Rising Muslim Conservatism in the Middle East

That's what's happening according to this interesting article by the New York Times. The cause would seem to be despair in the face of poverty, disallusionment and political corruption or ineptitude.

Mr Sayyid's comments would appear to be typical:

“Nobody cares about the people,” Mr. Sayyid said, slapping his hands against the air, echoing sentiment repeated in many interviews with young people across Egypt. “Nobody cares. What is holding me back is the system. Find a general with children and he will have an apartment for each of them. My government is only close to those close to the government.”

Mr. Sayyid, like an increasing number of Egyptians, would like Islam to play a greater role in political life. He and many others said that the very government that claimed to elevate and emphasize their faith was insincere and hypocritical.

“Yes, I do think that Islam is the solution,” Mr. Sayyid said, quoting from the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned but tolerated organization in Egypt that calls for imposing Shariah, or Islamic law, and wants a religious committee to oversee all matters of state. “These people, the Islamists, they would be better than the fake curtain, the illusion, in front of us now.”

Luther on Discipleship: "Bewilderment is True Comprehension"

“Discipleship is not limited to what you can comprehend—it must transcend all compreshension. Plunge into the deep waters beyond your own comprehension, and I will help you to comprehend even as I do. Bewilderment is the true comprehension. Not to know where you are going is the true knowledge. My comprehension transcends yours. Thus Abraham went forth from his father and not knowing whither he went. He trusted himself to my knowledge, and cared not for his own, and thus he took the right road and came to his journey's end. Behold, that is the way of the cross. You cannot find it yourself, so you must let me lead you as though you were a blind man. Wherefore it is not you, no man, no living creature, but I myself, who instruct you by my word and Spirit in the way you should go. Not the work which you choose, not the suffering you devise, but the road which is clean contrary to all that you choose or contrive or desire—that is the road you must take. To that I call you and in that you must be my disciple. If you do that, there is the acceptable time and there your master is come.”

From Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 93.

The Difference Between "Scripture" and "Canon"

In discussions of the canonical approach, a failure to distinguish between the categories "scripture" and "canon" can lead to confusion. I hope today's thoughts help clarify the issue ...

Whereas both categories refer to the authoritative collection of sacred writings as the vehicle for communicating the will of God, the term scripture refers above all to the divine authority of these writings. Canon, on the other hand, refers to the scope of the collection.

This distinction is important for understanding the significance of the fluidity of the Christian canon, especially respecting the tension between the narrower (Jewish) and larger (Greek) forms of the Old Testament corpus. Historically speaking, this fluidity in scope has never played a decisive role in challenging the concept of the authority of Scripture. The tensions that arose in the Reformation were dogmatic in nature and were concerned with the relation of biblical authority to later church tradition, not with the question of biblical authority per se

Although the question of scope and the role of translations is an issue, it is important not to overestimate the scale of the problem. It is not the case that the church has functioned without a scripture or in deep confusion. Rather, as Childs states, “the implication to be drawn is exactly the reverse. In spite of areas of disagreement [concerning a few books on the periphery], the Bible in its various forms has continued to function as an authoritative norm for the church throughout its history.”[*]

As with most issues misunderstood by Childs' later critics, this point was made from early on:

“The fundamental theological issue at stake is not the extent of the canon, which has remained in some flux within Christianity, but the claim for a normative body of tradition contained in a set of books.”[**]

[*] Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 301.

[**] Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 98.

A Problem in Biblical Theology

“Problems in Biblical theology stem from attempts to relate reality to something other than the concrete experience of Israel. Usually this means finding reality in the ideas of Israel or in some concept of history into which certain aspects of Israel's life can be fitted.” [*]

As I slowly work my way through Bultmann's History and Eschatology, I get the impression that this is a mistake he makes.

[*] Brevard Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1960), 81

I Need a Barth Expert

I recently wrote an essay trying to understand the relationship between Brevard Childs and Karl Barth. Unfortunately, I'm not a Barth expert, so I'm not too sure how sound my conclusions are. They seem to be saying essentially the same thing, with Childs' canonical approach being an attempt to implement Barth's programme exegetically. I hinted at this in a previous post here.

If anyone is interested in critically assessing this essay, I'd be grateful. Send an e-mail to philsumpterAThotmailDOTcom and I'll forward it on to you.

As an aside, Timothy has a great Childs quote here.

And for an interesting response to the recent Australian apology, go here.

Exegetical Obligations of the Redeemed

The theological reality of the relationship between God and his people and the unique role of Scripture in this relationship has left a material mark on the text of the Bible with concrete implications for today's exegete. Since the Enlightenment it has become clear that one does not have to read the Bible according to its own perspective. It is possible to understand the Bible in history-of-religions categories. Yet, despite the importance of such work, the goal and procedure of such exegetical practice are different to an approach which would read the Bible as the Word of God to his people. Belonging to this people requires that one aligns oneself with the Bible's own perspective. As Childs says:

“The biblical text must be studied in closest connection with the community of faith which treasured it. Obviously these texts can be studied from any number of other contexts and perspectives, but not as Sacred Scripture! The authority of the canon of Scripture is not a claim of objective truth apart from the community of faith but it is a commitment to a particular perspective from which the reality of God is viewed.” [*]

The exegete as member of the congregation must face a hermeneutical decision before he reads the text: as a member of a historical people with a text that has been the unfolding word of God to them through time, how do I best situate myself to receive that message today? What is the authoritative context within which the message of the Bible takes shape? Given the peculiar function of this text over against this community within the context of God's eschatological purpose, Childs would argue the text's final form.

[*] “The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1977), 92.

How To Start a Revival