Brick-a-Brack 100312

Wow, it had been pretty lean picking on the blog reader for a while now but just in the last day lots of juicy morsels have appeared, you, faithful reader, may well enjoy the following,

• Tim Bulkely is finding unicorns in the Bible
• Loren Rosson has a cracking quote on biblical metaphors
• Nick Norelli ponder the old debate over topical V expository preaching
• Eddie Fearon looks at sin as an epistemological problem 
• Richard Bauckham weighs in on the Talpiot Tombs 

But all this talk about unicorns is a good excuse for this song, a perennial favourite in my family of about the real unicorns (of the sea).

Van Hecke on Metaphor

This is a nice concise definition of the way metaphors work:

Metaphor is considered not so much as a way in which people speak but rather as a way in which people think.  We use metaphors in our language because, to a large extent, we think metaphorically.  The essence of metaphor, according to cognitive linguistics, is that we make use of our knowledge of one conceptual domain (the source) in order to gain new understanding of a second, non-related domaim (the target).

Pierre van Hecke, "Conceptual Blending" in Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, pp 218-19 

cited in Dearman, Hosea, NICOT, p11

Theological Method 101: Analogy is a One Way Street

1. Theological language must use analogy.  We can only comprehend the unknown in terms of the known. 

2. Theological analogy only works in one direction.  If I should say "God is my rock" (2 Sam 22:3), I am suggesting that certain characteristics of a rock (perhaps dependability, solidity, immovability, etc) correspond with similar characteristics of God.  I can look at a large rock, a known object, and get some sense of what God is in some ways like.

3. There are no rules as to which characteristics of the rock I should attribute to God, although sometimes a particular text will give us some guidance, e.g. in 2 Sam 22:3 it is as a place of refuge that God is like a rock.  However, by using other anologies I will notice areas of overlap and difference which will help me, usually intuitively, to understand what characteristics the analogy is intended to convey.  For example, if God is my rock but also my shepherd (Psalm 23) or a mother bird (Deut 32:11), I know that the cold uncaring nature of rocks is not to be attributed to God because other biblical analogies would contradict this.

4. In no way can I then suggest that I can discern information about rocks by looking at God, just because "God is my rock."  I cannot look directly at God, hence the need to use analogy to describe what God is like.  But even if I could the analogy is only intended to work in one direction, it is not made to inform me about rocks but about God, the assumption of the analogy is that rocks are known and God is not. Just because "God is my rock" it does not mean a rock is divine or merciful. 

5. This may all seem very obvious but you would be surprised how often peope who should know better try to drive the analogy train down the street the wrong way.  This post will provide a handy link next time I need to point such misdemeanors out.

Let me know what you think. :-)

Metaphor and Reality

Try not to get them confused! (cartoon from ASBO Jesus)

Metaphor in Paul

[This was written ages ago for my thesis, but hasn't made the cut, but didn't want to lose it, so now you get the benefit. :-)  Let me know what you think.]

Paul’s writings are crammed full of metaphorical language. The difficulty with interpreting any analogy is determining which aspects of the analogical image hold to the referent and which do not. This process of interpretation frequently takes place on the subconscious level in all levels of communication. Whether it is the advertising tag line, “Red Bull: it gives you wings,” or the Church congregation praying to “Father God,” interpretation is instant and subconscious. We know without being told that we will not be able to fly as result of the caffeine drink and that God is not our biological progenitor. By necessity metaphors involve the recipient in an act of interpretation that comes naturally but is fraught with potential danger.[1] From the point of view of classical theology ‘metaphors are conceptually unclean’[2] because they are generally open to multiple and conflicting interpretations.

Susan Eastman provides a useful typology for approaches to the abundance of metaphor in Paul.[3] Firstly, one may focus on one metaphor and ‘collapse’ the ‘distinction between the subject and the image’. This literalizing of one metaphor inevitably takes place at the expense of other imagery which becomes subservient. Eastman, discussing metaphorical perceptions of God, considers this collapse a work of idolatry.[4] In Paul's ecclesiology (for example) such a collapse simply obscures the author’s intention in providing us with many images and not one.

