The Bible in Five Acts

I very much enjoyed N.T.Wright’s book on Biblical authority, “The Last Word.” In it, he illustrates an innovative way of looking at scripture in its entirety, a way which avoids many of the pitfalls that we encounter when trying to corroborate writings that appear to have diverse, even opposing points of view. He calls it the ‘Bible in Five Acts’ and the following is a more in depth description that I found on the NT Wright web page: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

Let me offer you a possible model, which is not in fact simply an illustration but actually corresponds, as I shall argue, to some important features of the biblical story, which (as I have been suggesting) is that which God has given to his people as the means of his exercising his authority. Suppose there exists a Shakespeare play whose fifth act had been lost. The first four acts provide, let us suppose, such a wealth of characterization, such a crescendo of excitement within the plot, that it is generally agreed that the play ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt inappropriate actually to write a fifth act once and for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and commit Shakespeare as it were to being prospectively responsible for work not in fact his own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who would immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.[5]

Consider the result. The first four acts, existing as they did, would be the undoubted ‘authority’ for the task in hand. That is, anyone could properly object to the new improvisation on the grounds that this or that character was now behaving inconsistently, or that this or that sub-plot or theme, adumbrated earlier, had not reached its proper resolution. This ‘authority’ of the first four acts It would consist in the fact of an as yet unfinished drama, which contained its own impetus, its own forward movement, which demanded to be concluded in the proper manner but which required of the actors a responsible entering in to the story as it stood, in order first to understand how the threads could appropriately be drawn together, and then to put that understanding into effect by speaking and acting with both innovation and consistency. would not consist in an implicit command that the actors should repeat the earlier pans of the play over and over again.

This model could and perhaps should be adapted further; it offers in fact quite a range of possibilities.Among the detailed moves available within this model, which I shall explore and pursue elsewhere, is the possibility of seeing the five acts as follows: (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Israel; (4) Jesus. The New Testament would then form the first scene in the fifth act, giving hints as well (Rom 8; 1 Car 15; parts of the Apocalypse) of how the play is supposed to end. The church would then live under the ‘authority’ of the extant story, being required to offer something between an improvisation and an actual performance of the final act. Appeal could always be made to the inconsistency of what was being offered with a major theme or characterization in the earlier material. Such an appeal—and such an offering!—would of course require sensitivity of a high order to the whole nature of the story and to the ways in which it would be (of course) inappropriate simply to repeat verbatim passages from earlier sections. Such sensitivity (cashing out the model in terms of church life) is precisely what one would have expected to be required; did we ever imagine that the application of biblical authority ought to be something that could be done by a well-programmed computer?

I think this is a neat way of looking at the Bible; as God’s dramatic achievement that has yet to play out – a play in which we all have important roles. Wright’s idea puts a more relevant twist on an old theme. People like George McDonald Fraser, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, CS Lewis, Tolkein, and lately Frederick Buechner and John Eldridge have all made the connection between the message and the medium, especially as it pertains to stories of mythic dimensions. We are all recieving our own stage directions and it’s important to make sure that we are listening to the director himself and not some of his flunkies. It is a good idea to spend some time making sure that the ‘back story’ hasn’t gone through any unnecessary and dangerous ‘re-writes’ that may have been made to meet the agendas of some of its self-appointed sponsors.

To point this analogy in another direction – too many cooks spoil the broth. God’s given us the ingredients, the untensils, even the kitchen to work in. Play with it, have some fun. Just remember that Jesus has spelled out certain basics, that if ignored, could result in a ruined recipe. But we can take joy in the fact that God is forgiving and will gladly help us to pick up where we left off.

Revelations on Revelation

Buddy Oliver, over on Rev22 has some interesting things to say about the book of John’s Revelation:

“I think it could be argued however that Revelation is second in importance only to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. One could make a case that it ranks above Luke’s Gospel because Revelation is a first hand account of an encounter with Jesus and many theologians believe that it was written by John the Apostle (of course there are those who think otherwise). Luke on the other hand is a second hand account at best (albeit an incredibly important book nonetheless)…

…the Gospels are the life blood of Christians. They are vitally important even central for us to live out the Kingdom. However they only give us basically a three year window into who Jesus is. Among many other things, Revelation gives us more to add to that picture. It gives us the first (and only?) status report on our progress.”

Read the whole article here:

http://rev22.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/revelations-on-revelation/

The Myth of the Murderous Muslim

I found myself in the middle of a heated argument the other night with a very well educated person who was espousing swift, brutal and total military action against the Muslim world. What started the debate was his remark that the Crusaders had the right idea and it was a shame that they did not finish the job. Although this man claims to be an atheist, he believes that Christians have always held the moral high ground and if it had not been for the admittedly brutal martial actions of medieval Christendom there would be no Church today.

Of course my response was that the Crusades had clearly demonstrated that the authentic Church had gone underground, that what passed for Christianity in those times was an obscene aberration, an abomination. Generally, the past actions of the so-called Christian Church are no more laudable, in fact they may be more heinous, than anything that can be attributed to the Muslim extremists of today. And just as one should not condemn the Gospel for those who desecrate it in the name of God, we should be very careful when we hold the essence of Islam responsible for the murders and tyrannies committed by fundamentalist elements on their fringe.

