Geoff

Avery and I don’t have any children except for a college student who rents from us are folks from the Sunday school class we joke about having adopted. But, many of our peers have children. So, she wrote this article that might be helpful for people in a similar situation. Go read it.

One of my favorite songs is by mewithoutYou.

It’s part of a concept album about a train wreck from which several animals escaped. This particular song is about the Elephant, who in a previous song, you discover, caused the crash so her friends could escape. The song has several layers of intertextuality. For instance, the title is reminiscent of “God in the Dock” by C.S. Lewis and the Elephant is a sort of savior figure in the song. In real life, in the 1910s, an Elephant was hanged in Erwin Tennessee. And the chaplain has a brief line during his prayer/address to the people wherein he notes his Berkleyianism.

In court, the Elephant meets the chaplain:

Good of our chaplain to sail Kalispell Bay
And now down on his marrow for this old fool to pray,
“Lord, for sixty-so years I’ve surrendered my love,
to emblems of kindness, and not the kindness they were emblems of,
Trammels and rings, with the strength of old strings,
and some hobble skirt spring, by the old problem caught,
Children, sometimes I think all our thoughts are just things,
and then sometimes think things are just thoughts.”

George Berkley (1685-1753) was an apparently brilliant man who contributed to philosophy, mathematics, optics, and theology. He was an empiricist and a Christian apologist who largely wrote about the possibility of knowledge in the world and what it means to perceive things. I am vastly oversimplifying his ideas here, but he also wrote an influential refutation of the Calculus of Leibniz and Newton that included a philosophical justification for how the Calculus still got correct answers. If I know the history correctly, his critiques lead to a more rigorous definition of the Calculus concepts based upon the limit (Morris Kline, Mathematics in Wester Culture, 246-248). More famously though, Berkeley denied the existence of the physical world. To him, everything was just thought. This seems so absurd to me, that I feel safe denying it without a second thought. 

But, sometimes when I’m cleaning or building stuff in my garage, or organizing everything so that my hell semester coming up won’t kill me I give things second thoughts.

A friend of mine, who is a Thomist philosopher, was talking to me about the seeming opaqueness of the phrase, “God created matter.” He said, “What does that mean or entail?” He said, “If the arguments for God’s existence are true, then God is spirit or God is mind. For creation to be contained in God seems similar to saying that a thought is contained in a mind.” I thought, wow, that’s interesting. Then I thought more about it yesterday while my wife and I were running around town getting things situated and consolidated for easier bill paying yesterday. It hit me that Berkeley, though he’s probably wrong, isn’t crazy for this proposal. On several levels and with the presuppositions common in his day, the conclusion makes sense. And, on a certain level, it is a possible conclusion if you accept Aristotle and Aquinas’ theory of causality…which I do.

So, if you ever think thoughts are just things and then sometimes think things are just thoughts…you’re not crazy. Your just Berkeleyian.

Also, listen to that whole mewithoutYou album. If you’re disappointed then there’s nothing I can do about that.

One of the questions I’ve always had is this: How does what the Bible teaches relate to the world outside of the text? Obviously, two true descriptions on one topic much coincide in some way. But if the Bible is unclear on a topic, can a field of inquiry into the same topic bring clarity to the topic, and thus to the Biblical text?

This question has an obvious answer to many people. The problem is that it is treated precisely as obvious.

If I’m not being clear about this, for the sake of argument, let us assume that A) Jesus really was raised and B) therefore the canon (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox will do) is, in some way, true.

So, if the canon is true and I am investigating Paul’s conversion experience or the descriptions of conversions in Acts I would do this:

1. Check carefully what the text says in various places.
2. Ensure that I am understanding the genre correctly (is it generally reliable historical reportage, helpful fables, an extended allegory, etc?)
3. Carefully weigh that against what other ancient texts say (Old Testament, Gospels, Inter-testamental, Greco-Roman, later Christian works, etc) and see if those shed any useful light on the events reported in Acts.

At this point, I at least have a description of what Luke thought it meant to convert to Christianity and perhaps an ancient perspective on what it meant, in general, to change from one religion to another. But, here’s the thing, have I found: A) what it always means to convert to Christ and B) could a modern sociological perspective on how conversion works be used to shed more light on what happens in Luke’s text and thus what actually happened that Luke is reporting?

Then from these questions about understanding conversion in Luke and then, for a Christian, in the world, how does this become prescriptive? My thought it that, because of Luke’s genre, it is only prescriptive in the broad sense of showing the virtues of the early Christian movement. Thus, it is not meant to necessarily communicate what to do, so much as to report the generally virtuous and successful lives of those who did. To find what to do, the Christian need look no further than the Epistles, the Gospels, and especially in the ancient church, the local leadership. This issue at hand though is: In what sense is the Bible true here. Is it true in the sense that any relevant study of the same topic on which the Bible speaks can give us insight into that topic and thus into the text? If the Bible talks about conversion and modern scientists talk about conversion should I piece both together? On a side note, many sociologists aren’t scientists. For evidence read their books.

