FH 284: On Dallas Willard's Homegoing

Yesterday, I attended the Memorial Service for Dallas Willard at The Church On the Way.  I don't know whether the video will be made available online at any point.

--

J. P. Moreland spoke about Dallas' philosophical work.  He talked about his calling to be a light at USC; the enormous notebooks where he stored up notes and thoughts on metaphysics and epistemology; his commitments to the rigorous application of reason and to the defense of metaphysical realism; his great humility when facing intellectual opponents; and his steadfast non-cooperation with being bullied.

There's so much there that inspires but also challenges me.  I don't want to commit myself to metaphysical realism just because that's what Dallas would do.  But at the same time, I wonder about the extent to which I may have acquiesced or abdicated to an anti-realist or constructivist metaphysics without having really tested any of these options.  It's hard to stick your neck out and defend a controversial position--not just about God or religion, but about anything.  Given how much debate is part of what philosophers do, and my own very reserved temperament, I sometimes wonder at my decision to go into this field.  Of course Dallas shows that one doesn't have to be argumentative in order to succeed in philosophy.  But lots of study, rigorous thought, and a commitment to following reason are required.

--

Dallas' granddaughter also spoke.  She shared one of Dallas' last words to her before he passed.  As she was preparing to leave his hospital room at the end of one day, he beckoned her over and told her, "Give 'em heaven."  What a great word.  Of course, Dallas was full of great words.  And he had such a gentle way of offering them to you that you couldn't help but receive them, and before you knew it, they were already at work inside you.

--

One of the things that was emphasized over and over about Dallas, and I've heard this from others  as well, was his way of being with people.  He was always attentive to those who talked with him.  "It was like I was the only person in the room."  There was an un-hurriedness to his manner and posture and attitude.

That's one of the main things that I want to work on in my own life.  I want to be open to people.  I want to be able to stop what I'm doing and attend to someone who is in need.  But I find that everything else I'm working on and just the guarded attitude I have toward my time keeps me from that.  You can sense this in yourself.  When you find yourself walking past someone on the sidewalk, what is your reaction.  Do your eyes flit toward their face or away from their face?  Do you smile at them or assume a blank expression?  Does your pace quicken or slow?  Is your body oriented toward or away from them?  Do you volunteer a greeting or wait for them to acknowledge you?  Is your greeting warm and inviting, or cold and dismissive?  Are you excited about what contact with a stranger might bring to your day or are you fearful of what a stranger might require of or take away from you?  And part of what may be startling, if you just reflect on this for a while, is that all of these contrasts are very, very subtle.  The difference I'm pointing to is not a huge one.  It's not the difference between being polite and being rude; it's the difference between being open and being politely closed.

How would it be if we really could abandon all thoughts of ourselves--of our welfare, of our security, of our reputation--knowing that we really have been richly provided for in God's kingdom?  Learning to lead a life with that sort of texture is no simple thing.  There are no cookie-cutter formulae that will give us the desired results each and every time.  No substitutes or alternatives will suffice.  But while there is no cookie-cutter formulae, there is a reliable process, a long and rich knowledge-tradition that many have successfully looked to for guidance in how to live this different kind of life.  And people like Dallas remind us that such a life is, indeed, available to us all.

--

In a short essay entitled, "Living in the Vision of God," Dallas wrote: "When you go to Assisi, you will find many people who talk a great deal about St. Francis, many monuments to him, and many businesses thriving by selling memorabilia of him.  But you will not find anyone who carries in himself the fire that Francis carried.  No doubt many fine folks are there, but they do not have the character of Francis, nor do they do the deeds of Francis, nor have his effects."  The ministry of Dallas Willard has been so influential and impactful--in my life as in many others.  There's so much more that has been said and could be said and should be said.  But, perhaps more important than any words of praise that we might offer concerning him, may it never be said of those of us who have been impacted by the teaching and ministry of Dallas Willard, or who have claimed the name of his teacher and savior, Jesus Christ, that we utterly lacked his character, deeds, or effects.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

FH 282: Dallas Willard Passes

Dallas Willard, philosophy professor at USC and renowned Christian author and speaker, passed away yesterday, 08-May, at the age of 77.  It was bittersweet to learn the news, knowing that his passing is a great loss to the Church in this world, but also recognizing that the words of the Apostle Paul are true: "[T]o live is Christ, and to die is gain."

I'll say more about my own thoughts and impressions of Dr. Willard in a later post.  In the meantime, here are some links to tributes, as well as to his own website (where many of his articles on both philosophy and the Christian life can be found), and to the website for the Dallas Willard Center for Spiritual Formation.

Tribute, Christine A. Scheller.
Tribute, John Ortberg.
Tribute, Richard Foster.

Dallas Willard's website.

Dallas Willard Center for Spiritual Formation, Westmont College.