Many say, though, that the violence and oppression that we witness today in parts of the Muslim world represents the true nature of Islam, that the Quran expressly directs the true believer to initiate violent Jihad against the infidels of this world. This view is based primarily on a common Christian practice that results in many confused religious minds – proof texting. Just as a reading of Genesis, Exodus or Deuteronomy outside the light of the remainder of scripture can result in rationalizations for slavery, pogroms and genocide, this same practice will often paint a picture of the Quran as a world conquering instruction manual.

Actions speak louder than words and throughout most of history institutionalized Islam has a much better track record than institutionalized Christianity. During the Dark Ages, Early Islam was the fount of philosophy, art, poetry, science and medicine as well as charity and religious tolerance. In Moorish Spain Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in relative harmony. It was the Christian conquerors who set about violently removing both Jew and Muslim from the peninsula. Around this same time Islam conquered what we now know as Turkey and to this day Istanbul is still the seat of the Eastern Church. When conquering the Indian sub-continent both Hindu and Buddhist were allowed to freely practice their religions. This should not be surprising because it is prescribed in the Quran as well as other Islamic teachings; “Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God.” (Bukhâri) Unfortunately what little we know of the Quran is relayed to us in the sound bites of those with political agendas to meet.

An oft repeated complaint against the Muslims of this country is their apparent lack of voice in condemning the violent actions of their brethren. This accusation does not take into account the long lasting divisions that have existed throughout Islam as a whole; not all Muslims feel allegiance to those reactionary fundamentalists who are behind most of the violence. Those Muslims now living in our neighborhoods are usually there because they sought escape from religious extremists. Even so, doesn’t this criticism cut both ways? Where was the voice of Christianity during the Holocaust? Where was the American Church in the condemnation of the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Purportedly “Christian” nations deliberately and intentionally ordered the horrendous deaths of non-combatants with liquid fire and burning radiation. We were at war, some say, and regrettable decisions must often be made. Perhaps, but this is Christian hypocrisy nevertheless.

Within Christianity we have groups of people who will not equivocate when it comes to refusing to take up the sword; the Quaker, Amish, Mennonite and Bruderhof easily come to mind. The Jehovah’s Witnesses (some dispute their “Christianity”) were some of the first to be sent to the Nazi camps because of their outspoken pacifism. On the other hand, the majority of professing Christians will tolerate or even espouse violence, especially when it poses a threat to our own security. At times we will commit our lives, resources and energies in coming to the aid of oppressed people (Tojo, Hitler, Hussein and the Taliban all desperately needed to go) but mostly we ignore the plight of millions of others. We can only do so much, so when we do finally act it is only prudent that the actions coincide with our national interests.

But how does this permit us the moral high ground? Well, for one thing, we don’t hijack airplanes and fly them into crowded skyscrapers. Some might even suggest (mistakenly) that we don’t kill people that we are not officially at war with. And we certainly would not condone indiscriminate violence from our own people. But of course, neither do the vast majority of Muslims.

In World War II, during the Allied invasion of North Africa, the Allied and Axis powers played a bloody game of cat and mouse, overrunning desert territory one day, being expelled the next by superior forces. Many Muslim towns and cities endured an ever changing procession of conquerors; British, French, Italian, German, American. At no time were these people ever considered other than pawns in the greater scheme of the western powers. Their homes, mosques, hospitals, schools and farms were obliterated. Their wells were poisoned and their religious shrines turned to rubble. Many children not killed were left maimed and orphaned.

These people had the misfortune of their ancestors making their homes in lands that were to be later colonized by Europeans. European armies then laid waste to the region as they fought battles begun across the Mediterranean, battles that were of little concern to the Muslim. One of the many devastated Muslim towns, offering little more than strategic interest to both Allied and Axis alike, was Medina, the second holiest Islamic city, after Mecca. How would the perspective of a Muslim survivor of that period be any different than that of someone who survived 9/11? How can their objections have less value than ours?

Are we intellectually, culturally and morally superior to these people? Because we have knowledge of the ‘truth’ as we find it in our religious and cultural traditions does this automatically place all other people in the unfortunate position of being ‘losers’? It is interesting to me that many Christians reach back to those parts of the Bible that they would (incorrectly) take to condone war and violence, yet those same Christians accuse the Koran of being a violent book. Mohammed believed that Jesus was not given enough time on this earth to present a systematic process for following his path to God. Islam believes that God gave the Koran to the people to provide just such a framework. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, in the Gospels, and exclusive pursuit of either of the other two ways (though not without value) can often lead to distortion, misunderstanding, fundamentalism, legalism, judgmentalism and finally hatred.

As stated on Crescentlife.com, a Muslim webpage: “Terrorists who persecute innocent people because of their faith are not welcome – their use of Islam as a scapegoat, does not make Islam what they portray it to be. “ If we can agree with the spirit of that premise, and also see there can be a fine line separating terrorism and military action, then it may prove interesting when we apply this same standard to Christians.