The importance of story in the forming of Christian disciples has been a theme of late on this blog. Narrative theology is the theological discipline that most clearly articulates and expounds on these truths. Its proponents treat the bible as one continuous narrative, with a beginning, middle, and ending, and believe that the theological statements, propositions, ethical teachings, etc. cannot be removed from the narrative in which they are situated. It is this overarching narrative that gives them their meaning. And it is the narrative itself, as told in and performed by the church, that has the power to form Christians in the image of Christ.
One of the constant criticisms that narrative theology and its practitioners face is the assumption by some that a story cannot be real. In other words, if we treat Scripture as a narrative or a story, than we are effectively removing the historical referent (e.g. that Jesus of Nazareth was truly born, truly lived and truly was crucified under Pontius Pilate) from Scripture. Such a move, it is argued, relegates Scripture to the level of any other story, such as Les Miserables, which, while being a story that positively affects people, never actually happened (Jean Val Jean is not an historic figure).
While there may be some narrative theologians that presume such ideas, the best ones retain the historical referent, while insisting that we respect Scripture's primary genre of narrative. There must, after all, be a reason that the Gospel writers (and the writer/writers of the Pentateuch) decided to relate the historical information in the form of a story. And that reason, I think, is because story has more power than a list of facts or sayings. And in the end, Scripture was not written (or later called such by the church) simply to relay facts; it was written to form people after the image of God revealed in Jesus Christ.
In any event, it is simply untrue that stories by definition have no historical referent. Think of how great figures throughout history have been remembered in print. They are not remembered through a list of facts about their lives, but through the relating of the story of their life by biography and autobiography. The stories of the saints, when related in this manner, also have the power to change people, to point them to Christ. Yet, it would be preposterous to assume that because these lives are written as stories they must be historically false.
To make my point, I offer you, in my opinion, the ten greatest spiritual biographies/autobiographies ever written. All are written as narratives, and yet all relate the historical truths of historical figures. I recommend anyone of these works to my readers. Each of them, for different reasons, will inspire, encourage you, and point you to God.
----
10. An Arrow Pointing to Heaven, Biography of Rich Mullins, written by James Bryan Smith
9. The Genesee Diary, Henri Nouwen, about his time in a Trappist Monastery
8. Life of Antony, Biography of Father Antony of the Desert Monks, written by St. Athanasius
7. Life of Macrina, Biography of St. Macrina, written by her younger brother St. Gregory of Nyssa
6. Shadow of the Almighy, Biography of Jim Elliot, written by Elisabeth Elliot
5. The Hiding Place, Autobiography of Corrie Ten Boom focusing on her time in a concentration camp. (This I have not yet read but I am assured by my wife that it belongs high on this list - #5 is not high enough for her, but not yet having read it, I didn't think I could justify any higher. Incidentally, it is my next read.)
4. The Life of Saint Francis, Biography of St. Francis of Assisi, written by St. Bonaventure
3. The Story of a Soul, Autobiography of St. Therese of Liseaux
2. The Seven Storey Mountain, Autobiography of Thomas Merton
1. The Confessions, Autobiography of St. Augustine
---
There are so many more deserving of mention. What spiritual biographies/autobiographies have you read that have influenced you?
Showing posts with label Story. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Story. Show all posts
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The Story in Dogmatic Outline
As a narrative theologian, I am normally not a fan of propositional theology. However, in keeping with the theme of capturing the entire story of Scripture discussed of late on this blog, I found the following synopsis of that story quite fascinating. If you have a chance, let me know what you think.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Why have we lost the Story?
In the previous post, I lamented the fact that church has, generally speaking, in some way lost the understanding of the biblical narrative, the redemption story of God and the people he has called to himself in Israel and in the church. This loss has been deceptive because in many parts of the church, it would appear that bible reading is on the rise. Individual study of the Scriptures is now everywhere encouraged, including the Catholic Church which, for a time, kept the Scriptures away from lay people in an ancient language. Additionally, it would appear that Scripture memorization is on the rise. I've been to many churches where pastors encourage this discipline from the pulpit.