--

Lead, kindly Light, amid th'encircling gloom, lead Thou me on!
The night is dark, and I am far from home; lead Thou me on!
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.

...

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still will lead me on.
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile, which I
Have loved long since, and lost awhile!

Meantime, along the narrow rugged path, Thyself hast trod,
Lead, Savior, lead me home in childlike faith, home to my God.
To rest forever after earthly strife
In the calm light of everlasting life.

-- John Henry Newman

--

God is in this place,

And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus, through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 279: Contemporary Moral Issues Proto-Syllabus

This is only a proto-syllabus.  (Really, it's just a way for me to muse while developing a syllabus.)  I'm going to be teaching Contemporary Moral Issues at UCR for Summer 2013, and I'm trying to sort out how to design the course.

CMI is a lower-division philosophy courses.  Many students taking it will be non-majors, and for many of them it may be their only philosophy course.  I'm not sure whether those students, as a separate requirement, have to take Critical Thinking.  Assuming that they do not, one of the goals of this intro-level philosophy course should be to inculcate and develop in students skills and techniques for critical thinking.  Engagement with contemporary moral issues, then, becomes the context in which to introduce and practice these skills.

To engage articulately in reflection and debate about complex issues requires a number of skills.  Students need to be able to read well.  They also need to be able to paraphrase what they read--express the ideas and main points in their own words.  And they need to be able to recognize the structure of a piece of writing.  So, for instance, a straightforward argument might involve a number of pieces of information offered as support for a conclusion.  To capture this, it's not enough to list a bunch of pieces of information.  Which pieces count as support and which piece(s) counts as the conclusion must be differentiated.

Other arguments have a more complicated structure.  In a reductio ad absurdum argument, a number of pieces of information will be presented.  At least two of those pieces of information will contradict one another or lead to a contradiction.  The conclusion of this sort of argument will be the negation of one of those pieces of contradictory information.  Notice, this argument is not as simple as A + B + C = D.  It's more like A + B + (B entails not-A) = not-B.

Being able to recognize and analyze arguments that have this logical form is no small matter.  Probably the first two-to-three weeks (of a ten week course) should be spent introducing and developing some of these skills.  That would also be the time during which we would talk (briefly) about the history of ethics.  Much of philosophical ethics may be helpfully characterized as being tied up with trying to develop a complete and consistent set of sound ethical principles.  Why, you might ask, is it so important that our ethical principles be consistent?  Why think that my beliefs about capital punishment touch, at all, my beliefs about the humane treatment of animals or my duties to citizens of third-world countries?  For some people, it will just seem obvious that we want consistency.  But when you actually try to get it, it turns out to be quite a challenge.  So some justification of the project might be called for.

After this two-to-three-week introduction to the course, I think, we could then move to talk about substantive issues.  My thought, at this stage, is that we would spend six weeks covering a trio of issues.  I've thought of four sets of issues.  Conceivably, I could have four different Contemporary Moral Issues courses--each one dealing with a different set of issues.  (Or in a fifteen-week term, we might cover material from two of these groupings.)  Here are my ideas:

A. Value of life and right to life issues:
     1. Abortion
     2. Euthanasia
     3. Capital punishment

B. Humanity's relationship with and duties to the natural world:
     1. Eating animals
     2. Product and medical testing on animals
     3. Environmental consumption

C. The duty to care for one another; promoting equality and individual responsibility:
     1. Preferential hiring
     2. Access to health care and universal health care
     3. Humanitarianism and charity

D. The relationship of nations and people groups to one another:
     1. War and pacifism
     2. Globalization
     3. Famine relief; the relationship between rich and poor nations

Are you intrigued?  At this stage, though, I have not filled out the reading list for any of these course outlines.  Terrorism and torture could be dealt with under "D".  Gay marriage is a big issue these days, but doesn't seem to fit well under any of these categories.  Maybe a fifth outline (E) could be developed that covers issues related to pluralism, religion and the state, and tolerance.

One reason for grouping the topics together under these headings is that that would allow, in the last one-or-two weeks, for us to take up directly the issue of holding to consistent ideas across individual issues.  Can our views about abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment be rendered consistent.  Does a commitment to preserving the life of the unborn mean that one must also be opposed to the death penalty.  Is it possible for rich nations to export basic resources to foreign nations without also exporting some of their culture?  Should a commitment to helping the under-privileged and marginalized extend to things like job placement and health coverage?