Secondly, one may translate metaphors into ‘a different linguistic medium,’ that is into more conceptually precise language, with the goal of allowing contemporary understanding. Eastman takes issue with the approach of both Engberg-Pedersen and Bultmann who respectively translate or demythologize the language of religious experience into ethics. Eastman rightly objects that religious experience cannot be simply equated to ethics and that as descriptions of religious experience they provide the most substantial and relevant link between the historical Paul and his contemporary readers.[5] I would add to this that flattening out of metaphors into precise propositional concepts inevitably results in a loss of significant information, especially at the illocutionary and perlocutionary levels.

Thirdly, one may acknowledge the metaphor’s ability to evoke a wide and deep reaction in receiver of the text. For Eastman, Paul’s metaphor’s functions not as a barrier to communication but ‘rather as a vehicle that connects the text with the contemporary reader on a multitude of levels.’[6] It is this approach which potentially yields the most fruit in the study of Paul's metaphors, assuming that: 1) Paul would not have used many metaphors if he only intended one, 2) if Paul had intended to communicate precise concepts he would have used appropriate language. The understanding that for Paul metaphors are evocations of religious experience rather than clumsy methods of asserting propositions (ethical, theological or otherwise) is enourmously significant for the task of both the historian-exegete and the modern interpreter.

[1] Richard D. Patterson, “Metaphors of Marriage as Expressions of Divine-Human Relations,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51, no. 4 (December 2008): 689.
[2] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in this Text (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 133.
[3] Susan Eastman, Recovering Paul's mother tongue : language and theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids Mich: Eerdmans, 2007), 189-93.
[4] Ibid., 189-90.
[5] Ibid., 190-1.
[6] Ibid., 192-3.

The Beauty of Systematic Theology: Anti-Quote of the Day

Gordon Clark takes issue with Peter Macky's treatment of his work in this article and concludes with,

Mathematics is not my forte either, but it is far more beautiful than poetry.  It is surpassed only by systematic theology.

Which is funny, because I always thought that Systematic Theology is at its best when it was most poetic.  But here we have in Clark a classic cognitive-propositionalist according to Lindbeck's typology (see I told you it would come in handy!) and I haven't yet read enough of Macky to pidgeon-hole him but I suspect he leans towards the experiential-expressivist mode.

Religion, relationship, or something else?

One of the classic evangelical catch phrases is, "It's not a religion, it's a relationship." The point of which being to differentiate Christianity from a set of rules and instructions to get you favour with God and assert that Christianity is about knowing God personally. This is often an eye opening phrase for those who have a legalistic conception of Christianity. It is however quite misleading.

Firstly, Christianity most certainly is a religion, in that it is framework for making sense of life, or a world view. All world views are religious, even atheistic world views, and even the most undecided of agnostics will have a religious framework for making sense of their life. It is just human nature. But I guess strictly, while it contains a world-view Christianity claims to be something more than just a way of understanding life, the universe and everything.

Secondly, the word relationship is particularly unhelpful. In general we only use this term regarding personal relationships for boy-girl relationships that are somewhat fuzzy and undefined. "I'm in a relationship" generally means that one is romantically involved but not to the extent of being fully committed. Sadly this half committed, emotionally variable, type of relationship characterises many western Christians' relationship with God. They understand that they have a relationship with God but they are not quite sure where they stand. They sing love songs to God on Sunday, but during the week are never quite sure who or what they are really committed to. And when God seems to not be around as much, or to let them down, they wonder about calling the whole thing off.

