Muslim Christian Conciliation?

On October 13, 2007, on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr, 138 Muslim scholars and clerics sent an open letter "to leaders of Christian churches, everywhere." The signatories to that letter, titled A Common Word Between Us and You, include top leaders from around the world representing every major school of Islamic thought. The text of A Common Word Between Us and You appears at http://www.acommonword.com/.

The text opens with the following words:

" Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.

The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity."

These two principles are then demonstrated in both the Qur'an and Bible.

The Christian response can be found here. It was drafted by scholars at Yale Divinity School's Center for Faith and Culture. It was issued by the first four signatories on the document and endorsed by almost 300 other Christian theologians and leaders, including those listed here. To promote constructive engagement between these major religious communities, planning is underway for a series of major conferences and workshops involving many of the signatories to A Common Word and to the Yale response, as well as other international Christian, Muslim, and
Jewish leaders. Events will be posted at www.yale.edu/faith, where readers can also view the complete list of signatories as well as add their names to the list.

I agree that the issue of Muslim/Christian relations will be the major topic for the next epoch of our history. What fruit this meeting will bring, I can't say. One thing I am convinced of is that without an adequate knowledge of our own identity as Christians, dialogue will dissipate into truisms that will leave us vulnerable to be led by those who do know what they believe.

(Hat tip: Generous Orthodoxy Think Tank)

NB: for the expected conservative reaction, go here.

Literary and Canonical Approaches

I'm grateful to have Dave Beldman as a dialogue partner. He has recently posted an essay in which he looks at the possible implications of newer literary approaches to biblical interpretation, especially as these impact historical critical theories concerning the development of texts. He asked me to compare this literary approach with Childs' canonical approach, as I have recently outlined it in my last thread. Though I answered him in the comments (here), I've touched my response up a bit in order to post it here.

Though there are many similarities between a canonical approach which privileges the final form of the biblical text and literary approaches which work with the assumption of unity, Childs explicitly distances himself from such approaches. The difference is in the starting point.

Childs starts from a theological premise, rather than an aesthetic or literary one: the God of creation has elected for himself a concrete people and has chosen to relate to that people in space and time (see here). This historical relationship has brought the text of Scripture into being , a text whose function within God's economy is to point to Him and his ways (see forthcoming thread). Just as our four different gospels are diverse textual witnesses to the one Gospel outside the text, so the whole of scripture testifies in diverse ways to the reality of the one God, the Gospel, or Jesus (or however you wish to define the text's ultimate subject matter). This kerygmatic function of the text means that its reality is not self-contained. Though one can posit a world 'in' the text as a useful hermeneutical tool, it is not the case that the world in the text exhausts the truth of the text. That text is part of a greater whole which points beyond itself to what really matters: 'divine reality', Jesus, or whatever. This is how I understand Vanhoozer's statement about theological interpretation: it is interpretation oriented to the knowledge, not of the text (literary approaches), nor of historical circumstances (historical critical approaches), but of the God who called the text into being in the first place (JTI vol. 1, Intro).

As a result, interpretation which is to do justice to the nature of the text must be theological. A literary approach, which looks at structure and rhetorical devices can only be one step in comprehending what the text is about. We need to be piercing 'through' the text to its ultimate subject matter. This subject matter is outside the text (I'm not sure I would say 'behind' ... ), it is the ultimate subject matter of the text, what the text is really all about, and is not reducible to the level of the text itself.

This has implications for heremeneutics. A realization that the text is a 'witness' and not the reality itself frees the Christian from what Childs calls 'biblicism', the need to reduce the reality of God to the level of the text itself. Because the Bible is not about itself but about God, it is OK if there are contradictions and disjunctions at the surface level, and I mean real contradictions, not just artfully placed ones that actually fulfil some subtle literary purpose. The unity of the Bible is not a literary unity, but rather a theological unity. It lies in the subject matter to which the text points. The one Gospel to which the four gospels point is where the unity should lie, not in attempts to reconcile contradictions amongst the gospel witnesses themselves.

As such, focusing on the text in the literary fashion that Josipovici recommends is just one part of the overall activity of theological exegesis. The literary approach of Josipovici is useful only to the degree that it helps us understand the kerygmatic intentionality of the text of Judges or Job. Using it as a tool to iron our tensions is fine to the degree that it gives an adequate account of the text itself (as I'm sure you will agree). But I think it bears pointing out that a theological approach, at least the one that Childs recommends, requires attention to the kerygmatic/canonical intentionality of the text, and this in turn means attending to the historical dimension. Escaping from the real world into a narrative world is, according to the theological premise of Childs, to contradict the foundational assumptions of a God who dwells with us (not that Josipovici is necessarily doing this, though many narrative theologians such as Frei and Linbeck come close). History and commitment to a certain type of authorial intentionality are necessary parts of exegesis oriented to knowledge of God. That the unity of scripture is outside of it means we are not required to get rid of editorial additions and surface level contradictions.

