Let’s Go to Theology Class: Art and a Theology of Engagement

The following summary is from the fourth week of my new class—Theological Aesthetics—in pursuit of my master’s degree in theology at Colorado Christian University.

Given the centrality of art of some sort to most religious traditions, how can shared artistic practices and/or aesthetic experience furnish a worthwhile focal point for meaningful discussion, exchange, and mutual learning between different religious faith traditions?

Written by Steven Barto, B.S. Psy.

I have undertaken extensive collateral studies in Islam as a comparison to Christianity to best understand this second largest and fastest growing monotheistic religion. I also enjoy studying the history of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and the Middle East. I hope to publish on these topics in the future. I would love to be well-equipped to lecture or participate in debates on Christianity vs. Islam. The more we understand about our own theology and how others think about God, the better prepared we are to engage in apologetics and evangelism.

Islamic religious art is somewhat different than what we have seen in Christianity. Primarily, the Qur’an forbids depiction of the human form in any work of art, including God/Allah. Some Islamic scholars object to including any “worldly” elements in Islamic art. Islam is “younger” than Judaism and Christianity, with an art history of about 1,400 years. Calligraphy, mosaic, and architecture are its most frequently used art forms. Christian art is nearly antithetical to Islamic art. There is no shyness with Christian artists; they generously provide their interpretation of God, Jesus, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Great Flood, the Last Supper, and images regarding the Revelation to John on the Isle of Patmos.

I believe it is proper to express the doctrines of Christianity in works of art. Trevor Hart writes, “Where God and humanity finally dwell at-one, in other words, there will be culture as well as nature to be reckoned with and thus a fully human contribution offered from below as well as a decisive and determinative divine initiative from above” (1). The divine initiative is, at least in part, God’s bestowing gifts and ministries on His people, which include a multitude of art forms from paintings to frescos; from poetry to song. These works of art serve to memorialize God’s communication to us, and our understanding of the message. There is a caveat. How can we be sure to engage the arts “accurately” as part of a theological study or discussion about God? Hart is sensitive to this issue: “I am aware that this could easily be the point of departure for an entire systematic theology” (2) (italics mine). Grudem writes, “Systematic theology is any study that answers the question. ‘What does the whole Bible teach us today?’ about any given topic?” (3). This is why it is appropriate to apply hermeneutics to artwork that depicts church history, doctrine, the gospel, or the origin (the theory) of everything (4).

I believe art is an appropriate medium for unpacking the meaning of Scripture and how it applies to people’s lives. It is also an effective form of worship and adoration. I have used poetry and flash fiction to share many of my life’s lessons and how my faith provided a way out. Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper is rich in detail, including a beautiful ray of sunshine illuminating the Lord’s face. The accuracy of this painting lends a “hermeneutic” value. I prefer da Vinci’s painting over Michelangelo’s for this reason. Works of Christian art such as these are quite moving and can foster wonderful theological discussions. Islamic art can also provide the basis for meaningful dialog. For example, the Mihrab (prayer niche) (c. 1466) is a remarkably intricate mosaic illustration that could prompt unique conversation with a Muslim believer. This discussion could center on what the piece means, but it would also be informative to ask about Islam’s proscription of human figures in works of art. I would consider bringing up a possible correlation between Islam’s prohibition of artwork illustrating Allah with Jehovah’s warning to Moses: “You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live” (Exo. 33:20, NRSV); also, to Judaism’s fear of using vowels to spell Yahweh in case they “get it wrong,” using “YHWH” instead.

Hart says, “I believe the language of ‘creativity’ and creation is not only appropriate but actually rather important to lay claim to and deploy in theological talk about the arts and other relevant spheres of human action” (5). Viladesau believes religious art, especially the pictorial, can serve as theological texts in themselves (6). Such works of art can be a locus of traditions and embodiment of actual practice. In this manner, Christian artwork fills a correlational text for Christian theology as defined by Paul Tillich. This allows a glimpse of the history of Christian theology, but it can also provide opportunity for reflection on Christian values and ideals.

I love John Ruskin’s remark that great nations tell their “autobiographies” through their deeds, the written word, and in their art. Viladesau believes this is also true of religion. Viladesau explains that “logocentrism” had dominated the study of Christian theology for centuries, which Viladesau identifies as “preoccupation with the verbal and especially the written word” (7). Of course, we must remember that logos is the “Word” of God. In fact, the universe was “painted” by the Word (see Gen. 1:3-18; John 1:1-3). Sadly, as noted by Viladesau, we have entered a more contemporary era (some call it a post-Christian society) where the study of religion is deemed cultural or anthropological in nature (8). Examination of Christian art throughout the history of the church reveals the ideals, attitudes, practices, and emotions of believers in situ.

It is my opinion that religious art provides a unique glimpse into any given religious faith, and, as such, is appropriate for evaluation and for prompting dialog among believers in and between the various religions. It is critical that we always maintain proper hermeneutic valuation in determining the extent to which a work of art presents an accurate portrayal.

Responses from Fellow Classmates

Steven,

To undertake a responsible “hermeneutic” of a piece of art, what fundamental questions might you purpose be asked that might be applied to any artistic work?

Tiffany

My Response to Tiffany

Tiffany,

Thanks for your kind remark and for your follow-up questions. Professor Buchanan has a similar question regarding my suggestion that hermeneutics can be used to interpret works other than written (text, poetry, lyrics). First, I regarded part of our study over the last two weeks to include seeing “visual” art as “text.” This sounded strange to me at first. But after some collateral reading, I came to see this as a possible and worthwhile exercise. A. Vidu writes, “As a theory [hermeneutics] concern[s] itself with establishing principles for correct interpretation. Since the nineteenth century the scope of the discipline expanded beyond the interpretation of texts. Currently, hermeneutics analyzes the process of the creation and understanding of meaningful communication” (9). Subjectivity is such a vital part of interpretation that I believe some method of hermeneutics is indicated in evaluating the biblical accuracy of an illustration, including the reaction a work of art (esp. of a religious nature) triggers. In other words, interpretation is not limited to an author’s (or painter’s) intent. It’s not just about aesthetics; it is important that truth be communicated. If hermeneutics as it applies to the written word has an ontological function, can this investigation apply to an artist’s “artful” interpretation of Scripture?

