It's just another manic Monday (oh-woe)
I wish it was Sunday (oh-woe)
'Cause that's my Funday (oh-woe)
My "I don't have to run day" (oh)
It's just another manic Monday
—The Bangles
Available on the compilation CD,"Sedated in the 80s" Vol. 6. No, really. Okay, since you don't believe me, look it up.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000063T43/ultimate80ssongs
And while you're at it, don't miss Sigue Sigue Sputnik's cover of "Love Missile F1-11", Sinead O'Conner (bald before Britney), and "Pictures of Matchstick Men" by Camper Van Beethoven from the same CD.
(Kids . . . I just don't understand their music today. BTW, I decided my "PoMo update” music is "Da Da Da" by TriO.)
Leonard Sweet uses the compass as a metaphor for the Bible.
WHAT'S YOUR COMPASS FOR?
· Revelation—God manifesting himself
· Inspiration—That manifestation comes to you in words
· Direction—The Spirit giving you guidance about where to go
· Instruction—The scripture giving you wisdom on how to go
Prov 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
You can have a map, but there is a trap to a map. A map is a trap if you don't know which way to turn it. So again, we are back to needing a compass.
Ps 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
How'd you miss that, all these years? And yet, when it comes to understanding and interpreting and applying God's word to your life, many of us do not have a clue as to how to read the compass! Can I explain why people get so many interpretations out of just one passage? It has to do with
HOW PEOPLE LOOK AT THE WORD
1. The covenant model (reductionist)
A lot of reformed churches look at it like this. They limit the Bible to a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. (I readily admit I am oversimplifying, but we have to start somewhere if we are going to get anywhere.) The Bible talks about five covenants, but they see it in two, even though those two don't match the old covenant or the new testament exactly (I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just saying this is how some people look at it to get the interpretation they do).
2. The quid pro quo model (superstitious)
The so-called "word of faith" movement and the charismatic crowd read the Bible this way. So then the Bible becomes a slot machine. If you put in a little money and pull the lever, then God is obligated to bless you with what you ask, for economic prosperity. So Leonard Sweet says that the cross is no longer our symbol, but the ladder is, because we are using the word of God to get up the social and economic and prosperity ladder.
3. The isolationist model (existentialist)
I don't have time to go to church on Sunday. I don't have time for this whole community concept. There is no way I am giving myself to God in ministry. Me and my God is just about us, so the Bible is only about me. My relationship with God is just a personal thing, and I'm not interested in invading anybody else's space with it or invalidating their presuppositions with it.
4. The historical-critical model (suspicious)
This is the most popular in scholarly and academic circles[1]. Postmoderns will point out that this viewpoint came out of the Enlightenment. Baruch Spinoza wanted religion out of European politics. So he said, Let's take the Bible—which supposedly is supporting the divine right of all these despotic kings nobody likes—and let's subject it to independent verification. We won't accept it just because it says it. We are not going to look at it supernaturally, but scientifically[2]. We may be thousands of years after the original events, but unless we can find it in archaeology ourselves, we doubt it. The resurrection is not scientific, so we reject it. Creation is not credible so we trash it. We are going to approach the Bible skeptical, and even hostile to what it says.
Can I go ahead and give you the right way to look at it?
2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
5. The dispensational model
The Dispensational Idea is that God is dealing differently with people in different periods of time. All the Bible is for us, but it's not all written to us. Duh! That's why you don't have to do that legalistic thing, and that Hebrew-Israelite thing, and that Sabbath-keeping thing. How God deals with us now has to be distinguished from how God deals with people in the seven dispensations. Okay, watch.
SEVEN DISPENSATIONS
1. God deals with Adam and Eve in innocence, Gen 1-3
2. God deals with them after the fall in conscience, Gen 4-7
3. God deals with nations after the flood in human government, Gen 8-11
4. God deals with Abraham's descendants as a chosen family according to promise, Gen 12-Exod 19
5. God deals with Moses' people as a chosen nation according to law, Exod 20-Matt 26
6. God deals with the church as a chosen people according to grace, Matt 27-Rev 3
7. God deals with the world during a Millennium according to the kingdom, Rev 20
WARNING: Rules in one dispensation may not apply in a later dispensation, and some things said in a later dispensation cannot be applied to an earlier time. Dispensationalism takes a very bad rap in contemporary academe. Yet Tom Wright (as much as he hates dispensationalism) nearly almost gets to this in his "multilayered view," his model of the Bible as a five-act play[3].
