If it Walks Like a Duck...

Rob Bell is at it again...making evangelicals and conservative Christians squirm while garnering praise from more "progressive Christians." You can read about it here, on a Huffington Post post.

I want to offer some thoughts on the Huffington Post article. I realize that it is an article about an interview. However, I do think that this article gives enough to get at some of the major issues associated with the debate of eccelsial sanction regarding the LGBT lifestyle and part of the essence of Bell's position.

Apparently one of the main angles through which Bell approaches the debate is that of loneliness. The article begins by stating the obvious--any properly adjusted person does not wish to go through life alone. Listen to popular music...watch popular movies...so many of the dominant themes deal with relationships. And I can get on board with this idea--humanity needs and longs for meaningful relationships. Genesis 2 states as much.

"Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner" (2:18; NRSV).

"Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; NRSV).

There are other passages in Scripture that supports these as well. However, it is important to realize something. The implications of these passages is that ultimate relationship fulfillment between human beings is to be found in the opposite sex (Where ultimate relational fulfillment can be found in another discussion for another time.). And here is where the rubber apparently meets the road for Bell. The Bible, with its statements--no matter how explicit--is outdated. By implication, Scripture cannot effectively speak to the progressions of our modern context. It is irrelevant for many situations. For Bell, people, flesh and blood, is the determining factor. Personal experiences carry the day.

Such a posture is not surprising. The reality is that advocates of the LGBT movement must respond to the explicit statements in Scripture that either condemn that lifestyle or suggest that a heterosexual one is the Biblical intention. And one of the most popular ways to respond is to bemoan the antiquity of Scripture. Apparently, this is what Bell is doing. Essentially, "Scripture is too old, too ancient to address the nuances of our contemporary situation." Therefore, in Bell's mind the Church must jettison what is perceived to be the source of its irrelevancy...or at least ignore it.

I find it laughable to say that Scripture--or more precisely, the Church's reliance upon Scripture to respond to the developments of time --will render the Church irrelevant. The Church, with its Scripture, has been one of the most relevant institutions throughout the world for millennia. This is just not going to change. However, I must ask if Bell is trying to communicate something else with his statement, "[T]he church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense..."?

Indeed, there is a socio-historical chasm between the ancient writers and any contemporary situation. The writers did not, and in some instances could not, anticipate the issues that face a modern American context. Therefore, the application of Scripture is rarely easy and simple. We can rarely take Scripture and whimsically and simplistically drop its teaching into a contemporary context. No, the application of Scripture involves the consideration of the Canon's overall testimony, a consideration of how the socio-historical situation affected the composition of the text, how the contemporary situation adds unforeseen variables and nuances, just to name a few. If this is what Bell is trying to communicate, then I can get on board. He just did a terrible job of communicating it. However, to imply or suggest that Scripture is no longer authoritative because it is too old and "just doesn't understand what we know" smacks of heresy.

I use the term heresy intentionally. Bell has been pushing the boundaries of orthodox Christianity for some time now, and this situation presents nothing different. All Bell needs to do is come out and explicitly say a few things and the debate would be over. Nevertheless, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are that it is a duck. At the very least, Bell speaks of a spirituality that has fewer and fewer anchors in orthodox theology. But in my opinion, we just need to place him in the same category of the likes of Joel Osteen--people who carry the Christian title only strategically and massage Scriptural teachings as they see fit.

So what about the LGBT debate? This is an intense and complicated debate. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that in my mind we must begin our theological discourse with the definitive statements offered by Scripture. So, what does Scripture specifically say about humanity's longing for relationships and where is that ultimate fulfillment? And we must do that with a respect for the original intentions. (So, yes. I believe that the writers of Scripture enjoyed a type of revelatory enlightenment that is no longer experienced.).  Armed with these statements, a definitive framework can be created, within which a debate can commence. But make no mistake, if that framework is violated, heresy is imminent. Theological discourse must be grounded in Scripture...not in philosophy, not sociology, not experience, etc. Because Bell misses this point, his theology will always be left wanting.

Why the Historical Adam Debate is Maddening...at least in my opinion

One of my old teammates at IWU posted a linked on his Facebook page the other day. It pertains to William Craig Lane's discussion of the historical Adam debate. WCL is a widely published professor of philosophy and you can find his discussion here. It got me thinking...

As you can infer from this little interchange, the debate around the historical Adam--was he or wasn't he, and if he was, can we somehow prove it?--has enjoyed a certain level of popularity as of late. This is directly linked to the convergence of scientific research and bringing an age scholarly discussion into the realm of popular Church culture. In particular, we can thank Peter Enns' book "The Evolution of Adam" (which is very good by the way) and other European scholars for this. For a teaser, check out these Youtube videos here, and here.