Biblical hermeneutics is the essential form of hermeneutics as it applies to Christianity. It is concerned with canon and exegesis, for certain. It attempts to address preconception, bias, prejudice, individual personality, history as part of its analysis. The same can be said for how someone interprets paintings in the Sistine Chapel on Creation, the Life of Christ, the Life of Moses, Adam and Eve, and the like. I also believe Tillich’s correlation theology allows room for art and what the character of a spiritual situation or depiction is (see Viladesau, 1989, 154). Viladesau warns of limitations for “art as text and as revelatory word” (157). These limitations include, for example, the medium or materials, whether it is 2D or 3D, the sociological ramifications, era, culture, personal theological worldview, and so on.

I look forward to feedback from you, Prof. Buchanan, and anyone else regarding this interesting element of art as illustrated text, and how hermeneutics may (or may not) aid in accurate analysis of such works of art. Of course (not to muddy the conversation) maybe we’re speaking of a proper “exegetical” analysis of religious artwork instead? I look forward to both of these upcoming courses.

Blessings,

Steven Barto


(1) Trevor Hart, Making Good: Creation, Creativity, and Artistry (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014), 313.
(2) Hart, 313.
(3) Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 21.
(4) You may recall “The Theory of Everything” was Stephen Hawking’s doctoral thesis.
(5) Hart, 314.
(6) Richard Viladesau, Theology of the Arts (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1989), 123.
(7) Viladeeau, 125.
(8) Ibid., 126.
(9) A. Vidu, “Hermeneutics,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd. ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 378.

The Prodigal Son (God’s Reckless Love)

“And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet… for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to make merry” (Luke 15:21-22, 24, NRSV).

Written by Steven Barto, B.S., Psy.

IT’S NO SECRET THAT there are many ways to read, study, and interpret literature. Such investigation and analysis is called exegesis. It involves the careful historical, literary, and theological analysis of a text. Some call this “scholarly reading,” which I’ve learned to apply to my graduate studies in theology. Exegesis is described as reading in a way that ascertains the crux of a text; a type of “close reading,” deliberate, word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase, considering all the parts for a better understand of the text or verse as a whole.

There are three major approaches to exegesis: (1) the synchronic approach (meaning “within time” or “same time”), which can be considered a narrative-critical, social-scientific, or socio-rhetorical analysis; (3) the diachronic approach (meaning “across time,” focusing on origin and development and the “long view,” which is essentially an historical-critical analysis; and (3) the existential approach (something to be “engaged with,” looking at the reality beyond the text, “spiritual” truth beyond the “literal” truth). I will be using the existential method to analyze the story of the prodigal son. Please note this does not imply any connection to the philosophy of existentialism associated with Jean-Paul Sartre and Soren Kierkegaard. Rather, existential exegesis is theological and transformative; it is done in the context of a specific religious tradition or theological purpose.

The parable of the prodigal son is one of the most well-known stories of Jesus. Although many pastors, teachers, and biblical scholars refer to it as the story of the prodigal son, the word prodigal does not appear in the Bible. The son is best characterized as lost, emphasizing that all sinners are lost or alienated from God. To characterize him as “prodigal” casts too much emphasis on wayward lifestyle. If we limit our analysis of the prodigal son to his wanton worldly behavior, we will miss the point of the story. It is in fact more akin to the tale of the lost sheep. This story is meant to demonstrate that we  do not have to stay in our hopeless state. Moreover, it is an example of Scripture imitating life, in that it shows us what repentance means: turning away from sin and back toward the Father; doing a 180 as they call it.

Eugene Peterson puts the story of the prodigal son under the heading The Story of the Lost Son in his translation The Message. This parable shows the nature of repentance, and, more importantly, the joy and the willingness of God to welcome and restore all who return to Him. It shows us the riches of the gospel and its efficacy to overcome any form of sin. Matthew Henry draws a unique parallel between our heavenly Father and the prodigal’s earthy father. He says, “It is bad, and the beginning of worse, when men look upon God’s gifts as debts due to them” (1). Scripture tells us to not seek the wealth of this world. Jesus said, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:19-21).

Matthew Henry draws a parallel between the prodigal son and our First Parents. Their foolish ambition to be independent from the Father is at the bottom of every sinner persisting in sin and autonomy. The First Sin relates to man’s departure from God, toward a willful reliance on his own thoughts and valuations rather than ascribing to God’s. We see from the prodigal son that his desire to be free from his father led to a vile, hedonistic, slavish state of being. When we walk in the flesh (fulfilling its every desire) we become the devil’s servant. Walking according to fleshly desires and instincts invariably leads to a state of constant discontent. This is what it means to be a lost sheep, wandering the face of the earth in search of constant gratification, separated from God.

Exegetical Analysis

The parable of the prodigal son reveals two distinct issues: one literary, the other theological. From a literary perspective, the story revolves around two brothers: one younger, the other older. This does not indicate two separate stories, but two parts that compliment one another. Because of this focus on two brothers, it is helpful to analyze this parable from both an existential and historical/sociopolitical perspective. Historically, the “share of the estate” that the younger son would receive on the death of his father would be one-third. Culture during those times dictated that the older son would receive two-thirds, often referred to as a “double portion,” and the second son would receive the remaining one-third (see Deut. 21:17). When the property “was divided” in the story of the prodigal son, the older son was made aware of his share of the father’s assets prior to his father’s death. This was unusual in the prevailing society.

From a sociopolitical perspective, when the prodigal son asked for his portion of the inheritance, it’s as if he wished his father dead! New Testament scholar Kenneth Bailey (2), who spent over 15 years in the Middle East, asked a number of people there what it meant for a son to request his inheritance while the father was still alive and well. The answer was always the same: the son wanted his father dead. In that culture, a father was expected to have complete control over his property during his lifetime, so the request of the prodigal son was quite offensive. The father’s willingness to comply with his son’s request was generous beyond all expectations. In addition, the older son in such cases was typically expected to step in and help the father save face with anyone attacking his estate. This does not happen in the parable of the prodigal son; neither son lived up to what was expected.