Childs wryly notes the theological agnosticism present in much narrative theology. It is possible for theologians from both the extreme right and extreme left of the discipline to do narrative theology, coming to similar conclusions, while sharing fundamentally different views about the actual world in which we live.

I wrote a post on the way Childs' understanding of the formation of the text provides the grounds for broadening theological reflection beyond the horizon of the Old Testament here. Here we have something of the marriage of history and theology that theological exegesis needs to maintain.

(For the record, I think Sternberg does a good job of providing a literary approach which takes seriously the historical world 'behind' the text. Childs cites him approvingly.)

The Hermeneutical Implications of the Canonical Shaping of the Pentateuch

To round off his presentation of the canonical shaping of the Pentateuch, Childs briefly sketches a few of the hermeneutical implications of this approach to Scripture:

1) First, the present shape of the Pentateuch is a theological witness which is lost if its shape is destroyed in order to reconstruct a chronological sequence. The present arrangement preserves a basic critical norm as to how the tradition was to be understood in the life of the people of God.

2) Divine revelation is not buried in past historical events which depend on recovery by archaeology in order to be made available to the church. Rather, the long history of the development of tradition reflects God's continuing revelation of Himself to His church which left its mark in the canonical shaping of the Pentateuch. The growth of the Pentateuch was not an arbitrary selection and arrangement by individuals apart from the ongoing life of the community of faith. The final shape of the Pentateuch is canonical, that is, normative for the life of faith, because it reflects the fullest form of the church's understanding of God's revelation.

3) The decisive factor in shaping the tradition was the concern to render it in a form so that it could be correctly understood and rightly appropriated by the succeeding generations of God's people. This is the role and function of canon. Scripture became the vehicle by which the original historical events were remembered, but also theologically interpreted to function as revelation for the generations yet unborn. The decisive hermeneutical role of canon was to guide the church in moving from the past to the present.

4) By taking seriously the canonical shape of the Old Testament the Christian interpreter suddenly discovers that he stands in the company of all the great Christian expositors of the past. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, rather than being regarded as museum pieces of an uncritical age, are found to be wrestling with the fundamental issues of faith.

Childs concludes:

In the end, the goal of all our endeavors is that we interpret the Scripture so that men and woman will recognize in them the living Christ, and God willing, some will perhaps even testify: "Did not our hearts burn within us when He opened to us the Scriptures?" (722).

The Canonical Shape of Deuteronomy

The Book of Deuteronomy plays a decisive role within the theological purpose of the canonical editors. Regardless of its actual original function (part of the reform program of Josiah?), within the present shape of the Pentateuch it functions to reinterpret the events of Sinai for the future generation of Israelites. In a series of speeches Moses explains and recapitulates the meaning of the Sinai law, and he does so on the plains of Moab before a new generation about to claim the promises of God. Childs (1972) lists three points that are made:

1) The original covenant concerns the later generations as much as the first. God's covenant was not tied to past history but was offered to all the people of God.

2) The interpretation of Moses is future-orientated: after the realization of the promises Israel is to respond obediently.

3) The purpose of Deuteronomy is to inculcate the Law in the heart of the people. The issue is a matter of life and death and Israel is to choose.

Childs argues that the Deuteronomy functions to provide a theological norm for how the Law is to be understood. The "spirit" of the Law is summarized in terms of "loving God with heart, soul, and might," a decisive check against legalistic abuse.

To summarize, Childs states,

Once again, and in a way different from either Genesis or the middle books, the canonical editors have shaped the material into a theological witness to be used by later generations of Israel. By removing Deuteronomy from its canonical setting and seeking to interpret it from an allegedly original historical context of the seventh century, the decisive function which the canon has assigned this material is lost."

Pornographic Time Bomb

Perhaps I'm being overly apocalyptic here, but I feel that the Western world is standing on the brink of a cultural catastrophe. Never before has a society been so exposed to so much explicit sexual imagery. With roughly 250 million pornographic sites on the Internet, free access to the most hardcore content is only a few mouse clicks away. This addictive drug is shaping the minds of a new generation, whether youth or adult, single or married. As Europe looses its identity by which it should face new and significant challenges, we are being exposed to a silent poison that feeds off our deepest desires and insecurities, turning one half of humanity into predators and the other into prey.

