Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Book of Proverbs


by 5 Comments

We’re only happy when it rains!

They're only happy when it rains.

Today I read an article by Christopher B. Hays recommended by Daniel Kirk (HT). It is titled “The Folly of Answering Fools” (read here). He bases his thoughts on Prov. 26.4-5 where in one breath Scripture tells us both to answer a fool in his folly and not to answer a fool in his folly. In this proverb we realize that there is a time to challenge foolishness, but there is also a time to let it go. For instance, Hays wonders if Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code would have been as big a deal if it wouldn’t have caused so many Christians to freak out. Maybe there is a time to not bring attention to bad pop culture letting it sink away into obscurity? It is a good article. I recommend it.

This reminded me of a post written earlier this week by Kevin DeYoung where he provided twelve marks of a contentious person (read here). This post made me ponder why Christians always feel obligated to add their two cents (including my own urge to do so). It seems like many Christians fail to live the wisdom of Proverbs 26.4-5 for the simple reason that they like being contentious! Maybe we have a hard time not answering the fool like Hays advises us from the proverb is because we are foolish ourselves. We think we need to say something about everything.

It is like the song by Garbage “I’m Only Happy When It Rains” which has the lines,

I’m only happy when it rains/
I’m only happy when its complicated/
And though I know you can’t appreciate it /
I’m only happy when it rains/
You know I love it when the news is bad/
Why it feels so good to feel so sad/
I’m only happy when it rains

If you think I am being whining consider this: What posts in the blogosphere get the most attention? One with an exegetical investigation? Those pondering theological issues relevant to the church? Not usually (and these can often lead to intense conversations). Rather, it seems to me, that the posts that are intentionally critical of this or that (and I am not saying we should not write these and I am not saying I won’t write these) bring crowds! Why is this?

Are we Christians overly contentious? Can it be said of us not simply that we contend for important things sometimes, or that we can be contentious on occasion when something seems worth our time and effort, but rather that we seek conflict?

This is something that I have been pondering. What do you think? Are we Christians overly contentious? What about those of us in the blogosphere? If we are honest do we prefer juicy, edgy blog posts? How can we seek balance?

About these ads


by 6 Comments

Scripture’s poetics

No, not Neruda' poetics

Three days ago I wrote a post about the both/and function of some books with the canon of Scripture. In other words, let us ask whether the Book of Proverbs is true to life in its call to follow Wisdom’s voice or if the Book of Ecclesiastes is true to life in its seeming nihilism for those living “under the sun”. There is a way to read these two books as being in opposition, but I think this is a mistake. I do not deny the juxtaposition, but I do deny that these two necessarily oppose each other.

I was asked to provide a bit of clarification regarding my both/and paradigm which I did in a comment that I thought deserved the attention of becoming a post. This is what I wrote:

“I read the Book of Proverbs as a book of proverbial wisdom that claims that if Wisdom’s words are followed the follower will avoid the heartache and devastation of foolish living. That is truthful and this claim is truthful, but there are times when there is an addition x factor that the author of proverbs has not taken into consideration that can derail the applicability of these various proverbs to certain lives. In other words, the Book of Proverbs presents the general rule that if you follow wisdom you will live a good life. It does not stop to ask if this is still true when A, B, C, or D occur.

“The Book of Job provides a scenario that shows an exception to the general rule of the Book of Proverbs: What is God and Satan wage a cosmic bet? It does not matter is Job lived by wise principles, there is another factor in play: God, angels, demons, and other people can interrupt things causing the Book of Proverbs to appear untruthful to the person who tries to live wisely yet finds their life is a disaster.

“The Book of Ecclesiastes provides another angle that we find is true to our experience. There are people who seem to live horrible lives who are successful; there are people who live “wise” lives who are buried by unforeseen circumstances. If we read the Book of Ecclesiastes alone we can say, “Yes, I have seen this type of scenario. I have seen many lives wasted. I have seen good people buried by bad circumstances. This is so true to life!” But we know this is not the whole story. It is not true of everyone and every life even though it is true.

