Yesterday, while working in my garage, I used a variety of tools depending on what I was trying to accomplish. To remove most nails, I was able to use a standard finishing hanmer, but in some cases I had to use a heavier wrecking hammer to remove some of the more stubborn nails from the 2 x 4s.. In one case, I even had to switch to a long crow bar. But besiders removing nails, I had to remove a few screws and for these I switched to a power drill. To learn the meaning of words in the biblical text, it is also very important to match the method to the issue. If I were to try to use the wrong tool, each of these projects would have resulted in wasted effort and time and maybe even failure. This likewise can happen in biblical study. One of the keys to understanding the meaning of holy is to use a method that fits the issue. The issue is that there is uncertainty about the meaning of holy in the original language(s) of the Bible.
When striving to deal with uncertainty as to what holy means, it is a challenge to select the best method to use. The method needs to address the issue of uncertainty directly or it won't be the very best. There is not just the problem of people defining the word for holy differently. The other is the difficulty that there are a number of exegetical (reading and interpreting) methods that different biblical scholars use. But these difficulties are not a reason for despair. The uncertainty can be addressed, just like the nails and the screws in my garage wall. The only question is whether we have chosen the best tool for the project to be able to feel confident about success.
As an undergrad, I was trained initially in two methods of biblical study: (1) inductive biblical study and (2) linguistic analysis. My primary method today is a blend of both of these methods. The inductive method that I learned initially was that of Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, who also was a mentor of Dr. John S. Piper and I had the good fortune of studying under Piper during my undergrad years and Fuller during my seminary years. I found the inductive method to be very helpful for gathering fresh insights. Yet I also found inconsistencies between it and the linguistic analysis that I learned from Dr. William A. Smalley during my undergraduate years and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw during my seminary years. The advance for me today is that I now have brought both these methods full circle to where those inconsistencies are no longer present and the organization of my method is primarily responsible for removing any supposed inconsistencies. This did not happen overnight!
So lets talk more about matching a method to the issue. The first thing to realize is that there are not shortcuts you can take, but there is a very real path we can all take. Besides the authors or teachers above, I have seven very valuable books (and some were also my teachers) on exegesis or Bible study on my shelf. They are from easiest to most difficult:
1) Rick Warren's Bible Study Methods:12 Ways You Can Unlock God's Word by Rick Warren, 2006
2) How to Study Your Bible: The Lasting Rewards of the Inductive Approach by Kay Arthur, 1994
3) Living By the Book by Howard G Hendricks and William D. Hendricks, 1991
4) Methodical Bible Study by Robert. A. Trainia, 1980
5) A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules by Robert H. Stein, 1994
6) Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., 2009
7) Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers, Revised and Expanded Edition by Michael J. Gorman
(The only one that I am really not sure how to rank is Kay Arthur's book. Somehow it is more complicated than it looks on the surface.)
The method I am going to use to define holy in my post-graduate studies and for my post-graduate paper is clearly on the level of Gorman's book or should I say has to be on that level. (In my blog and in this entry, I try to drop nuggets from more than one level.) I find his method to be very well-organized and that might be his main advance over the others. I do though think his method needs to be supplemented.
First, he needs to realize that while he outlines a very complete method for interpreting the text, he is not equally complete in his method of laying writing a paper or structuring a sermon. He leaves that side to be supplemented by the materials written by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. who deals equally with "text" and with "sermon" sides or both sides of the bridge.
Second, his main strength is in the "elements" of the process of exegesis, but he is not equally effective in putting together the whole. Related to my last suggested supplement, his outline is not balanced, so that the whole picture gets obscured. I mainly correct this also through my "Linguistic Analysis" tools that I learned and studied. For this, I credit Dr. William A. Smalley (and Dr. Donald N. Larson, his colleague) and Dr. Daniel P. Shaw. They are how I will be able to create a better outline of my exegetical (read and interpret) method.
