“The point that apocalyptic makes is not only that people who wear crowns and who claim to foster justice by the swords are not as strong as they think - true as that is: we still sing, ’O where are Kings and Empires now of old that went and came?’ It is that people who bear crosses are working with the grain of the universe. One does not come to that belief by reducing social process to mechanical and statistical models, nor by winning some of one’s battles for the control of one’s own corner of the fallen world. One comes to it by sharing the life of those who sing about the Resurrection of the slain Lamb.”
– John Howard Yoder, “Armaments and Eschatology.” Studies in Christian Ethics 1:43 (1988): 58.
But I question whether apocalyptic literature is really ever trying to actually make that point, or is that merely a point we can take from apocalyptic. I've had the same thought before regarding typology and preaching. Regarding typology, did historical events ever occur simply as lessons to future generations or are future generations just pressing them into service for what may be perfectly noble and effectual purposes? In other words, was, and/or is, God trying make points by using real people?
Regarding preaching, pastors are understandably under great pressure. They asked to produce an hour long sermon each week, whether they feel inspired or not, in addition to all their other duties. Even so, I've heard countless sermons that seem to use certain biblical stories over and over again to prove a variety of different points that the original authors may or may not have intended. I'm personally not interested in the lessons about interpersonal relationships and personality types that we can draw from the Mary and Martha stories. Admit it, you've heard the Mary and Martha self-help sermons that I'm talking about hundreds of times if you've spent any time in the church.
My point about both of these is simply this: we don't need the Bible to illustrate our points. We need to determine the points that the authors themselves were trying to make. So is Yoder right about the point that apocalyptic makes? I'm genuinely interested in the question and would love to see the Biblical, literary, historical-critical, rhetorical evidence, if it indeed exists. Otherwise, Yoder is guilty of the Mary-and-Marthizing.
The medieval theological academy had a concept of four senses in which we can interpret scripture. There was the literal sense in which the original authors would've intended it. There was the allegorical sense concerning the fulfillment of the Old Testament history in Christ. There was the tropological sense concerning how we should live our lives. And there was the anagogical sense concerning the ultimate end of history. The latter three sense have been grouped together and called the spiritual sense as compared to the literal sense. So it's clear that Yoder clearly has the tropological and anagogical sense in mind at the very least. And that's all well and good if it makes for a nice sermon, forceful argument, or artistic illustration. But it seems to me that the spiritual senses only matter in as much as they are true literally, i.e. that that was the authors original intent for the story. Or when God is acting within a story, the spiritual sense only matters if that is what God literally meant to convey by his action.
Another way my point can be illustrated is in the distinction between usefulness and faithfulness to the text. A given preacher can use a Biblical story to make a point that is faithful to the original actor (God) and the original writer while at the same time being useful for preaching, teaching, and building up. After all, doesn't the Bible say that all Scripture is useful for these kinds of things? But another preacher can use a Biblical story to make a point that while not faithful to the original meaning of God's action or intent of the author, could nonetheless be useful for the point he is trying to convey.
Which preacher is Yoder in the quote above?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment