MetaCatholic

Something for Jim West to look forward to in OSX Leopard, and an early birthday present from this Windows user.

Source: Think Secret

At different times, and in different ways, various people draw parallels between one or more of the Church’s admission of the Gentiles, Christian feminism, the emancipation of slaves and issues of gay equality. The mix of issues, and the points of comparison vary according to the case being made and the viewpoint from which it is put.

One thing they all have in common is that they required then, or require now, a fresh reading of scripture to make the case for something new. (Whether that case is made satisfactorily is another question entirely – and not one I’m exploring in this post). But I think it is also possible to argue that in all four cases, it required or requires something other than scripture to raise the question in the first place. That’s allowed in the case of Peter, because the apostolic era is judged a special case. It’s often denied in the case of slavery, because the input of new thinking is obscured by the huge contribution of evangelicals to the case for abolition. But the fact that the impetus for re-evaluating first the place of women, and currently the place of gay people comes from movements outside the church is seriously put forward as a major argument against and obstacle to either the full equality of women, or acceptance of gay people

(I should note that I’m not intending to suggest that these necessarily have much in common, but I do note that many who argue against both insist on their linkage as equally unbiblical threats to God’s division of the sexes, and his purpose for each)

There are more than enough Scriptures deployed in these arguments that remind God’s people not to live like the nations, but to be different. Those should not be overlooked by anyone, but neither should they be confined to fulminating warnings against uppity gays and women, but rather taken just as seriously on justice and mercy and those weightier matters of the law. But equally, I am increasingly drawn to pondering the significance of the Chronicler’s account of Josiah’s death.

After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, King Neco of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah went out against him.  But Neco sent envoys to him, saying, “What have I to do with you, king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but against the house with which I am at war; and God has commanded me to hurry. Cease opposing God, who is with me, so that he will not destroy you.”  But Josiah would not turn away from him, but disguised himself in order to fight with him. He did not listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, but joined battle in the plain of Megiddo.  The archers shot King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, “Take me away, for I am badly wounded.”  So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. There he died, and was buried in the tombs of his ancestors. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. (2 Chronicles 35:20-24 NRSV)

Was there, I wonder, amore unlikely source for the “word of the Lord” than Pharaoh, or a more unlikely servant of God? And was there a more unlikely word to come from God than “Don’t fight these invading Egyptians, they’re doing my will?”

This is by no means an argument for the uncritical acceptance of any new idea. But it is a firm reminder that it is quite biblical that God’s word comes from surprising sources, and says things that scripture and past experience would make extremely unlikely.

John Hobbins posted twice yesterday about Study Bibles: A Truly Ecumenical Study Bible followed closely by The Best Study Bibles on the Market Today As well as reading the posts, make a note of Iyov’s comments and emendations in particular.

Two particular omissions from John’s list are The NIV Study Bible (about which more in a minute) and (although it doesn’t identify itself as a study Bible) the standard edition of the New Jerusalem Bible.

I have to confess to a great ambivalence about study Bibles. On the one hand, they can be invaluable tools. On the other hand (and I note beginning students regularly using the NIV mentioned above like this) they can encourage a number of bad habits:

• assuming the notes are definitive
• assuming their tradition of interpretation is the only one
• giving notes, headings and study aids an aura of canonicity

Taken together, study Bibles can develop a sense of creeping infallibility for the material that surrounds the text. (Ironically, the NIV, used by students for whom, formally, a high view of the scriptures is axiomatic, seems to encourage this material canonization of the interpretative tradition more than any other.) Among other problems, this seems to me to encourage students’ laziness, and a dubious acceptance of straightforward meaning, where the text in fact needs a fuller engagement.

Secondly, and related to this, taking up what Iyov notes in his comment, there really is no such thing as a tradition neutral study Bible. The better study Bibles reflect an awareness of this, and often point to more than one understanding or tradition, so that they are in some senses at least, tradition-ecumenical. Even straightforward historical information is not strictly neutral, because an accumulation of it tends to point people away from the theological narration of history towards nice enlightenment-friendly historical facts.

None of that should take away from their usefulness as a tool for engagement with the text, but it does mean, I think, that we ought to much more vociferous about putting a health warning on them. At the very least, I would argue that should appear typographically, using one typeface for the words of scripture, and another typeface for headings, notes, essays and other reference material. Many students, study group leaders and preachers need every reminder that no-one has canonised the editors’ interpretation.