But the deception comes just in this. It is easy to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are biblically literate people because we have memorized a few verses or because we know a few bible stories. It is easy to deceive ourselves into thinking that we understand the story because we know who Balaam is. And so despite what can pass for biblical sermons and such, I hold to my original claim. But why have we lost this story? Particularly when the love of the bible is so high in many denominations. How did we get to where we are? This is a complex question with many possible answers. In this post, I would like to suggest only one possible factor with the knowledge that it alone cannot shoulder the blame.
Maxie Dunham, long time United Methodist pastor and former president of Asbury Theological Seminary, was fond of saying: "As the seminary goes, so goes the preacher, as the preacher goes, so goes the church." There is much wisdom in this statement and I think that he gets at a fundamental truth of the loss of the story. Much of the onus must be placed on the academy that trains these ministers. Allow me a bit of background to make this point.
In the modern era, there developed in biblical scholarship a series of methods for studying the text, which are collectively known as the "historical-critical method." The historical-critical method, in all of its varieties, seeks to find the meaning of the text by placing the text in its original sitz im leben ("life setting"). It seeks to discover the original author, the original audience, the original setting, any circumstances that occasioned the work, and the like. It was thought that the original context would provide the appropriate interpretive context. The historical-critical method developed in response to erroneous interpretations which read the text purely from one's own context, often employing it in manners that are unwarranted by the text itself.
This is all well and good and you might think that the historical-critical method was a positive development. After all, there are innumerable examples of how the text has been twisted to meet someone's personal agenda and the historical-critical method does provide some means of objectivity to act as a check against this sort of exegesis.
Having said this, there are, in my estimation, many negatives to the historical-critical method. The first, and perhaps the only one that needs to be mentioned here, is the shifting of the context of interpretation. For the historical-critical method, the context of interpretation moves behind the text. That is, the real interesting and crucial knowledge about an epistle such as Ephesians is not the content of the letter itself, but rather the situation in which it was written. Scholars who employ this method think that they will ascertain the meaning of the text if they can recreate the original context. But that means that the meaning is not located in anything Paul says in the text (if indeed Paul wrote Ephesians) but what was happening in his mind to cause him to write this. As a result, the text shifts to the background and these "behind-the-text" issues become the only important thing.
The greatest example of the loss of the text is in Gospel studies. Historical-critics are in general agreement that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. But to understand the numerous similar passages found in Matthew and Luke that are absent from Mark, they have constructed a hypothetical "Q" document which is, supposedly, an early list of Jesus' sayings. They contend that Matthew and Luke also used "Q" to write their accounts. There is no manuscript evidence for this document. It is never quoted as such in the early Fathers or canonical lists of books. Yet, for most biblical scholars Q more important than any of the Gospels because it represents the earliest source, a list that is closest in time to the Christ event. NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST! The canonical Gospels, in the work of these scholars, very clearly take second place.
This phenomenon can also be witnessed in any scholarly commentary that one picks up today. On the average, 3/4s of a given commentary is devoted to the recreation of the original setting, whereas only 1/4 is given to actual exposition of the text. And these are the commentaries that our preachers are using.
And here is where I think the academy has led to the loss of the story. The majority of ministers currently in the pulpit cut their teeth on this historical-critical method. As a result, they have been trained to think of the text as secondary in importance. This leaves them with quite a problem on Sunday mornings. Are they to write a sermon about the real author of Ephesians? Chances are no because that does not preach very well. What is left then but some topical sermon? For they were not trained to understand the entire narrative and that its retelling is the only thing that will form Christian disciples.
There are, to be sure, positive things to be mined from the historical-critical method. But to buy into it hook, line, and sinker is to relegate the text to second place and to lose the overall understanding of the story of God from creation to redemption. It is to lose the idea that the one author, the Holy Spirit, is behind all of the individual authors and settings and gives the story its coherence. It is to lose the idea that this story still speaks to us today, that we as the church today are the intended audience of these letters. In short, the beginning of the recovery of the biblical story is the restoration of the text to its rightful place as the center of both exegetical study and homiletical exposition.
But the deception comes just in this. It is easy to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are biblically literate people because we have memorized a few verses or because we know a few bible stories. It is easy to deceive ourselves into thinking that we understand the story because we know who Balaam is. And so despite what can pass for biblical sermons and such, I hold to my original claim. But why have we lost this story? Particularly when the love of the bible is so high in many denominations. How did we get to where we are? This is a complex question with many possible answers. In this post, I would like to suggest only one possible factor with the knowledge that it alone cannot shoulder the blame.