Some of the last one-to-two weeks of the course could also be given over to evaluating the current debates on these topics.  Many of the articles on abortion, for instance, that you'll find in ethics anthologies are from a few decades ago.  That does not, automatically, mean that they are outdated.  They still inform the contemporary philosophical debate about these issues.  It's also the case that philosophy articles are going to generally be more meticulous and careful in their presentation than your average op-ed, blog, or online blurb.  So the six-week middle part of the course should be spent working through these richer, more complicated arguments.  That should also provide students with a framework in terms of which they may think about the issues in question--whichever side they decide to ultimately come down on.  Then, in the last week or so of the course, students could look at op-ed pieces, blog posts, etc. and their task would be to evaluate those arguments in light of the framework they've developed in the course.

Well, that's my ideas so far.  Of course the hardest part of this (it feels like to me right now) is figuring out what literature I want to read.  The way I would like this course to work is highly integrated.  So during the first couple weeks, even though we're dealing with general methodological issues, we still want to be reading material that is relevant to the broad topic of the course.  (I'd like to avoid reading stuff that's disconnected from ethics, just so that the students can get a sense of how arguments work, and then jump into the ethics stuff.)  Each one of the individual issues comes with an expansive literature.  I need to pick articles that are accessible to students, that deal with the same set of ideas within each of the individual issues, that present different positions in a thoughtful way, and that can all be woven together at the very end of the course.  Challenging?  Just a little.

Well, I'll let you know how it goes.  Stay tuned.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 278: The Peculiar Character of Moral Requirements

i.  It's been a few weeks since the Winter quarter started and I'm TA-ing for a Contemporary Moral Issues course.  This post is based on some stuff I was thinking about related to our first discussion section.

The approach that we're taking to this course is very interesting because it starts right off the bat by setting before students some tough ethical dilemmas.  Not only are these ethical dilemmas difficult to resolve but they all involve hypothetical cases.  Now if you're setting up a long-term program of moral education, I would definitely not recommend this approach.  You really ought to start with the clear cases, inculcate a well-rounded moral outlook, and only then raise the difficult cases.  Otherwise it's too easy for students to just dismiss the idea that there is anything coherent grounding moral and ethical requirements.  But this philosophy course is not set up as part of a long-term program of moral education, so it might not be so inappropriate for us to take this approach.

Still, one of the things that I want to work on is making sure that my students do have a solid grasp on how the puzzle cases that we're working with are related to larger and overarching ethical issues.  So many interesting philosophical issues were raised in my first thirty-minute discussion with them.  We couldn't deal with any of them at any depth.  But that's why blog posts are nice.

ii.  In the beginning of my discussion section, I tried to lead them through a process of clarifying the subject matter of ethics.  I started by drawing a basic distinction between the descriptive and the normative.  So where human behavior is concerned, we may distinguish between what people actually do and what people should do.  The former is descriptive, the latter normative.  Now keeping these straight can be a little tricky.  After all, we might ask a question like, "What do most Americans believe one should do in such-and-such a scenario?"  This question is descriptive--it asks what Americans' believe.  But it asks about Americans' normative beliefs--about their beliefs about what one should do.  As long as we can keep the distinction straight, it's a useful one.  What distinguishes the subject matter of ethics from that of other fields is that it is concerned with the normative rather than with the merely descriptive.

iii.  But further clarification is required.  After all, normative statements come in a variety of contexts.  So compare the statement, "You should be kind and not bully people," with the statement, "You should take the LSAT."  There are a number of differences between these two statements.  For instance, the first one concerns one's conduct toward other people while the second concerns how one promotes one's own ends.  One of the things that these statements share in common is use of the word "should."  Both are normative statements; however (and this is the difference that I want to focus on) one is a moral requirement while the other is not.  We could multiply examples of both moral requirements and non-moral requirements.  What we then want to get clear on is what determines whether a particular requirement is moral or not.

It seems like one could have moral requirements that are directed at one's self (which means that moral requirements do not necessarily concern one's conduct toward others).  Perhaps certain forms of self-mutilation, for instance, are immoral.  But one thing that is often thought of as distinguishing the moral from the non-moral is the requirements' universal scope.  "You should take the LSAT," only applies to a person who has as their goal getting into law school.  If I am not planning or interested in going to law school, then it's simply not the case that I should take the LSAT.  That requirement does not apply to me.  But many have thought that the application of moral requirements does not depend on the particular interests or aims that one happens to have.

Actually the requirement of universal scope is probably not enough to distinguish moral from non-moral requirements.  Some might think that certain rational and prudential requirements also apply universally.  So it might not be a moral requirement that one so act as to promote one's long-term self-interest, but it is plausibly a requirement of rationality or prudence.  Someone who was neglectful of their well-being would not be acting as they should, even if they would not be acting immorally.  But I won't say more about that.

iv.  Let's just consider for the moment that morality and ethics are concerned with the normative, as opposed to the descriptive.  And they are concerned with universal requirements rather than local or contingent requirements.

What I want to focus on now is one way of trying to isolate the distinctive character of moral requirements and one of the curious features of this approach.  You can try this exercise as well: consider, for a moment, why it is the case that (generally) people should not lie.  What are the reasons that people (generally) should not lie?