The wasting of all the son had while “in a foreign land” is culturally understood as acting against the family, whose inheritance can be traced back to the promises of God to Abraham. The famine made employment and food quite hard to get. The “distant country” was likely outside strictly Jewish territory. It is no coincidence that the son also ended up with the demeaning job of feeding pigs—these are unclean animals for the Jews. He had fallen so low that “no one gave him anything,” which indicates a state of complete destitution and neglect.

From a theological perspective, it is important to note there were 100 sheep (15:4), 10 coins (15:8), and 2 sons. One is lost from each number. The sheep and coin were sought after diligently until they were recovered. However, the lost son was not sought after. He was personally responsible for his coming back home. His rebellion was deliberate and “of the heart,” meaning only a change of heart would suffice for his restoration. This is extremely important from a theological perspective. It is one thing to “know” in your head what is right and what is wrong, but it is a different matter to make a heart-felt decision to change one’s behavior, one’s path—to “do a 180” as I said earlier. This was quite true regarding my wandering in the wilderness for decades in active addiction, making choices that belied morality. I never considered this crucial element in the prodigal son’s restoration before now.

The lost son’s behavior is deemed “riotous living” (15:13). The Greek word is asotos, which translates “living ruinously.” It is properly interpreted as meaning “unsavedness” or, by implication, profligacy, suggesting excess or riot. It is from the root asôtia, referring to being “not savable; incorrigible, dissolute, beyond hope.” It also implies debauchery or drunkenness (see Eph. 5:18). Of course, theologically speaking, the lost son “came to himself” (Luke 15:17). His condition brought him to his senses and he realized how his riotous life would end. Further, he considered his current predicament as being worse than his father’s hired servants, who had bread enough to spare (15:17). He decided he would return to his father’s house and ask his forgiveness.

The prodigal son showed true repentance—confession of sin, genuine sorrow, and humility. The Greek word for repentance in this verse is metanoeo, meaning “to change one’s mind for the better” (see Luke 13:3). This is more than forsaking sin; it involves a complete change in one’s attitude and orientation toward all sinful behavior. In fact, it is this degree of repentance God expects from us as a condition for receiving His forgiveness and grace. The prodigal son demonstrated complete humility. He said, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son” (15:21). 

The motivation for the son’s return was hunger, but theologically it was to his “father” that he wanted to return; not to the dinner table. The words “against heaven” (15:21) can mean “to heaven,” indicating he believed his sins were so many as to reach the Heavenly Father—perhaps he believed his sins were ultimately against God. The Jews were aware of Yahweh’s “fatherly” love. Psalm 103:13 says, “As a father pities his children, so the LORD pities those who fear him.” The son knew he had no right to return “as a son.” He imagined saying to his father, “I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants” (15:19). In other words, he planned to earn his room and board when he returned home.

The Lost Has Been Found!

“When he was still a long way off, his father saw him. His heart pounding, he ran out, embraced him, and kissed him. The son started his speech: ‘Father, I have sinned against God, I’ve sinned before you; I don’t deserve to be called your son ever again.’ But the father wasn’t listening. He was calling to the servants, ‘Quick. Bring a clean set of clothes and dress him. Put the family ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Then get a grain-fed heifer and roast it. We’re going to feast! We’re going to have a wonderful time! My son is here—given up for dead and now alive! Given up for lost and now found! And they began to have a wonderful time” (15:20-24, MSG).

What does this parable tell us? We’ve looked at several specific words and phrases (lexical items), such as “loose living” (15:13), “came to himself” (15:17), and repentance (15:21; 13:3). Looking at these words and phrases as they appear in utterances, verses, stanzas, and the text as a whole, we see the “completeness” of this story. This great parable speaks of true repentance and the complete joy a father has for a penitent son. Jesus addressed the “murmurings” of the Pharisees early in the story, saying “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing” (15:4-5). He then drove the point home: “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (15:7).

The details in this story are vivid and moving. Further, they accurately reflect actual customs and legal procedures of the relevant time period. The older son is much like the Pharisees. He could not comprehend the meaning of true forgiveness. In fact, the viewpoints of the two sons are diametrically opposed. The lost son rises and returns; the older son turns and walks away from his father in disgust, falling in moral stature. The central figure, the father, remains constant in his unconditional love for both sons regardless of their behavior or their attitude. Jesus identifies himself with God in his loving attitude toward the lost. He represents God’s perspective during his entire ministry on earth. This parable is one of the greatest examples of God’s willingness to forgive and to accept the return of every lost son or daughter. 

Concluding Remarks

Who are you in this parable? Are you the lost son, a Pharisee, a servant? Are you the older son who was bitter and jealous over the father’s forgiveness and blessing of the younger son who repented and returned home? Are you able to rejoice when a lost sheep is found, or are you taken captive by a righteous indignation, saying, “Why do you lavish him so? He disrespected and disowned you! I’ve been here all along. Where is my adoration?”

Family dynamics is rather fascinating. Even in the family of an addict or alcoholic we can see various roles played out: the Scapegoat (the one blamed for every wrong and ill within the family, sometimes the addict); the Punisher (often a sibling who has “always been there” for the family, and who doles out “consequences” on the addict or protects the family from the addict); the Enabler (usually a member who covers for the addict, trying to smooth things over or restore peace and order in the family, giving him or her enough rope to maybe change one day); the Hero (usually a Type-A personality who is hard-working, overachieving, a perfectionist, who is trying to create a degree of normalcy in the family); the Masot (often the funny, outgoing, class clown of the family always trying to quell the stress of the situation by supplying humor); and the Lost Child (often the middle or youngest child, shy, withdrawn, usually hates confrontation, and has difficulty with establishing outside relationships).