Throughout the Bible God is all about his mission, but each time he is doing it a different way, because in each dispensation there is a failure. Adam and Eve fall and get kicked-out of the garden. Their descendants fail and the world gets destroyed by a flood. When people fail after the flood, God chooses Abraham. Abe's descendants leave the Promised Land, get stuck in Egypt, and God has to bring them back as a nation. That nation fails (watch this) under priests in the book of Judges, under kings in Kings and Chronicles, and under prophets in the prophetic books. They get exiled and God starts another new thing with the church. But since the church has also failed(!), we get removed in a rapture, and Jesus is going to come back again to set up the kingdom on his own.
So whatever is going on in history, God is at work dispensationally, because dispensations simply mean that God has a destiny that is designed for everybody.
Have to catch an early train, got to be to work by nine
And if I had an air-o-plane, I still couldn't make it on time
'Cause it takes me so long just to figure out what I'm gonna wear
Blame it on the train but the boss is already there.
It's just another manic Monday (oh-woe)
I wish it was Sunday (oh-woe)
'Cause that's my Funday (oh-woe)
My I don't have to runday (oh)
It's just another manic Monday.
Tools for Your Toolbox
What the Bible Is All About by Henrietta C. Mears, Gospel Light
Strong's Concordance (or Young's or Cruden's) by James Strong, Hendrickson (or AMG or Nelson or Zondervan) Publishers
The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge by R.A. Torrey, Hendrickson
1. For those who read footnotes, another point needs to be made here. It looks like I am implying that everyone who uses the historical-critical model critiques the Bible according to their humanistic and rationalistic standards to "independently verify" or validate its claims. In point of fact, many Evangelicals modify this to the "grammatical-historical" method to give the impression they are not sitting as critics on an inerrantly inspired Bible.
2. N.T. Wright, an Evangelical scholar who regularly interacts with liberal theology and postmodern philosophers, has modified this into a "critical-realist" approach, see The New Testament and the People of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, pp. 32-66,61-67,467,470.
3. Wright, N.(icholas) T.(homas), The Last Word. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005, 121ff. We could also refer to this model in chapter five of the massive tome above, but this volume is more "accessible," as they say. Too bad Robbie Bell has mis-read Wright into implying that we must constantly be "re-interpreting" the Bible now that we are in Act Five. Listen to Wright: "Whether or not one adopts this particular scheme of interpretation, it is vital that we understand scripture, and our relation to it, in terms of some kind of overarching narrative which makes sense of the texts" (p.122). Doesn't he sound like a dispensationalist there?
I wish it was Sunday (oh-woe)
'Cause that's my Funday (oh-woe)
My "I don't have to run day" (oh)
It's just another manic Monday
—The Bangles
Available on the compilation CD,"Sedated in the 80s" Vol. 6. No, really. Okay, since you don't believe me, look it up.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000063T43/ultimate80ssongs
And while you're at it, don't miss Sigue Sigue Sputnik's cover of "Love Missile F1-11", Sinead O'Conner (bald before Britney), and "Pictures of Matchstick Men" by Camper Van Beethoven from the same CD.
(Kids . . . I just don't understand their music today. BTW, I decided my "PoMo update” music is "Da Da Da" by TriO.)
Leonard Sweet uses the compass as a metaphor for the Bible.
WHAT'S YOUR COMPASS FOR?
· Revelation—God manifesting himself
· Inspiration—That manifestation comes to you in words
· Direction—The Spirit giving you guidance about where to go
· Instruction—The scripture giving you wisdom on how to go
Prov 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
You can have a map, but there is a trap to a map. A map is a trap if you don't know which way to turn it. So again, we are back to needing a compass.
Ps 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
How'd you miss that, all these years? And yet, when it comes to understanding and interpreting and applying God's word to your life, many of us do not have a clue as to how to read the compass! Can I explain why people get so many interpretations out of just one passage? It has to do with
HOW PEOPLE LOOK AT THE WORD
1. The covenant model (reductionist)
A lot of reformed churches look at it like this. They limit the Bible to a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. (I readily admit I am oversimplifying, but we have to start somewhere if we are going to get anywhere.) The Bible talks about five covenants, but they see it in two, even though those two don't match the old covenant or the new testament exactly (I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just saying this is how some people look at it to get the interpretation they do).
2. The quid pro quo model (superstitious)
The so-called "word of faith" movement and the charismatic crowd read the Bible this way. So then the Bible becomes a slot machine. If you put in a little money and pull the lever, then God is obligated to bless you with what you ask, for economic prosperity. So Leonard Sweet says that the cross is no longer our symbol, but the ladder is, because we are using the word of God to get up the social and economic and prosperity ladder.
3. The isolationist model (existentialist)
I don't have time to go to church on Sunday. I don't have time for this whole community concept. There is no way I am giving myself to God in ministry. Me and my God is just about us, so the Bible is only about me. My relationship with God is just a personal thing, and I'm not interested in invading anybody else's space with it or invalidating their presuppositions with it.