Maxie Dunham, long time United Methodist pastor and former president of Asbury Theological Seminary, was fond of saying: "As the seminary goes, so goes the preacher, as the preacher goes, so goes the church." There is much wisdom in this statement and I think that he gets at a fundamental truth of the loss of the story. Much of the onus must be placed on the academy that trains these ministers. Allow me a bit of background to make this point.
In the modern era, there developed in biblical scholarship a series of methods for studying the text, which are collectively known as the "historical-critical method." The historical-critical method, in all of its varieties, seeks to find the meaning of the text by placing the text in its original sitz im leben ("life setting"). It seeks to discover the original author, the original audience, the original setting, any circumstances that occasioned the work, and the like. It was thought that the original context would provide the appropriate interpretive context. The historical-critical method developed in response to erroneous interpretations which read the text purely from one's own context, often employing it in manners that are unwarranted by the text itself.
This is all well and good and you might think that the historical-critical method was a positive development. After all, there are innumerable examples of how the text has been twisted to meet someone's personal agenda and the historical-critical method does provide some means of objectivity to act as a check against this sort of exegesis.
Having said this, there are, in my estimation, many negatives to the historical-critical method. The first, and perhaps the only one that needs to be mentioned here, is the shifting of the context of interpretation. For the historical-critical method, the context of interpretation moves behind the text. That is, the real interesting and crucial knowledge about an epistle such as Ephesians is not the content of the letter itself, but rather the situation in which it was written. Scholars who employ this method think that they will ascertain the meaning of the text if they can recreate the original context. But that means that the meaning is not located in anything Paul says in the text (if indeed Paul wrote Ephesians) but what was happening in his mind to cause him to write this. As a result, the text shifts to the background and these "behind-the-text" issues become the only important thing.
The greatest example of the loss of the text is in Gospel studies. Historical-critics are in general agreement that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. But to understand the numerous similar passages found in Matthew and Luke that are absent from Mark, they have constructed a hypothetical "Q" document which is, supposedly, an early list of Jesus' sayings. They contend that Matthew and Luke also used "Q" to write their accounts. There is no manuscript evidence for this document. It is never quoted as such in the early Fathers or canonical lists of books. Yet, for most biblical scholars Q more important than any of the Gospels because it represents the earliest source, a list that is closest in time to the Christ event. NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST! The canonical Gospels, in the work of these scholars, very clearly take second place.
This phenomenon can also be witnessed in any scholarly commentary that one picks up today. On the average, 3/4s of a given commentary is devoted to the recreation of the original setting, whereas only 1/4 is given to actual exposition of the text. And these are the commentaries that our preachers are using.
And here is where I think the academy has led to the loss of the story. The majority of ministers currently in the pulpit cut their teeth on this historical-critical method. As a result, they have been trained to think of the text as secondary in importance. This leaves them with quite a problem on Sunday mornings. Are they to write a sermon about the real author of Ephesians? Chances are no because that does not preach very well. What is left then but some topical sermon? For they were not trained to understand the entire narrative and that its retelling is the only thing that will form Christian disciples.
There are, to be sure, positive things to be mined from the historical-critical method. But to buy into it hook, line, and sinker is to relegate the text to second place and to lose the overall understanding of the story of God from creation to redemption. It is to lose the idea that the one author, the Holy Spirit, is behind all of the individual authors and settings and gives the story its coherence. It is to lose the idea that this story still speaks to us today, that we as the church today are the intended audience of these letters. In short, the beginning of the recovery of the biblical story is the restoration of the text to its rightful place as the center of both exegetical study and homiletical exposition.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Internalizing the Story
Recently I was asked to speak to a youth group on the subject of creation vs. evolution. I was quite taken aback at such a topic in the context of youth ministry. When I asked the youth leader why she had chosen this topic, she told me that the kids desired to learn about it. Though I had my reservations, I accepted the invitation because I wanted to serve the church and also because I thought it might be a good opportunity to steer the kids (and perhaps the youth leader) away from this topic as something that is absolutely essential. It is my own opinion, and has been for quite some time, that the creation vs. evolution topic is neither helpful nor productive to discipleship.