The parable of the prodigal son provides a wealth of theological meaning and puts an historical and sociopolitical spin on the nature of family dynamics during the era when this story was told. It can serve as an in-depth analysis of dysfunctional families today, showing us how easily we can resent the success of others; acceptance of a rebellious, riotous son or daughter who is welcomed back into the fold; righteous indignation by others in the family when a wayward son or daughter returns. It is not easy to forgive others who have harmed us or our loved ones. Thankfully, the parable of the prodigal son can serve to broaden our horizons regarding true repentance, unconditional love, and forgiveness. This is, after all, the point of the gospel itself.

Footnotes

(1) Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1997), 962.

(2) Jirair Tashjian, “Inheritance Practices in the First Century,” The Voice, Christian Resource Institute (2018). URL: http://www.crivoice.org/inheritance.html

 

 

Let’s Go to Theology Class: Basic Tools of Doing Systematic Theology

The following is a summary of my most recent class in pursuit of my Master’s in Theology at Colorado Christian University.

Written by Steven Barto, B.S. Psy.

IT’S ONE THING TO pick up a book and read about theology. And that’s okay. It’s how I got interested in taking the subject on as a graduate student. It all starts with contemplation. We “think” about what it means to be alive, to have purpose. We wonder how we might make a difference in society. We question the “logic” of believing in God. Armed with such a burning desire to know, I enrolled in a master’s program in theology and started out on what so far has proved to be an amazing, breathtaking journey.

In week four of my theology class we considered the proper relationship between theological study, sanctification, contemplation, prayer, and action. Further, we discussed the type of character most conducive to theological insight, and how the systematic study of theology should impact one’s character. Generic “theological” study does not necessarily require any degree of sanctification. Many people choose to study theology or philosophy without any sense of what is meant by redemption or sanctification. These concepts are, however, imperative in Christian theology.

What is the proper relationship between theological study, sanctification, contemplation, prayer, and action?

I was amazed how little I understood about sanctification over the years. I thought it “just happened” when I “got saved.” Considering the decades of sinful behavior and active addiction I went through after accepting Christ (at age 13), I was far from sanctified. Of course, it does start with salvation. When we become redeemed, we are expected to “repent” of our old life. Then sanctification can begin. According to R.E.O. White, sanctification means “to make holy.” [1] It’s not uncommon for a new Christian to think this means he or she is made holy (shazam!) all at once. White further explains that to be sanctified is to be “set apart” from common or secular use.

First Corinthians 1:2 says we are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints. R.E.O. White writes that sanctification is not merely justification’s endgame; rather, it is justifying faith at work. The new believer is declared to be acquitted and clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Through sanctification, God begins to accomplish His will in us. This is often called becoming spiritually mature. We are not saved by good works, but there is little hope of sanctification without submitting to the will of God.

Thomas Aquinas says in the Summa Theologiae [2] that four of the gifts of the Spirit of the Lord are wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and counsel, and that these gifts have a direct impact on the intellect. Isaiah 11:2 says. “And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD” (RSV). David Jeremiah explains that the coming king “will be endowed with the Spirit of the Lord, who provides the wisdom, ability, and allegiance to God that are necessary to accomplish a challenging task.” [3] Proverbs 2:6 says, “For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” James reminds us that if we lack wisdom in any circumstance, we are to ask God and He will give it (James 1:5). Thomas Aquinas said any discourse of reason always begins from an understanding. It is critical, therefore, that we never attempt theology while lacking understanding. Although the work of the Spirit is already completed relative to the compiling of Scripture, His work regarding “illumination” is ongoing.

Prayer is the means by which we gain access to God. Just as we speak to the Father, and call upon Jesus, we must request from the Holy Spirit the guidance, understanding, knowledge, illumination, and discernment needed to effectively and accurately undertake systematic theology. It is equally important to pray for guidance regarding God’s call on our lives. When I decided to change my major from the master’s in counseling program to the master’s in theology, I spent weeks in prayer. I consulted with my pastor, several lay ministry friends, family members, my CCU student advisor, two professors, and several elders at my church. I cannot fathom undertaking a systematic study of Christian theology without prayer.

What type of character is most conducive to theological insight, and how should it change as the result of undertaking theological study?

In any theological undertaking, one would expect there to be a change of character. I think of Nabeel Qureshi (1983-2017), author, speaker, lecturer, and apologist, who converted to Christianity from Islam after spending nearly two years conducting an exegetical study of the Holy Bible. His character, if you will, was that of a loving, dedicated, well-behaved young man who had been raised in a religious home. In fact, no one in his immediate or extended family were extremists or jihadists. He loved the Qur’an, Allah, and his messenger Muhammad. This “character” coupled with a sharp intellect likely contributed to his willingness to examine the theology of Islam, and, ultimately, compare it to Christianity.

Tradition injects a lot into character, and, when that character matures, one becomes curious about tradition, religion, politics, culture, the meaning of life, and so on. Qureshi said one of the greatest hardships he faced was having to inform his parents he had become a Christian. He was, after all, part of a “community of believers” that were bonded together by solid theological principles and deep-seated tradition. He believed in Islam. He revered Muhammad. Regardless, once he met Jesus Christ, he could no longer reject Him than he could make himself stop breathing. This is precisely the type of character it requires to begin a theological study.

Insight comes from honest, rigorous, open-minded, and thorough study. We’ve been told that theology is in its simplest form “the study of God.” For me, the desire to know God stems from my burning desire to know why my earthly father seemed to hate me so much and, more frighteningly, whether my Heavenly Father was as mean-spirited, vindictive, nasty, judging, and punishing. (Incidentally, I eventually learned that my dad did not hate me, and he did the best he could to keep me from running off the rails and into the gutter.)

If God were to be “the same as” my dad, I would have no time for Him. Regardless, somewhere deep inside, I wanted to know several things. First, exactly who or what was this Christian God I’d heard of at church? Second, was He authoritative—leading from a position of authority and strength, love and longsuffering—or authoritarian—ruling over everyone with a heavenly despotic fist, ready to accuse and condemn? Third, was it true, as my father said many times, that I was worthless, or was there hope that my life had some greater meaning?

