As many of you know, we won't be having class this Sunday because quite a few of us will be at the Men's Retreat. But rather than skip a weekly post, I thought I'd share something with you anyway. We've been talking about and reading about "The Story" on Sundays and in our small groups. For those of you who don't know, The Story is a narrative version of the bible, told as one story from beginning to end. Even though we're just getting started, I know many if not all of you know who is at the center of The Story: Christ. Our tradition recognizes 66 books in the bible, 27 in the New Testament and 39 in the Old Testament. However, Christ's life and teachings are covered in depth in only four books, the Gospels (I realize he's mentioned in others, but stick with me here). So given that the essence of The Story, the main event, the lead character really only gets His day in four books, shouldn't we put a greater emphasis on those books? In fact, without dismissing their value to the story, do we really even need to know the other 62 books in any depth? Finally, what if I decided that from now on I was going to base my entire faith on only the teachings of Christ as expressed in the four Gospels? When confronted with questions about life or theology I'm only going to refer to the Gospels for guidance and ask, "What Did Jesus Say?" Who's with me?
Comment from Dave V.-
ReplyDelete"My comment was that if your are that much in love with the Lord, how could you ignore the rest of his story?
Jesus spoke in confusing parables and constantly referred to the O.T. with the question, "Have you not read?" I think it is definitely a prerequisite for the Gospels.
I think it's important to know the history behind something in order to appreciate it's full value. While we can appreciate the lights in our homes, we really can appreciate it more by knowing how many people worked to create the first light bulb(Davy,
ReplyDeleteSwan, Edison)and all their trials and errors in getting power to our homes. Just as the story of Jesus is the best light of the bible, we can appreciate the story more when we know that the promise God made was brought down through generations of people and their stories. His constancy and unfailing love can be seen throughout the bible in His dealings with the people. We can also see real people in real situations that still gave God the glory no matter what they were going through. So, in answering your question, I think the books compliment one another to help build the whole story and our part in it as well. Just my thoughts...
If we were to put the Bible on a plot curve (something we do in literature), you would have an enormously long exposition (setting of the stage), that being the Old Testament; a relatively short run of conflict, rising action, climax, (the part of the story that is usually most engaging)- Gospels; and then a relatively long falling action and resolution. Although this is not a typical format, many great authors fiddle with the fundamentals of plot to create a unique story.
ReplyDeleteConsider Cormac McCarthy's novel "The Road". If, off the top of my head, I were to graph the plot; it would be entirely build on conflict and rising action. Just as the reader approaches the climax... "The End". A frustrating novel to say the least, but it also won the Pulitzer Prize and is currently being converted into a major motion picture. People like its uniqueness. But, I've digressed...
Back to your question, I believe the value of the other 62 books of the Bible is context. They answer the "how did we get here", the "who else has tried this", the "what the heck do we do next" types of questions, I think. If you were to focus entirely on the Gospels, you would have little more than and in depth study of Christian theory through narrative. It lacks a history or an applied practice section, much like McCarthy's novel lacks exposition, falling action or resolution. For a piece of fiction, this frustration is acceptable, yet as the foundation of a philosophical belief system, it's not. As a student of history and a professional of practice, I truly believe the gospel would become irrelevant in the absence of the other 62 books, because that’s what happens to theory on its own. History is substance, theory gives inspiration, and application lends pragmatism. These are fundamental aspects of belief system, the absence of any one is a failure to the whole.
But back to lighter thoughts and literature. I believe the Bible to be an anthology more than one expansive narrative. Any part can be enjoyed individually, but together they become profound. Take, for example, Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." Each book has it's individual value and many argue as to which one is best; but together there is little argument, they're epic. Many say that "The Hobbit" is unnecessarily added to the set; a child's story amongst it nobler peers. Yet, "The Hobbit" offers historical context to some pretty fundamental elements of the "The Lord of the Rings". Furthermore, if your crazy enough to read "The Silmarillion", another prelude to "The Lord of the Rings", you finally have perspective. The Silmarillion, like much of the Old Testament, is archaic and difficult to follow; yet it is also why Tolkien is so revered in our society, he's a genius. Am I digressing again??
In retrospect, I'm not sure if this line of reasoning really shed any light, whether it helps or hinders ... thanks for letting me think.
Now you guys are really getting me pumped up!!! So I guess the key is to say that I'm not having class, and then people actually feel like commenting :)
ReplyDeleteWhat about a response that says: "Ok, I get that it makes a better story, but does it make a difference. Most believers love Christ without knowing much about the O.T.; they can enjoy the glow of an light bulb without knowing Edison's story, and can love "The Lord of the Rings" without having ever read the Silmarillion." Does it make a difference?
As for my comment... does anyone see anything biblical about Frodo...besides me?
Thanks a million for the comments, it's nice to know someones out there!
Sure, it makes a difference. Because those that love Christ without the Old Testament, who enjoy light without knowing Edison, who love "The Lord of the Rings" without having read "The Silmarillion" rest their faith on those "more learned"; those who have deemed each of these examples valuable. In fact, those that love or enjoy or love without knowledge are trusting more in other men's "ideas" of these creations than in the creations themselves. Thus, although knowledge may not be necessary for the masses, it is even more critical for the learned; although our American ideology really poo-poos on this type of thinking... I mean relegating the knowledge to the learned and keeping the other out.
ReplyDeleteThe elders of our church must understand the Old Testament because their flock depends upon it. Scientists/engineers must understand the physics behind electricity and Edison's invention because the rest of us depend on it. Literary Scholars must read... you see where I'm going with this.
High interest reading doesn't equal high value. If it did I'd be looking for a new line of work...