Unfortunately, the night did not progress as I had hoped. After my short introduction, I was met with a bunch of blank stares that conveyed to me either one of two things. At best, they were glad I had finished and were wondering when the dodge ball game would start. At worst, they had not understood a word I had said and were wondering when the "Kill the Speaker" game would start. The youth leader tried to help by posing some tough questions, but these were the very questions that launched us into the issue and here I was, a theological student, being asked to meaningfully comment on scientific issues. It is not that I take the approach that faith and science are separate issues by any means. But I am smart enough to know my limits, and the fine points of microevolution progress beyond my limits.
What I wanted the kids to know is that the Word is absolutely clear that God created the heavens and the earth. That he created them ex nihilo ("out of nothing" - though the tradition better fills this in), that humans were created in imagine dei ("in the image of God") and that these are the only points regarding creation on which I think we must be absolutely resolute. After all, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any kind of a projection at how old the earth is. There is nothing in Scripture that gives an actual duration of time of creation, or when humans first appeared. And furthermore, there is no claim of Scripture that the Genesis account is to be taken as scientific fact.
But alas, I am not sure that any of my points or any of my stammerings through the difficult questions got through to the kids. There are two reasons for this: 1) my poor communication skills; and 2) they were not trained to hear what I was saying. While I am the first to admit that I have difficulties making myself understood (my wife would be the second to admit this), I must say that the latter reason was the primary point of contention that night.
The fact is that these kids had not been well trained in the story of Scripture. And when I say this, I do not mean that they didn't know some bible stories or that they hadn't memorized any verses in Genesis or elsewhere. Indeed they may have. What was lacking in these kids was a good overall grasp of the story of Scripture from beginning to end. They didn't understand why it is crucial to believe that God created the heavens and the earth. They didn't understand the story of redemption and what that says about us and what that says about God. And furthermore, they didn't understand what Scripture itself is.
Rather, their understanding of Scripture was something that was dropped from the sky to be read absolutely literally. Their understanding of why it was necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth was simply that the bible says so. They had no concept of the bigger picture. And folks, it does not take a seminary education to understand these things. All it takes are good teachers who diligently form their pupils in these stories. Teachers who themselves know God and the story of salvation. Teachers who jettison "bible trivia" and, yes, even "Scripture memorization" in order to instill the whole story, beginning, middle, and ending, into their students. Teachers who model for their students how to read and how to understand Scripture. Maybe we can better appreciate why catechism in the early church was a three year process.
These students had not been trained in this manner and as a result, they were ill prepared for the topic of creation vs. evolution (few of us are).
I want to leave us with a question. Why are we always rushing ahead to these ethical and philosophical questions such as creation vs. evolution or the rightness or wrongness of abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, pick your trendy topic? How can any of us expect to rightly decide on these issues if we have not first internalized God's story? If we have not first learned how to read and how to understand Scripture? The simple answer is that we cannot. And this is why we see such ill informed theological arguments on both sides of these issues in the public square. For the problem I saw in the youth group that night is not a problem confined to youth but is a problem that is pervasive throughout the church.
We need to first do the hard (but extremely interesting) work of internalizing the story of Scripture that we may truly (as truly as we can this side of heaven) understand the mind of God before we can hope to make intelligent arguments in these issues. Does this mean that we postpone all moral reasoning until this happens? Of course not, this would be impossible as we make moral judgments every day.
What it might mean is a changing in the manner in which we study the Word of God. It might mean that instead of doing bible studies on abortion or war or the death penalty, we rather do them on the story of creation, the story of Israel, the story of the prophets. It might mean that instead of a pastor doing a sermon series on how to Christianly budget your money he or she does a series on the story of the Acts of the Apostles or the story of Revelation. What I am talking about requires the uprooting of some fairly strongly ingrained habits in many of us - but it is necessary.
And as the story of God tells us, the Spirit will help plant new soil.
Unfortunately, the night did not progress as I had hoped. After my short introduction, I was met with a bunch of blank stares that conveyed to me either one of two things. At best, they were glad I had finished and were wondering when the dodge ball game would start. At worst, they had not understood a word I had said and were wondering when the "Kill the Speaker" game would start. The youth leader tried to help by posing some tough questions, but these were the very questions that launched us into the issue and here I was, a theological student, being asked to meaningfully comment on scientific issues. It is not that I take the approach that faith and science are separate issues by any means. But I am smart enough to know my limits, and the fine points of microevolution progress beyond my limits.