As to what type of character should result from theological study, Trevor Hart said, “Faith is not a natural progression from knowledge or experiences available to all, but results from a special dispensation which sets us in the perspective from which the truth may be seen, and demands a response” [4] [italics mine]. In other words, deciding to systematically study Christian theology is both a soulful drive or ambition and a rigorous discipline. I have gone through numerous personal changes as an undergraduate student of psychology at Colorado Christian University. I believe those changes set the stage for my choosing to take on a master’s level study of theology. There is a progression at play. Had I not first chosen to return to college, I would not have discovered CCU; had I not enrolled at CCU, I would not be the Christian I am today; and, had I not grown more mature in Christ as an undergraduate, I would not have undergone the requisite changes conducive to undertaking a master’s degree in theology.

This is the fourth week of my first theology class, and already I feel tectonic shifts within me. My personality has brightened, and my mind has cleared. I am ravenous for information about theology, Christology, eschatology, and apologetics. I see people as God sees them, and I’ve begun to feel a heartache for those who will never see the truth about the life, love, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have started to keep my promises more consistently than I used to, and I exercise greater control over my tongue (which was no easy task!). I even noticed a major change in the amount of television I watch. All of that notwithstanding, I find myself asking God every morning to put a task before me; to lead me where He needs me to go; to break my heart for what breaks His.

Footnotes

[1] R.E.O. White. “Sanctification.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 770

[2] Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, I.II, q. 68, a1

[3] David Jeremiah. The Jeremiah Study Bible. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2013), 893-94.

[4] Trevor Hart. Faith Thinking. (Eugene:Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1995), 75.

 

 

A Quick Study in Biblical Exegesis

By Steven Barto, B.S. Psych.

WHAT IS EXEGESIS?

Whether you have picked up the Holy Bible for the first time, you’re a college student studying biblical interpretation or theology, or have been reading Scripture since early childhood, there will be passages you think you understand but which your pastor, instructors, classmates, fellow church members, or family members interpret quite differently. Such incidents occur when people read any kind of literature, but we become particularly aware of them when we read religious literature—i.e., writings that make claims regarding who we are, where we come from, where we go when we die, and whether our lives have any relevance in the whole scheme of existence.

Not to worry. Although there are many approaches to the Bible, there is also a decent amount of common ground among responsible readers of the Bible. As you can imagine, atheists tend to look for seeming contradictions and inconsistencies in Scripture in an attempt to defeat the claim that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Regardless, it is critical that we read, think about, and write about the Bible carefully and systematically. This can only be accomplished by sticking to common strategies. Exegesis can be useful for understanding an entire text—indeed, it is important to see the commonalities in a publication—but is typically applied to a smaller section such as a brief narrative, psalm, lament, prophetic utterance, speech, parable, vision, or chapter-length exposition. The technical term for this careful study and analysis of a biblical text or passage is exegesis, from the Greek verb exêgeisthai, meaning “to lead out.”

EXEGESIS AS INVESTIGATION

Exegesis may be defined as careful historical, literary, and theological analysis of a text. We could describe it as “scholarly reading” that ascertains the sense and vitality of the text through complete, systematic recording of the intrinsic meaning of the text. Exegesis requires “close reading,” which is a term quite familiar to students of literature. This exercise describes the deliberate word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase consideration of all the parts of a text in order to determine its overall meaning as a whole.

It is worth noting that many people over the decades have come to realize the goal of exegesis is to discover the biblical writer’s purpose or meaning in the original text. This is what scholars refer to as the “authorial intention,” which can be rather difficult to ascertain. Many biblical scholars believe this is not the only goal of exegesis. When I write an original poem, I am sometimes hard-pressed to determine where the idea and the words came from. Some writers have a hard time expressing their intentions for something someone else has written. It is even more difficult to understand the meaning behind the writings of another person from another time and culture. A more modest and appropriate goal would be to arrive at a credible and discernible understanding of the text on its own merits within its own context.

Exegesis is an investigation: An in-depth look at the many levels or composition of a particular text. To engage in exegesis is to ask historical questions about a text, including the situation or occasion. It also means asking literary questions of the text, such as what is its theological or philosophical aim? Furthermore, exegesis includes asking questions about the religious or theological dimensions of the text. Productive exegesis requires us not being afraid of difficult questions, such as “Why does this verse, phrase, or text seem to contradict that one?” Occasionally, exegesis leads to greater ambiguity rather than a clearer understanding. If you experience this, do not give up. Press on in prayer and meditation.

EXEGESIS AS CONVERSATION

Exegesis involves conversation as much as it does analysis and investigation. It is a dialog with readers (living and dead, more educated and less educated, absent and present). It’s a conversation about about texts and their inherent meaning; about sacred words and what they claim to be true—and what others who have analyzed them claim as their meaning. Beneficial exegesis entails listening to others, even others with whom we disagree. Dissent just might lead to a deeper conversation and a clearer answer. For the sake of universal understanding, exegesis simply cannot take place in a vacuum. It’s a process that needs to occur in the company of others through reading and discussing with them—carefully, critically, and creatively—about the text. Those who like to read and study in isolation would not be an ideal biblical exegete.

Many Christians read the Bible alone, which is perfectly fine. Especially when the object is devotional. I often spend time by myself with Scripture. I will find a collection of verses, for example, that teach who I am in Christ and pray and meditate on those passages. In addition, I like to read Eugene Peterson’s interpretation of Scripture, The Message. It is essentially a paraphrase of Scripture, and is an excellent version for reading the Bible in common language.

It is not wise, however, to attempt exegesis alone. Certainly, ministers, students and biblical scholars spend a lot of time examining Scripture prior to preparing for a paper, sermon, or lecture. They often do this in their private study or office. It is critical that whatever translation they use that they become well-prepared to have an ongoing conversation about the text they’ve consulted for their work. Accordingly, they need a proper exegetical method. In this instance, method should not be considered on equal terms with “scientific” or “historical” analysis. Good reading—just like good conversation—is an art more than a science.