Another more obvious example is the evolution/age of the earth debate. Full disclosure, I find the debate in its present form so logically simple to solve and so obviously rhetorically misguided that I’m literally confused and have been since my teenage years about why it continues. I’m merely using this as an example:

1. You study Genesis and come up with what it apparently teaches about God, ancient Israel, and the relationship between God, humanity, and the realms of earth.
2. You read ancient literature that gives inflated time periods for ancient dynasties and think that perhaps the Biblical text is using a similar device, but the genealogies in Genesis aren’t about dynasties so you decide on a mathematical reading of the numbers. 
3. You read the relevant science on the age of the earth and realize that your literal reading of the genealogies is contrary to the time line of the earth’s age. 
4. Now the question is: was the Bible meant to teach the age of the earth? If so, then this scientific data points to the more accurate reading of Scripture (the ages are a literary conceit). But if it was inspired precisely to teach something else (and the ages are just part of the story whose point, not necessarily details are true) and the mathematical reading of those texts is correct, then the Bible, in a certain sense, is wrong about the timeline created. But, it could be that it is only wrong in the trivial sense that parables are “wrong” for not happening.

This problem comes up again with certain questions of self-regulation in the Christian life. The Bible gives us a great deal information about what Jesus taught and what his closest friends and associates thought that meant for the church. This is revealed data about the priorities of the moral life. So, if the Bible, in some places, is about the moral life and Stoic texts are about the moral life how do they relate?

1. Some New Testament scholars see stoic influence all over Paul’s letters (Engberg-Petersen). In this sense, studying ancient stoicism helps us see what Paul means because they shared the same conceptual frame.
2. But, supposing Paul did not utilize their framework, they still both wrote about what it means to lead a moral life. In this sense, if a stoic insight is clearly true and the Christian finds it to not contradict Paul’s teachings, shouldn’t he begin to practice it? And again, could it, because it is true data about a topic on which Scripture teaches, offer insight into what Scripture means?
3. The same goes for the transcendentals. Those are categories independent of Scripture. But they seem like broad enough categories that A) Scripture could give insight into what they ultimately mean and B) they could give a framework for understanding parts of Scripture.

A non-Biblical example might be asking whether or not modern studies in physics can give us insight into the text of Aristotle’s Physics. I think modern physics and Aristotle’s Physics both give us insight into nature (though Aristotle is wrong so often). But I’m not sure that reading his physics does much for our grasp of gravity, though it might tell us how cause and effect, as principles, exist in a physical system. Thus, it seems that modern physics won’t help us understand Aristotle’s text. But, Aristotle doesn’t claim inspiration. Thus, in that respect, the reader isn’t obligated to find the truth, in some sense, in Aristotle. Modern cognitive psychology though, could give us insight into what Aristotle was getting at in his Ethics. Both fields are about habits and maybe, for somebody without Aristotle’s keen grasp of human nature, reading a few recent studies on habits could give insight into this or that aspect of Aristotle’s work on habits that remained difficult even after attempts at exegeting the text.

 

Conclusion

There isn’t much of a conclusion here. I have a position on this topic but I don’t care to express it until I find a more satisfactory way of stating it. I’m bringing this up because several books I’ve read have touched on it: Who were the Israelites and Where did they Come From by William Dever, The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, Scholastic Metaphysics by Edward Feser,  Foundations of Soul Care by Eric Johnson, On Christian Doctrine by St. Augustine and The Deliverance of God by Douglas Campbell. All of these authors, in one way or another, deal with whether or not the Bible corresponds with reality. The questions in Biblical studies, at least for the Christian are,

1. What did the text mean when it was written and is that true in a significant way for the church today?
2. Should data from outside of my direct field of inquiry assist me in determining the meaning of the text?
3. If so, how? For Catholics this might be easy. The Bible could completely contradict your system and you could just claim, “Doctrinal development led us beyond the text.” Doesn’t make the claim right, but the psychological difficulty would be dealt with.

 

If you want to read the whole list, find it here.

I just wanted to comment on his list because part of blogging is forcing yourself to write and part putting your thoughts upon the internet so that other people can ignore them.

Ephesians by Markus Barth. Barth was an outstanding lecturer in Basel. He was even a greater writer. Just read what he has to say about marriage in Ephesians 5 and see if you don’t agree.

The Subversive Kingdom by Jacque Ellul. We manifest true kingdom living when we experience the perfect love of God toward us and then manifest that love toward others. If you share this vision of the kingdom, will you join me in praying for the church in North America that God will awaken us to the political delusion that has descended upon us?

Christian Anarchy by Vernard Eller. I’ve summarize this outstanding work in my book Christian Archy.

These three don’t surprise me at all.

 

Greek Words with Hebrew Meanings by David Hill. A follow-up to Barr’s tome on semantics. It completely changed the way I viewed New Testament lexicography.

I hadn’t even heard of this. It looks good but these days it’s a bit pricey.

The Synoptic Problem by William Farmer. Bill and I shared similar views about the historical origins of the Gospels. His was the first book to get me to rethink Markan Priority.

I read this after reading Black’s book Why Four Gospels.  It’s pretty good. I’m not sure if its convincing. Part of me wants to just say, “The external evidence all favors Matthew’s gospel being first. Let’s just go with that.” Another part of me says, “It’s really hard to know for sure and so many assumptions utilized in examining the synoptic problem are themselves open to debate or accepted for no reason whatever. Why bother?”