There is a lot riding on this conversation, including how Christians should understand creation and evolution. This is why this discussion creates such passionate responses. Certain people are quick to call others "liberals" (of some sort) if they stray from a certain set of ideas, and others often call certain people "simplistic" or "naive" if they hold to particular conclusions. But instead of piling it on in this post--trying to find the problems with either particular view point--I want to take a textual approach to this discussion, and in doing so I want to explain why I think this debate is particularly frustrating.

...and I totally realize that I am only one voice in a debate that has been and will continue to be hashed out from multiple angles...

From the outset, it is my opinion that the problem is not inherently a scientific one. Rather, I believe that the core issue in the historical Adam debate is Paul's exercising of interpretive principles that make me uncomfortable. And Paul's ideas really force the conversation of a "historical Adam." Let me explain.

One of the first things that you need to do when sitting down to interpret any portion of Scripture is ask "What kind of text is this?" It is a question of genre, and this is critical because we want to know 1) what the text is demanding and trying to communicate and 2) what type of questions to ask of it. Quite simply, it is improper to ask the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. One's ability and willingness to properly classify and respect the genre prevent this. So in the case of those texts in Genesis 1-11, it is widely accepted that this portion of Scripture is an ancient cosmology. It is trying to describe the present order and structure of the universe. By implication, it is also trying to explain how it came into being (...often times when we want to know why something is the way that it is we explain its origins).

However, we have to emphasize the word "ancient" in all of this. You see, we--modern people who live on
this side of the scientific revolution--tend to understand the order and structure of the universe in scientific terms...for obvious reasons. However, science, biology, and other realities were not even in the biblical writer's frame of reference. Furthermore, and we know this from comparative studies, the biblical writers were using the same images, ideas, themes, motifs, etc. as other pagan writers. Thus, the creation accounts were not trying to give specific biological, chronological, or scientific insight into the creation and order of the universe. Rather, they were describing the universe in a frame of reference that was thoroughly ancient near eastern. It is my opinion, therefore, that those people who try to align scientific data (positively or negatively for that matter) with the statements of Genesis are asking the text to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear. [...and I know that there will be people who just flat out disagree with me. But I am just not going there right now.] The intentions of Genesis are more theologically polemical than anything.

If this were the end of things, there would be minimal problems. But we have Paul and his typological argument for Christ's significance (cf. Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Typology, in its most basic sense, refers to an interpretive method that explains the significance of people, events, and institutions in light of other people, events, and institutions within a framework of history. It has always been a popular method of interpretation within the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it was very popular among the earliest Christians for explaining the implications of Christ. In Paul, Christ and Adam are explained in terms of other...they need each other. But more fundamentally, the typology needs history.

The result is an interesting one. Paul apparently understands Adam of Genesis 1-3 as a historical person, which imports a level of meaning that is not demanded by Genesis as an ancient cosmology. Remember, Israel's cosmology is fundamentally concerned with communicating the revolutionary concept that God Almighty, Yahweh, perfectly created the universe and it was good and orderly. Humanity screwed it up with its selfish endeavors. It is not trying to make specific scientific or historical claims. By implication, the governing rules of Genesis 1-3 allow for the interpretation that Adam and Eve may symbolically portray another reality. So, in my mind the frustration arises not because of the genetic search for the "first man" or "mitochondrial Eve." No...it is frustrating because it appears that we have a pillar of the Church interpreting the text in a way would that would solicit some very negative feedback if he were taking one of my exegesis courses. It is worth repeating, Paul moves beyond what the original writers of Genesis intended, adding another layer of meaning to the plain sense of the sense.

Did Paul get it wrong? Did he misunderstand Genesis 1-3? No, I am not going to say that. Paul was a highly trained Rabbi, and first century rabbinic exegesis was a well established interpretive method during his day (Although, I am nor afraid to admit that I have a hard time tracking elements of it.). Furthermore, Paul was endowed with a certain level of spiritual insight that no longer exists. What I will say is that 1) Paul understood Adam's humanity in light of Christ's, Adam's significance in light of Christ's and 2) the writer of Genesis 1-3 did not intend to make specific anthropological claims...only theological ones. This is the difficulty, and this is what frustrates me.

The Real Work Begins After The Doctorate

Every person who is going through the process of obtaining a Ph. D. and has a serious intention of serving the Church on the other side of the journey will inevitably realize that there is a significant disconnect between the academy and the Church. Scholarship that is praised by members of the academy is often not received well by the masses of the Church. Any Ph. D. programs associated with confessional institutions will do well to 1) recognize this reality and 2) supply the tools to tackle the dynamics that their graduates will undoubtedly face.

