In Peter F. Drucker's (arguably the best management writer of the 20th entury) writings, you may find that one of his predictions for the future, based on what is already a known fact (a change) and then also what is the pattern of past history (how long it takes before the change takes effect or people recognize it as valid) is that "we are clearly in the middle of this transformation (from the Knowledge Age), indeed, if history is any guide, it will not be completed until 2010 to 2020". I find this quote telling, because it shows that though a shift may be present, it may take a long time in coming. That is important, because we then cannot be simply satisfied with the current majority view in a controversy or in the face of uncertainty. We must dig deeper into issues to see if the only issue is that the time has not yet arrived in human understanding for what is already acknowledged by others including a minority.
Drucker was referring to the transformation in society that is coming from the G.I. Bill which resulted in a national shift in the level of education beginning with the WWII generation who returned from war and then enrolled in higher education at previously unknown levels. He seems to think that the effect of this education combined with other lesser events of the time set up the time of transformation or change to begin around 1960.
I am writing about this, because it is also interesting that in the scholarship of determing the meaning of holy, there were also four major names who made major statements about biblical understanding during the '60s. This might be only coincidence or it could be that the increase in education began a slow movement toward us discovering things that had previously been lost.
First, there was the biblical scholar, James Barr, who created a major change in biblical exegesis that still has not ceased in its effect. He introduced biblical scholarship to modern linguistics and its insights into language. He especially took aim at some exegetical fallicies committed in biblical scholarship. This is hard for some of the more traditional minds to accept. Its culmination is still in front of us and part of the reason for the delay in time might also be due to some of Barr's own excesses.
Second, there was a very important anthropologist, Mary Douglas, who tried to better understand biblical laws when it came to things like dietary laws. She expressed the idea that the laws must somehow be explained better than it had been previously. She suggested that the underlying concept could be that of being whole as opposed to somehow having a blemish or a shortcoming. In her initial idea, the idea was that certain animals were less than whole according to a comparison with the animals considered kosher. She then suggested that holy might mean whole also based on the whole stones used for an altar. Many biblical scholars will admit, if they are honest, that any writing on Leviticus must now at least take into consideration her view. Jacob Milgrom, who wrote a major commentary on Leviticus, for one interacted with her though he never seems to quite accept her view entirely. Yet he understood well Mary's challenge to take these ancient laws seriously and not just write them off as primitive in the same way older schools of anthropology and archaeology tended to do.
Third, there was a systematic theologian, R. A. Finlayson, who seems to have discovered in Andrew Murray that the so-called conservatives of the 1960s were in fact not conservative or fundamentalist theologians. Rather they were the innovators when it came to the meaning of holy, based on the writings of Andrew Murray. Murray wrote during the changes occuring both in the late 1800s and in the early 1900s. Murray had compiled in his volume Holy in Christ, a very simple history of interpreting holy's meaning up until his own day and pointed out that our popular defintion of holy as separate did not fit with the views of theologians like Jonathan Edwards. R. A. Finlayson tried to also ground Edwards' and Murray's position in his discussions of the holy's Hebrew etymology. For a while his ideas caught on in scholarly literature like biblical dictionaries, but then later faded.
Fourth, a pastor on the West Coast and living in California, recognized that our English word holy, as used by the older translators, had the idea of wholeness behind it when it was selected as the word best qualified to translate the Hebrew word qadosh. He may have relied on some of the popular etymological insights into English, using an older volume by Sweate. Whatever he did, he without hesitation made this known to his flock. As a pastor, he thought that the word holy had been turned into a negative term from the beautiful term it was according to biblical writers. His commentary on Leviticus, The Way of Wholeness, points out in its title the meaning of holy as whole.
Each of these people were making an impact in the 60s. The most problematic impact is that of Barr, because his view in some people's minds dismisses the meaning of holy as whole, simply because he said so himself, but also because etymology is a tool that must be used with utmost care and he was not sure it was used carefully in the case of defining holy. Here he seems to differ with the other three. Yet this is where my own work takes off. I am trying to take a hard look at the meaning of holy through his insights primarily. That may mean learning from his cautions while disagreeing with some of his conclusions. That might in part in explain the slowness in gaining insight from his ideas. He was after all a little hyper-critical at times.