What I wanted the kids to know is that the Word is absolutely clear that God created the heavens and the earth. That he created them ex nihilo ("out of nothing" - though the tradition better fills this in), that humans were created in imagine dei ("in the image of God") and that these are the only points regarding creation on which I think we must be absolutely resolute. After all, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any kind of a projection at how old the earth is. There is nothing in Scripture that gives an actual duration of time of creation, or when humans first appeared. And furthermore, there is no claim of Scripture that the Genesis account is to be taken as scientific fact.
But alas, I am not sure that any of my points or any of my stammerings through the difficult questions got through to the kids. There are two reasons for this: 1) my poor communication skills; and 2) they were not trained to hear what I was saying. While I am the first to admit that I have difficulties making myself understood (my wife would be the second to admit this), I must say that the latter reason was the primary point of contention that night.
The fact is that these kids had not been well trained in the story of Scripture. And when I say this, I do not mean that they didn't know some bible stories or that they hadn't memorized any verses in Genesis or elsewhere. Indeed they may have. What was lacking in these kids was a good overall grasp of the story of Scripture from beginning to end. They didn't understand why it is crucial to believe that God created the heavens and the earth. They didn't understand the story of redemption and what that says about us and what that says about God. And furthermore, they didn't understand what Scripture itself is.
Rather, their understanding of Scripture was something that was dropped from the sky to be read absolutely literally. Their understanding of why it was necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth was simply that the bible says so. They had no concept of the bigger picture. And folks, it does not take a seminary education to understand these things. All it takes are good teachers who diligently form their pupils in these stories. Teachers who themselves know God and the story of salvation. Teachers who jettison "bible trivia" and, yes, even "Scripture memorization" in order to instill the whole story, beginning, middle, and ending, into their students. Teachers who model for their students how to read and how to understand Scripture. Maybe we can better appreciate why catechism in the early church was a three year process.
These students had not been trained in this manner and as a result, they were ill prepared for the topic of creation vs. evolution (few of us are).
I want to leave us with a question. Why are we always rushing ahead to these ethical and philosophical questions such as creation vs. evolution or the rightness or wrongness of abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, pick your trendy topic? How can any of us expect to rightly decide on these issues if we have not first internalized God's story? If we have not first learned how to read and how to understand Scripture? The simple answer is that we cannot. And this is why we see such ill informed theological arguments on both sides of these issues in the public square. For the problem I saw in the youth group that night is not a problem confined to youth but is a problem that is pervasive throughout the church.
We need to first do the hard (but extremely interesting) work of internalizing the story of Scripture that we may truly (as truly as we can this side of heaven) understand the mind of God before we can hope to make intelligent arguments in these issues. Does this mean that we postpone all moral reasoning until this happens? Of course not, this would be impossible as we make moral judgments every day.
What it might mean is a changing in the manner in which we study the Word of God. It might mean that instead of doing bible studies on abortion or war or the death penalty, we rather do them on the story of creation, the story of Israel, the story of the prophets. It might mean that instead of a pastor doing a sermon series on how to Christianly budget your money he or she does a series on the story of the Acts of the Apostles or the story of Revelation. What I am talking about requires the uprooting of some fairly strongly ingrained habits in many of us - but it is necessary.
And as the story of God tells us, the Spirit will help plant new soil.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
A Beautiful Story
One of my favorite movies is A Beautiful Mind, a biopic about the renowned mathematician and Nobel Peace Prize winner John Nash. The movie opens with Nash's years in graduate school at Princeton, chronicling his failures and successes, as well as narrating the close relationship which developed between Nash and his roommate Charles Herman. After Princeton, it follows Nash through several years at Wheeler Labs at MIT, as he is married and becomes involved in a highly dangerous task of cracking the codes of Russians who are hiding a portable nuclear bomb. About halfway through the movie, Nash begins to be pursued by Russians and he becomes extremely paranoid. This culminates in his lecture at Harvard where he is forcibly sedated and taken captive by imposing men in dark suits. (If you have not seen the movie, stop reading - spoiler ahead.)