I am currently of the opinion that this disconnect arises not so much from ideas, theories, and conclusions that are truly heretical. Rather, the disconnect largely arises from a lack of communication from the part of the Ph. D. and understanding from the members of the Church. And I would go a step further and say that the pendulum of responsibility swings to the Ph. D., particularly since we have chosen to develop our God given abilities and passions for a life of deep study and reflection. I remember being called in to my professor's office after submitting a paper. The conversation essentially boiled down to, "You have good ideas, but you cannot communicate them. Dave, you can have the greatest ideas in the world, but if you cannot communicate them, they are worthless." This lesson resonates with me to this day. One's inability to properly communicate ideas precludes proper understanding.

So what is to be done in the case of the disconnect between the Church and the academy? On the surface, the remedy seems easy enough, doesn't it? With all the education that these Ph. D.s have experienced, you would think that they would be able to communicate things on a level that appeals to the masses, right? Unfortunately, something weird happens when you spend a decade neck-deep in research. You become consumed with "talking the talk," which inevitably leads to tendencies an habits of discussing issues in certain ways. And don't try to resist this, because as the Borg said, "Resistance is futile. You will assimilate."


But let's not quickly move to castigate biblical scholars. All types of specialists will inevitably be consumed with the lingo of their field. Engineers do it. Scientists do it. Financial consultants do it.

Nevertheless, I believe that the key to effectively to bridging the disconnect between the academy and the Church is for the scholar to develop a good method of communication and presentation. Again, I do not believe that the issue centers on the conclusions of biblical scholarship, per se. Rather, it is communicating those conclusions. Quite simply, how does the biblical scholar communicate complex issues that naturally gravitate to a select group of people in a way that ensures wide spread understanding? This is something that Ph. Ds must deal with on the back side of their degree.

The following points are really an initial foray. I am going through this transition as I write and so these ideas are rather fluid, not to mention woefully underdeveloped. Indeed, they may sound simplistic, and even comical to scholars who are more seasoned than I.

First, we must bring everything back to the text of the Bible, explaining clearly how any given conclusion illuminates the message of Scripture. I am a Protestant, and so a large portion of my theological paradigm considers what Scripture has to say on topic, X, Y, or Z. This is not to say that tradition, reason, or experience plays no role. Only that Scripture holds a priority. Moreover, this first task can be teased out a bit.

1. Is the conclusion a diachronic or a synchronic one? If it is diachronic, then its synchronic appeal must be explained. Scripture as you see it is a result of a lengthy and complicated process of composition and development. The realities that lead up to the final form of text--the form of Scripture that people see today--are called "diachronic"  realities. "Synchronic" realities is just a fancy term that corresponds to "diachronic" and essentially refers to the final form of Scripture. In other words, I am saying that conclusions of biblical studies that deal with the historical processes that produced Scripture must be explained in a way that clearly divulges how it impacts one's understanding of the final form of Scripture. For example, how does understanding the development of Judges illuminate the theological points of emphasis created by the final form of the text? Admittedly, this entire idea is hard for someone who has been rooted in the academy for a decade...but it is absolutely essential. Furthermore, its difficulty is increased by the potential spiritual implications. The scholar must know his or her audience and be able to determine if discussions of such complex realities of Scripture will do more harm than good. If it is the former, scholars must be restrained. Just don't go there. Sometimes a scholar's interest in how the historical progression of Judges testifies to Israel's progression of religious consciousness is just not shared with members in our congregations.
2. Is this a "behind the text" reality? If so, you must explain how it illuminates the text. The idea of something being "behind the text" is a weird way of referring to those realities that indirectly affect the text's message or illuminate the nuances of the text's message. They often deal with background issues. Examples include, history, archaeology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Scholars must remember that the ultimate payoff does not reside with these conclusions...however fascinating they may  be. 

Second, we must be able to articulate the theological relevance of our conclusion(s). As I see it, this goal can be obtained most efficiently either through developing principles that can be commonly held and applied, or demonstrating the relevance by an appeal to experience via testimony. What's more, I am inclined to say that this is the crux of the entire situation. If one cannot explain any real-world relevance for any conclusion, then that conclusion essentially will remain in the realm of theory or abstractness, destined to be perceived as unusable by the Church as a whole.

I am describing a journey...a cognitive journey through which every scholar who is seriously interested in serving the Church must go. Yet it is a difficult journey,which is evinced by the dearth of good biblical scholars that can also effectively resonate with the masses. On the one hand, a decade of intense study has unlocked riches that will not and cannot be forgotten by the scholar. On the other hand, we have to remember and re-learn certain things about the Church. What appeals? What resonates? I can honestly say that it is after my getting my degree that my real work has only begun.