The main point I want to make for people on all ewvery levels is that the method that is chosen is not just a matter of ease or difficulty, it is also a matter of directly addressing the issues involved. A very easy method like Rick Warren's might address the issues or a very difficult one like Michael Gorman's might as well, but the question remains: "Do they address the central issue?" The central issue is that there is a measure of uncertainty even among top scholars as to what holy means. (I'll explain later (again) the interim method to follow while the uncertainty exists).
Warren's book could deal with this topic through his section on character qualities. Uncertainty would likely fall under his banner of negative character qualities. This would be a great place for the simplest person to begin to understand the issues. Gorman's more complex book also does address uncertainty, but I am not real happy with his discusion, because in the end he does not aim to reduce uncertainty, but to accept it as somewhat natural or positive (Gorman, p. 131-137). I think he overstates his case and I think people like Walter C. Kaiser Jr. from my list above would also be troubled by his overstated view.
To deal with this same issue on the same level as Gorman (no offense to Warren), I have found a supplement in the writings of David G. Ullman who has written a number of articles and books on the subject of "Robust Decisions". He has this to say about robust decisions:
Robust decision making extends ... to general decision making with uncertainty considered from the beginning: controlling what uncertainty you can and finding the best possible solution that is insensitive as possible to the remaining uncertainty. A robust decision is the best possible choice, found by eliminating all the uncertainty possible within available resources, and chosen with known and acceptable satisfaction and risk. www.realinnovation.com/content/c070122a.asp
What I like is that Ullman sees nothing wrong with the effort to "minimize uncertainty" (while Gorman might) and at the same time he is not ignoring uncertainty from the beginning of a process as though a negative trait does not exist, but rather he faces into it like a robust sailor facing into the wind. There has been a dual problem in dealing with the meaning of holy: 1) one side assumes the postive quality of certainty and 2) another side assumes the negative quality of uncertainty. Many biblical exegetical (reading and interpreting) methods assume certainty rather than buidlling it through a process that seeks to minimize posssible uncertainty. .
I think uncertainty can be reduced to a very satisfactory level, but it is good to know how this is done. It is also important to realize the different types of uncertainty. Ullman outlines four types of possible conditions with information. It can be: 1) uncertain, 2) incomplete, 3) evolving (I prefer "changing", because it lacks scientific baggage), and 4) conflicting. If all these conditions are present without any reductions in them, it means the situation is quite risky.
The reason why these types of conditions are important is precisely because we don't want to be taking excessive risks with who it is we worship and whether we have eternal life or not. We want an alternative with "known and acceptable satisfaction and risk". This goes beyond Michael Gorman's satisfaction point. So I will be using a method that addresses the issue: the issue of uncertainty. I cannot side-step it by simply reading a popular lexicon (foreign language dictionary).
Finally, the big task in front of me is to finish my thesis or dissertation paper for seminary, because by using that method (largely outlined in Gorman), I can successfully reduce the amount of uncertainty about the three most probable definitions of holy: 1) set apart or separate, 2) pure or 3) whole.
In the meantime (until I or someone else finishes our scholarly work), as I say elsewhere, do as the ancient Jews did when facing uncertainty as a reality with the precious ancient biblical Hebrew (and Aramaic) manuscripts. They recorded the most likely alternative in the body of the text and any variants in the margin, until some later time in which new information might later eliminate alternatives.
That is what I am doing now in order to keep me from prematurely latching on to one alternative without giving the others their just opportunity. This is one of the great blunders in decision making or in interpreting the meaning of a word. It is the premature acceptance of an alternative without the testing of others.
So when working in the garage, you might be able to get the job done using a regular finishing hammer while I may need a heavier wrecking hammer. It does not matter as long as the tool fits the issue. So make sure whether you use a simple method like Warren's or a tougher one like Gorman's method that you don't avoid the negative quality of uncertainty, but rather you deal with it. Method needs to fit the issue(s). May God grant the entire human world greater certainty on what holy means! And may we also use the best methods available to us to face the issues!
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment