Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know, Eutychus, if Calvin and Luther were allowed to have opinions as to the worth of different parts of the New Testament canon - and remain as figureheads of the Reformed (and parts of the Evangelical) tradition - then I think I am.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't remember the last sermon I heard on Samson, with one exception. A few months ago I was preaching on an Epistle about following the example of Paul, and turned to Hebrews 11 and that list of exemplars of great faith. Which is a fascinating list, because basically none of them were actually outstanding people. So I mentioned Samson, who is in that list and everyone knows - a man of uncontrolled rage, prone to affairs with foreign women (that would be "consorting with the enemy") and several other unsavoury character flaws. David who effectively rapes Bathsheba and murders her husband to hide it. And, so on ... a list that takes us inexorably to some of the worst people in the OT, yet they're commended for their faith. There's hope for the rest of us, if even that crowd of villains gets such an accollade.

---

This just makes me wonder whether [parts of the] epistles were even written by someone familiar with the stories or just the fabled names of the characters. And certainly makes me wonder whether all of the epistles are really worth of being preached.

---

It doesn't look like that at all to me. It seems apparent to me that the NT authors, even the presumably less-educated/working class authors like Peter, were incredibly biblically literate. They seem to have a pretty substantial working knowledge of the OT-- the sort that is common in preliterate societies where large portions of sacred text is committed to memory.

What it DOES seem to indicate, though, is that the NT authors were not well-trained in our beloved historical-grammatical method. They break all the rules-- pulling texts entirely out of context, proof-texting, dramatically ignoring the "original intent of the author".

Which should give those of us who are so well-trained in modern scholarship some pause. I certainly can't feel comfortable engaging in the sort of free-wheeling, incautious use of the OT that, say, Matthew feels free to employ. Maybe that goes to the view of inspiration. But it certainly leads me to feel justified in employing some sort of "red letter" rubric which suggests (contrary to my colleagues next door in the OT dept) that Christians can and do read the OT thru the lens of the NT.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
You're welcome to your opinion.

---

quote:

---

But I think their arguments went a bit beyond "well that bit's obviously stoopid".

---

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the context of this thread about sermons (which you say you have generally had enough of listening to anyway) you have yet to produce any definitive statement of which parts of the Bible you think should be preached on, beyond a vague criterion of focusing on the "christlike" bits, apparently.

---

quote:

---

It's part of the canon, so people are going to see them, and have questions, and those questions should be affirmed and answered. But sometimes you have to ask, "how much time/attention is this worthy of? Will this 'edify'?" It's hard to fault a pastor/teacher who chooses to spend that limited time/attention exploring in greater depth something we DO think is relevant/authoritative-- like the prophets or Jesus' teachings.

---

quote:

---

Whatever that means, I somehow suspect it doesn't include, say, Revelation 19:11-16.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But it's a much narrower group than just "charismatic", which is quite diverse, especially globally. I know it's hard to unpack such a precise definition in this forum, but when you're making the sort of accusations you made here, it would be helpful-- the term "plenty of" really does not seem to convey that.

---

quote:

---

Ymmv, of course, but that's not really a characteristic of evangelical churches.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, can you explain what you mean by a "red letter rubric" (at first I thought you meant you were an aficionado of the "red letter Bible"...)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It doesn't look like that at all to me. It seems apparent to me that the NT authors, even the presumably less-educated/working class authors like Peter, were incredibly biblically literate. They seem to have a pretty substantial working knowledge of the OT-- the sort that is common in preliterate societies where large portions of sacred text is committed to memory.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm rather amazed to find that I'm almost totally in agreement with cliffdweller on this point.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't look like that at all to me. It seems apparent to me that the NT authors, even the presumably less-educated/working class authors like Peter, were incredibly biblically literate. They seem to have a pretty substantial working knowledge of the OT-- the sort that is common in preliterate societies where large portions of sacred text is committed to memory.

---

quote:

---

This just makes me wonder whether [parts of the] epistles were even written by someone familiar with the stories or just the fabled names of the characters.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Whatever that means, I somehow suspect it doesn't include, say, Revelation 19:11-16.

---

Is it useful or relevant? If no, then I'd waste very little time on it.

---

quote:

---

Any more than I'd spend any time preaching through Numbers. Pointless.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, can you explain what you mean by a "red letter rubric" (at first I thought you meant you were an aficionado of the "red letter Bible"...)

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So my personal "red-letter" rubric is: the closer a text is (chronologically and otherwise) to the Christ-event, the more authoritative it can be understood to be.

---

So in your scheme of things do the epistles trump the Gospels, or not?

quote:

---

So when there is a conflict-- as in the conquest passages-- we can lean on what we see in Jesus far more than the blurry image in the OT. As Luther said, "let clear passages illumine the unclear".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is that aimed at me? Because if it is, you're the one making this personal right now.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It doesn't look like that at all to me. It seems apparent to me that the NT authors, even the presumably less-educated/working class authors like Peter, were incredibly biblically literate. They seem to have a pretty substantial working knowledge of the OT-- the sort that is common in preliterate societies where large portions of sacred text is committed to memory.

---

I'm not sure how it is possible to tell that. The thing is not a "whole cloth", it is entirely possible that the epistles were written by multiple authors, that this particular section was cut-and-pasted in, and so on.

Anyway, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me - if the writer of that epistle knew about the detail of the OT characters and thought that they were indicative of the kind of thing that people of faith do, then he's wrong.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb]

quote:

---

Whatever that means, I somehow suspect it doesn't include, say, Revelation 19:11-16.

---

Is it useful or relevant? If no, then I'd waste very little time on it.

---

Personally I'll be interested to see how that passage fits into cliffdweller's "red rubric".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, can you explain what you mean by a "red letter rubric" (at first I thought you meant you were an aficionado of the "red letter Bible"...)

---

Although it's a term I've not encountered before, I took it to be that method of reading Scripture that prioritises the words of Christ (which, in some Bibles appear in red letters) and using those as the key to interpreting the rest of Scripture. Invariably, IME, that leads to a simple acceptance of the bits of the Bible that conform to the words of Christ (OT prophets talking about God loving merct and justice, for example) and largely ignoring or explaining away the rest. Ultimately, ISTM, it's a version of taking the plain reading of Scripture, in this case just using conformity to the recorded words of Jesus as the filter for what we read as the "plain meaning" and what we feel the need to interpret. Whereas, I would say we need to apply all the interpretive tools of context, linguistics etc to all of Scripture, including those words of Jesus which we would read plainly.

---

I would agree (despite what I've said here about how the NT authors don't do this) in using all the interpretative tools of the historico-grammatical method in interpreting all of Scripture.

But, as others have noted, we do all have a canon-within-the-canon. We usually deny it, but it is true, and admitting it is the first step to being more consistent. And there are parts of Scripture, particularly the OT, that just flat out don't fit with Jesus' teachings, no matter how many interpretative tools we use. That's what we're talking about here. Add to that Jesus's sometimes explicit re-interpreting/realigning of OT Scripture ("you have heard it said...") and I think you have got a canon-within-the-canon. I'm suggesting that rather than leaving that implicit and unstated, we go ahead and get rid of the pretense that Christians (even 1st c Christians, apparently!) read the OT in the same way Jews do. That we confess and admit right out loud that we read the OT in the light of the words of Jesus.

Of course, that's much easier (professionally) for me to do in an anonymous online medium.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can only assume that it is something to do with the weather that means we are both saying things that the other takes as being personal.

---

quote:

---

If you've preached through Numbers

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't because I think it has very little to do with Jesus Christ in it and very little other useful and relevant content.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In any event, I do not feel that Heb. 11 means that I need to take Samson's, or even David's, life as exemplary.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller, thanks - the term doesn't seem to have come up on this thread before. At first glance, I'd go along with much of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So my personal "red-letter" rubric is: the closer a text is (chronologically and otherwise) to the Christ-event, the more authoritative it can be understood to be.