My students listed a number of reasons.  If you're caught, bad consequences may follow.  If you're caught, that lie can undermine future trust.  The consequences of being found in a lie are sometimes (maybe often) worse than the consequences of what you lied about.  The list could go on, of course.  But now I'd like to point out one particular reason that is separate from three that I've listed so far: people should not lie because it's morally wrong.

v.  What's interesting is the thought that the moral badness of lying seems to be distinct from the various possible bad consequences of not lying.  And this raises a question: exactly what does moral wrongness amount to?  "Lying is morally wrong"--what exactly does that entail?  It's natural to think that the badness (including the moral badness) of certain actions is tied primarily to their negative consequences.  But some have worried that this places moral requirements on shaky footing.

Consider, if you could tell a lie and knew that (1) no one would find out, (2) no one would be emotionally hurt, (3) no damage to people's trust in you would result, and (4) no harm to anyone would result from the deception, and (5) telling the lie would be advantageous--would you tell the lie.  Would it be permissible for you to tell the lie?  Or would it still be the case that you should not tell the lie?  And if it would be the case that you should not tell the lie, why should you still not tell the lie.  We're supposing that no bad consequences whatsoever would follow.  So what sense can then be given to the idea that it would be morally wrong to tell the lie?

vi.  When we frame the question in this way, it can appear that the concepts of moral rightness and wrongness are tenuous at best.  A consequentialist might charge that these concepts, when divorced of any connection with particular consequences, are indeed simply empty.  Actions cannot be morally good or bad, says the consequentialist, apart from their good or bad consequences.

I, myself, doubt that consequentialism is true.  Must I, therefore, commit myself to the notions of right and wrong, accepting that no intelligible account of their underpinnings can be given?  I'd like to think not.  Indeed, I think it would be problematic to think that any action that has no negative consequences is still morally impermissible.  But that is not because the negative consequences are what make the action morally bad.  Rather, it is because negative consequences necessarily follow from morally bad actions.

So I accept the following conditional: if action A is morally bad, then action A will have bad consequences.  From this, it follows by contraposition that if action A will not have bad consequences, then action A is not morally bad.  But this conditional does not demonstrate that what makes an action morally good--the explanation of its being morally good--is the fact that it leads to good consequences.  Rather, it is precisely because an action is morally good that we expect good (in various forms) to result from it.  And it is because an action is morally bad that we expect bad to result from it.  I don't know that I can offer a strong positive argument for preferring my order of explanation to the alternative.  Arguments against consequentialism are not too hard to find.

vii.  But if this is right, then what are we to make of the exercise I introduced earlier?  When we imagined stripping away all the various negative consequences of telling a lie, it looked like we couldn't maintain (except dogmatically--in the pejorative sense of that word) that lying in that situation would be bad.  But notice, that doesn't mean that only results/consequences are what make lying immoral.  That just means that the complete absence of negative consequences would show that the action was not bad to begin with.

But this also suggests a further thought.  We might have been too quick in supposing that we could imagine a scenario in which a person told a lie without there being any negative consequences.  We may not have been looking at the situation aright.  And, indeed, there have been some who claimed that all immoral acts are always accompanied by some negative consequence.  (Again, this does not mean that what makes some action moral or immoral is the consequences of that act.  It just means exactly what we would expect of bad actions--that they lead to bad consequences.

What negative consequence might always accompany an immoral action?  If we look at the external consequences of that act (lying, cheating, stealing, murdering) we probably won't find it.  Instead, we'll have to look at the immoral act itself.  Plato made a suggestion about this in the Republic.  He suggested that unjust acts always have a negative effect on that person's soul--leading to a state of disorder and unhealth.  He compares justice in the soul to health in the body.  Unjust acts weaken and disable the soul--interfering with its ability to function as it ought and to facilitate the flourishing of that individual.  The kind of deception, manipulation, self-absorption that are reflected in lying cannot be divorced from it.  If they could, well, that would just show that lying in that instance is not a bad thing.  But I think we ought to be skeptical of anyone who claims to be so self-aware that they can assure us that in any particular case of speaking an untruth, they don't have to fear for any such consequences.  Just ask them to tell you why they feel the need to lie.

Are there hard cases?  Absolutely.  But dealing with those hard cases comes at a later stage in the process of moral education.  That's a cop-out, I know.  (Haha.)  Or is it?  Have you mastered the basics in this instance?  Think about it.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 277: Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, Part 5

In his contribution to the volume, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, Bruce A. Ware looks at the relationship between the doctrine of the trinity and the doctrine of the atonement.  When Christians think of atonement or salvation, the person that most vividly comes to mind is Jesus.  But Ware wants to remind us that who Jesus is and the work that He accomplished cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit and the distinctive works that they accomplished.  In his essay, "Christ's Atonement: A Work of the Trinity," Ware focuses on showing that there is a solid biblical/exegetical foundation for this claim.