“When we read these poetic books together we get a vision of life that is holistic. If we just read Proverbs we may think something is wrong when we are trying to live in wisdom yet our child dies or we lose our job. If we Job alone we may fear that our every decision will be overrun by God, angels, demons, and other people. If we read Ecclesiastes alone we may become nihilistic. But together, we see these harmonized voice show the truth that life is more complex than any one of these three books would indicate if read alone.”

Scripture’s poetics sometime present contrasting truth claims which result in truth due to the balance of the canonical witness. If we take Proverbs alone it is true in part. If we take Ecclesiastes alone it is true  in part. If we take Job alone it is true in part. Together it is true.


by 22 Comments

Scripture’s both/and

Maybe we need to think of the canon as more like an orchestra or a choir than a textbook?

A few years ago my pastor did a series of sermons on the poetic books. It was during this time that I was forced to think about the reality that Scripture’s truthfulness is often found in its acceptance of both/and rather than either/or. Let me explain.

If one reads the Book of Proverbs one gets the idea that Scripture indicates that if someone lives by these proverbs that life will be good. If someone seeks wisdom they will avoid the pit falls that entrap the foolish. Yet when we flip to the Book of Ecclesiastes we discover “vanity, vanity, all is vanity!” Even the good person ends up dead in the grave. Then if we go to the Book of Job it becomes even more complicated: So we have a Satan, angels, and God as active agents? Where is that in the presentation given by the Book of Proverbs???

Some read Scripture and this tension is overwhelming. But I think this is a misreading of Scripture. Scripture’s truthfulness is not limited to some sort of depositing of theological data. It is not a decision between one person saying “5 + 5 = 10″ and someone else saying “no, 5 + 5 = 12″. Life is more complicated and complex than that.

So Scripture’s truthfulness is often found in its both/and. Is it true that the person who seeks to live wise will have a better life. Yes, unless a, b, c, or d. Is it true that life is meaningless and that we all go to the grave to die? Yes, unless a, b, c, or d. In other words Scripture makes absolute statements that do not seek to answer the “what if’s” or the “what abouts”.

In doing this Scripture often is truer to life than any text on philosophy. If a person obeys God they will have a good life and a better life than the fool….unless Satan and God have a cosmic wager! If a person seeks life’s best they will often find that they die like the rest….unless God sends his Son to provide resurrecting life through his Spirit!

This is not contradiction. This is 3D. This is multidimensional. The canon creates a choir of voices. If we only heard the voice of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes this would not be true to life. If we only heard the voice of the wise father in Proverbs this would not be true to life. If we assumed that everything good and evil is the result of cosmic duals between God and Satan like Job this would not be true to life. But together (!) it is true to life.

Scripture’s both/and is often missed by both fundamentalist type readers and those reacting to fundamentalist type readers. But if we think of the canon more as a choir than a book of propositions we will realize it is telling us the truth of God’s world like no other book.


by 7 Comments

Gray hair is a crown of splendor

Gray hair is a crown of splendor;
it is attained in the way of righteousness.
(Prov. 16.31)

Yesterday I read an article on CNN.com titled “Baby boomers flood seminaries” (read here). It was a short report based on the findings of the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) that the fifty-and-older demographic has gone from 12% of seminarians in 1995 to 20% in 2009. At the end of the article John Blake asks,

But could old age equip people to be better ministers?

For example, how can a young minister who has never been married or had children or even lost many friends to death counsel grieving couples?

And might an older minister do better at dealing with the temptations of ego, sex, and money?

Is it better to be a rookie minister when you have gray hair?

I have come to a place in my life where the charismatic, young pastor with excellent homilies and creative thoughts about being the church does not attract me like an older, seasoned man who has been a husband and a father and a pastor for some time. At the age of twenty-eight I don’t feel the same respect for a thirty-three year old pastor as I do a forty-four year old or a fifty-one year old. This is not because I don’t think a thirty-something cannot make a good pastor. It is because I need someone who is further down the line at the stage in life to pastor me as I enter the next phase of my own.

