Bible Readers: Puzzlers

Scot,

Thank you so much for writing Blue Parakeet. I have found it particularly helpful in expressing thoughts that I have had an never put into words as well as you did. It also opened my eyes to many of my own assumptions that I was pretty much blind to or at least didn't want to admit. It is an excellent book and I am glad to spent your time writing it. I look forward to the series.

Interesting stuff Scot. I loved the book. A few of us are discussing this very thing (based on your book) over here:

http://www.rachelheldevans.com/article-1231262376

James,

Calvinism is one example, but not the only such example around. Luther may not be quite so "systematic" but he certainly had a system - and all that disagreed was ignored (sometimes explicitly). Don't all of these examples grow out of a historical context that tends to distort? Augustine was mightly influenced by his personal and cultural situation in his reflections on scripture - and the church has struggled with some of this ever since.

My view is that all of us have a "System," whether we realize it or not. Its easy to say "its those dirty Calvinists" that do it, but harder to look at myself and realize that I do it too.

Having said that, I don't think its bad to prefer one System over another. But Systems are dangerous when we define ourselves based on them, and exclude people from our churches based on whether they agree with them. This was driven home for me recently when I was looking for a church, and realized that I couldn't become a member of any evangelical church in my community because they actually require members to sign on to their System before you become a member. I don't think I'm a heretic by any means -- I agree with the Nicene creed, etc., but I suppose I can't consider myself an evangelical any more because they won't accept me as a member. This has been a very painful experience.

Rather than dumping all the Systems, I think we should recognize that there are reasonable grounds for disagreeing about them. If you agree with the basics (the resurrection actually happened, Jesus is Lord, and similar things), and we share the same mission, that is what matters to me.

I'm glad, Scot, that you are starting this series. I started reading Blue Parakeet last night (I'm through 2 chapters), and I've already started recommending it to people.

Let me push back here. I think that the way "Systems" (such as Calvinism) are being depicted here (more in the comboxes than in Scots post) is sort of problematic. Words like "ignore," "distort," and "inflexible" seem to be sort of hyperbolic.

Calvinism, for example, is a living and changing stream of thought influenced (initially) by an individual writer and whose contours have changed over time in conversation with other traditions and schools of thought.

It seems to me, in addition, that all of us have a set of theological defaults we use as we attempt to make sense of God, ourselves, others, and the world. I think that Calvinism provides a healthy set of theological default settings.

That some use theology as a pain-killer or as a weapon or take it too far (or seriously) doesn't (of itself) mean that theology is invalid. This, so it seems to me, is the central mistake of some of the comments.

Of course, I write this as an English calvinist and not a Scotsman. The two have fundamentally different temperaments ;-)

paul,

Let me jump into the circle of this conversation briefly ... in short, no Story is not the same as System because the former focuses on theology as exegesis of a book in its context while the latter focuses on synthesizing the whole into something "new." As I think historical Jesus studies form a Jesus is who is neither Matthew's or Mark's or Luke's or John's (but the scholar's reframing of those) so I think The System frames discrete data in the Bible into a meaningful whole that no one writer in the Bible believes quite that way. A fundamental belief in The System/Puzzle approach is the mind of God is being mapped but it is the mind of God behind and through and beyond the Text.

I agree that Calvinism can be such a Puzzle; so can Arminianism or Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. The intent is to get us to let the Bible speak the way the Bible speaks. It is a collection of books with a narrative Plot that holds it together. The unity of the Bible is found in the Story, not the System we create.

Jeff,

Calvinism also is not a uniform and united group - it covers a diversity of persons with very different positions and takes - so attempting to define all flavors by a name or label is problematic.

I think that we all have default settings - but when these settings become "law" there is a real problem. When everything is tested by any inviolate system we will go wrong. Our default systems, our settings, also have to be tested by scripture and an evolving understanding of scripture.

#15 - thanks Scot, that is helpful!

Scot,

So, Ive commented here too many times already - but cannot control myself. So let me try again...

It seems to me that any attempt to reduce our theology to a "Grand System of Thoughts" will be unavoidably locked to the context of a time, place, psychology and history. This is true of Lutheranism, Calvinism, Augustine's doctrine of original sin and total depravity, Arminianism, dispensationalism. Even most definitions of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are really situational systems. Such a system will always be wrong because it lacks flexibility and global eternal perspective.