Who Jesus is and the work that He accomplished cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit and their distinctive works.  This is my very brief summary of Ware's main idea.  He unpacks it in four major sections.  First, he argues that "the identity of Jesus as Savior is inextricably tied to his being the Son of the Father, sent by the Father to accomplish the Father's will." (159) Second, he argues that Jesus' identity is similarly tied to his being "the Spirit-anointed Messiah whose very person requires the indwelling and empowering Spirit for him to be who he is and to accomplish what he has come to do." (171) Third, he defends the claim that "Christ's atoning work is inextricably tied to his accomplishing the work that the Father sent him to do, a work designed by the Father and carried out through the obedience and faithfulness of the Son." (174) And fourth, he defends the claim that Christ's atoning work is tied to his being the Spirit-anointed Messiah, whose very obedience, miracles, and fulfillment of the Father's will require the indwelling and empowering Spirit for him to accomplish what he came to do." (179)

Ware leads readers through just some of the biblical evidence supporting each of these theses.  His approach, then, is less philosophical and more exegetical.  He doesn't spend time speculating how atonement and salvation might have gone differently.  Instead, he helps the reader to recognize and better understand the particular kind of salvation that God did accomplish.

This approach provides Ware with the space to tackle (if only briefly) a number of questions that arise at the intersection of Trinitarian Theology and Christology.  For instance, he defends the view that the idea that God is, in Himself, Trinitarian, allows us to make the most sense of why the work of salvation unfolded in the way that it did.  This is an extremely helpful point.  As they become more thoughtful and reflective, I think, many Christians begin to worry about how much the revelation of the Son and Spirit actually tell us or can tell us about what God is like.  Modalism, then, isn't lurking far off.  But Ware highlights several Scripture passages that indicate that the Father-Son relationship preceded the Incarnation and that God exists as Trinity in Himself.

Ware also reminds us that Christ's atoning work was not His work alone but a work of the Trinity.  "[W]hen you ask, just whose work ultimately is this work of salvation? or who designed the plan of salvation that is carried out historically in and through the cross and the resurrection of Christ? he answer from Scripture is plainly that the Father is the grand architect, the wise designer, of our salvation, brought into actuality by the Son he commissioned and sent." (174) Here is another important message for Christians to here.  When talking about salvation, it's all-too-easy to present God as the bad-guy, the wrath-filled and demanding master who must be placated!  Thanks be to Jesus for redeeming and giving us victory!  And while there is something right about that, that doesn't capture the whole picture and actually leads us to misunderstand God and His relationship to us.  Paul got it right.  He didn't say, 'Thanks be to Jesus!'  He said, "But thanks be to God!  He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:57) John 3:16 reads, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son…"  The Father, because of His love for us, prepared the way for salvation and Jesus Christ accomplished it by being obedient to the Father's will.

In talking about the Holy Spirit's role in Christ's work, Ware offers some helpful remarks about how to think of Christ's dual nature.  I would have liked to hear more about that (I wasn't really satisfied with all that he said) but that might have required a different kind of essay.

By connecting (or, perhaps, reconnecting for some of us) the atonement and the Trinity, Ware helps us to see that the Trinity really needs to be at the center of our thinking about God and His work.  It's all to easy to think and talk about God in a very generic way.  And when we're studying comparative religion, for instance, there's nothing wrong with grouping Christianity, Judaism, and Islam under the heading "monotheistic" religions.  But if that's as deep as we get, we'll overlook the fact that the Christian conception of God is worlds apart from the Jewish or Muslim conception.  We should expect that a Trinitarian God is (or would be) different from a Unitarian God.  They would create differently, relate to people differently, be motivated differently, reign differently, and redeem differently.  Ware helps us to barely begin thinking about how atonement looks when we take the Trinity seriously.  If you'd like to think along these lines more, check out Michael Reeves' Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 276: Columbia River Vacation

I was delighted to be able to spend about nine days with family friends up at the Columbia River.  Nine days of relaxing, playing chess, backgammon, bocce ball, and card-games; kayaking and stand-up-paddleboarding; reading The Count of Monte Cristo (the first six hundred pages, at least); enjoying home-made frappes, the warm sun, and the cool water; skipping rocks; playing with the dog; and generally doing a whole lot of nothing was great.

For those with discerning eyes, that is not a real paddleboard set-up in that picture.  We tested out the activity with what we had at hand.  I'm sure that it's even more fun (and easier) with the correct equipment.

The mosquitoes were the principle nuisance.  I think I'm still recovering from a couple bites.  (I was chided regularly for scratching.)