Let me summarize the gains from each of these four people. From Barr and semantics and linguists, we can learn to be more careful with the method of etymology. From Douglas, we can learn to be more careful in judging the past as primitive or nonsensical, instead it is our job to make sense in their terms. From Finlayson, we can learn to not judge a book by its cover. Just saying you are a conservative, does not make you a conservative (or a fundamentalist). From Stedman, we can learn that preacher have a responsibility to preach or herald a concept, even while others might be scornful of the idea. Some may have scorned his idea (including Barr!), but that does not mean he was not correct at the level he was operating at as a pastor (and as a mentor to Chuck Swindoll) in talking to the masses who entered his door. Remember many of us never learned of the remotest possibility that holy in the Bible could mean whole (I learned it in my forties). Isn't that a sad thing, not to at least be aware of the option? Didn't Stedman do people a great favor by at least giving them another option to look for in the biblical text? Didn't he in fact enrich their lives more? Isn't it sad that in many places there was only one option to chose from because the other was an unknown due to higher than mighty attitude?
So we are now left in the wake of a coming transformation with the task of sorting out this legacy that we have been handed from the 1960s. I wish I had more time to write about this on-line, but the need for making a living will not allow it. But given the time the bigger question is this: "Will we benefit from the efforts of these people or will we in stubborn resistance to the past squander a wonderful opportunity?"
That is yet to be answered. But somewhere in the world, I expect Drucker's words may prove prophetic though he never claimed to be a prophet. He just looked at what had already changed and then looked to past history to see how long it took for an idea to become a transformation.
I personally did not directly benefit from the G.I Bill. I'm not part of that generation. But I have stuck with the huge investment in education as a way to move forward in our own time through fresh discoveries (including that of the past). I have learned a great deal from my studies at the university level, the graduate school level and now at the post-graduate level. They have all taught me things I did not know existed before.
So look out, you might be surprised or excited during the decade we are in and following. And the meaning of holy may turn out to be the key to all of it. Please feel free to respond to any of my posts. I try to be generous in publishing them. I have only one that I still need to understand before I publish it. I want more than anything for my blog to be more of a dialogue and less of a monologue. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Holy: Understanding it Better by Understanding the Times
In the context of Eclessiastes 3:2-8, we read these lines among others:
There is a time for everything
and a season for every activity under heaven;
...
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
....
These lines can prove very valuablle, when trying to defuse false accusations in a controvery like the differences in defining the biblical words for holy. It can also reduce the false name calling that sometimes happens even among Christians and scholars. You probably have heard someone called a "hopeless optimist" or someone else on the other side of the argument called a "graveyard pessimist". These are hardly compliments. You might have also heard someone called a "conservative" or "liberal", based on whether you should accept their views or not. These are used as ways to lay down a divide between groups of people. I would like to clarify who I am, as I work on defining the biblical words that we translate as holy, sanctified or hallowed. My point is not to create controversy, but to create clarity. Readers have the right to know more about who I am. I also will try to clarify who some others are in the important discussion of what holy means.
Let's begin by using the lines from Eccleisiastes to define what I mean first by optimist and pessismist and then second what I mean by conservative or liberal. It is helpful to begin with a common understanding of what I am saying, even if there is not an agreement with what I am saying.
First, I define an optimist this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to search". I define the pessimist this way. They are convinced that it s "a time to give up" (as lost). Neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance in relationship to time. As an example, I remember my mother teaching me, when I was ready to give up on some valued possession as lost, to re-trace my steps. She was right a fair number of times as I recovered quite a few things that way, but sometimes in the end, the valued possession had to be given up as lost. Which point of view about the times in which we live is the more relevant or the right match for the times?
Second, I define a conservative this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to keep". I define the liberal this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to throw away". Again, neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance. I remember learning a good rule for when to throw away or give away or sell some of my possessions. It had to do with how long it had been since I had used some things. Only a few times have I ever regretted deciding that it was " a time to throw away". But some of those times were a bit hard to swallow later, when I really could have used those things I got rid of. Which point of view about the times in which we live is more relevant or the right match for the times?
