Christ and Culture Updated

I just signed up for a e-newsletter from Lausanne World Pulse in the missions class I'm taking. I stumbled upon this article, which is related to the Christ and Culture series of posts. Probably makes what I'm going to do obsolete in this series of posts, but, as I mention at the headline, I do this to help me think through issues and read carefully. I think this is worth reading.

A New Search for the Literal Sense of Apocalyptic Texts

Cook now embarks on the task of seeking the literal sense of apocalyptic texts, but he is careful to distinguish it from a rigid literalism that flattens the text, harming its “original idiom.” He goes on to state, “A search for the Bible’s literal sense is different. It sees apocalyptic texts as symbolically rich, inspired literature that invigorates the imagination, offering readers new orientation and resolve about the life of faith.” And later he notes, “The transcendent world is already starting to impinge on the mundane world, the world of the here and now” (p. 63). How do we develop this nuanced “Literal Sense”?

Formulate a Canonical Approach
First, the building blocks of apocalyptic literature are biblical images and ideas. The amount of quotations and allusions to the previous canonical books are tremendous. They correct some exaggerated views of some texts. Next, the literature is rich with symbols and images. It takes mythic elements from the OT or even mythic and pagan images and breathes new meaning into them that have eternal significance. It is important to note this is not to reduce apocalyptic to mythology. It uses mythology. Finally, there is a transcendental reality that connects to life on earth and this tension (or better, multidimensionality) ought not be flattened. This view recognizes that there is an historical spiral at work here. Our times may look like the end times, but it is like a road around a mountain. There may look like times when we’ll go over the cliff, but God keeps us on the road – until the time He doesn’t. That’s the end. In this way we can learn from apocalyptic whether the time is ready to end or not.

Theological Contributions of Apocalyptic Texts
Apocalyptic reminds us that salvation isn’t just an individual deal. It involves creation and even space and time. God is bringing all things to consummation. It also shows us that things aren’t going to get better; they’re going to get worse. On the other side of the coin, God’s salvation will set things right. There is a plan to all of this and God will ultimately send the forces of evil running and be shown our Hero.

Apocalyptic Texts and Liberation
There is a “setting right” of all things ecological and as pertains to oppression as well in apocalyptic. This does not mean we ought to disengage from seeking justice. Rather, we are sowing the seeds that will one day come to fruition apocalyptically.

Do these ideas adjust your understanding of apocalyptic at all? Does it bring some clarity to what was confusing, or does it add confusion to already difficult texts?

Domesticating Apocalyptic Literature Continued

Domestication #2: Futuristic or Historicized Readings
This is the domain of fundamentalists and liberals, respectively, according to Cook. The basic issue is the idea that apocalyptic literature is coded and one must decipher the code for it to be valuable. This fails the futurist readings because the texts, to endure, had to say something for the people of their time. They aren’t a “message in a bottle” to be picked up in the 21st century. While this fundamentalist perspective is certainly my heritage, I’ve always been bothered by this concept and the way Daniel and Revelation are read. We seem to use them like a crossword puzzle – making everything fit “just so” to create our model for history. I don’t mean to be overly negative with that critique and I can’t offer a better hermeneutic. That’s just what bothers me about it.

On the other hand, the liberal error of making the text totally historical also fails. The writers weren’t simply describing their historical circumstances. They were anticipating the end of time. It obviously didn’t come when they hoped or anticipated, but the biblical texts make no promises of “this is the date.” In short, there’s more than history described in apocalyptic texts. They’re looking to the future, too.

Domestication #3: Overly Credulous or Overly Suspicious Readings
The overly credulous readers of apocalypse are eager to appropriate the text to their current situations, which can be particularly dangerous to cross-sections of people who may arouse their ire. Revelation 17 has been used as a rationale for burning witches and Malachi 4.1-3 was used for killing thousands of Native Americans in colonial times. Cook corrects the “overly credulous” saying,

“These images are transcendental realities of suprahuman proportion. As such, they are completely stereotyped and excessive by their very nature. They sum up and embody inclinations, qualities, and characteristics in a way that now historical person or group ever could. To reduce them to finite persons is pure domestication” (p. 54).

The related error is, again, the opposite extreme – being overly suspicious of the apocalyptic texts and not letting them say enough. Perhaps because parts of the text are offensive by current standards or used to abuse others throughout history (see witches, Native Americans above), some interpreters are dismissive of some challenging parts of a text, or try to re-construct the text altogether. They end up, often, being dismissive of a re-creation, seeing it as a bad thing rather than the renewal that the text (at least Revelation) intends to communicate.

I think I can tend to be overly “earthly minded” and not let the realities of God’s consummation of history grip my heart to the degree that it should. Do you lean one way or another any of these “domestication” dangers?

