Picasso’s Napkin (Part 2, “Kissin’ Cousins”)

I have some cousins; I’ll bet you do, too. Linda, John, Mary, Victor, Vernon, and Tim (born to one of my mother’s sisters). All in the same family, all having the same mother and father, all having been raised by the same parents in the same localities. But oh how different they are!

Isn’t it amazing how different children in the same family can be from one another. Now there are almost always some obvious similarities, too. But what makes each one unique, memorable, recognizable . . . are the differences.

Linda was the oldest, the most sophisticated; John was the mischievous one; Mary was the quiet, reserved one (except at times); Victor and Vernon were twins, but each had his own distinct personality and manner of speaking; and Tim was the baby, into absolutely everything. They are all grown now, of course. But I loved those cousins, and their individuality.

One way people deal with Scripture is to look for the common thread that runs throughout; they will refer to parts of the Old Testament and compare them with the New Testament, looking for the similarities. And sometimes . . . ignoring the stark differences. Often you will hear it said, “you should interpret the Bible with the Bible.” That might work . . . as long as you know what you’re doing.

But linking verses of Scripture together can be dangerous, too, of course. As in the case of the man who read from Matthew’s gospel and then flipped over to Luke’s gospel, looking for direction for his life from the Bible.

” He (Judas) . . . went away and hanged himself”
AND
“Go and do likewise.”

Matthew 27:5b; Luke 10:37b

This sounds comical, of course. And it should! Because to take a compilation of ancient documents, bound together in a single volume, and then randomly read them like one would read if seeking advice from the Magic 8 Ball . . . . Now that IS comical! And sad, too. Do people do it? Yes. ALL THE TIME.

Part of the reason is because we’ve been taught to use the Bible this way. But when you do so you not only are doing something dangerous (with regard to interpretation), but inadvertently you rob yourself of seeing the uniqueness of each book in the compilation. Remember, these ancient documents were not written as audition pieces in order to get into the Bible. Each one has its own author, recipients, occasion, and purpose. If you really want to know what they SAY, you must know each of those things.

_{No auditions for New Testament authors}

For example, using the illustration of my twin cousins, Victor and Vernon . . . the Apostle Paul had a couple of “twin” letters: Ephesians, and Colossians. There is a great deal of similarity between these two ancient documents, both likely written in the 60s A.D. And yet, their uniqueness shines through if the reader takes the time to notice. Their two messages complement one another, but they are not the same. Their terminology has some similarities, but also some stark differences. They both address the behavior of wives, husbands, slaves and masters, etc., and they both discuss “the mystery,” but whereas Ephesians talks a great deal about “the heavenly realms” (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12) and the Lord’s “power” (1:19; 3:7, 16, 18, 20; 6:10), Colossians emphasizes the “fullness” of God in Christ (1:19, 25; 2:9-10) and “the basic principles of the world” (2:8, 20), ascetic practices that threaten the Christian’s new identity.

Sometimes these letters were meant to be shared, as in the case of Colossians, where Paul asks that the church there exchange their letter with the Christians in Laodicea and vice versa (Colossians 4:16). Galatians was written to multiple churches in an area (Galatians 1:2), and 1 Peter was written to Christians “scattered” throughout several provinces (1 Peter 1:1). Some were written to individuals, e.g. 3 John, Philemon, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Luke & Acts.

Each document is unique. Are they in conflict with one another because they do not have the same message or use the same vocabulary? Of course not! If you wanted to tell someone how to get to your house you would not give identical instructions to someone living in New York City and someone living in San Francisco. They are two very different places; and different highways (or airports) would be used to get them to your home.

The documents we call “Scripture” do not have the same audience, do not all address the same issue(s), and do not have the same author. Sometimes, referring to them all as “God’s Word” can be misleading, making the reader unconsciously assume that since God is the ultimate source of the material the reader can “mix and match” (so to speak) at will. The fact is, even when the same author is writing (e.g. Paul) there are differences in the terminology used. Writing in the late 40s A.D. to Gentile Christians, recent converts to the faith, Paul says:

” . . . you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God . . . .”

