Abilene, TX
|
|
|
|
|
| Mercy Street Church of Christ Abilene, TX |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
IN WHAT WAY IS THE BIBLE ABOUT US? by Leroy Garrett My thesis professor at Harvard, Krister Stendahl, who departed from planet earth only last year, put this question in a more provocative way, It is not about us. That was one of his rules of biblical interpretation — the Bible is not about us. He meant that when Luke wrote Luke and Acts he was writing neither to us nor about us. In the first treatise he was writing to a man named Theophilus and about Jesus. In the second treatise he was also writing to Theophilus, but now about the apostles and early Christianity. Not about us. When Paul wrote several letters to the church of God at Corinth, two of which we have in Scripture, he was writing neither to nor about us, but to and about the Corinthians. When Jeremiah, as in chapter 39, gives instructions on how to behave in captivity, he was writing to Jews who had been deported to Babylon, not to us. When Jesus said, “Go sell all that you have and give to the poor” (Luke 18:24) it was about a certain rich man, not us. It is evident that the professor was right in saying that the Bible is not about us, but he was not saying that the Bible has no relevance to us. Indeed, he talked about how he got “hooked on the Bible” at an early age and made it a lifetime study. And he certainly believed that the Spirit spoke to him through Scripture — even when it was not about him! This conundrum frames my question: What determines the relevance of Scripture through the centuries? Or as the title of this essay puts it, In what way is the Bible about us? My answer to this is that any Scripture is about us — or relevant to us — only in terms of its universality and permanency. That is, can the ordinance, command, story, or example be universalized so as to include all people, and can it be made permanent so as to transcend all time and circumstance? If the motif indicates only a particular application, to those then and there, and is therefore circumstantial to a given situation, then it is not about us. But it might still have some relevance to us, but in a different way from those to whom it was originally intended. An example would be foot washing, which in John 13 is both a command and example. The church generally has not made this an ongoing ordinance, but has seen it as circumstantial between Jesus and his disciples. And yet the motif has relevance to us in that we may “wash feet” in many different ways in our culture. I will further explain what I mean. 1. Universal or General/ Particular or Circumstantial It is self-evident when certain Scriptures can be universalized, applicable to all ages and all people. When they cannot with certainty be universalized they are to be treated as particular, limited to time and circumstance. The two greatest commandments — love for God and love for neighbor — are clearly universal in nature. They were not addressed to us, but they transcend the locale of their origin and are universally relevant. Then there are the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, the beatitudes, and many other Scriptures. Such Scriptures are a priori conceded to be universal in application. But how about “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:16)? Since it was an apostolic commission — given particularly to the apostles — it cannot be universalized or generalized. Only certain ones, prepared for the task culturally, financially and linguistically, could respond to such a call. “Do the work of an evangelist” (2 Timothy 4:5) is similar. It was addressed to an evangelist and can be universalized only to all evangelists. We run the risk of making discipleship impossible when we try to universalize the mandate referred to above, “Go sell all that you have and give it to the poor” (Luke 18:22). Jesus had his reasons for requiring that of a certain person, but it does not follow that he therefore requires all his disciples to give away all their possessions. It would be both impracticable and illogical. Once one gave away everything he in turn would be poor, and a candidate for another’s wealth, who in turn would be poor etc. Our Lord could not have meant it to be universal. And yet it might always have a relevant dimension — If Jesus wanted that rich man to give away everything, he would want me to be generous, maybe even overly generous. There is a case now of a man found guilty of criminal neglect of a child, his own child, because he prayed for his healing but did not or would not get him the medical attention he obviously needed, and the boy died. The man found instances in the Bible where people prayed for others who were healed, no medical attention. It is a case of false universalizing to the point of tragedy. There are precious spiritual values in 1 Corinthians, such as Paul’s hymn on love in chapter 13, and they are easily generalized, but can we be sure that this is true of the apostle’s restriction on women in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? If for whatever reason it was shameful for a woman to speak in ecclesia (not only church but any assembly) in Paul’s time, is it today? Would Paul say it is shameful for a woman to speak in assemblies in our culture where they speak with full acceptation in every possible venue, from halls of Congress to university auditoriums. That restriction is not about us, but about the Corinthians, and because of particular circumstances. We generalize such mandates to our own hurt, and to the degradation of our sisters in the Lord. On the other hand the apostle appears to make universal a no-gender test in Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ.” If you can’t with certainty universalize or generalize it, it is not likely about you. 2. Permanent/ Transitory This distinction is particularly relevant to methods, such as we find in Acts 2:44-45 where “All those that believed were together, and had all things in common, and they sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.” It is a beautiful example of Christian charity in the early church, and if today we are to “do as they did” this example would have to be taken seriously. But was this to be permanent, a method for all congregations for all time to come? Are we today during economic downturns resort to a communistic method like this, in which we pool our resources, and distribute to each according to need? Even if a congregation managed to follow such a method in the 21st century, it might not be the best way to deal with a problem, even if biblical. We might rather find relevance in this example by resolving to show the same charity in a way more commensurate to our economic way of life. So maybe it is not that we precisely “do as they did,” but that we do for our time what they did for theirs, but not necessarily the same way. In this instance the charity or generosity is permanent, always relevant, but the method used is transitory. But in that same chapter of Acts we find Peter preaching the gospel of the risen Christ, and calling for repentance and baptism that led to the birthday of the church. Always and everywhere we are to proclaim Jesus as the risen Lord, the church’s universal message. The methods by which this is done will change, for they are transitory, but the message itself remains the same. If we in Churches of Christ had recognized these distinctions through the years we would have been spared the heartache of factions and divisions. For the most part we have not divided, over universal and eternal truths, but over methods. We have not divided over singing hymns to the glory of God, but whether to use instruments. Nor over doing missionary work, but whether to do it through agencies. Nor teaching the Bible to our children, but whether to have Sunday school.. Nor breaking bread together in holy communion, but whether to use a plurality of chalices.. Methods by nature are transitory and circumstantial, and they change as culture changes. But the “unseen things” and the “eternal things” that Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians 4:18 never change, and these are the things that unite us. Our pioneers in the Restoration Movement stated it clearly and succinctly in a motto that should be a guide for all churches. I here adapt it. In essentials (universals) unity, In opinions and methods (transitory and circumstantial) liberty. In all things, love. Some will insist, with some justification, that we can’t always agree on what is essential or nonessential, or between things permanent or things transitory. What is essential to one is nonessential to another. There may always be some of this, but I am persuaded that this will be minimal once we are led by the common moral sense God has given us. We intuitively distinguish between the things that matter most, things that matter somewhat, and things that matter none at all. These differences are all in the Bible. Not only is common sense our teacher in making distinctions, but the anointing of the Holy Spirit as well, which all believers receive. This is confirmed in 1 John 2:27: “the same anointing teaches you concerning all things.” If we are prayerful in our study, asking for guidance, we will see that while all truths are equally true all truths are not equally important. Our Lord urged “Seek first the kingdom of God,” He also said, “A prophet has honor except among his own people.” Surely we can see, with all the resources God has given us, that the first statement is crucially important, while the second is of far less importance. The statements are equally true, but they are not equally important.  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Site-specific content Copyright (c) 2000 FaithSite.com or Used by Permission All other content Copyright (c) 2000 FaithSites, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. If you are offended by anything on this page, click here. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