The next scene, Nash awakes to find himself in a mental institution. And through a conversation between Dr. Rosen, the head psychiatrist, and Nash's wife Alicia, the audience learns to their shock that Nash is schizophrenic and the story of the Russian code breaking, which had consumed the better part of the movie, was all a delusion. Moreover, his Princeton roommate Charles Herman, a character the audience had by now grown to love, was also a delusion. The audience is then taken on a journey through Alicia's searching to various places that Nash visited during his delusions. What had been a beautiful old mansion, where he had dropped off his code breaking research, was truly a dilapidated old house. What had been a highly sophisticated entrance system, was truly just a rusted out mailbox. All of Nash's research was still sitting in the drop box, never picked up, never opened. The audience learns with Nash and experiences with him his disbelief of the poignant words of his wife: "It isn't real."
This point in the movie, though midway through its plot line, entirely changes the story. After learning this information, the audience realizes that they are not watching a movie about Russian codes; rather, they are watching a movie about a schizophrenic man. Had a person stopped watching the movie prior to this point, he or she would have had an entirely different interpretation of the first half of the movie.
There is a striking parallel here to the story of Scripture. Imagine a person sitting down to read the Bible for the first time. Imagine further that this person had never heard of anything in its pages before. Not knowing where else to start, she starts at the beginning. As she reads along in the first few books it becomes clear to her what the story is about, a people group who is chosen and redeemed by their Covenant, Creator God. But like A Beautiful Mind, there is a crucial turning point two thirds through the story: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
These words, much like the words of Alicia Nash, change everything. When we go back and read the first part of the story, we see things differently, things we didn't see before are there and things we saw before are no longer there. For instance, if you read the first part of the story, you might be prone to think of the Creator God as one who sanctions war. But after reading the sermon on the mount and seeing the God on the cross, you realize that this is not true. If you read the first part of the story, you might think that the Creator God is an exclusive God, coming for only one group of people. But after you read the letters of Paul, you realize that Christ came for all people.
Whereas the Fathers, starting from the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, inherently understood the truth that the testaments cannot be read apart from one another, most biblical scholars and Christians today do not understand it. You see the misunderstanding every time an OT scholar insists that we must understand the OT as the Jews would have understood it. You see the misunderstanding every time someone argues for the death penalty or for war or for some other controversial point using verses from the OT with no concern for the coming of Christ. These kinds of arguments are the same as if someone argued for the reality of Nash's roommate Charles Herman having only seen the first half of the movie. Herman is, of course, not reality but one has no way of knowing that without watching the entire movie.
Of course metaphors are not exactly the same as that which they portray; therefore, metaphors by nature break down. Where this one breaks down is precisely in the category of truth. Whereas John Nash's turning point showed him that things in his life he had thought were real were actually illusory, the coming of Christ in the flesh shows that the stories of God and the prophecies therein are the only true thing.
The next scene, Nash awakes to find himself in a mental institution. And through a conversation between Dr. Rosen, the head psychiatrist, and Nash's wife Alicia, the audience learns to their shock that Nash is schizophrenic and the story of the Russian code breaking, which had consumed the better part of the movie, was all a delusion. Moreover, his Princeton roommate Charles Herman, a character the audience had by now grown to love, was also a delusion. The audience is then taken on a journey through Alicia's searching to various places that Nash visited during his delusions. What had been a beautiful old mansion, where he had dropped off his code breaking research, was truly a dilapidated old house. What had been a highly sophisticated entrance system, was truly just a rusted out mailbox. All of Nash's research was still sitting in the drop box, never picked up, never opened. The audience learns with Nash and experiences with him his disbelief of the poignant words of his wife: "It isn't real."
This point in the movie, though midway through its plot line, entirely changes the story. After learning this information, the audience realizes that they are not watching a movie about Russian codes; rather, they are watching a movie about a schizophrenic man. Had a person stopped watching the movie prior to this point, he or she would have had an entirely different interpretation of the first half of the movie.