The Danger of Domesticating the Apocalyptic Texts, Part 1

Cook gets a hearty “Amen” out of me at the start of this chapter. He says many want to domesticate the apocalyptic texts, particularly teachers so they can bring some sanity to them. These texts, to be honest, terrify me. I’m glad I have to teach them; I’d avoid them, otherwise. Cook continues: “[Domesticating the texts] means shifting the focus in reading away from a serious grappling with their over theological witness about God’s fantastic future work of re-creating reality” (p. 40). Since I don’t want to do that, I best listen to these three ways apocalyptic texts get domesticated.

Domestication #1: Spiritual and Symbolic Readings
Because most of us, at least in the West, don’t see much in terms of miracles, we may be quick to explain away the fantastic elements of apocalypse as simply symbolism and not having any real, tangible expression. They are signs of something big coming, but they’re exaggerated images of a less dramatic reality. But Cook, pointing to a reading from the Dead Sea Scrolls and then some Native American apocalyptic beliefs, argues that apocalypse is anticipating a creation-altering event. It is not exaggerated symbols; something tremendous is going to happen that will change reality. Set it to rights.

More questionable ways of reading apocalyptic texts forthcoming. Any thoughts on this one?

Christ and Culture: Christ Against Culture, part 2 (Critique)

I won’t say I’m necessarily enjoying this book. It’s not a thriller by any means, but I love how Niebuhr introduces his critique. It makes me think this will be an edifying and educational read. He calls it a necessary and inadequate position. There’s plenty of critique, but before that he mentions that this perspective reveals a clear passion by its adherents to honor Christ. Their priorities are evident. Beyond that, this perspective has done much to keep Christ and Caesar separate. The commitment to obeying governing authorities (Rom. 13) is held in tension with spurning the world (1 Jn.) by all of us because of the work of this perspective.

The problem with this perspective is that we can’t fully get out of our culture. We think in cultural terms and reject cultural realities. Unfortunately, the ones we construct hold traces (or even foundations) from that culture we’re supposedly rejecting. The Bible was revealed in culture and we cannot return to that culture, which makes it possible to be totally anti-cultural in our world – even if we’re trying to construct it on our own.

Next he moves into theological issues with this perspective. He talks of revelation and reason in conflict, but I found the most compelling the theology of sin. This perspective, in many ways, acts as if sin is an external issue that contaminates the people of God (remember Tertullian’s thoughts on children), but this group also is highly disciplined because it knows the reality that sin dwells in each of us. In this effort to quench the sin that rises up within, however, they can kill the mission of taking the gospel to everyone. There were more objections, but I found this the most compelling and the others were, to be honest, more difficult to articulate than I’m up for tonight. Hope you aren’t following for insightful commentary here.

Do you find these objections fair? What other objections might you offer to this Christ Against Culture perspective?

Christ and Culture: Christ Against Culture, part 1 (Biblical Support, Historical Proponents)

Niebuhr starts this section by noting it has some strong biblical warrant and the support of the early church. He sweeps through 1 John and notes the importance of God’s love for us, our love for God, and then the importance of loving our brother. But the emphasis is on our love for our brother in the faith. In contrast to this love, we need to stay away from the world that corrupts. The most popular early church writings agree with this interpretation of John – Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, & others. He also notes how Tertullian had strong opinions about how culture was how we were corrupted. Niebuhr argues that Tertullian basically believed a baby would grow up innocent if not for the corrupting nature of culture. Tertullian, much more than he put into practice, argued for a withdrawal from the world’s institutions and largely had contempt for philosophy. Tertullian is the epitome of the anticultural Christian.

In modern times, this would show up in groups like the Mennonites and Society of Friends who withdraw from public institutions, according to Niebuhr. His personal model of this, however, is Leo Tolstoy who, after his conversion rejected almost all of his previous literary accomplishments as bad art, along with all other art that didn’t align with Christian beauty. He essentially embraced some key points of the Sermon on the Mount, focusing on nonresistance, and entered into a rigorous life of trying to adhere to Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. He had no use for government or churches because they were corrupt with the pursuit of power rather than trying to live what Jesus taught. His rigor, according to some, lacked the internal fire and love for Jesus that early proponents of this perspective exhibited (Tertullian and the early church).

What’s compelling about this perspective? What’s wrong with it? The next post will have Niebuhr’s critiques.

Go Cardinals!

Happy Super Sunday! It's an unofficial holiday in our country. We might as well recognize it. It hurts to say, since they’re in our division and their victory will make us the last in our division to not win a Super Bowl. They’ve been easy to pick on, too. But that already has to end since they’ve been in the Super Bowl more recently than we have.

But I’m a sucker for the underdog. Can there be a bigger ‘dog than the Cardinals? And who’s a bigger individual underdog than Kurt Warner. (Plus, I'm still bitter about the Seahawks loss to the Steelers in SBXL.) So I’ll be cheering for the Cardinals … unless I get a chance for a nap!