  After spending a whole week with that Australian shepherd mix, the cats at home seem really, really small.

Winning a couple games of bocce ball made up for losing a dozen or more backgammon games toward the end of the week.

We had a beautiful view of Mt. Hood.

It was great to have some other friends of mine visit us on the Fourth of July, with their three kids, the oldest of which is going into junior high.  Time flies!

Up above the campsite at Maryhill is a replica of Stonehenge, built by Samuel Hill (founder of the town) and dedicated in 1918.  It's really something.

Lots and lots of trains and barges.  My goodness.

You'll have to ask the girls about the nest we found in the van--with one momma mouse and four little babies.

It was really great to get away.  Now I'm in the process of getting ready for my summer school class.  Have a great rest of the summer, everyone.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 275: James 2

There are two goals for this series.  First, I want to present some helpful reflections on the book of James.  And second, I want to offer some helpful guidance for studying the Bible.  (Using the book of James as my example, I want to highlight some helpful points and techniques that could be applied to one's study of other books of the Bible, especially to the other epistles.)

We started out (last time, Master 274) by looking at how an understanding of context can affect how we read a particular passage.  For instance, "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials." (1:2) This sounds like a fairly self-contained thought that we, as readers, can take as an instruction directed at us that we ought to begin applying.  But if we're not careful--especially if we're not very reflective--we may end up setting ourselves an impossible or, at least, needlessly difficult task.  Learning to be joyful in the midst of trials may turn out to be difficult on even the best approach, but people who take that as a straightforward instruction are likely to set themselves on a course that will only lead to a dead-end.  How can we avoid doing this?

It helps to remember that God's instructions always come with a context attached.  Here's a really simple example to illustrate.  In Matthew 5: 48, Jesus says, "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."  Now you could read that as a straightforward command: Be (morally) perfect as God is morally perfect.  But if you just take that command and start to run with it, you'll soon realize that you've set yourself an impossible task.  If you try to carry it out you'll fail and either come to the conclusion that God is unreasonable in His expectations or that He must not have meant what He said.  But consider this point: In saying that you ought to be perfect, God never intended that you should become perfect just through the application of your own natural abilities and efforts.  Being perfect on that basis is impossible.  But how does it change your perspective if you come to understand that God intended that God Himself (the Holy Spirit) would be the one that would make you perfect.  When the power and resources of Almighty God are brought to bear on the task, suddenly becoming perfect starts to seem possible.  Of course there's a whole lot more to the story.  I use this example just to illustrate this one point: Context makes a huge difference.  The difference between trying to be perfect on your own and trying to be perfect through God's power is huge.  But the fact that the Holy Spirit is supposed to be crucially involved isn't obvious from that one verse.  It might not be obvious based on that passage taken as a whole.  The contextual considerations that need to be brought to bear in order to understand this idea are drawn from the Scripture taken as a whole.  That's why study is important for unlocking that larger context.

Now given what I've just said, you might worry that in order to understand one passage you've got to understand the whole Bible--a daunting task indeed.  But don't be intimidated.  Certainly more knowledge about the Bible as a whole will help you to better understand each of the individual parts.  But you don't have to understand the whole thing before you can begin to gain some really helpful and beneficial insights from the various parts.  The point is that you should start now, as you read, to pay attention to the context.  And you should begin asking questions, as you read, about the author, audience, and situation in which the material is being written.

Let's see now if I can distill what I've said into a few helpful key ideas.

As you study the Bible, it's important and helpful to pay attention to the context, including who is the author, who is the intended audience, and what was the situation in which the letter/work was written.

Also, as you study, especially the epistles, remember that the authors intend to be helpful.  This might sound like a really obvious point, but it's important because sometimes their advice, on the surface, may sound counter-intuitive, unexpected, or even foolish.  When you come across something like this, you should ask something like the following question: What must be true about God, the world, the author, the audience, humanity, and myself--what must be true about reality in general--in order for this to be a helpful piece of advice?  Go back, again, to James' words: "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials."  On the surface, that piece of advice sounds, frankly, stupid.  It's natural to think that the only kinds of people who are happy in the midst of trials are insane people or sadistic people.  Think about it.  Most people have as a priority in their life the avoidance of trials, difficulties, and suffering.  James' words cut in the exact opposite direction of the way in which most people are running their lives most of the time.  This is the point at which we can raise a question like: What must be true about God for this to be a helpful piece of advice?  Well, it must be the case that God is really, really good.  If God is not really good, then it must be stupid to rejoice in the midst of trials.  Only if God is really, really good--only if God really is able to bring phenomenally good things out of our trials--only in that case would it make any sense at all to rejoice in the midst of trials.