Church Dogmatics by Karl Barth. I read all of these volumes, in German, when I was studying in Switzerland. Barth’s theology may be off in places, but his exegesis of specific New Testament texts is often impeccable.

Dr. Black told me this in person when we talked about learning German. I’ve been reading it in English lately. I’ve got a ways to go.

The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis. This book plays “the Devil’s advocate” as none other. We all have “distractions” that would keep us from following Jesus wholeheartedly. The problem is that we are usually unaware of them. This book will help us.

At first, this book shocked me. But then I realized that any book about the Christian life is thus about the New Testament. So, yeah, this makes sense.
Here’s my list of 5 books on the New Testament that have most influenced me:

1. The New Testament and the People of God by N.T. Wright. This book is very important for any newcomer to studying the New Testament precisely because it gives a big picture view that includes a forward view to applying the text of the New Testament to the lives of believers. 
2. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity by David Wenham. This book really goes far in showing the connections between Paul’s letters and the traditions of the gospels. I have found it to be immensely helpful.
3. Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson. I don’t know that I can agree all of his conclusions, but in general Robinson is a model of sleuthing the assumptions that held the day in New Testament scholarship in his day. He even references Sherlock Holmes in the first few pages.
4. On Christian Doctrine by Saint Augustine. The beauty of this is found early on when he notes that the main point of interpreting Scripture is so that the truth about God leads people on to love God and their neighbor. Then he goes into the technicalities of Biblical interpretation.
5. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity by David DeSilva. He shows what ancient culture was like and how the Bible fits into it. What more could you want?

Runner up: The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight. The content of the four gospels is essentially what the apostles would have identified as the gospel message. The gospel isn’t just the atonement, it isn’t a trip from guilt to forgiveness, it isn’t a call to transform culture, etc. Good stuff.

So, I’ve always wanted a garage and due to some Deus Ex Machina in the history of my life, a local microbiologist with whom I am acquainted found work doing coral reef research in a far away land. So, my wife and I were offered the house for rent at a ridiculously low fee, probably lower than anything even remotely this size in town. In fact, apartment prices have been driven up very high since we moved out of the rather modestly sized apartment. If we were to get the next size down from our old apartment, it would be $100 dollars more than our previous place. This might sound cheap to some, but with local economics in mind, it’s exorbitant. I wonder if the oil field has driven up rental prices? Anyhow, back to the post. We live in the house and it has a garage (it also came with my friend’s children’s dog because it couldn’t go with them). The sad thing about this is that it was filled with a great deal of his things. He told me I could use all of it, and that with the exception of a select few items that, if upon inspection something turned out to be worthless, it could be throw away (they had to move suddenly).

But, my garage has been a mess for quite some time. I’ve always wanted a garage (I lift weights, enjoy hitting a punching bag, I enjoy building stuff, I like having a place to sit in the shade outside when it’s too hot, etc).

But, one of my dear friends has a garage. He cleaned it up, turned it into a place to roast gourmet coffee, he has his weight equipment inside, it’s organized, not covered in dust or filth, in short it is a model garage. As I looked at it, I thought to myself, “Geoff, why aren’t you enjoying your garage? You always wished for a garage. Your wish came true. You have one of the top seven things you’ve ever wanted. You should fix it up.” So, I mostly did. Some of it is beyond my skill to repair. The foundation is literally broken and spreading apart. That’s actually where all the dust comes from as the concrete atomizes it creates a nice film of nightmare death powder for asthmatics.

Now I have a space to do dead lift, room to move around my heavy bag and dodge the uneven ground to practice foot work or pain tolerance for stubbed toes. I have the main light switch accessible and I found another light switch (ha!). I built a stand so my wife can do dead lift because the 25 pound plates have a radius that is too small for comfortable warming up. I swept out most of the concrete detritus, I moved a giant work bench to a more useable location, I got a stool for said work bench, put in a fan, and have organizes many of the tools.

So, I’ve been keeping up with the Joneses because they reminded me to keep up with my own goals. There is certainly a healthy place for feeling ashamed of yourself in life. This was one of those times. Paul even notes that “shame/grief according to God (2 Corinthians 7:9-11)” is a kind of grief that leads to positive change. Grief for public show or as a paralyzing feature may range from being a serious moral flaw to a psychological problem for which you should seek help. But if feeling bad leads you to make a change for the better, it’s probably a good thing. Fixing my garage wasn’t a monumental life change, but it was important for the schedule my wife and I will be keeping next school year. I’ll be taking 14 hours of engineering courses and more in the spring while teaching five classes M-W-F. We’ll need to train in the garage rather than the gym. I’ll also need to find things to do besides books. The garage will be the perfect place.

Brief Moralistic Appendix:

Don’t keep up with the Jonses if it has no benefit to you. Just admit to yourself and others that you don’t care what they have. I was literally internally ashamed of my laziness with regards to a pretty major advantage I have (a garage). Don’t buy a boat because Tom Jones has one. That’s stupid.