Here are our big questions in this series of posts: How do we move beyond the Bible? Should we? Better yet: Since we have to, how do we move beyond the Bible into our world but do this biblically? This is the concern of Zondervan's new Counterpoint book edited by Gary Meadors: Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)
. As I said Tuesday, this book touches on themes I discuss in more popular form in The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible
.What do you think of Doriani's take on gambling? I wonder if the stock market, etc, are seen as gambling?
The first model was that of Walter Kaiser and he called his approach "principlizing" which moves from particulars to timeless principles back to particulars in a Ladder of Abstraction. The second approach comes from Daniel Doriani, who wrote a nice exposition of James, in what he calls the "redemptive-historical approach." He affirms the authority, sufficiency and clarity of Scripture.
He believes in (1) close, accurate interpretation, (2) synthesis of biblical data into doctrinal and ethical statements (propositions), (3) application of Scripture in an imitation of God manner, and (4) he believes in using narratives in Scripture (he's responding to the didactic vs. narrative discussion).
Doriani, who is close to Kaiser in most ways except they frame things differently, sees some legitimation in going beyond the Bible: to enunciate what is latent in the text and to address issues that the Bible doesn't address. But some go beyond the Bible by going against it -- and he critiques complementarians in this regard and he pushes against arcs and the redemptive movement hermeneutic.
He proposes going beyond through casuistry: the art of discerning particular behaviors in light of general principles. (Here he sounds like Kaiser to me.)
But he goes at this differently than does Kaiser, who opts for the Ladder of Abstraction. Doriani says we should ask questions in four categories and these questions shape how we respond to issues not addressed in the Bible:
Duty, Character, Goals and Vision.
He then applies his casuistic set of questions to gambling, architecture, and then to women and ministry.
Gambling: gambling can apply to a variety of things and the Bible never addresses gambling. What it says about "lots" goes in both directions -- sometimes good, sometimes not.
1. Gambling violates our duty in the 4th Commandment. Promises wealth without toil. It promises wealth at times with false promises. etc
2. Gambling promotes flaws in character. Greed etc.
3. Gambling's goal is to get rich at the expense of others. etc
4. The gambler's worldview/vision is luck and not providence.
Kaiser mostly agrees; Vanhoozer pushes back for more awareness of Church history and to push more into how we futher the theodrama, and Webb pushes back for how Doriani understands the redemptive movement hermeneutic and for spending too much time criticizing other views and not enough defending his own. (I completely agree with Webb in his critique of Doriani for predicated arguments wherein Doriani assumes his own correctness. That's for another day.)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Seems to me this is precisely where our understanding of the Holy Spirit comes into play. How do we interpret the Bible outside of the Bible's particular issues? It seems like this was the primary issue Jesus had with the Pharisees. They were extremely devoted to the Scriptures, having learned the lesson of their history. Yet, in their interpretations and application they got details right but the 'spirit' of the text wrong in certain cases. And these certain cases were crucial, it seems, and even literally so in the case of not rightly applying the prophecies to their present issue of Jesus of Nazareth.
If we have an essentially binarian view of God (in practice if not in rhetoric) we are forced, it seems, to either dismiss the Bible as irrelevant in contemporary ethical discussions or try to force even tangentially related teachings into the packaging of our present day questions. Rather than being living water, the teachings of God are hardened concrete. Either crushing or shattered.
The question, I think, that a more Trinitarian perspective takes is what is the Spirit of the text, the teaching of the Spirit that relates to the issue in Scripture that informs the teaching we are to hold onto today. Are we willing to see John 14:15ff as a normative exegetical principle, or dismiss it as too vague and unwieldy for practical guidance.
The problem is there isn't always a clear, obvious, scientifically, exegetical assured answer in seeing the Spirit as our primary teacher. But that does seem to be the way Jesus implied is the way to truth, in his era and ours. How we then discern the Spirit is the key question in this case.
Scot,
Should we all become scribes and Pharisees? I can't believe Doriani is actually taken seriously. I say this from a pastoral point of view. I agree with the comments above that this approach is a replacement of the Spirit. We actually tip ou hand as evangelicals that the Holy SPirit is actually unnescessary in the application of Scripture. We can apply our "duty, character, goals, vision" scheme and get to the intent of the Bible. One word: cumbersome. I cannot see the church in Acts sitting around wondering "Does this OT text speak to duty, character, goal or vision?" I'm sorry, but what a crock.
My suspicion with both contributors so far is that they start "beyond the Bible" and don't seem to realize it. Is there really any doubt that Doriani does not have a high view of gambling and then reads the Scriptures accordingly.
Sounds like an interesting read on a very important subject. This is incredibly relevant to the church and to believers who find themselves wrestling with questions they were not even asking a few years ago.
I would like to read this book. I do appreciate what Patrick O said in the #7 comment regarding the Trinitarian perspective as these issues are addressed.
Scot #2, sorry for the late reply. I think Diane #3 and Joey #4 have answered your question well. Also, it might be fruitful to ask why people gamble - is it out of boredom, or loneliness, or an addiction or to meet some other need? I'm not convinced that 'greed' is an important motivation for most gamblers. Also, if we think of gamblers as 'greedy' people, then it doesn't help us see their humanity.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.