---

So in your scheme of things do the epistles trump the Gospels, or not?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In any event, I do not feel that Heb. 11 means that I need to take Samson's, or even David's, life as exemplary.

---

For light relief, I can note that I have a book on my shelves from a very conservative evangelical author who, by an exegetical tour de force, manages to make every single "hero of the faith" in Hebrews 11, including Jepthah and his vow, into a paragon of virtue...

---

sometimes my evangelical brethren make me go


even as I am quite sure I often make my evangelical brethren go


I often use that as an explanation of what it means to be a part of God's family.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which, of course, assumes that Peter actually wrote the Petrine epistles that bear his name ...



Backing up a bit, this may be contentious but I've long been of the view that where you do get sound and sensible preaching in charismatic contexts it's generally where they draw from, or remain closer to, older traditions ... whether Wesleyan, Presbyterian or small r-reformed.

So, for instance, in the UK at least, and I'd imagine in the USA too, there was a strand of old-style Wesleyan expository preaching that persisted into Pentecostalism. Ok, it may not have been as rigorous as that found on the more Reformed side of the spectrum, but it was there.

I think what concerns me most is that the charismatic scene is steadily (or rapidly in some cases) losing its moorings and drifting off from aspects of the received tradition that are reflected more strongly in the older evangelical traditions.

Large swathes of the charismatic scene are sinking into a kind of sub-Christian spiritual self-help ya-ya land quagmire.

Sure, that doesn't mean that individual congregations or leaders have yet to be drawn down that particular plug-hole, but that's where the whole thing seems to be heading from my perspective. Give it a few years and a few generations and I suspect some of this stuff won't even be recognisably Christian in any meaningful sense.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Almost thou persuadest me. The sudden thought I have is that this is beginning to sound like the "rightly dividing the word of truth" so beloved of the (shudder) dispensationalists (who manage to consign, say, the two halves of some declarations of Jesus to two different dispensations to suit their hermeneutic...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

But rather than start with the 'red rubric' criteria, if I've understood them properly, the difference is that I'd take pretty much any biblical text as my starting point, even if I'm bound to use the kind of NT/'red' filter cliffdweller is talking about subsequently.

The reason I do this is firstly because as Martin has detected, I probably do have some notion of "all Scripture is inspired by God", but again along the lines I mention in my linked sermon rather than along inerrantist lines.

Secondly, I find that for me at least, this actually works. It puts me "under Scripture" in the sense that having chosen a book of the Bible for a series, I let it set my agenda.

This works well for me in the creative (preaching) process and I think it provides at least some degree of objectivity as opposed to just cherry-picking.

And from my perspective, it allows me to gain fresh and surprising insights that I would not get if I just stuck with the passages I deemed "worthwhile" by some self-imposed standard.

Of course I'm going to relate these back to Christ, but I find my picture of him is deeper and richer as a result of having to grapple with difficult texts such as Numbers 30. That can't happen if I simply look at a challenging passage and think "no, this obviously doesn't fit".

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

And practically, in terms of preaching, how does this "red rubric" affect your choice of material?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
That nearly answers my earlier question...

quote:

---

And practically, in terms of preaching, how does this "red rubric" affect your choice of material?

---

(I mean, how does your preaching programme actually get determined?)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the basis, then, that the lectionary has at least a one in three chance of doing something of a "red rubric" preselection?

Does this mean that in practice you'd never preach on, say, Numbers 30?

(Genuinely curious here)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
it HAS to be done in LESS conciliatory tones.

---

I think that depends on your audience.

---

quote:

---

Jesus wasn't exactly conciliatory with the religious leaders of his day; I would let rip most strongly in my circles against people who secretly harbour more "liberal" theology and keep up a "fundamentalist" stance in their preaching as being "good for the punters".

---

quote:

---

Jesus was conciliatory ("do not fear, little flock...") with those who were simply desperate for some reassurance from God, which is where I think most poeple are at. I can't stand preachers who do nothing but berate their hearers and exude supposedly superior knowledge.