4. The historical-critical model (suspicious)
This is the most popular in scholarly and academic circles[1]. Postmoderns will point out that this viewpoint came out of the Enlightenment. Baruch Spinoza wanted religion out of European politics. So he said, Let's take the Bible—which supposedly is supporting the divine right of all these despotic kings nobody likes—and let's subject it to independent verification. We won't accept it just because it says it. We are not going to look at it supernaturally, but scientifically[2]. We may be thousands of years after the original events, but unless we can find it in archaeology ourselves, we doubt it. The resurrection is not scientific, so we reject it. Creation is not credible so we trash it. We are going to approach the Bible skeptical, and even hostile to what it says.
Can I go ahead and give you the right way to look at it?
2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
5. The dispensational model
The Dispensational Idea is that God is dealing differently with people in different periods of time. All the Bible is for us, but it's not all written to us. Duh! That's why you don't have to do that legalistic thing, and that Hebrew-Israelite thing, and that Sabbath-keeping thing. How God deals with us now has to be distinguished from how God deals with people in the seven dispensations. Okay, watch.
SEVEN DISPENSATIONS
1. God deals with Adam and Eve in innocence, Gen 1-3
2. God deals with them after the fall in conscience, Gen 4-7
3. God deals with nations after the flood in human government, Gen 8-11
4. God deals with Abraham's descendants as a chosen family according to promise, Gen 12-Exod 19
5. God deals with Moses' people as a chosen nation according to law, Exod 20-Matt 26
6. God deals with the church as a chosen people according to grace, Matt 27-Rev 3
7. God deals with the world during a Millennium according to the kingdom, Rev 20
WARNING: Rules in one dispensation may not apply in a later dispensation, and some things said in a later dispensation cannot be applied to an earlier time. Dispensationalism takes a very bad rap in contemporary academe. Yet Tom Wright (as much as he hates dispensationalism) nearly almost gets to this in his "multilayered view," his model of the Bible as a five-act play[3].
Throughout the Bible God is all about his mission, but each time he is doing it a different way, because in each dispensation there is a failure. Adam and Eve fall and get kicked-out of the garden. Their descendants fail and the world gets destroyed by a flood. When people fail after the flood, God chooses Abraham. Abe's descendants leave the Promised Land, get stuck in Egypt, and God has to bring them back as a nation. That nation fails (watch this) under priests in the book of Judges, under kings in Kings and Chronicles, and under prophets in the prophetic books. They get exiled and God starts another new thing with the church. But since the church has also failed(!), we get removed in a rapture, and Jesus is going to come back again to set up the kingdom on his own.
So whatever is going on in history, God is at work dispensationally, because dispensations simply mean that God has a destiny that is designed for everybody.
Have to catch an early train, got to be to work by nine
And if I had an air-o-plane, I still couldn't make it on time
'Cause it takes me so long just to figure out what I'm gonna wear
Blame it on the train but the boss is already there.
It's just another manic Monday (oh-woe)
I wish it was Sunday (oh-woe)
'Cause that's my Funday (oh-woe)
My I don't have to runday (oh)
It's just another manic Monday.
Tools for Your Toolbox
What the Bible Is All About by Henrietta C. Mears, Gospel Light
Strong's Concordance (or Young's or Cruden's) by James Strong, Hendrickson (or AMG or Nelson or Zondervan) Publishers
The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge by R.A. Torrey, Hendrickson
1. For those who read footnotes, another point needs to be made here. It looks like I am implying that everyone who uses the historical-critical model critiques the Bible according to their humanistic and rationalistic standards to "independently verify" or validate its claims. In point of fact, many Evangelicals modify this to the "grammatical-historical" method to give the impression they are not sitting as critics on an inerrantly inspired Bible.
2. N.T. Wright, an Evangelical scholar who regularly interacts with liberal theology and postmodern philosophers, has modified this into a "critical-realist" approach, see The New Testament and the People of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, pp. 32-66,61-67,467,470.
3. Wright, N.(icholas) T.(homas), The Last Word. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005, 121ff. We could also refer to this model in chapter five of the massive tome above, but this volume is more "accessible," as they say. Too bad Robbie Bell has mis-read Wright into implying that we must constantly be "re-interpreting" the Bible now that we are in Act Five. Listen to Wright: "Whether or not one adopts this particular scheme of interpretation, it is vital that we understand scripture, and our relation to it, in terms of some kind of overarching narrative which makes sense of the texts" (p.122). Doesn't he sound like a dispensationalist there?
No comments:
Post a Comment