My general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority poition on the definition of holy as "set apart" or "separate". First, I am an optimist. I believe that regardless of the past attempts to define holy, right now is a time in which it is "a time to search" rather than "a time to give up" as lost the possibility of knowing the meaning of holy with greater certainty. I believe in the value of searching recent and past discoveries in archaeology, of evaluating further research into general exegesis and linguistics (for example from classic rhetoric), and in applying these types of things to the task of defiing holy. I am optimistic that the deadlock between the majority position of the prior 350 years of defining holy and the the majority position of the last 150 years of defining holy can be broken. So that is why I am still searching for answers in this blog and why I continue to produce blog entries.
Some others are convinced that it is "a time to give up" the definition of holy as "whole" for the previous 350 years as lost in comparison to the last 150 years of scholarship. They are pessimistic about the value of re-evaluatng the present time, because they believe that those earlier times of 350 yaers belong to a period of a failed searching. I can't agree. I think it is a great time for searching. That says something about who I am.
Again, my general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority on the defintion of holy as "set apart" or "separate". So second, I working in my search toward possibly realizing that it is "a time to throw away" the present popular definition. This would then make me a liberal, as defined above. But I am not to that place quite yet. In the present, I am convinced it is "a time to keep" both the definition of the prior 350 years as "whole" and the last 150 years as "set apart" and to evaluate them both again, before a final decision to "throw away" either one. I could also put "pure" into this mix as a slimmer possibility for a deifnition to keep. It is not the time to throw any of these away. It is, however, a time to realize that when my search is over, some of what has been proposed in the past will mean it is "a time to throw away". That should make my position very clear. I am not stuck in a particular time, but I am trying to be relevant to the time in which I live. I think I am moving forward toward and am attaining that goal. The key now is finishing my thesis paper for seminary. This clarification though is a part of that. That says a little more about who I am.
Now let me use a broad brush to say a bit about relevant history that might be influencing our time more than we know. The past sometimes matters, even through it is the past, like family influence and our own life choices of the past still influence the present. I know too that sometimes the past can be irrelevant. Let me try to stick with what might be relevant.
Near the beginning of the last 150 years was an historic divide between the Fundamentalists and the Modernists. Today their descendants are each called Conservatives and Liberals. The sad thing is that the so-called Conservatives in Protestantism did not "keep" the meaning of holy as "whole" as the primary definition from the prior 350 years. Instead they thought it was "a time to throw away" the primary definition of "whole" and make it only secondary (a descriptive word at best) while at the same time they saw it as "a time to keep" the secondary definition of the past as "set apart" and make it central. They threw away, while their name says they kept. These Conservatives were not conservative on the central character trait or quality or attribute of God. This is one of the greatest ironies of all of Christian history. How out of character with your name can you be?
I think the explanation though may not be difficult. In the late 1800s a Baptist named Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who I appreciate in many ways) was involved in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. One of his banner phrases was the passage that reads "come out and be separate". This in turn became something that later Fundamentalists saw as sort of a creedo and banner statement of their stance . Members had to agree that it was a time to "separate" from the Modernists. Their new definition for holy helped support their stance because "set apart" or "separate", became the central character trait for who God is and who a saints is in their primary character.
I must also say that the Modernists were the ones who primarily dug into how "holy" ought to be defined especially in a Hebrew context. They searched as scholars. Their lexicons in the latter 1800s largely influenced, not just the Fundamentalists to define holy as "set apart", but also those within their own camp. It is another irony of history that their definition for holy helped the Fundamentalists to form and support a creedo of "set apart" or "separate". I don't know that they intended for this new definition to create a bigger divide between themselves and the Fundamentalists, but that was an unintended consequence at least. How out of character with their name can they be? They assisted their opposition.
So flashing back to the present. It is important that a person understands the times and what is relevant. What is most relevant is the present time and what approach fits or is relevant to that time. It is important not to get stuck in a time that is no longer relevant. We should not be sticks in the mud or sticks stuck in the mire of another time that is not relevant to our own. Some times can be relevant even if not the present. They can parallel the present, but that is not automatic. It is important to discern when it is a time to be an optimist or a pessimist. And it is also imporant to discern when it is a time to be a conservative or a liberal.
Even in wirting this piece, I have had to keep searching for a better word and I also had give up when I wasconvinced that searching further for the right word would not profit. I have also had to decide when to keep a sentence and when to throw it away. You and I may disagree on some of those decisions, yet they are naturally part of the times of life. If I were to keep everything, you would consider me a pack rat and my writing would not have faced the editing that it needed. If I threw out everything, then this page might still be blank and not worth anything at all. You get the picture. Solomon's wisdom matters.