---

quote:

---

And philosophising on your own is not at all the same as having a responsibility before a congregation. Why do you think prophets are distinguished from pastors and teachers (or is that too "Iron Age" for you )?

---

quote:

---

Again, I have no desire to tie a millstone round my neck.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Trying to square Bronze Age myth through Iron Age faith.

---

This is indeed where we part company. You might be historically correct, but the terminology you use implies inherent contemporary superiority (which, I would venture, is a terribly modernist outlook. What the 19th century mistakenly thought about its science you seem to be mistakenly applying to contemporary belief).

---

quote:

---

It implies (to my ears at least) "we know better now". I think that is hubris. We know differently, and taking due note of how other ages "knew" I think is an important part of self-understanding, an exercise in humility, and where a lot of contemporary thinking goes astray.

---

quote:

---

It's too easy to trip over some difficult stuff in the Bible, especially the OT, and simply dismiss it on the basis of a mental picture of man that's not far removed from the hominids at the beginning of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, rather than grapple with it.

---

quote:

---

Just because they had, say, little scientific knowledge of cosmology doesn't mean their metaphysics was all wrong or badly thought out. I think that dismissing the latter on the grounds of the former is tempting - but fallacious.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Paul was WRONG. It can't be done. Rather Paul IS wrong. He was right for his time, he couldn't have been righter. It's MEANINGLESS for now.

It's ALL got to go mate.

---

Well that would have to include preaching, it would seem to me. If what you say is true, what can you preach on, on what authority, and for what purpose?

If it's all got to go, how do you rescue even Christ from the wreckage?

How is it that people have been managing to preach on the Bible ever since the days of the early church and at least some of their hearers have been finding it meaningful?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The vast majority of religious people are wedded to the myth of redemptive violence, of just war, Christians being far from the exception and in fact the worst offenders since becoming institutionalized by the state. Ones preaching audience is invariably Christian and one needs to start again with the beatitudes with them it seems.

---

quote:

---

It seems we have to preach to them as if they were spiritual gentiles.

---

quote:

---

warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

---

quote:

---

Before the church can subvert the state, it has to be subverted. It has been castrated.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Jesus wasn't exactly conciliatory with the religious leaders of his day; I would let rip most strongly in my circles against people who secretly harbour more "liberal" theology and keep up a "fundamentalist" stance in their preaching as being "good for the punters".

---

Didn't you wrestle with that reality over Numbers 31?

---

quote:

---

So we can't preach what Christ preached?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Again, I have no desire to tie a millstone round my neck.

---

What is the risk of that? How could that happen? How, by delivering little ones from fear and ignorance, from VIOLENCE, ... by preaching the gospel to the poor; ... by healing the brokenhearted, By proclaiming liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, By setting at liberty those who are oppressed; ...

---

quote:

---

Paul was wrong. To make him right one has to look down the wrong end of the telescope and project 'spiritualization', a modernist Pollyana error, on to the Bronze and Iron Age subject matter.

---

quote:

---

So Jonah didn't know better than Isaiah? Amos didn't know better than Jeremiah?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's too easy to trip over some difficult stuff in the Bible, especially the OT, and simply dismiss it on the basis of a mental picture of man that's not far removed from the hominids at the beginning of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, rather than grapple with it.

---

That is grappling with it. We then have to grapple with that REALITY.

---

quote:

---

Your four whats are answered by Jesus' first sermon above.

The Rescuer needs no rescue. He is ALL that's left. Tried by deconstructing fire and NOT found wanting. Even in, despite and BECAUSE of His full, weak, ignorant humanity. THE baby, still the most mysterious entity in the known universe, still with a caul, an umbilicus leading to, implying a very weird supernatural realm, survives the dumping of the bathwater. To suggest otherwise is on the same spectrum as YECs who say that if you deny YEC you deny Christ.

