Two Extremes

There was an insightful comment by Stephen under Rachel Held Evans’ post, The problem of biblicism.  Stephen states the following:

“If one has to attend 3-4+ years of seminary and do a PhD, all the while being informally mentored by other evangelical academics, in order to put “biblicism” into practice, then it’s a failure. The continued protestations of inerrantist gatekeeping intellectuals only serves to show their elite intellectualist and doctrinal model of what Christianity most basically is: the production and consumption of complex and sanctioned evangelical theological discourse. This practically makes their version of Christianity unavailable to 97% of people since the requisite material, social, and economic conditions for participation in their model of Christianity are only available to a minority of people.”

I wonder: Why would God reveal his will for us using a book that contains the writings of historical periods, cultures, and languages that are different from our own?  Should it take a Ph.D. to understand the will of God—-especially when Ph.D.s and seminarians themselves disagree about what the Bible means?

I don’t want to go to the other extreme, though, the extreme that says “God revealed his will to common people, not to intellectuals, and so therefore I have the authority to beat you over the head with my interpretation of the Bible, even if there’s no scholarship backing it up, and you have to accept that as a ‘Thus saith the Lord’.”  Okay, I paraphrase!  I characterized some of that view accurately, and, near the end, I was giving my opinion as to where that position has led.  In any case, I’m uncomfortable with both extremes.

Blackout

There may be an Internet black-out tomorrow (among certain sites) in protest of two controversial pieces of federal legislation: SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act, or HR3261) in the House of Representatives, and PIPA (S968) in the Senate.  There is fear that these pieces of legislation, if enacted, could threaten freedom of speech on the Internet.  To learn about the case against SOPA and PIPA, see Craigslist’s article, and also the article and short video by WordPress.

Liberals and conservatives are on both sides of this issue.  As you can see here, Democrats Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein are on the same side (the “pro” side) as Republicans Lamar Alexander, Tom Coburn, and Ben Quayle.  On the side that is against these bills, you have Nancy Pelosi, Michele Bachmann, and Rand and Ron Paul.

Fortunately, the bills may be revised (see here), and President Obama has pledged to oppose any bill that will threaten free speech.  I may very well call my Senators and representative tomorrow, though, since there are powerful and wealthy interests that are supporting these bills.

This site lists the U.S. Senators with their office phone numbers.  And this site provides information on members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Concluding Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1

I finished Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.  I have two items:

1.  On pages 502-503, Roland Deines says that the Pharisees viewed themselves as sanctifiers of Israel, a remnant that, like leaven, leavens the entire dough.  They sought to show the nation the path of righteousness.  On page 501, Deines states large parts of the Jews saw the Pharisees as normative, legitimate, and authentic in their interpretation of God’s will, even if not all of these Jews strictly followed Pharisaic halakah. This is interesting—-that the Pharisees were not entirely exclusive, and that many Jews could respect yet not obey the Pharisees.

2.  E.P. Sanders argued that Second Temple and Tannaitic Judaism largely did not promote salvation by works, for they held that Jews entered the covenant by God’s grace, but that they stayed in God’s covenant by trying to obey and by availing themselves of the means of atonement when they failed.  But D.A. Carson does not think that such a formula precludes Second Temple Judaism from having a merit-based component, in areas.  After all, if Jews had to obey to stay in the covenant and to be saved, then that is a merit-based system of salvation.  Granted, not every Second Temple and Tannaitic voice was like that.  The Testament of Moses, which may date to the first century C.E., maintains that God’s election cannot be undone by disobedience (page 197).  Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 affirms that all Israel has a share in the World to Come.  But this volume demonstrates that there were Second Temple works that embraced a merit-based system of salvation.