The BBC has produced a documentary on teenagers hooked on Internet porn. Not only can you see how it affects the lives of those boys who consider it an affliction, you can see the social consequences it has for those for whom it has become a way of life. The psycho-sexual therapist interviewed in the documentary describes the situation as a time bomb, something unprecedented, the consequences of which can only be destructive.

The documentary is about 40 minutes long.

You can watch it here.

Update: After Existentialism, Light links to video updates from a recent conference held on sexuality in American conferences.

The Canonical Shape of Leviticus and Numbers

Before I continue my thread on Childs' understanding of 'canonical shaping', I'd like to point out why I am doing this. For many these observations are now passé; the focus on the final form of the text has become a standard methodological assumption for many in the biblical guild. What I am concerned to demonstrate is not so much what the final from of the Pentateuch is, but rather the way in which Childs grounds his focus on this form. Despite a growing number of 'final form' approaches, there remains diversity concerning the nature of this final form, how one should read it and the theological/philosophical justifications for such an interpretative move. The early statements made by Childs here (1972), as far as I can see, remained with him throughout his career (though in modified form) and make his approach distinctive to later postmodern and postliberal approaches. Despite claims to the contrary, Childs never rejects the diachronic dimension of the text, both as a fact and as an interpretative guide. Childs never claimed that the Bible creates a hermetically sealed narrative universe which both 'swallows' up our world and is resistant to insights from outside the text. Childs never rejects authorial intentionality as significant for interpretation, though he certainly modifies it. He never rejects the 'happendness' of events as significant to faith, though their relationship to our faith is nuanced.

I hope that the brief summary of his 1972 essay gives a flavour of his approach, though it clearly raises many questions and thus nicely anticipates his more developed formulations from later in his career.

So, onwards with the Pentateuch. After Genesis and Exodus we come to Leviticus and Numbers:

Critical scholarship has characterized the priestly legislation of these books as one of the most extreme examples of historical fiction. A great deal of late material, much of which is post-exilic, has been joined to the Sinai material. Yet the canonical form of Leviticus and Numbers links these books to the same setting as the last half of Exodus. The directions for cultic worship are closely joined to the Sinai legislation. The result is that a witness is given that the institutions and rites which determine how Israel is properly to worship God stem from the revelation of God. Israel's cult is not her own invention. The canonical shape provides a critical theological judgement against any reading of the tradition which would isolate the priestly elements of the tradition from the so-called prophetic.

Again, the priestly material is dominated by the demand on Israel to comply to the holiness of God, a witness included by the canonical shape with the Sinai legislation. As a result, the presence of God which once dwelt on Sinai now accompanies Israel in the tabernacle. What once happened at Sinai is continued for the later generations of Israel in the tabernacle. The canonical redaction shaped the tradition in order to serve as Scripture for the use of later Israel. It offered a theological interpretation of the Sinai covenant. When the historical critics remove the Priestly material and assign it to the post-exilic age, then the major theological testimony of the canon is jeopardized.

The Canonical Shape of Exodus

As with Genesis, Childs* testifies to an equally complex prehistory of traditions lying behind the final form of the present composition. But once again there are some important editorial moves which reveal the intention of the canonical shaping.

A basic feature of the Book of Exodus is the interchange of narrative and legal material. The narrative material testifies to the historical moment at a particular time in Israel's history at which God made His will known to His people. For Israel to learn the will of God necessitated an act of self-revelation. Thus, regardless of whether in the prehistory the narrative and legal traditions developed along different lines, in the canonical form the two elements belong together. "Gospel and Law cannot be divorced."

Again, the final form of Exodus has often combined the account of an original event with an account of the ongoing celebration of that same event (e.g. the intertwining of the original Passover with an account of its ongoing celebration). In this way, material is formed in such a way as to provide a channel of appropriation for every future generation.

Finally, it is theologically significant that the Sinai material has been edited in such a way that the covenant is both preceded and followed by stories of Israel's murmuring and resistance to the law of God. Particularly the place of the story of the Golden Calf provides a commentary on how the demands of God upon His people are continually supported by His mercy in the light of repeated disobedience and even apostasy.

*"The Old Testament as the Scripture of the Church" Concordia Theological Monthly 43 D (1972) 709-22

The Canonical Shape of Genesis

Having outlined a case for a canonical reading of the Bible as Scripture, and then illustrated what this would mean when looking at the Pentateuch/Torah as a whole, Childs turns to the canonical shaping of the individual books. What is interesting is his attention to both synchronic and diachronic dimensions of the text. In other words, the history of traditions provides evidence of a theological intent, an intent which justifies our focus on the final form.

