My Cell Group has been grinding through the book of Revelations...
Week in and week out, we are reminded of the Big Picture just wrath of God against wickedness, the promise of the Kingdom, and ultimate victory of Christ, and His compassionate reign over all...
Now, when you come to the parts about dragons, 666, beasts with ten horns, whore which is a city on 7 hills, and the like, it's a fertile ground to sow hermeneutical options...
Many times, there's blurness over the waters in my mind! But as the resident bible student, I was sometimes called upon to give 'the correct view'...
What do i do?
A typical answer would be:
"OK, there are 4 views... some people would take this passage literally... so they would either interpret this beast as X or Y or Z... historically, most christians have held this until after WW2... Others would take it more symbolically, bcos this hint here seems to suggest it's not literal... If u take it as symbol, the beast would be A or B or C... the implications on daily living would be.... like this and that..."
Basically I try to lay out the issues involved, present the views as fairly as possible and basically invite them to study deeper and come to their own decisions. I dun wanna push my premillenial post-trib views la... (oops! Give away my cards)
However, if a CG friend asks "Who is/was Jesus?" I'd not use such this approach:
"Hey man, there are four views also here...
1. Crossan thinks He's a Cynic sage who never claimed to be Second Person of Trinity, now transformed into One bcos Christians forgot the metaphorical nature of gospel teachings about virgin birth and the like... stress on the brokerless kingdom
2. Elaine Pagels thinks He's a Gnostic, whose spirituality is linked direct-access with God, not through the clergy... u can receive direct revelation or knowledge of God personally... stress on a heavenly spiritual kingdom
3. Prophet Muhammad think He's a prophet for the Jews who paved the way for the coming of the universal Rasul... stress on submission to Allah
4. The traditional creedal view of Jesus, God's Son Incarnate, who was crucified for atoning our sins and vindicated by resurrection .. etc... stress on repentance and faith in Christ
Now, choose which view you find more appropriate in in dialogue with the Gospels (which ones?), your life situations, community context, tradition etc?"
I can't use such 4-views approach here... not bcos I think we cant learn anything from views 1-3... of course, we can!
But because this is so essential an issue which heaven or hell hangs upon...
So I can't offer these alternatives as possible Christian options like a disinterested scientist. My commitment on the orthodox position oughta be worn on my sleeves.
The 4-views approach which works on non-essential issues simply backfire on such crucial issues as it seems to invite my friend to 'choose what they wanna believe' in an area where we dun have much 'choice'.
Sometimes i do feel that some teachers caricature the other views... which is unhelpful bcos the students may encounter the real McCoy later.
But even in a seminary setting, I feel there should be an obligation on the professor's part to actively 'argue' for view 4 instead of leaving it to 'choice' (or Greek word haeresis, which is where we got the word 'heresy')
Week in and week out, we are reminded of the Big Picture just wrath of God against wickedness, the promise of the Kingdom, and ultimate victory of Christ, and His compassionate reign over all...
Now, when you come to the parts about dragons, 666, beasts with ten horns, whore which is a city on 7 hills, and the like, it's a fertile ground to sow hermeneutical options...
Many times, there's blurness over the waters in my mind! But as the resident bible student, I was sometimes called upon to give 'the correct view'...
What do i do?
A typical answer would be:
"OK, there are 4 views... some people would take this passage literally... so they would either interpret this beast as X or Y or Z... historically, most christians have held this until after WW2... Others would take it more symbolically, bcos this hint here seems to suggest it's not literal... If u take it as symbol, the beast would be A or B or C... the implications on daily living would be.... like this and that..."
Basically I try to lay out the issues involved, present the views as fairly as possible and basically invite them to study deeper and come to their own decisions. I dun wanna push my premillenial post-trib views la... (oops! Give away my cards)
However, if a CG friend asks "Who is/was Jesus?" I'd not use such this approach:
"Hey man, there are four views also here...
1. Crossan thinks He's a Cynic sage who never claimed to be Second Person of Trinity, now transformed into One bcos Christians forgot the metaphorical nature of gospel teachings about virgin birth and the like... stress on the brokerless kingdom
2. Elaine Pagels thinks He's a Gnostic, whose spirituality is linked direct-access with God, not through the clergy... u can receive direct revelation or knowledge of God personally... stress on a heavenly spiritual kingdom
3. Prophet Muhammad think He's a prophet for the Jews who paved the way for the coming of the universal Rasul... stress on submission to Allah
4. The traditional creedal view of Jesus, God's Son Incarnate, who was crucified for atoning our sins and vindicated by resurrection .. etc... stress on repentance and faith in Christ
Now, choose which view you find more appropriate in in dialogue with the Gospels (which ones?), your life situations, community context, tradition etc?"
I can't use such 4-views approach here... not bcos I think we cant learn anything from views 1-3... of course, we can!
But because this is so essential an issue which heaven or hell hangs upon...
So I can't offer these alternatives as possible Christian options like a disinterested scientist. My commitment on the orthodox position oughta be worn on my sleeves.
The 4-views approach which works on non-essential issues simply backfire on such crucial issues as it seems to invite my friend to 'choose what they wanna believe' in an area where we dun have much 'choice'.
Sometimes i do feel that some teachers caricature the other views... which is unhelpful bcos the students may encounter the real McCoy later.
But even in a seminary setting, I feel there should be an obligation on the professor's part to actively 'argue' for view 4 instead of leaving it to 'choice' (or Greek word haeresis, which is where we got the word 'heresy')
Comments
:) VERY stimulating conversation... the folks actually sat together and talk
- what are the benefits/problems of each view?
- what is the epistemology and worldview of each author?
- what the assumptions (individual and group) inherent in all views?
we would, of course, say that traditionally Christians have believed in a certain view. this is at least a world away from, 'take your pick' thinking. it's 'let's learn from all views' thinking.
from your passion and conviction, ppl will see what/why you believe in the orthodox view. from your counsel, they will also see why Biblical soundness demand a certain view, etc.
so, in the end, we get both multi-view, broad-perspective learning AND correct Christian teaching.