tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349070.post4651650864163869569..comments2023-08-29T05:36:46.228-06:00Comments on cyber spirit cafe: Keeping closed the "book of faith"Doug Kingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12830571125611956474noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349070.post-79643294604866366092009-06-19T11:18:49.242-06:002009-06-19T11:18:49.242-06:00Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Diane. As I said...Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Diane. As I said in my email to you, I can only imagine how crazy your schedule must be combining being a seminary professor with directing this project. I hope summer gives you some chance for a break from both endeavors! In any case, I appreciate your taking the time to respond.<br /><br />This probably isn’t the place for a dialog on these issues. Most of what I would say would probably be a repetition of what I wrote in my other posts about BOFI. I will just add one point. I understand why you would say that historicity is not of great concern to you in understanding a text. From my experience, however, it is often of great interest to lay people less familiar with the Bible than you or me. <br /><br />In my teaching, I have often experienced considerable anger and frustration directed not at me but towards previous teachers and pastors who didn’t teach such things. “Why am I hearing this for the first time?” is a question I have heard often. Whether the motivation was paternalistic or not, they feel as if they were treated like children who couldn’t be trusted with “the real story.”<br /><br />As I have written elsewhere, the North Carolina Synod memorial which started all this specifically asked for guidance on the question of just what is the Bible? How do we use it to guide us as a church? Does it teach homosexuality is wrong or not? Does it matter? Should women “keep silent”? If we don’t believe that, why not? Did God promise “greater Israel” to Abraham’s descendents for eternity? How could we know?<br /><br />I think BOFI sidesteps this issue. Of course it’s messy and difficult but that’s why the memorial was sent. In sidestepping the question of what the Bible is, BOFI then also sidesteps the question of why read the Bible at all. Is it good literature, like Shakespeare or Jane Austen? If it’s something more, than what and why and how? And does it matter in making that evaluation whether or not the people and events it talks about are historical? <br /><br />When prominent Los Angeles Conservative Rabbi David Wolpe preached in 2001 (at Passover, no less!) that the exodus was likely not historical it certainly created more than a little consternation in Jewish circles. The ensuing debates went right to the heart of the questions of what is faith, on what is it based, where does the Bible fit into this, and how does such faith guide our lives. <br /><br />Personally, I would welcome such a conversation/debate in the ELCA and frankly think it is long overdue. I think it could provide some much needed clarity on our beliefs and even our purpose and identity. My sense, however, is that there is a perception that the ELCA is in too “delicate” a condition to withstand such discussion. Avoiding it, however, will not make the question go away (as this August’s Churchwide Assembly will certainly remind us).Doug Kingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12830571125611956474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349070.post-49097443650817436962009-06-17T16:16:47.393-06:002009-06-17T16:16:47.393-06:00Doug,
I am pleased with and grateful for your tho...Doug,<br /><br />I am pleased with and grateful for your thorough review and important reactions. I wonder if some response from me might be helpful.<br />First, you are correct that writing a book quickly and having a number of hands active is a deep challenge. So I would concur that this book is far from perfect. I also know that I have learned a great deal myself in the last year about how to ask good questions and how to ask them in such a way that they are helpful for folks encountering, studying, and delving more deeply into biblical texts, particularly folks encountering texts for the first time. So I wish I could rewrite my own chapter on Exodus, because I would write it very differently today.<br />That said, let me respond to a few specific comments you made.<br />“She says nothing about authorship of the text or any possible context for the story’s writing, ignoring her own instruction. Why? Because it avoids the presumably too controversial issue of the historicity of the Exodus events.”<br /><br />Actually, I am not at all worried about avoiding controversy over historicity. I simply often think such questions are often not at all helpful. There are two reasons for this opinion. One, because I do not think the main question of history is “did it happen?” I think the main question for historical study of the biblical text is “What insights from history would be helpful to know in order to hear, read, study, or understand this passage more accurately?” Do I think the events at the burning bush happened exactly as reported. No, I don’t think the Bible is primarily a blow-by-blow eye witness report of history. No CNN. But do I accept that Israel (or some tribes of Israel) were slaves in Egypt and followed a leader named Moses. I have no problem with this, but the historicity is for me is not the point in any case. So in fact theories of JEDP are more interesting to me, but I don’t much buy them either. I think the 4 source theory is too simple. Whoever wrote this text (presumably E, because of the name “Horeb”) makes a pun on bush, which in Hebrew sounds like Sinai. So the author knows much more that a simple JEDP gives him credit for. Which means, we have a very hard time knowing who the author was and using such insights to help us hear this text better. This means that in the case of Exodus 3 historical questions are not as helpful in my opinion as literary questions are.<br />You say “there is simply no historical evidence for any of the Exodus saga.” Perhaps. I simply am not at all bothered or much interested in this. I am interested that “the story of God’s saving action in the Bible includes real people and places.” I find such a statement helpful and not limiting or problematic. I don’t think this is being paternalistic. I simply think the text is infinitely deeper and inviting if we begin with other questions. <br />I take very seriously your correct perceptions that we often are talking to ourselves, and this presents an enormous problem for the church. We do too often speak to the faithful remnant. I am speaking with many folks across the church about how we might get past this. I, however, sense that the problem is not that we have lied to folks, or hidden the truth about history. I think it is more that we have not learned well how to read the Bible in ways that are fun, demanding, deep, challenging, and faithful. That indeed means understanding modern curiosity and thought. I hope and trust that together we are up to this challenge.Diane Jacobsonnoreply@blogger.com