Although there are certain principles that must be followed in order to properly read, analyze, and report on Scripture, exegesis is an art. An acquired skill. The key is learning what to look for, what questions to ask, and how to put your exegetical analysis together for public discourse. This can never be done with complete certainty or with only a “method” in mind. Instead, an exegete needs not only have principles, rules, hard work, and research skills, but also intuition, imagination, sensitivity, and the ability to listen for the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Exegesis is Investigation, Conversation, and Art

According to Michael J. Gorman (2009), good exegetical practice must involve understanding the unique setting (historical context) in which the text was produced and how it fits within the book or text being studied (literary context). We can understand a text only if we pay careful attention to both the whole and the parts (details)—like the proverbial forest as well as the trees. In addition, there are several options which can be applied to the work. Exegesis is typically a rather technical and challenging undertaking.

Interpreters of the Bible systematically use a number of general approaches and specific methods to help them engage with the text they are examining. Some of these methods are called criticisms. The use of the term criticism, as in redaction criticism, does not necessarily imply negative judgment; the primary meaning is analysis as it applies to the historical, literary, or theological value of a text.

The Synchronic Approach

One approach to exegesis is called synchronic (meaning “within time,” or “same time”). However, this method looks only at the final form of the text as it stands in the Bible. It is not concerned with the “long view” or “prehistory” of the text—including any oral traditions, earlier versions, or possible collateral sources. Instead, this approach uses methods designed to analyze the text itself and the text in relation to the world in which it first showed up as a text. This method is not unlike narrative-critical, social-scientific, and socio-rhetorical. To take a socio-rhetorical approach typically involves integrating the ways people use language in their everyday existence.

Types of Criticism in a Synchronic Approach

  • Literary Criticism—the quest to understand the text as literature by employing either traditional or more recent models of literary criticism that are employed in the study of literature generally; corollaries of literary criticism are genre and form analysis, the quests to classify a text as to its type
  • Narrative Criticism—as a subset of literary criticism, the quest to understand the formal and material features of narrative texts (stories) or other texts that have an implicit or underlying narrative within or behind them
  • Rhetorical  Criticism—the quest to understand the devices, strategies, and structures employed in the text to persuade and/or otherwise affect the reader, as well as the overall goals or effects of those rhetorical elements
  • Lexical, Grammatical, and Syntactical Analysis—the quest to understand words, idioms, grammatical forms, and the relationship among these items according to the norms of usage at the time the text was produced
  • Semantic or Discourse Analysis—the quest to understand the ways in which a text conveys meaning according to modern principles and theories of linguistics
  • Social-Scientific Criticism—the quest for the social identity, perceptions of the world, and cultural characteristics of the writers, readers/hearers, and communities suggested by the text; usually divided into two distinct sub-disciplines, social description and social-scientific analysis

It is worth noting that the above approach is often used in the study of literature as well as Scripture. Taking a synchronic approach to the text is quite similar to the technique used by literary critics analyze a poem or other short text. When explicating a poem, for example, they may consider the following features of it:

  • Genre and implied Situation—the type of literature the text is, and the life situation implied by the text
  • Intellectual Core—the topic and theme (the “slant”) of the text
  • Structure and Unity—the arrangement of the text
  • Literary Texture (e.g., poetic)—the details of the text
  • Artistry—the beauty of the text

Let’s look at an example from Scripture by taking a synchronic approach to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). An exegete might ask questions such as the following:

  • What are the various sections of the Sermon, and how do they fit together to make a literary whole?
  • What does the narrator of this Gospel communicate by indicating the setting of the Sermon, the composition of the audience before and after the Sermon, and the audience’s reaction to it?
  • What is the function of the Sermon in the Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus and of discipleship?
  • How would a first-century reader/hearer understand and be affected by this Sermon?

The Diachronic Approach (The Historical-Critical Method)

The second approach to exegesis is the diachronic (meaning “across time”) approach, and it focuses on the origin and development of a text, employing methods designed to uncover these aspects of it. It takes the “long view” of a text and may be considered a longitudinal perspective. This approach is often referred to as the historical-critical method, and it was the approach of choice by many, if not most, biblical scholars of the twentieth century.

Types of Criticism in a Diachronic Approach

  • Textual Criticism—the quest for the original wording of the text and the ways later scribes might have altered it
  • Historical Linguistics—the quest to understand words, idioms, grammatical forms, and the relationships among these items, often with attention to their historical development within a language
  • Form Criticism—the quest for the original type of oral or written tradition reflected in the text, and for the sort of situation in the life of Israel or the early church out of which such a tradition might have developed
  • Tradition Criticism—the quest for understanding the growth of a tradition over time from its original form to its incorporation in the final text
  • Source Criticism—the quest for the written sources used in the text
  • Redaction Criticism—the quest for perceiving the ways in which the final author of the text purposefully adopted and adapted sources
  • Historical Criticism—the quest for the events that surrounded the production of the text, including the purported events narrated by the text itself

A diachronic analysis of the Sermon on the Mount, for example, might involve the exegete asking the following questions:

  • What written or oral sources did the evangelist (writer of the gospel) adopt, adapt, and combine to compose this “Sermon?”
  • What are the various components of the Sermon (beatitudes, prayers, parables, pithy sayings, etc.), and what is their origin and development in Jewish tradition, the career of the earthly Jesus, and/or the life of the early church?
  • What does the evangelist’s use of sources reveal about his theological interests?
  • To what degree do these teachings represent the words or ideas of the historical Jesus?

It is very important when studying biblical texts that we consider not only our own preconceptions, biases, and presuppositions, but also those of the writer of the original text or sources used. For example, there are practitioners who deny the current operation of miracles or the role of the Holy Spirit. These individuals are called cessationists. They believe that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing ended with the last apostle. Consequently, they also do not support a modern-day office of apostle. I do not support this conclusion.

Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Eugene Peterson, in his translation The Message, puts it this way: “For Jesus doesn’t change—yesterday, today, tomorrow, he’s totally himself.” How can we limit Jesus to certain “dispensations” relative to the works of the Holy Spirit, especially in isolated or developing countries where the Gospel has yet to be preached? Besides, in John 14:12-14 Jesus says, “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (NIV).

The Existential Approach

There is a third approach that is often applied when practicing exegesis, but it does not seem to have an official or commonly used name. Michael J. Gorman (2009) says this method could be labeled existential. It seems this technique is often criticized. This is true for a number of reasons.