These wise principles of Solomon are no less relevant today than they were back then. So I guess at the present time, I should be described as a optimistic conservative, who at the right time will make the liberal decision to throw away some of the three most likely definitions for holy, as it is found the Bible. I also at some point may decide, after I have completed my thesis paper at least, that it is time to finally give up writing more for the time being. Only if it produces results will I then need to once again search for more on its meaning. Maybe, at least temporarily, I will be able to say, "I have found what what's needed by searching".
May God give guidance from Solomon's principles. May we also be willing from the results of our decisions on what to do in our times, be willing to evaluate whether our wisdom is God's wisdom, as it was penned by Solomon. And if not, may we seek God's face for greater relevance and wisdom to know our times. Don't get stuck in the wrong time! You don't want to hear that punchy line, "Whatever!"
In Christ,
Jon
.
There is a time for everything
and a season for every activity under heaven;
...
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
....
These lines can prove very valuablle, when trying to defuse false accusations in a controvery like the differences in defining the biblical words for holy. It can also reduce the false name calling that sometimes happens even among Christians and scholars. You probably have heard someone called a "hopeless optimist" or someone else on the other side of the argument called a "graveyard pessimist". These are hardly compliments. You might have also heard someone called a "conservative" or "liberal", based on whether you should accept their views or not. These are used as ways to lay down a divide between groups of people. I would like to clarify who I am, as I work on defining the biblical words that we translate as holy, sanctified or hallowed. My point is not to create controversy, but to create clarity. Readers have the right to know more about who I am. I also will try to clarify who some others are in the important discussion of what holy means.
Let's begin by using the lines from Eccleisiastes to define what I mean first by optimist and pessismist and then second what I mean by conservative or liberal. It is helpful to begin with a common understanding of what I am saying, even if there is not an agreement with what I am saying.
First, I define an optimist this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to search". I define the pessimist this way. They are convinced that it s "a time to give up" (as lost). Neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance in relationship to time. As an example, I remember my mother teaching me, when I was ready to give up on some valued possession as lost, to re-trace my steps. She was right a fair number of times as I recovered quite a few things that way, but sometimes in the end, the valued possession had to be given up as lost. Which point of view about the times in which we live is the more relevant or the right match for the times?
Second, I define a conservative this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to keep". I define the liberal this way. They are convinced that it is "a time to throw away". Again, neither is good or bad in itself, but there is a question of relevance. I remember learning a good rule for when to throw away or give away or sell some of my possessions. It had to do with how long it had been since I had used some things. Only a few times have I ever regretted deciding that it was " a time to throw away". But some of those times were a bit hard to swallow later, when I really could have used those things I got rid of. Which point of view about the times in which we live is more relevant or the right match for the times?
My general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority poition on the definition of holy as "set apart" or "separate". First, I am an optimist. I believe that regardless of the past attempts to define holy, right now is a time in which it is "a time to search" rather than "a time to give up" as lost the possibility of knowing the meaning of holy with greater certainty. I believe in the value of searching recent and past discoveries in archaeology, of evaluating further research into general exegesis and linguistics (for example from classic rhetoric), and in applying these types of things to the task of defiing holy. I am optimistic that the deadlock between the majority position of the prior 350 years of defining holy and the the majority position of the last 150 years of defining holy can be broken. So that is why I am still searching for answers in this blog and why I continue to produce blog entries.
Some others are convinced that it is "a time to give up" the definition of holy as "whole" for the previous 350 years as lost in comparison to the last 150 years of scholarship. They are pessimistic about the value of re-evaluatng the present time, because they believe that those earlier times of 350 yaers belong to a period of a failed searching. I can't agree. I think it is a great time for searching. That says something about who I am.