Now I've written and thought a lot about the issues involved in science and faith - how we can allow this interaction in a healthy way before God. It seems to me that much of the conflict is not with the faith - God's story, but with Grand Systems that were developed in ways that are inconsistent with or undermined by changes in our understanding of God's creation.

Random nascent thoughts...

The systems are the result of asking questions about the story. Asking questions is unavoidable.

Brian,

Would that it were that simple. Yes, questions arise and generate a conversation of how to put things together -- that can be either theologizing (as in Grenz, Vanhoozer, Franke, Volf, Shults, etc) or it can lead to systematizing (and names will be omitted).

The System is not just the result of asking questions but a very pointed way of answering those questions and it is an attempt to map the mind of God behind the Bible.

I use this illustration at times; imagine the Bible being discrete verses of information/data/facts. Cut up the Bible into verses, spread them out over a gym floor, and then gather them up according to your system -- that's puzzler's approach to reading the Bible.

Reading those discrete bits in context in the Story is a biblical theological orientation.

And I agree, too, with RJS: context shapes how the puzzler works. Thus, notice how these puzzlers put things together: Origen, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Hodge, Strong ...

Scot,

What differences do you see between reading the "Bible as Story" and Biblical Theology. It seems the two have many things in common. What are the differences?

Scot (#22),

Systematizing comes from simply asking enough questions. Is the focus of God the Father in redemption the same as that of God the Son? How can you address a question like that without doing a fair amount of systematizing?

In my more cyncicl moments I feel that theological systems are expressions of the triumph of human reason over Scripture/the Story. I think Scot is correct...puzzlers try to find and define the mind of God behind the revelation of God. I don't think systems are as purely concocted as the proponents suggest (as RJS points out). Most were formed in adversarial seasons of the Church. Somebody had to be *wrong.* We usually don't argue a good Story. We apprehend it, enjoy it and hopefully enter into it.
From Lutsk, Ukraine
John

i would certainly agree that we should approach the bible as a grand narrative because that is how it is presented (not as a system of truth claims or a puzzle to be solved). it is also impossible for any system to escape the reality of its own surroundings or time period. there does not appear to be any objective or "view from nowhere" sort of systematic approach.

i do think, however, like with all literature, there are still certain characters, motifs, themes, and symbols that the reader is responsible to recognize as central to the narrative. couldn't these elements within the story then form the categories of some sort of "system" viewed as helpful in understanding the story? and wouldn't this then be a "system," per se, used not as an approach to the text, but, rather, one that is completely derived from the story itself (or, more properly, derived from the reader's interpretation of the story - because, again, no reader can escape his own reality when approaching the text).

i guess i am just not sure why we so often pit systematics against narrative. it seems to me that some sort of systematic theology is unavoidable as we interpret stories. each reader, or set of readers, will inevitably interpret the story and arrive at particular conclusions regarding what he/she has read in the work as a whole.

Jonathan Long (#31). "While I'd like to sympathize with the idea that the Bible is messy (because it is) and that's just the way it has to be (because it's less work, maybe), I must say that an aversion against systematic theology seems like a cop out. Isn't the task of systematic theology just to come up with a coherent (logically, metaphysically, etc.) set of propositions?"

I don't necessarily agree. The Bible is complicated and messy. It's a collection of books, letters, poems, etc., written over thousands of years by who knows how many people. And who knows how much of it (especially the OT) was written, re-written, merged, etc.?

To try to tame all of that into a neat and tidy systematic theology is like trying to tame an individual person or a society of people into a neat and tidy system of thought. For example, by boss LOVES personality (psychology) theory, and has one system/theory that she especially likes. She has the tendency to place everyone she knows into one of 16 personality types as systematized by this particular theory she holds to. This tends to lead to a great deal of confusion and aggravation for her because no one person actually fits into a neat and tidy personality type. So, people (including myself) are forever puzzling her when they do, say or act in some way that isn't perfectly consistent with her theory or personality. She spends a great deal of time attempting to rationalize people's behavior with her theory, and performs back-flips in order to do so. Don't get me wrong, I think personality theory is a great thing for helping us to understand what different people TEND to be like, but it shouldn't be adhered to zealously because people are super complicated and messy and don't fit into neat little boxes.

Systematic theology reminds me of this. It can be a great tool for perhaps understanding SOME of the major themes found throughout scripture, but too often we cling zealously to our system and then only read the scriptures through such lenses.