Those who support the existential approach to reading Scripture are predisposed to see the subject text as something to be engaged with. Existential methods are therefore considered “instrumental.” They see the text as a vehicle; a means to an end as opposed to an end it itself. For them, perhaps it is a springboard. The existential approach by its very nature will include elements grounded in a reality beyond the text itself. In other words, metaphysical. With this approach, the text “bears witness” to the subject matter. This “something beyond” may be a set of relations among people, such as a “spiritual” truth beyond the “literal.” I believe this approach may also be categorized as theological or transformative. Remember the precept that God’s Word is alive and is power unto personal or psychic change.

The existential (theological or transformative) approach is by nature self-involving. Exegetes using this method do not see the text as a historical or literary artifact to be examined, but as something to engage with—as something that could or should affect their lives. The text is taken seriously with respect to present-day experience, as it impacts the individual and the community. We see this with the Word of God, which has the potential to create a new self and a new community. It is, therefore, both personal and corporate.

Types of Criticism in an Existential Approach

  • Theological exegesis, missional interpretation, and spiritual reading—exegesis is done in the context of a specific religious tradition and or religious purposes
  • Canonical criticism—exegesis is done in the context of the Bible as a whole
  • Embodiment or actualization—exegesis is done in the context of attempting to appropriate and embody the text in the world.
  • Ideological criticism (including post-colonial criticism), advocacy criticism, and liberationist exegesis—exegesis is done in the context of the struggle against unequal power relations and injustice and for justice or liberation

Interestingly, the existential approach is subjective and leaves a lot open to personal interpretation. This can be both good and bad. The existential approach has been with us in Western civilization since the Enlightenment. Enlightened individuals tend to equate knowledge and education with the procurement of truth. This rather ethereal approach to acquiring knowledge is often limiting as it involves an individual’s ability to apply collective values and intuition to understand others and the world around them. Existential methodology features metacognition, which is the act of thinking about what it is you’re thinking about. The upside is people well-versed in this approach are able to see “the big picture,” and are less likely to get lost in the minutiae.

An existential analysis of the Sermon on the Mount might involve asking the following questions:

  • To what kind of modern-day faith and practice does the Sermon call contemporary readers?
  • How might the text about “turning the other cheek” be a potential source of difficulty or even oppression for the politically or socially downtrodden?
  • Does love of enemies rule out the use of resistance or violence in every instance? What does it mean practically to embody the teachings about non-violence in the Sermon?
  • What spiritual practices are necessary for individuals and churches to live the message of the Sermon in the contemporary (albeit pluralistic, self-centered, reactionary) world?

Scholars who approach a text in this way use diverse methods and have a wide variety of goals or agendas. Both diachronic and synchronic methods can be appropriated, and others may be introduced as well. Practitioners  of existential exegesis judge the adequacy of a specific method on the basis of its ability to assist in achieving the overall goal of exegesis. This goal may be described as something rather fundamental, such as conversion or spiritual maturity, or for something more specific, such as a personal encounter with God.

EXEGESIS VERSUS HERMENEUTICS

Making sense of Scripture is an arduous and sometimes confusing undertaking. Some scholars describe exegesis and hermeneutics as “How to read the Bible for all it’s worth.” There is an appreciable difference between explaining what the Bible says and agreeing what it means by what it says. It seems many in the church today tend to argue over how the Bible should control or impact their lifestyle, if at all. This is in part why each individual who approaches interpretation of Scripture will bring a great deal of subjectivity to the exercise. If you study Scripture intent on finding loopholes to justify how you’re living or what you’re believing, you will likely end up confused, indecisive, and (unfortunately) miserable.

The difference between exegesis and hermeneutics is not as sharp as you might think. It could be said they are two sides of the same coin.

Exegesis is the interpretation of a text by way of critical analysis of its content in order to clarify its true meaning. The main goal in exegesis is to uncover the original intended meaning of a given text through careful, systematic study. When we undertake examination of biblical texts in accordance with exegesis, we are examining the text in order to decode the original meaning and determine how it applies to a current situation. Exegesis, by its nature, includes reaching back into history.

Hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods used to interpret religious texts and philosophical works. Its main goal is to determine the contemporary relevance of such ancient writings. Specific to the Bible, hermeneutics looks for ways that Scripture applies to the “here and now.” In 1764 French philosopher  Voltaire wrote, “The Bible. That is what fools have written, what imbeciles commend, what rogues teach, and young children are made to learn by heart.” Numerous skeptics of Christianity have attacked the names, dates, events and conclusions in the Bible, often proclaiming that Scripture is riddled with errors. For example, people who accept Darwinian evolution ridicule the claim of Creation as a leftover fantasy from the age of barbarians and illiterates. These early scholars believed that science would ultimately provide concrete answers about the origin of life and the universe. We’re still waiting for that to happen.

Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Jr. (2017) discuss how presupposition can skew what we seek and how we interpret. They write, “We are convinced that the goal of hermeneutics is to enable interpreters to arrive at the meaning of the text that the biblical writers or editors intended their readers to understand” (p. 224). Of course, most Christians hold the presupposition that God’s Word is eternal and will always be relevant. It is inspired and alive, having relevance beyond its original circumstance or intention. It is a living text.

It seems appropriate to take a moment to accept and engage with the fact of presupposition. Here are a few critical elements presupposition that needs to be faced:

  • Admit that you have presuppositions
  • Identify those presuppositions that you bring to the task
  • Evaluate or assess your presuppositions
  • Embrace those presuppositions you believe to be valid
  • Take steps to discard those presuppositions you deem invalid

CONCLUDING REMARKS

If we are going to explain, interpret, or translate Scripture in a manner that preserves its meaning and power, we have to move from mere “rules” for decoding texts to a more far-reaching understanding of how to understand Scripture. It also must include admitting our own presuppositions, biases, and preconceived notions, which may or may not be true. It is important to rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate Scripture. The Spirit will (i) convince us that the Bible is accurate and true, (ii) instill in us an ability to possess rather than merely comprehend the meaning, and (iii) eventually lead us to conviction in our hearts that enable us to fully embrace and live within its meaning.