Again, my general position on defining holy is the following in relationship to the current majority on the defintion of holy as "set apart" or "separate". So second, I working in my search toward possibly realizing that it is "a time to throw away" the present popular definition. This would then make me a liberal, as defined above. But I am not to that place quite yet. In the present, I am convinced it is "a time to keep" both the definition of the prior 350 years as "whole" and the last 150 years as "set apart" and to evaluate them both again, before a final decision to "throw away" either one. I could also put "pure" into this mix as a slimmer possibility for a deifnition to keep. It is not the time to throw any of these away. It is, however, a time to realize that when my search is over, some of what has been proposed in the past will mean it is "a time to throw away". That should make my position very clear. I am not stuck in a particular time, but I am trying to be relevant to the time in which I live. I think I am moving forward toward and am attaining that goal. The key now is finishing my thesis paper for seminary. This clarification though is a part of that. That says a little more about who I am.
Now let me use a broad brush to say a bit about relevant history that might be influencing our time more than we know. The past sometimes matters, even through it is the past, like family influence and our own life choices of the past still influence the present. I know too that sometimes the past can be irrelevant. Let me try to stick with what might be relevant.
Near the beginning of the last 150 years was an historic divide between the Fundamentalists and the Modernists. Today their descendants are each called Conservatives and Liberals. The sad thing is that the so-called Conservatives in Protestantism did not "keep" the meaning of holy as "whole" as the primary definition from the prior 350 years. Instead they thought it was "a time to throw away" the primary definition of "whole" and make it only secondary (a descriptive word at best) while at the same time they saw it as "a time to keep" the secondary definition of the past as "set apart" and make it central. They threw away, while their name says they kept. These Conservatives were not conservative on the central character trait or quality or attribute of God. This is one of the greatest ironies of all of Christian history. How out of character with your name can you be?
I think the explanation though may not be difficult. In the late 1800s a Baptist named Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who I appreciate in many ways) was involved in what became known as the Downgrade Controversy. One of his banner phrases was the passage that reads "come out and be separate". This in turn became something that later Fundamentalists saw as sort of a creedo and banner statement of their stance . Members had to agree that it was a time to "separate" from the Modernists. Their new definition for holy helped support their stance because "set apart" or "separate", became the central character trait for who God is and who a saints is in their primary character.
I must also say that the Modernists were the ones who primarily dug into how "holy" ought to be defined especially in a Hebrew context. They searched as scholars. Their lexicons in the latter 1800s largely influenced, not just the Fundamentalists to define holy as "set apart", but also those within their own camp. It is another irony of history that their definition for holy helped the Fundamentalists to form and support a creedo of "set apart" or "separate". I don't know that they intended for this new definition to create a bigger divide between themselves and the Fundamentalists, but that was an unintended consequence at least. How out of character with their name can they be? They assisted their opposition.
So flashing back to the present. It is important that a person understands the times and what is relevant. What is most relevant is the present time and what approach fits or is relevant to that time. It is important not to get stuck in a time that is no longer relevant. We should not be sticks in the mud or sticks stuck in the mire of another time that is not relevant to our own. Some times can be relevant even if not the present. They can parallel the present, but that is not automatic. It is important to discern when it is a time to be an optimist or a pessimist. And it is also imporant to discern when it is a time to be a conservative or a liberal.
Even in wirting this piece, I have had to keep searching for a better word and I also had give up when I wasconvinced that searching further for the right word would not profit. I have also had to decide when to keep a sentence and when to throw it away. You and I may disagree on some of those decisions, yet they are naturally part of the times of life. If I were to keep everything, you would consider me a pack rat and my writing would not have faced the editing that it needed. If I threw out everything, then this page might still be blank and not worth anything at all. You get the picture. Solomon's wisdom matters.
These wise principles of Solomon are no less relevant today than they were back then. So I guess at the present time, I should be described as a optimistic conservative, who at the right time will make the liberal decision to throw away some of the three most likely definitions for holy, as it is found the Bible. I also at some point may decide, after I have completed my thesis paper at least, that it is time to finally give up writing more for the time being. Only if it produces results will I then need to once again search for more on its meaning. Maybe, at least temporarily, I will be able to say, "I have found what what's needed by searching".
May God give guidance from Solomon's principles. May we also be willing from the results of our decisions on what to do in our times, be willing to evaluate whether our wisdom is God's wisdom, as it was penned by Solomon. And if not, may we seek God's face for greater relevance and wisdom to know our times. Don't get stuck in the wrong time! You don't want to hear that punchy line, "Whatever!"
In Christ,
Jon
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