RJS,

We can't simply dismiss any of the passages you mention; they're part of the Story. But so are the Inquisition, the bloody chaos attending the Reformation, the shameful early history of the Southern Baptists, and Fred Phelps. We would be very unwise to dismiss any of those, but equally unwise to take them as establishing norms of belief or practice. I would say the same about everything in Joshua, for example (yay genocide!), or the more dubious letters of "Paul"--clearly some Christians believe that women should cover up and shut up, and we ought to take notice of that part of our history rather than ignore it, but we don't have to jump off that cliff just because "Paul" did.

Having said that: It's very hard. All our tribalist and magical-thinking instincts get in the way. It's like the denial that goes on when you find out Uncle Frank is a child molester--you want to either believe he's innocent in spite of the evidence (look at the excuses Christian apologists make for Joshua) or kick him out of the family and forget he exists.

On the other hand, I would say that doing this hard thing--being neighbor and blood-kin to evildoers, seeing the full extent of their evil, and refusing to disown them--is exactly what God did through Jesus. So there's precedent. John Calvin is my brother, God help me.

(Sorry if that wandered a bit, but I think it still speaks to the core issue.)

bill,

Let me put in one comment before RJS has her comment. We are dealing with texts by different authors, with different contexts, with different genre, with different cultures surrounding them, with a progressive plot ... one is the arts and one is the empirical world

The entire "The System" approach operates on the basis of the assumption that such "can" be done and "ought" to be done and The Story approach so many are fond of today are calling into question the "can" and "ought." That God is behind it all does not mean the "unity" comes through The System. To read the Bible aright is to read it as we've got it.

Did you see my analogy to historical Jesus studies? I think that one is very good analogy to The System approach.

Scot and Bill,

To continue with my thought in light of Scot's comment - the fact that the Bible we have is different authors, with different contexts, with different genre, with different cultures surrounding them, with a progressive plot is part of the data that must be considered.

And my idea of a new more complex system is probably wrong in some important sense - but when we think about reality and God's story we take everything we have into the picture.

I think that systematic theology emerges from a strong desire to construct a model that works. The fact that it is not possible to construct such a model (at least none have yet "worked") should tell us that it is the wrong approach.

Scot,

History is much messier than science, and historical Jesus studies witness to this - there is no guarantee that all of the data should be consistent. There is much more latitude in use of data - and should be. There is also much more uncertainty in the reliability of the final picture and always will be. In historical Jesus studies there is an assumption that Jesus existed and had an impact - but the data is imperfect and must be sifted, organized, and interpreted.

Don't systematic theologies develop under the assumption that the Bible is "perfect data" (see #23) therefore there must be a perfect underlying theology that unites all. But - no system has yet succeeded in the endeavor.

So are you saying that we misinterpret both the purpose and the text of scripture when we view it as "perfect data" for development of a systematic theology? The problem is not that we haven't done it right yet - that every attempt has failed to include some of the data - but that the entire endeavor is doomed to failure.

Getting back to my theme, systematic theology takes on a less divisive appearance if it is simply viewed as an effort to organize answers to questions that are posed to the biblical texts (as with a catechism). The problem is when it is viewed as complete and used as a tool for questionable agendas.

Every Christian parent of young children has to deal with systematic theology. "Mommy, where did Satan come from? How did Jesus get into Mary's tummy? Does God cause earthquakes? Why did God make mosquitoes? Why can't I see God? How old is Jesus?" There is no getting around it, so it must have a proper place.

Scot,

I'm going to have to disagree with you that Story is not a system. The problem is we have to come up with the story. You think you see what the great overarching metanarrative is, but it's just a person's opinion. In the end, you turn your story into the Story, and anything that doesn't conform to that has to be twisted into conformality or ignored.

This whole point about the Story being a form of System ... ah, read Blue Parakeet on what I have to say about "wiki-stories" of the Story. Let each author tell his version of the Story and you're fine.

Scot, read it. You wouldn't like my review.

RJS, "don't try to harmonize or rationalize" gets into the questions of inspiration and inerrancy. If you believe in inerrancy, every passage should harmonize.

ChrisB

If you believe in inerrancy, every passage should harmonize.

Isn't this exactly the issue? But in this instance I hold to inerrancy and contend that inerrancy means we have to take both passages as they are. Any attempt to harmonize - place a system over the top - will introduce error.

each story has its own characters, themes, etc. so, i do agree that we should take each passage as it is. however, is it wrong to compare characters, themes, etc. of a specific text with recurring characters, themes, etc. throughout the canon? dont paul and other authors do this sort of thing to some extent?