We start at the beginning: Genesis.

Concerning the history of tradition, Childs takes the standard critical line: separate literary sources were joined together at different historical periods. The text consists of an earlier composite strand - usually called JE - and a later source - the Priestly source. However,whereas most critical scholars devote their energy to sorting out these sources and the prehistory of tradition, Childs highlights the theological intentionality in this historical process and its ultimate outcome: the completed Book of Genesis.

Thus, it is of significance that Genesis begins with a primeval history and only in Ch. 12 does the story of Abraham begin. This involved the combination of two sources. According to the P source, there is a narrowing of interest from the universal history of mankind to focus on the one family of Abraham. According to the J source, the history of the growth of sin which culminated in the fragmentation of mankind in the tower of Babel provided the theological grounds for the election of Abraham and the future role of Israel. The effect of this combination of sources is that the election of Israel is tied inextricably to a theology of creation. Regardless of the chronological development of the book of Genesis (many date the creation narratives later than the patriarchal),

"the canonical shape of Genesis subordinated redemption to creation without divorcing the two aspects of the divine purpose with the world and his creatures. Israel was elected in the mystery of the divine will for the purpose of reconciling the world to the creator" (1972: 718).

A similar effort at canonical editing can be seen in the patriarchal narratives. Regardless of their prehistory (scholars are still divided), the theological significance of these stories has been determined by the pervasive theme of divine promise of a posterity and a land. The life of obedience is illustrated in these narratives - given long before the Law - which call for unswerving trust in the faithfulness of God. The Book of Genesis as the prelude to the actual history of the nation Israel provides a decisive commentary for the proper understanding of the Sinai covenant. God's revelation of himself to the fathers is an act of pure grace which calls forth the required stance of faithful obedience. Or, to put the issue another way,

the canonical shape which has the narrative precede the Law affords a clear check against understanding the purpose of Israel primarily in terms of the Law" (1972: 718).

Description of the Canonical Shaping of the Pentateuch

According to Jewish tradition, the five books of the Pentateuch constitute a unity, designated as the "Torah", the "Torah of Moses", or the "Book of the Law of Moses". The tradition is ancient, assumed already in the Septuagint and all the Hebrew manuscripts.

Childs* asks whether this five-fold division actually belongs to the canonical tradition of the Old Testament itself or whether it was a post-Old Testament development. He looks to the redactional evidence.

First, it is quite clear that the five books were seen as separate entities by the final Biblical editor in spite of the continuity of the one story (Creation-Death of Moses). For example, though Exodus continues where Genesis left off, at the outset it recapitulates material from Genesis (Gen. 48.8ff) in order to form an introduction to the new book. There is similar evidence amongst the other books of both continuity of the story and integrity of each book.

In sum, there is clear editorial evidence to establish five divisions within the material

Childs goes to to ask whether there is editorial evidence to show a relationship in terms of content, beyond the formal aspect. It is clear that the three middle books share the same basic content, which has to do with the giving and receiving of the law by Moses at Sinai. This history at Sinai is given coherence by means of an explicit chronological sequence, and the event is both preceded and succeeded by accounts of the wanderings to Sinai and from Sinai. Though Genesis differs greatly in style and content to this central block (it speaks of a family, not a nation), the material is integrally connected with what follows in that it speaks of the promise of a posterity and a land. As such, Genesis was seen by the final redactor as the introduction to the story of Israel which began in Exodus. The final book in the collection, Deuteronomy, is also distinct in style (e.g. it is paranetic). Whatever its original role in the development of Israel's history, the editor understood Deuteronomy's role as a type of commentary to the preceding laws. In its new setting and period, Moses is emphasised as mediator and interpreter of the divine will. It is therefore in order that the Pentateuch closes with his death.

To summarize, the content of the five books evidences an intentional structuring of these books into a purposeful theological whole.

The full force of the concept of a 'Pentateuch' is emphasized when one realizes that the shape of this redaction is neither the natural nor the original historical order. Rather, the original tradition extended into the book of Joshua, forming a Hexateuch. The editors, however, decided that Deuteronomy should conclude the first part of the sacred tradition as the place where God made his will known to Israel. The stories which continue with Joshua are qualitatively distinguished from the Pentateuch in that the revelation of the will of God (Torah) is assumed to be known in Israel (Josh. 1.8).

Again, to summarize,

"the recognition of the Pentateuch as a special body of sacred tradition which constituted a whole is already testified to within the Old Testament itself. It needed only later tradition to formulate the terminology for a reality which it had received." (p. 717)

*"The Old Testament as the Scripture of the Church" Concordia Theological Monthly 43 D (1972) 709-22