c. scott andreas

This evening, the leaders of my small group announced that we would be disbanding as a community in favor of informal get-togethers with three or four people for the summer. I’ll not offer my thoughts on the switch - instead, I’m intrigued by the new plan. We’ll be reading through the New Testament over the summer and meeting to discuss it once a week (this breaks down to a very reasonable four chapters each day).

“This isn’t about formal exegesis or study or anything like that,” he said. “Just let it wash over you.”

Read the rest of this entry »

On Friday, I shared an article from Open Source Theology about different ways of reading Genesis 1. The article proposed five different ways of reading the chapter as a mythic creational narrative defining the relationship between God, humanity, and creation. If you haven’t yet, please read it as well as Friday’s post to catch up.

Part of the reason for initiating this dialogue is that I will be attending a conference about the role of the local church in a late-modern Western society called “Isn’t She Beautiful.” The conference is hosted by Mars Hill in Grand Rapids, MI. One of the sessions I’ll be attending is called “Narrative theology and how we read the Bible,” taught by Matt Krick.

I’m not sold on any particular reading, but I do think that a narrative/mythic reading can be helpful, and I do not believe that an enlightenment-era scientific/rationalist reading of the text is productive. What you’re reading here is an attempt to articulate a (somewhat primitive) perspective beforehand in order that I might be able to better engage the conference in a few weeks.

I promised to share with you some thoughts on the potential value and dangers of a narrative / mythological reading of the creation story. Here they are:

1) “Narrative” and “mythology” are separate categories. I use “narrative” to mean “story” and “mythology” to mean “a set of religious / cultural beliefs, often presented in a narrative frame.” Thus, it would be accurate to say that a mythological reading of Genesis 1 is a narrative reading, but it would be inaccurate to state that all narrative readings of Genesis 1 are necessarily mytholoical. The article seems to use these terms interchangeably.

2) It’s refreshing to read a discussion that engages the word “myth” in a complex way. We often attempt to divide our world neatly into “myths” and “facts,” which provides a useful albeit highly reductionist perspective of ideas and experiences that does violence to the particularity of situations.

3) It’s also refreshing to see a reading of the text that is attentive to temporal and cultural location. Doyle recognizes that formal scientific inquiry, journalism, and the discipline of history as we know them (inaugurated in Western culture by the Enlightenment[s]) did not exist at the time of Genesis’ writing, so it would be irresponsible to engage the text exclusively in such a manner.

4) It’s also interesting to note that a narrative reading of this text need not impugn (and must not impugn) the authority of scripture. In many ways, the importance of scripture is elevated as we come to understand that this is not merely a story of what has happened in the past, but rather one of which we ourselves are part. Much of the Bible (and especially the Old Testament) is a story describing the dynamic interaction between God and His people – yet while we’ve only a few short epistles in the New Testament, we tend to rely upon them far more than the rest of the book.

By locating ourselves within this narrative and engaging our culture according to it, we find that YHWH does indeed have a loud and booming voice for us and for our culture today. For more on narrative and the authority of scripture, see N.T. Wright’s essay, “How can the Bible be Authoritative?”

5) In understanding Genesis as myth or the story of Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus, and new creation, we must not refer to scripture as “one of many ways of making sense of human experience.” Paul contended against this idea in his letter to the Colossians: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (2:8, NRSV). While Greco-Roman thought understood the universe as composed of “celestial powers that rule life” (HC/NRSV Commentary), Paul faithfully taught that “in [Jesus] all things in heaven and on earth were created” and that “in him all things hold together” (2:15,17). In all things, scripture must remain authoritative as YHWH is author of life itself.

6) In the same manner that I praised a complex engagement of the word “myth” in #2, I would propose a complex engagement of the five ways of reading Genesis proposed in the article. Further, I would certainly not limit a reading of Genesis to these interpretive possibilities; there’s a lot to be said for traditional readings of the text. I am giving the narrative perspective greater attention not because I regard it more valid, but because it is relatively new to me.

7) I’d love to hear a great storyteller recite Genesis 1 while sitting around a campfire on a cool, starry summer night. How might it sound then?

I hope that you’ve enjoyed engaging this mode of thought, and thank you if you have. As always, love to hear what’s on your mind!

Cheers,

Scott

There is an interesting discussion going on over at OST regarding different readings of Genesis 1. Check it out if you like. Please pause for a moment and read Genesis 1 before reading the OST article or this piece.