In the Bible the relationship between God and God's people is not fuzzy and undefined. It is correctly understood as covenant relationship, that is a relationship clearly defined by a contract between both parties to which both parties are fully committed. It is the relationship of:

creature to creator
helpless to saviour
servant to lord
sinner to forgiver
slave to master
disciple to teacher
redeemed to redeemer
child to parent
wounded to healer

This list is hardly exhaustive, but I think it is a representative sample of appropriate biblical analogies. So does anyone know how we can work that into a catchy tag-line??

Saturday Morning Thesis brain Storm

My thesis is coming along slowly but I have begun to realise that my current question is more like a PhD than a Masters, and I dont have the time or money to be considering one of those at the moment! So I am unforunately looking at narrowing the question. The problem with this is that much of my thesis was going to be looking at the development of the metaphor across the corpus (collection of Paul's letters) and if I only do one book tings would have to change. So this morning I have had a brain storm to see if I did just do 1 Corinthians if I would have enough to talk about...

"Christ's body and its parts: An Ecclesiological Metaphor in 1 Corinthians"

Metaphor theses and questions

• That the use of mele (member) must be taken account of as well as soma (body) in appreciating this metpahor (contra Yorke)
• That how the metaphor is used in varied locations and constructions in 1 Corinthians has ramifications for discussions of development across the corpus
• That the Metaphor is used and presented in such a way as to suggest the concept is already extant among Corinthian church - possibly through Paul's earlier letter or ministry. (this is necessary for those who wish to interpret 11:29 as being ecclesiological, although even with this it remains a moot point)
• How does this metaphor interact with other metaphors in 1 Cor?
• That the source question is both an old-chesnut and a dead-horse.

Interpretational/Theological theses and questions

• That the Christological character of the body cannot be reduced to possesion (contra Yorke) but neither can it be identified wholesale with Christ's resurected human body (contra JAT Robinson) and so some theological middle ground must be exegetically uncovered. (3:23 could be important in this)
• Should the metaphor be understood primarily as theological (Jewett) or idealogical (Martin) engagement?
• What place does the metaphor have in the overall ecclesiology of 1 Cor?
• How does the metaphor relate to themes of resurrection and eucharist and Spirit? (i.e. is it purely rhetorical in function or does it contribute in other ways?)
  

Aplicational/Missional possiblities

• To explore the potential of this metaphor (once correctly exegetically comprehended) in contempory (multicultural) Urban church settings
• To explore and critique contemporary concepts and practices of church membership in light of the metaphor
• To work towards a 'higher' evangelical ecclesiology
  

So...

That should be enough to keep me busy don't you think?

Would of course value any other ideas, suggestions, questions that spring to mind :-)

"The Nitty Gritty" on Paul, Salvation and the rest of the Bible no. 1

Phil Baiden has raised some pertinent questions in regard to what I posted here concerning current trends in Pauline scholarship and my own (provisional) take on them. I am going to respond to Phil's questions in reverse order, and over two posts.

can you tell me what an objective, forensic view of salvation is?
Firstly it is worth saying that not all objective views are forensic, and neither are all forensic views objective. But in protestant christianity they tend to go together.

An objective view of salvation is usually contrasted to a participatory view, i.e. objective views focus on us as objects of salvation who are largely passive where as a participatory view would focus more on how both God's initiative and our response are necessary. A subjective view by contrast would see all the onus on us to acheive our salvation (which would be Biblically untenable).

All scriptural language in regard to the atonement is by necessity analogical (see here), that is the reality of God's atoning work in Christ is beyond words but a number of different images are used to describe it, for example the language of being 'in Christ', ransom, redemption, and Christ's victory. All the analogies point to what Christ has accomplished but no individual analogy can encompass all that Christ has acheived. Forensic views of salvation take the scriptures' use of law court imagery (justification, penal substitution, no condemnation, etc) and make this the controlling analogy by which all other analogies must be interpreted.