Once we've reflected that far, we can begin to ask other questions, like: "Do I really believe that God is that good?"  "How much time do I spend either avoiding or rejoicing in the midst of trials?"  "What does that reveal about my own beliefs about God's goodness?"  "Is there good evidence for thinking that God really is this good--that God really is able to bring phenomenally good things out of my trials?"  "If there is really good evidence for that, then what do I need to do to adjust my thinking about God to match this evidence?"  "What trials am I avoiding that might actually be opportunities for God to bring really good things into my life?"  "Do I want God to bring really good things into my life?"

Hmm… I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of distilling here.  The reason, I think, is that I'm not just trying to give principles but also to illustrate them.  If you're not used to studying the Bible, just telling you to pay attention to author, audience, and situation won't make clear to you how these pieces of information are helpful.  But hopefully, as you work through the examples I'm giving, you can start to make some of these helpful connections.

So, let's see.  Where do we stand?

As you study the Bible, pay attention to context.  Think about who the author is, who the intended audience is, and what the situation is in which the author is writing.

As you study the epistles, read the author's words charitably.  That does NOT mean that you should ignore or gloss over difficulties and confusing passages.  But one thing that you should do is reflect on the author's outlook and worldview.  What must the author believe about God, himself, his audience, and the world in order to make the most sense of what he is saying?  (You'll still have to decide whether you agree with the author, but at least you'll have more accurately represented what he actually intended to say.)  When you do this, pay close attention to the most obvious meanings of what's being said.  Especially for Christians who have grown up in the church, it's easy to just interpret texts in the same way that we've always interpreted them.  We hear, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect," and we can overlook how absolutely shocking that statement is.  It may take some mental work to read passages anew.

Finally, as you think about application to your own life, here are two things to keep in mind: (1) Before you think about what the text means to you, figure out what it meant for the original audience.  (When interpreting James, you need to remember that he's writing for a first-century Jewish-Christian audience.  If you don't belong to that category of people, you need to take that into consideration as you apply.) (2) Don't think just about actions but also about worldview.  (Obeying God's commands, for instance, is always connected to being in relationship with Him.  If you're not in relationship, obedience doesn't matter.  Obeying God's commands is also always connected to being a certain kind of person.  If you're not interested in becoming  a certain kind of person, obedience doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Don't apply just the required actions to your life but also the worldview, mindset, and outlook.)

Now, hopefully, as I continue to explore James, you'll see me doing all these things.  Take another look at James and read through it with all this in mind.  See if you notice different things than you did before.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.

Master 274: James 1

I'm going to be teaching on a passage from the book of James in a couple weeks--James 5:1-6.  During these weeks of preparation, I figured that I would post a few thoughts as I look at James' letter.  When I teach from the Bible, one of my goals is to help people to understand how I'm coming to my various conclusions about the texts.  Also, recently, I was asked by a friend of mine about how one goes about studying the Bible.

That's an interesting question.  Perhaps you have studied the Bible, even for many years.  But have you thought carefully about what you do and how you do it?  Could you teach someone how to study the Bible?  Could you list for them techniques to use and things to watch out for?  Or are you among those who would want to know, Exactly how does one go about studying the Bible?  As I look through James and share some of my thoughts, I'll try to say some helpful things about Bible study that will apply generally.

***

Let's begin by looking at just a few verses from the beginning of James.

"Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials…" (1:2)

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." (1:13)

"But let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger…" (1:19)

"My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism." (2:1)

Think for a moment about what these verses mean.  What do they mean to you?

You might find this to be an interesting exercise.  Or you might find it to be a very dull exercise.  After all, it might seem, the meanings of these verses seem to be very straightforward.  Each one expresses a command or truth.  "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials."  Any person can understand what James has just said there.  When you're dealing with tough situations and circumstances, you should have an attitude of joy.  Or, you should respond joyfully when confronted with adversity.  And you might think: What more is there to study?  I understand what James is saying.  There may be some work called for when it comes to application.  Actually being joyful in the midst of trials is difficult.  But as far as understanding the command--that seems very straightforward.

Why is "study" called for and what does it look like?  What more should we expect to get from this text than the "obvious meaning"?  Doesn't further study put us in danger of seeing things in the text (allegorical meanings, hidden meanings) that aren't actually there?

Rather than answer that question directly, let me lead you on a bit of a journey.  We'll begin by looking at James 1:1 and asking questions like, Who is writing this letter?  To whom is this letter being addressed?  And what is the purpose of this letter?

James' letter opens with these words: "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings."