The central argument is that since Genesis 1 was not written in a post-enlightenment rational/scientific context, it would be irresponsible to read it as such.

Instead, Doyle proposes a mythological reading of the text that draws attention to the creational narrative rather than to what some refer to as “the bare facts of the matter.” The argument here is that the author was not writing as a historian or journalist to construct a time line of events so much as he, inspired by God, wrote to construct a mythological frame to explain the origins of the world with respect to the relationship between our Creator God and His creation.

Please understand, of course, that the author is not using “myth” to mean “false” or “untrue” in the manner that a few still speak of “the myth of global warming.” Instead, he’s using the word to describe an overarching story or metanarrative that we find ourselves in today just as the Israelites did as they wandered the ancient Near East. The authority of Genesis 1 is not validated by human rational/scientific attempts to “prove Creationism.” Instead, it is validated by God Himself, a truth accessible to us in the present in that we are able to locate ourselves in the account of creation and fall (and later Jesus, cross, and resurrection) today.

The author proposes five ways of reading Genesis in the character of creational mythology. I don’t believe that any of the five interpretations are valid by themselves or that any of them are without error to the extent that they are useful. However, I do regard this as a productive discussion to have, whatever the outcome.

Especially this quote:

The mythic truth receives its guarantee by the reality of the risen Christ, who in essence has absorbed the everyday world into his own mythic world.

I see a few good things happening here, and a few dangers that we must certainly watch out for as well. I’ll share my thoughts on Sunday.

Until then, if you would like to share your thoughts, I would encourage you to read the article at OST with a proper understanding of the word “myth” and with an open but critical mind and spirit. Then, read Genesis 1. Is this a book recording a scientific, empirically-verifiable, rational, historical account of the creation of a young earth? Or is there something more going on here? Is a faithful reading of Genesis 1 as authoritative mythical narrative possible, and if so, is it productive?

If you feel your blood pressure rising as you read this article, I’d encourage you to go for a walk and perhaps wait a day before sharing your thoughts. I embarrass myself far too often by reacting too quickly.

Cheers,

Scott

I came across this quote in Shane Claiborne’s “The Irresistible Revolution.” It represents a beautiful component of the Gospel which too often escapes my mind. Also, a good desktop background. Click for a larger version (1280×1024).

This is the formal conclusion to a four-part series; I may or may not extend it.
Read parts one, two, and three.

I concluded the previous installment by highlighting a portion of Jesus’ statement which I believe has profound implications for us today. Now, we’ll explore what he meant by this.

Jesus tells us that “the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

Other translations of this text include “is/draws near and draws nigh.” The Greek word used here is “eggizo“. It means to join one thing to another or to approach. There are two implications for this interpretation. First, we see that the Kingdom of Heaven is immediately available to us — we need only respond to this call to repentance (that is, allow our minds to be completely transformed — from which action will flow).

Second, we see that the Kingdom of Heaven is approaching the kingdoms of the world. As God has no intention of retreating, his Kingdom will crash into earth as he reclaims, restores, and renews what is His.

When a king comes to visit — or better yet, take up residence, it’s a pretty good idea to put things in order. We see this in the Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19 (a mina was about three month’s wages for a laborer). In this parable, a king entrusts three servants with a significant amount of resources in order that they might invest and grow them. But we’re told that “his citizens hated him…saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’” In this story, those who submit themselves to the authority of the king are trusted and loved. Conversely, those who refuse the king’s authority and failed to obey him were put to death.

As such, we’ve good reason to submit ourselves to the Kingdom of God. We’re called to trust in Him, to freely give as we have received, to minister to widows and orphans, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked — in other words, to be Just. The King calls us to push against the pain and brokenness of sin. Though we’ve long participated in its destruction, we must do what we can to make good on it. Not for salvation’s sake (at least as we tend to think of it). But because we know that the will of the King is obedience, justice, restoration, and renewal. Waiting around for him to simply return would be much like the third servant in the story of the minas. He was viciously scolded and had what was entrusted to him taken away.

Today, Christ calls us to enter into the Kingdom, much like he called his first-century disciples. What might living life in the Kingdom of Heaven look like today?

Greek references from Blue Letter Bible.

This is the third part of a series. Read the first and second parts.

Previously, I’d asked why it is important that we repent in the manner Christ called us to repent — such that our minds are utterly and completely transformed.