I'm arriving at the conversation late, but I'd offer a couple of thoughts and questions from a slightly different perspective. When I first read the bible, I read it as someone who had an existing, strong faith relationship with God, but almost no teaching or guidance from any particular church or system outside of myself and this relationship. I actually did read it a couple of times from front to back as Scot has suggested at times here. I relied a lot on my own skills as a reader to understand it. Eventually, I started digging into language and culture to try and make sense of things which I found difficult or puzzling. Sometimes I would just have to take it to God and beg some explanation. It was only after doing all of this over the course of quite a few years that I really started venturing out to see what other people had to say about the whole thing. Sometimes I found people who confirmed things which I had learned on my own. Sometimes I found systems being advanced which seemed to me to conflict with scripture taken as a whole. Not only that, but the very idea of system fundamentally conflicted with my own experience of relationship with God and experience of reading the scriptures. The idea that I could come to some definitive explanation of God, the way He works, our relationship with Him, etc flies in the face of the messy reality of scriptures and life. No matter how hard I try, there will always be a large gap between my understanding of God and the reality of God. Through study, prayer and relationship, I can steadily narrow that gap, but I will never fully close it this side of the grade. But once I create a system which codifies my understanding of scriptures and God as best as I can understand it at a particular point in time, I am putting myself (and anyone who listens to me) in danger of never narrowing the gap between my current understanding and God beyond that point. Which cannot be good.

My "problem" (its not really a problem, just something I'm trying to navigate) is that it can be hard to enter into discussions about theology outside of the confines of the various systems which people use to make sense of the faith and scripture. And I do find that many people mistake their systems for the Word of God itself which also makes discourse difficult; if I disagree with a system's interpretation of some part of scripture, this is taken as rejecting scripture itself. On the one hand, I do hate to think that I'm simply rejecting the ideas and wisdom of those who assembled these systems. But at the same time, I do feel like my lack of knowledge about these systems allowed me to read scriptures with fresh eyes which was a real benefit (at least from my perspective). Perhaps I'm speaking as a child of a post-modern era which is highly suspect of our ability to know absolute truth to a Christian culture which is still entrenched in the modernist notion that not only is there absolute truth, but that we can discover it absolutely, in part if not in full.

So I guess my questions are: how much room is there really for us to talk about and deal with scriptures outside of these systems? (Perhaps we're in an in-between time transitioning from a greater dependence on systems into one where scripture is dealt with more openly and creatively?) And how useful are these systems really in this day and age? Should we be learning them and passing them onto our children as useful ways to organize our understanding of God and scriptures? Or have they outlived their usefulness and should they be dismantled and put aside so we can read scriptures with fresh eyes?

Like I said, I'm probably retreading, but as someone who comes from outside the realm of systems and book larnin', these are the pertinent challenges and questions I see.

Jonathan Long: "Surely we need our religious beliefs to be coherent, to be free from contradictions! If this is not a precondition for belief, it must be a precondition for apologetics. Isn't it?"

No.

It is my findings that to study any scriptures one has to find the foundation and build their comprehension from it. The Bible's foundation is Genesis 1, 2 & 3. Chapter 1 is the creation of everything beginning with the separation of light from dark on the 1st day while not having a source of light until the 4th. Waters are separated on the 2nd day and again on the 3rd to provide for the formation of land, fish and birds on the 5th and all animal kind on the 6th. It ends with man's diet being from all seeding plants and the other animals' being only vegetation the earth over.

Chapter 2:1-3 reviews the 1st chapter to include a day of rest, 4&5 previews the rest of the book with a need for "a man to til the ground" he does not do until 3:6. It proceeds to form a single man, place it in a territory, provide a fruit diet for it with 2 abstract fruits, life and death or "the knowledge of good and evil", concerns itself with man's loneliness, operates on him without telling it of its happen, then tells then tells them to leave parents [although they know nothing about them being formed from the earth] and live together.

Chapter 3 is what we have come to call the "fall of man" although this second man does not "till the ground" (17-18) until after doing what we call fall. Therefore, if we begin there and (Isaiah 1:18) with what I suggest we find there we will begin to find the key to comprehend the book.

I have books that help you to understand the bible. My understanding
is lacking the purpose of the Old Testament. We can study and talk
about it in a group. There is so much to know for more than a life
time of study. We are made in his image. The soul becomes spirit when
the body dies. Wisdom is simpler because ignorance has blinded many
to understand it. Be Humble. Think about it awhile so you can grasp
it.