So it is not surprising to me that older people are entering seminary. I think this is great. To answer John Blake: I don’t know if it matters if a “rookie” has gray hair, but gray hair does matter (like the Proverb above states).

In the early church there were offices that could not be held by someone under thirty. I tend to be sympathetic toward that idea to some extent. I know a lot of young pastors, and I know about a lot of young pastors, who lead hip and trendy churches, but I fear the day someone dies in one of the families in the church, when a child is diagnosed with a fatal disease, when a couple that was respected by all announces they are divorcing, when the economy collapses and people lose their jobs. A young, rookie brain surgeon is good and better than no surgeon, but if I could request the older, seasoned veteran with my life at stake I know I would do so!

I don’t say this to denounce young ministers. You are worthy of the respect you earn. I say this to encourage the older ones. We need you and your wisdom. No, you can’t reference as much pop-culture in your sermons. No, you don’t know all the latest worships songs. No, you do not have flashy videos and PPT to enhance your sermons. You have age. You have gray hair. You have wisdom and experience and life. We need you.


by Leave a comment

Athanasius On the Trinity in Genesis 1:18

In Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) Athanasius argues the the imperative mood (command form) in Genesis 1:18 (as well as the other imperatives in the creation narrative) are evidence that God created through the Word. Although his argument is not rebuttal-proof exegesis it is an interesting insight into how early Christians read the Hebrew Scriptures/LXX. He writes:

[A]s the illustrious Moses also at the beginning of his account of Creation confirms what we say by his narrative, saying: and God said, “let us make man in our image and after our likeness:” for also when He was carrying out the creation of the heaven and earth and all things, the Father said to Him, “Let the heaven be made,” and “let the waters be gathered together and let the dry land appear,” and “let the earth bring forth herb” and “every green thing:” so that one must convict Jews also of not genuinely attending to Scripture. For one might ask them to whom was God speaking, to use the imperative mood? If he were commanding and addressing the things He was creating, the utterance would be redundant, for they were not yet in being, but were about to be made; but no one speaks to what does not exist, nor addresses to what is not yet made a command to be made. For if God were giving a command to the things that were to be, He must have said, “Be made, heaven, and be made, earth, and come forth, green herb, and be created, O man.” But in fact He did not do sol but He gives the command thus: “Let us make man,” and “let the green herb come forth.” By which God is prove to be speaking about them to some one at hand: it follows then that some was with Him to Whom He Spoke when He made all things. Who then could it be, save His Word? For to whom could God be said to speak, except His Word? Or who was with Him when He made all created Existence, except His Wisdom, which says, “When He was making the heaven and the earth I was present with Him?” (Prov. 8.27) But in the mention of heaven and earth, all created things in heaven and earth are included as well. But being present with Him as His Wisdom and His Word, looking at the Father He fashioned the Universe, and organized it and gave it order; and, as He is the power of the Father, He gave all things strength to be, as the Saviour says: What things soever I see the Father doing, I also do in like manner” (Jn. 5.19) [1]

Along with the imperative mood of Genesis 1 he argues that if God were not commanding the Word to create he ought to have (presumably) used some sort of “to be” language (e.g. “plants be”). It is a hard argument to understand linguistically and I am not even sure if it stands in either Hebrew or Greek. I cannot think of how in Hebrew or Greek it could have been written that God said for things to come into existence outside the use of the imperative mood. Maybe someone else has a thought on this matter?

In addition to his linguistic argument he uses Wisdom in Proverbs as the one who is with God at creation as evidence that this refers to the Word. Furthermore, he alludes to the Gospel of John where Jesus says he does that which he sees the Father do as evidence that in Genesis 1 the Word follows the command of the Father in creation.

_____________________
[1] Athanasius, Against the Heathen, 46.4-7