Jesus tells us that “the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Many interpret this to mean that the world will soon end — thus, people should repent now so they don’t wind up in hell later. Well, sure. But this is quite a reductionistic interpretation. Let’s take a closer look at this phrase.

First, “kingdom” used in the context of a first-century Jew did not refer to a physical place as we understand it. Instead, it indicated the right or authority to rule over a people. The word has much more to do with sovereignty and obedience than it does a spot on a cosmic map.

Our culture tells us that “heaven” is a place in the clouds where angels play harps and you get to do whatever you want — say, throw rocks at me for rambling. This was not what Jesus’ meant by heaven — nor did he mean a far-off place where we’ll one day go to worship God. The word for heaven, “ouranos” referred to the “order of things eternal and…perfect where God dwells.”

The “Kingdom of Heaven” refers to God’s authority to rule over the created universe.

Therefore, Jesus speaks to those who do not recognize God’s authority. His primary message is a call to obey the Lord as the good, wise, and just ruler of an eternal kingdom whose bounds are limitless.

What’s more — this Kingdom is “at hand.”

Check back on Friday for the (formal) conclusion of this series. Until then, leave a comment! What’s on your mind?

Greek references from Blue Letter Bible.

This is part two in a series. Read the first post.

In the first part of this series, I explored Jesus’ exhortation to “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” by considering the word “repent” as it’s often used.

Today, we’ll begin to unpack Christ’s call to repentance.

Matthew locates this statement at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Furthermore, he indicates that these words were perhaps Jesus’ central message. The phrase “From that time” (the NIV translates this “from that time on”) indicates that Jesus continued to use these words. The Greek phrase “apo tote” implies something beginning at a specific point, then continuing in a certain direction indefinitely — much like a ray in mathematics. This word is also used in the New Testament to mean that someone is the first to do something. The Son of God walked the earth, teaching people(s) to repent and enter the Kingdom of God.

But what does it mean to repent? I remember thinking that “repent” meant to say that you’re sorry. In this sense, Jesus’ command as we often think of it makes a lot of sense — “say you’re sorry so that you don’t go to hell!” But the word “repent” meant much more to Him than simply apologizing.

The Greek word for “repent” used here is “metanoeo.” This word primarily means “to change one’s mind.” In this context, it implies that this is a change for the better, resulting from an abhorrence of one’s sins and a desire to make amends.

So when Jesus commands us to repent, he’s not calling us to bow down at the front of a church or say the “sinner’s prayer” — though there’s nothing wrong with these. It’s just important that we keep separate in our minds what Christ has ordained and what His Church has instituted. But Jesus is calling us to change our minds completely by seeking, hearing, and obeying his teaching.

Paul echoes this in Romans 12, calling the church to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” A simple apology will not suffice. The transformation to which Christ calls us is a complete shift in thought and practice.

But why must we repent in this manner?

Check back here on Wednesday. Until then, leave a comment!

- csa

Greek references from Blue Letter Bible.

As a kid, I remember walking by an auto parts shop in the town where I grew up. It was almost always closed, which made me wonder how they made money. A simple sign often covered the door — it said, “Closed. Please call again.” Apart from never opening the door, I thought they were pretty stupid for hanging that sign up. “Call,” I thought? I hadn’t called them — I just walked by the door!

My dad later explained to me that before the telephone was invented, “calling” someone meant that you went to visit them. I pulled my foot out of my mouth and said that they were still stupid for using words two centuries out of date.

Looking back on this experience, I learned that words are not “timeless, unchanging containers of meaning.” Different cultures use them in different ways, and over time, the connotations of a single word within a single culture can shift entirely.

It’s easy to get caught up in a single interpretation of a word when reading the Bible — and entirely understandable! But we must remember that the twenty-first century is far-removed from the first century.

The Book of Matthew begins by establishing Jesus’ genealogy, the circumstances surrounding his birth, then tells us of his baptism and temptation. Following this, we find a rather curious passage:

“From that time, Jesus began to preach, saying
‘Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.’”
- Matthew 4:17, ESV

Google is a great cultural thermometer.
An image search for “repent” turned up these three matches:

When we consider the word “repent,” we often think of altar calls, fire-and-brimstone rhetoric, and people with bullhorns shouting in the streets.

But is that was Jesus meant when he said, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand?”

Check back on Monday for part two.  In the meantime, leave a comment — I’d like to hear your thoughts.