1 Thessalonians 1:9b

This would have made little sense to a Jewish audience. Just as the following (written around the same time to Jewish Christians) would have made little sense to a Gentile audience:

“Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.”

Galatians 4:21-22

You can’t read Revelation (written in an apocalyptic style) in the same way you read Jude, even though they are situated right next to each other in the current canon. Genesis isn’t like Song of Songs (in fact, almost nothing is), and you can’t read Job like you read 1 Corinthians. James says that “faith without deeds is useless” and “dead” (James 2:17, 20, 26); by contrast, Paul says ” . . . by grace you have been saved through faith . . . not by works . . . ” (Ephesians 2:8-9). They don’t sound the same.

My cousins are very much alike in one sense, and impossibly different in another sense. 1 Corinthians was written in response to a series of questions Paul had been asked. Romans was written to help Gentiles to accept Jews back into the church after having been expelled by the emperor for 5 years. Jude had intended to write a letter about “the salvation we share” (Jude 3), but dire circumstances caused him to change his message (Jude 3-4). Over and over again the unique nature of each document is of utmost importance. Their intent dictated the words chosen, just as they do in any conversation, letter, email, or text you write today.

Picasso doodled and scribbled constantly, and the things he doodled are as varied as they come. Often he gave those scribblings away. But no matter how much variety there was in his doodles . . . they were still Picassos. The variety you find in Scripture works the same way.

If you want to flip open the Bible, point to a verse and read it to receive direction for your life . . . of course you can do so. But if you really want to understand what the words were meant to convey, well . . . that is a whole different project altogether. The “cousins” are waiting for you.

But we’re not done yet! We will tackle the subject of “inspiration” in the next blog entry. Hang on to your seats!!!!! It’s bound to be a bumpy ride.

Divine Revelation: Who Needs It? (Part 4)

As I grow older there are still some things that puzzle me.

I confess I have become somewhat accustomed to a number of things: I am no longer shocked when I learn about the failure of a long standing corporation, the divorce of a Hollywood star, the corruption of a government organization, or the revelation of someone’s deep dark life secrets.

These things are the stuff of what has become the norm in our society. We may be disappointed, but . . . they do not shock us anymore.

Scientific research into a plethora of subject areas has yielded unbelievable advances in the fields of healthcare, astronomy, microbiology, agriculture, and a myriad of other disciplines. We continue to dig deeper and deeper, always searching for better ways to do things. Science has truly improved our lives in numberless ways.

We are always learning more and more about the building blocks of our universe. When I was growing up we spoke of atoms as the smallest particles, but now we speak of quarks. And the search never ceases. We are insatiable in our quest for the truth behind the workings of our universe.

To a point, that is.

I say, “to a point,” because when it comes to ultimate origins we seem to be satisfied with leaving that question unanswerable, though we say we continue to strive to answer it.

Well, let me correct myself. Not completely unanswerable. I suppose there are many who have decided the way to deal with the question of ultimate origins is to posit a universe that has always existed [Mortimer Adler, agnostic for much of his life, discusses this suggestion in How To Think About God, 1980].

How can the insatiable search for the truth about things be squelched when it comes to ultimate origins, the “Prime Mover” [as it has been referenced in the past]?

Is it as simple as this: scientific research cannot ever “observe” or “test” the initial event of creation? Therefore, an objective approach [what scientific research strives to maintain] is impossible? Creation will never be scientifically established because it is not within the purview of science to observe and test the unobservable and untestable? Even the latest theories that involve gravitons and axions to explain dark matter will ultimately reach a stopping place just short of ultimate beginnings.

Ex nihilo is a hard act to follow. To be fair, it does not necessitate ex Deo. But it must be considered.

