christians”. ????
Maybe they do live it out but because they don’t have a mega in front of the experience no one knows.
I agee with Darin. Excellent point.
This article really connected with my own recent thoughts and study. Brueggemann (quoting someone else) speaks of the “canonical literature as the water in which the ship of interpretation must constantly sail, never dropping anchor.” Perhaps we have missed the boat entirely in our use of scripture as a rule book rather than a collection of stories of God’s interaction with people through the ages.