There is a striking parallel here to the story of Scripture. Imagine a person sitting down to read the Bible for the first time. Imagine further that this person had never heard of anything in its pages before. Not knowing where else to start, she starts at the beginning. As she reads along in the first few books it becomes clear to her what the story is about, a people group who is chosen and redeemed by their Covenant, Creator God. But like A Beautiful Mind, there is a crucial turning point two thirds through the story: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
These words, much like the words of Alicia Nash, change everything. When we go back and read the first part of the story, we see things differently, things we didn't see before are there and things we saw before are no longer there. For instance, if you read the first part of the story, you might be prone to think of the Creator God as one who sanctions war. But after reading the sermon on the mount and seeing the God on the cross, you realize that this is not true. If you read the first part of the story, you might think that the Creator God is an exclusive God, coming for only one group of people. But after you read the letters of Paul, you realize that Christ came for all people.
Whereas the Fathers, starting from the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, inherently understood the truth that the testaments cannot be read apart from one another, most biblical scholars and Christians today do not understand it. You see the misunderstanding every time an OT scholar insists that we must understand the OT as the Jews would have understood it. You see the misunderstanding every time someone argues for the death penalty or for war or for some other controversial point using verses from the OT with no concern for the coming of Christ. These kinds of arguments are the same as if someone argued for the reality of Nash's roommate Charles Herman having only seen the first half of the movie. Herman is, of course, not reality but one has no way of knowing that without watching the entire movie.
Of course metaphors are not exactly the same as that which they portray; therefore, metaphors by nature break down. Where this one breaks down is precisely in the category of truth. Whereas John Nash's turning point showed him that things in his life he had thought were real were actually illusory, the coming of Christ in the flesh shows that the stories of God and the prophecies therein are the only true thing.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Biography
I did not intend this, but I realized this morning that the last three books I have read for pleasure (including the one I am currently reading) have either been biographies or autobiographies. Last August, I read Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee by Charles J. Shields (Lee wrote the pulitzer prize winning novel To Kill a Mockingbird). In September, I read The Grand Slam: Bobby Jones, America, and the Story of Golf by Mark Frost (Bobby Jones is widely considered the greatest golfer who ever lived). Currently I am reading The Seven Storey Mountain, which is the autobiography of Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk.
All three were/are wonderful reads, particularly if you are a Harper Lee fan (which I am) or a golf fan (which I am). With all due respect to Harper Lee and Bobby Jones, however, it occurs to me how different Merton's story is than the other two. While Harper Lee spent her life, or at least her early life, obsessed with writing a great novel and Bobby Jones spent his life, or early life, obsessed with becoming the greatest golfer who ever lived, Thomas Merton, from age 23 on, transfixed all of his energies in experiencing God through spiritual exercises and mystical experience. While Lee's and Jones' biographies focus on their stories and ultimately bring glory to them, Merton's is clearly God's story and merely how he fits into it.
A sobering question I have been pondering: if someone were to write my biography at this stage of my life, would it focus on my pursuits at being a writer or a scholar or some other pursuit? Or would it focus on God and my consuming desire to commune with him. Unfortunately I think the former because those pursuits have truly consumed me, while often I have asked God to fit in their somehow.
I long to think and act like Merton. Like him, I do not want to care whether or not I become a writer or scholar (and for those who have played with me, certainly not a golfer). The only thing I wish is to live for is God and to have all other pursuits fall under that communion.
All three were/are wonderful reads, particularly if you are a Harper Lee fan (which I am) or a golf fan (which I am). With all due respect to Harper Lee and Bobby Jones, however, it occurs to me how different Merton's story is than the other two. While Harper Lee spent her life, or at least her early life, obsessed with writing a great novel and Bobby Jones spent his life, or early life, obsessed with becoming the greatest golfer who ever lived, Thomas Merton, from age 23 on, transfixed all of his energies in experiencing God through spiritual exercises and mystical experience. While Lee's and Jones' biographies focus on their stories and ultimately bring glory to them, Merton's is clearly God's story and merely how he fits into it.
A sobering question I have been pondering: if someone were to write my biography at this stage of my life, would it focus on my pursuits at being a writer or a scholar or some other pursuit? Or would it focus on God and my consuming desire to commune with him. Unfortunately I think the former because those pursuits have truly consumed me, while often I have asked God to fit in their somehow.
I long to think and act like Merton. Like him, I do not want to care whether or not I become a writer or scholar (and for those who have played with me, certainly not a golfer). The only thing I wish is to live for is God and to have all other pursuits fall under that communion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