In a very real sense [it seems to me] people who are bound solely by the discoveries of science have settled for the lack of any explanation for the ultimate origin of the universe. The Big Bang Theory does not help explain origins, because it is merely a theory that attempts to account for the distribution of matter that already existed in some form, but it does not help when ones tries to “go all the way back to the singularity” (Robert Brandenberger, Professor of Physics, McGill University).

Science is in no way in opposition to Theism [although you would not know that from the popular writings of the day]; one may inform the other, but they are not at odds. They actually deal with two separate things: the observable things of the universe, and the source of the observable things of the universe. Nevertheless, Creation seems to have been relegated to the religious, and is seldom used by others.

And so I am puzzled.

Unless there is an agenda that lies outside the purview of science, I cannot understand what the big uproar is against theism. It seems to me that there are theists who are set against the findings of science, and scientists who are set against the revelations of theism. Ideally this should not be the case. They should work in concert, should they not?

Maybe scientists should indeed settle for no explanation for the origin of the universe; that just might be the most honest scientific approach for a question that can only be answered outside of science.

Or maybe the fight is over revelation, i.e. that no one who values science can believe in revelation, and that no one who believes in revelation can freely embrace science. Is a marriage between these two even possible?

That, of course, is the reason for this series in the Godstory blog.

I am no scientist.

But it seems to me that many of the essential building blocks of our society (and societies across the globe) rest on a foundation derived from believers in a Higher Power. That is at least enough to give me pause as I consider the origin of man and this universe, a universe that continues to baffle us with its awesomeness. And it ought to make me wonder what building blocks would exist if this foundation had not existed. At the very least it moves me to want to hear the available explanations of ultimate origins.

I will not buy them all. I may not buy any of them. But they are worthy of an audience. Because apart from them . . .

There is only silence.

Divine Revelation: Who Needs It? (Part 1)

Let me begin by asking you some questions:

1. Do you think there is any need in our present world for wisdom, instruction, or guidance in how persons should live life?

2. Do you think the source of this wisdom, instruction and guidance in living is, of necessity, man himself?

3. How do you think man is doing with his living of life these days?

We are bombarded each day with reports of intense fighting in the Middle East, terrorist attacks on innocent civilians, cyber attacks that threaten our financial credit, senseless acts of violence ranging from random shootings to full blown racial onslaughts, and irresponsible behavior like leaving babies and/or animals in heated cars.

Our schools have become institutions where teachers and students alike sometimes fear for their safety, and where scholastic performance that leads to government assistance sometimes guides administrators and teachers into scandal.

Financial shenanigans are commonplace, and we are no longer shocked when we hear about the Enrons of this world.

Some would say we are getting worse and worse in this world, and that things are going to the proverbial “hell in hand basket.”

Maybe that’s true, but . . . I suspect comparison is a bit too difficult to engage in when you come right down to it; maybe in some distant future one might make historical comparative conjectures of this sort. But I’m not sure we can be objective in the midst of our own time.

My guess is – we are much like the people who have gone before us; we are a mirror of the past.

Be that as it may . . . I suspect most of us would agree that mankind as a whole needs instruction, guidance, wisdom to live life properly.

I know our individual definitions of “properly” might differ a bit, but that there even is a proper way (no matter how ones defines it specifically) is a rather telling notion. I don’t think you can find a civilization that does not function without some sort of code, some set of rules, some guidepost, etc. And that is true not only in the present, but also in the recorded past.

The question, “Is there a need for revelation?” can be answered in the affirmative, of course, as long as we mean “to reveal,” “to disclose,” or “to uncover.” For we all agree there is much to be learned about this thing we call life; it doesn’t just come to each of us naturally, without guidance, without aid, without instruction.

As a college instructor of mine said many years ago: “Man would not even know how to copulate if he were not taught.”

We definitely need some form of revelation. But do we necessarily need Divine Revelation?