References

Gorman, M. (2009). Elements of Biblical Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Klein, W., Blomberg, C. and Hubbard, Jr., R. (2017). Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

 

 

 

 

 

A Light in Darkness: A Christian Response to Moral Relativism

Which Way America

AMERICA IS IN A DARK season. The news is chock full of stories about murders, mass shootings, racial unrest, sexual immorality, genocide, terrorist threats, rampant drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide. This is the backdrop against which biblical principles are being challenged and pushed aside in a modern culture of pluralism and so-called open-mindedness. Atheists today have taken on a militant posture. No longer content with merely not believing in God as a personal choice, they have taken to calling Christians delusional, stupid, crazy, elitist, bigoted, gullible, narrow-minded. Richard Dawkins—author of The God Delusion—says, “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.” Christopher Hitchens said parents “forcing” their Christian faith on their children is nothing short of child abuse. He compares belief in an all-powerful deity to believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Karl Marx said, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.”

Gallup on American Opinions on Moral Acceptability

News stories on the networks and in newspapers show a growing moral and social crisis in America today. Our nation has been taking a position against God in landmark cases for the last five decades: teacher-led prayer was forbidden in public schools (1962); Roe v. Wade sanctioned abortion on demand all throughout America (1973); display of the Ten Commandments was forbidden on publicly-owned property (2005); Obergefell v. Hodges sanctioned same-sex marriage (2015), and today the debate over gender identity issues are in full swing. Ask Americans about their personal views on moral issues, and they are more likely than ever to hold a liberal position. Ask them specifically about morality in America, and you will see they are becoming more pessimistic with each passing year. A recent Gallup poll found a widening embrace for numerous moral issues, including record-high acceptance for gay relationships, divorce, pornography, polygamy, and physician-assisted suicide.

CHRISTIAN MORALITY

Christian morality used to be something people were afraid to violate. In May 2017, Gallup and LifeWay Research released polls indicating 4 out of 5 Americans are worried about the moral state of our country. One poll shows 77 percent believe the country’s values are getting worse—the highest level since Gallup started tracking this topic in 2002. Historically, social conservatives, including evangelicals and other people of faith, have been the most negative about American morality; raising concerns about the liberal shift on issues involving family, sexuality, and sanctity of life. Democrats and Republicans look at the issue of morality differently—liberals and moderates are concerned over declining moral values, but, their focus is on the growing lack of respect or tolerance for others. They are also worried about the lack of proper parenting, which many believe to be at the root of this moral downturn.

“Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.”

Some believers, me included, feel the reason morality is failing is because far too many laws regulating moral behavior have been repealed. A great deal of Christian pastors, apologists, evangelists, and writers have taken heed to the falling numbers, but decades of pitting “Christian worldview” against “moral relativism” has caused the forming of habits that are rather hard to break. For example, many Christians assume the reason for rampant immorality in our culture is due to people rejecting the idea of absolute right and wrong. Many believers think discussions over morals are likely to end with, “Well, you have your truth, and I have mine. Let’s just agree to disagree.” I believe disputes over morality in America are stronger today than they’ve ever been. But if we view these disputes through the lens of “moral relativism,” our understanding of today’s culture will suffer—our Christian witness will be severely blunted.

DO BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES SHAPE YOUR VALUES?

The apostle Paul says, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). Certainly, this is not an easy task. Moreover, it is not necessarily helpful to “preach” down to those we disagree with given the heavy-handed presence of moral relativism in America. How can we apply a Christian worldview to social and political issues? In addition, how can we communicate biblical morality effectively in a secular society?

exegesis banner 2.png

First, it is important that we interpret Scripture correctly. Too often, Christians have expressed their sociological preferences on issues like homosexuality and abortion without proper biblical exegesis. The result is often a priori conclusions built upon the foundation of improper proof-texting. We should take a lesson from the apostle Paul’s direction that the first priority of Christians is to preach the Gospel. He refused to allow individual distinctions to hamper his effectiveness. In fact, he said, “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22, NIV). As believers, we must stand firm for biblical truth; however, we must recognize the spiritual needs of those with whom we vehemently disagree regarding lifestyle or moral convictions.

Second, Christians should carefully develop biblical principles which can be applied to contemporary social and medical issues. Too often Christians jump immediately from Scripture to political and social programs. Unfortunately, they sometimes neglect the important intermediate step of applying biblical principles germaine to a particular social or cultural situation. Foundational biblical precepts that undergird the law of God in the Old Testament are essentially values or social norms steeped in Jewish law and tradition. The Torah contains 613 commandments or precepts, which include “positive” and “negative” commands. Christians in the 21st century are not obligated to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses. This is the central message of Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Colossians. In fact, Colossians 2:14-15 tells us that on the cross, Jesus took away the requirements of law-keeping. Of course, there are laws in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that Christians are bound to, but this is not because they are in the Mosaic Law. Rather, as Christians we are bound to obey the command and example of Jesus. We are to tread gently, motivated by love, not hatred.

Love should characterize Christians, especially when the days are dark and filled with hate.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

We must look to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to determine the “rules” of Christianity. I am not saying that the laws of the Old Testament are meaningless. Not at all. Examples of what the Hebrews did and how God responded—blessings versus curses—are great lessons for us today. Paul writes, “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did… These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us…” (1 Corinthians 10:6, 11, NIV).

For the Christian, the current social crises are indeed troubling. But Jesus called us “the salt of the earth and the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13). In these dark days we need to respond as salt (i.e., godly preservative in a rapidly declining culture) and light (i.e., evangelists who shine brightly in a dark society). We need to cultivate a biblical perspective on the current social crises. And we need to respond as God’s people, with God’s perspective, regarding the events of these days.

Will we let our light shine in the midst of this dark season of uncertainty? Will we keep our focus and trust on Him as our sovereign King? Will we point others to Him as we allow our light to shine for Him? Or will we live in a manner that serves to detract others from Christ? We cannot forget that it is our joy and privilege to shine as lights in the darkness.