The question for me is not whether scripture uses forensic analogies to describe salvation, they certianly do, but whether this is the primary motif by which salvation should be understood. Paul has traditionally been read by protestants as advocating first and foremost a forensic view of salvation and everything else in Paul is then fitted into that. However I am increasingly of the opinion that being 'in Christ' and the work of the Spirit in the believer are far more important and central features of Paul's theology than justification. If this is the case then salvation moves from being something that is primarily done to us in a cosmic law court (objective), so to speak, to being something we are invited into and particpate in here and now. This does not mean justification is not important, but it becomes subsidiary to one or more other more central analogies.

Changing Tack

Since getting my proposal approved last year I have been reading and thinking about both my topic and the issues around it which I need to take into consideration. My original thesis proposal suggested that the meat of the issue was around Paul's sources, i.e. those ideas current in Paul's time which he could draw upon to construct the image of the church as Christ's body. However I have pretty quickly come to realise that this is barking (to some extent) up the wrong tree. While it is important to be aware of all the different ways the word for body could be used in the ancient world, i.e. the word's 'linguistic horizon' or 'chamber of resonance,' two other issues come before this and are more decisive: firstly the literary context of the metaphor and secondly the particular historical situation in which it was used. What this means is that rather than having to look for a single generalised explanation of Paul's meaning when he uses the phrase 'body of Christ' it is entirely possible that in each situation he uses it in a different way and with different connotations.

Treachery and Child Sacrifice

Still talking about contextual theology here is an example from someone working among tribes in Indonesia. Don Richardson missionary and writer is cited here saying:

When Caroline and I lived among the Sawi and learned their language, we found that they honored treachery as a virtue. This came to light when I told them the story of Judas betraying Jesus to death after three years of friendship. They acclaimed Judas as the hero of the story. It seemed as if it would not be easy for such people to understand God’s redemption in Jesus. But lo and behold, their way of making peace required a father in one of two warring villages to make an incredible sacrifice. He had to be willing to give one of his children as a peace child to his enemies. Caroline and I saw this happen, and we saw the peace that resulted from a man’s sorrowful sacrifice of his own son. That enabled me to proclaim Jesus as the greatest peace child given by the greatest father. In Lords of the Earth [one of his books], the Yali tribe had places of refuge. That was their special redemptive analogy. In other words, there’s something that serves as a cultural compass to point men and women toward Jesus, something that is in their own background, part of their own culture.

Thesis Proposal

For those who might be interested, what follows is the research proposal which I will be pursuing half time for the next two years. 40,000 words later and I will have my masters degree! I have just started reading towards this today and will be sharing questions and insights from my research with you as things go on, so here it is. Let me know what you think :)

[edit: in response to comments about the accessibility of this post a translation is provided here]

Paul's Somatic Ecclesiology: The background, function and effect
of ‘τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ’ as a metaphor for the Church

Σῶμα is a significant concept in Pauline theology, and ‘τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ’ is perhaps even more so in Pauline ecclesiology. However there is no consensus as to how the phrase should be understood. As a Hellenised Jew the apostle Paul could have potentially drawn upon Hebrew anthropology, Greek anthropology and Greek political philosophy to construct ‘the body of Christ’ as a metaphor for the Church. This thesis will examine Paul’s use of this metaphor in the four principal scriptural loci in which it is found, i.e. Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians.

The primary methodology of research will be detailed grammatico-historical exegesis of the texts and consideration of the rhetorical intention of the letters in the respective situations to which they were written. However, where theological or sociological insights are informative they will be employed. It is expected that the exegesis will illuminate which anthropological or philosophical source or sources Paul is drawing on to construct the metaphor. Once a reading of the individual texts has been completed they will be compared in order to examine how the function of ‘the body of Christ’ differs in each respective rhetorical context, if at all. Finally the contributions of the findings for Pauline theology will be explicated, with particular focus on ecclesiology. The thesis will hence be significant for reflection on contemporary ecclesiology and church praxis and for engagement with a number of interpretive conversations currently centred on these texts.