---

quote:

---

The gospel IS preached despite very flawed preachers. Which is why I don't any more.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The gospel IS preached despite very flawed preachers.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Go back to my example of the guy who simply set out to disrupt his hearers' supposed (on his part) blind confidence in Scripture by pointing out the missing words in the Hebrew. I don’t think he was doing any of the above. He was projecting his own anger at being led astray onto hearers who were not in the least bit responsible. It was far more likely to break than amend a fundamentalist belief system. Preachers need to search their motives and consider the impact of their words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

But admittedly, I find it hard to see how you can be so sure that the words of Jesus are somehow right, intact, and valid, not culturally bound, incapable of being deconstructed by some more enlightened descendants of ours – when you are so sure the words of Paul aren’t.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

---

quote:

---

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

---

quote:

---

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.[/qupte]

First, I'd say no, the gospels stand alone so need no special pleading. But I'd also say yes, ok maybe there is a form of special pleading, but then isn't there also special pleading needed to marry up the gospels with the epistles to form a coherent theological position? To me it makes a lot more logical sense to read the epistles in the light of the gospels than to try to argue that they're all the same really.

[quote]It's my perception that in recent times Paul in particular has come "unglued" from the Gospels, rightly or wrongly, largely because of a whole herd of Dead Horse issues ranging from inerrancy to homosexuality. I'm not sure if these are a cause or an effect.

But I'm beginning to think this whole "Was Paul wrong?" debate deserves a separate thread.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

It's my perception that in recent times Paul in particular has come "unglued" from the Gospels, rightly or wrongly, largely because of a whole herd of Dead Horse issues ranging from inerrancy to homosexuality. I'm not sure if these are a cause or an effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm beginning to think this whole "Was Paul wrong?" debate deserves a separate thread.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common difficulty I see with Martin's approach, and to a lesser degree with your "red rubric" approach (for slightly different reasons), is that it seems to be broadly acknowledged that the epistles pre-date the Gospels, so as a minimum they were chronologically closer to Jesus, which is genuinely held to be A Good Thing in terms of authenticity/reliability.

And if the epistles do predate the Gospels, then it's a fair assumption that the Gospel writers were aware of and/or had access to the epistles.

Claiming "superior" or "more authentic" content for the content of the gospels over and above the epistles therefore seems to require a degree of special pleading.

---

Again, the "red letter rubric" could be applied either way-- and has been by those who advocate it. My argument for gospels over Paul (to the extent you need such a rubric-- see below) is based on my belief that the gospel writers, while later than Paul, are providing an authentic record of what Jesus truly said & did. Which would make the gospels "closer to the Christ event" in terms of content if not chronology. Of course, if you don't share my assumption you're not going to share my conclusion.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What do a bunch of convicts have to lose in being told that God is not Killer? Especially the non-Christians. That God is found as directly as possible in Jesus ALONE.

---

quote:

---

Never mind the theology, the orthodoxy; orthopraxis is the ultimate orthodoxy. Damn. I totally agree.

---

quote:

---

Damnitman! Why do a bunch of criminals - which is all of us one way or another - need molly-coddling in violent religion, for God's sake?!

---

quote:

---

Let's reverse it shall we. Paul is right, NOW. Numbers 31, the genocide of the Midianites (substitute any horror you can easily think of, especially in Judges), is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

---

quote:

---

The God of the Book of Jonah, just a few decades on from the God of the Book of Isaiah is ... humane. Their editors mellowed by the Babylonian exile. By suffering.

---

quote:

---

I CONSTANTLY go on about Jesus' FULL humanity. His IGNORANCE. His words ARE culturally bound. Even His being tempted of the Devil is easily deconstructed as projection (not everything else is).

---

I think you believe in the inspiration of deconstruction . You can read it that way, but how can you be so sure you’re right ?

quote:

---

Paul was a GREAT, none greater, man of his time wrestling as we do with the impact of the Incarnation. He is a giant upon whose shoulders we INEVITABLY see further.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However we cut it, though, whether we use a themed teaching series or pattern or use a lectionary, each presupposes that people are going to be around fairly regularly to get the benefit of that.

I'm not sure that can be guaranteed these days, if it ever could.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that one.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
All Anglican preachers in my experience, and that's ALL, play safe. I don't blame them, their pay packets depend on it.

---