Now, who is writing the letter?  James.  James who?  James, the half-brother of Jesus.  Of course we wouldn't be able to know this just from reading the first verse.  That's why commentaries, Bible dictionaries, and similar resources are helpful.  For various reasons, most scholars agree that this letter was written by Jesus' half-brother, James.  What else do we know about James?  If you go back through the New Testament writings, you'll learn that during Jesus' life and ministry, James (Matthew 13:55) did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, much less the Son of God.  He was probably one of those who tried to keep Jesus from teaching because they feared for His sanity. (Mark 3:21) But after Jesus rose from the dead, He appeared to James specifically (1 Corinthians 15:7) James had a radical conversion experience and he then went on to become an important leader of the church in Jerusalem. (Acts 12:17; 15; 21; Galatians 1:18-19)

Now let's move to the next question: To whom is this letter being addressed?  It's being addressed to "the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad."  Now what does that mean?  Of course we today can learn from what James has to say, even if he was not consciously directing his remarks at us today.  But it's often helpful for understanding what an author says to know the audience to whom he intended to speak.  Now James is not addressed to the church in general but to the "twelve tribes."  In other words, he's addressing Jews--the people of the twelve tribes of Israel.  Further reflection leads us to conclude that he's not speaking to Jews in general but to Jewish Christians.

But then there's that phrase "who are dispersed abroad."  Without consulting a commentary, we can narrow down the list of options for how to interpret this.  Even prior to the first century, the Jewish people were very familiar with what it meant to be "dispersed abroad."  It was not a good thing.  Their home--the land of Israel--the promised land--was very important to the Jewish people.  But because of their sin and disobedience, God sent the people into exile.  In 722 B.C. and 587 B.C., large numbers of the Jewish population were deported to Assyria and Babylon.  Around 538 B.C., the people were allowed to return to their land and many did so, but others continued to live in small communities around the Mediterranean.  But even those Jews who continued to live abroad, there remained a special affinity for and desire for the homeland.  God had set up a special place for them, and to be separated from that was difficult.

This idea of being an exile or alien was carried over into the Christian community.  Jesus said of Himself, "I am not of this world." (John 8:23) Of His followers, Jesus said, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you." (15:18-20) All Christians living in this world are, in a sense, living in exile.  Their true home is in heaven with God, but for a time they sojourn in foreign lands.  When James then refers to his audience as those "who are dispersed abroad."  At the very least, he is addressing people who are familiar with what it means to be exiled and who are "exiles" and "aliens" in the same way that all Christians are exiles and aliens.

But it is also very likely that James is writing to people who are not only dispersed abroad spiritually but are dispersed abroad physically.  It may be that he is writing to Jews who have lived their whole lives abroad but are hearing about the message of Jesus and believing it.  Or it may be that he is speaking to Jews who used to live in Jerusalem, heard and believed in Jesus, but were scattered by the persecution that took place there.  (See Acts 8; 18:1-3) Very likely James has both audiences in mind.

So to whom is James speaking?  He's speaking to a persecuted people, people who have been forced out of their homes, out of their jobs, and away from everything familiar because of their faith in Jesus Christ.  In many cases, their lives may have been threatened.  Some of their relatives may have been imprisoned or even executed.  They've had to travel long distances, faced many dangers, and their futures may still be in serious doubt.  It might be helpful to think of the refugee camps of our own day where people go to flee political or religious persecution.  These are the one's to whom James speaks.  And what does he say to them?

"Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials…" (1:2)

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." (1:13)

"But let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger…" (1:19)

"My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism." (2:1)

Do these phrases touch you differently than they did before?  When you read, "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials," what sorts of trials came to your mind.  Maybe you're not dealing with any serious trials right now.  Maybe you are facing serious, serious challenges.  Maybe you're facing a situation that you thought was tough, but when you now compare it to the challenges that James' audience was facing, you begin to see that your trials are very small by comparison.  A bit of study and a bit of context can go a long way toward helping us to see a passage differently.  It might not be enough to just read the instruction about considering trials joy and move on to application.

After all, once we've got the context, a host of other questions should come to mind.  For instance, "Isn't James being callous in his advice to the Jewish Christians."  People who have spent a long time in the church may have been desensitized to this point, but it's an important question to raise.  If someone has just lost a spouse to cancer, or if someone's baby dies in child-birth, or if someone's lost all their money to a bogus law-suit, if someone discovers that his or her spouse has committed adultery--is THAT the time to come along and tell them, "Consider it all joy when you encounter various trials."  If we think about it for a moment, we might start to wonder about whether James isn't a jerk.

But if we're willing to withhold judgment for a few moments, we might stop long enough to wonder: Could it be that James' message actually is very appropriate and very helpful?  What is James trying to say here?  He's probably trying to give helpful advice and not be an insensitive jerk, so how should we understand what he is trying to say?  What would have to be true of James, of his audience, and of God, for his words to really be helpful, instructive, and encouraging?  These are some of the questions that get us started on the road of Bible study.

I'll say more as I continue to study this letter and post what I'm learning.  Obviously this is just the introduction.  Consider looking at the rest of the verses that I listed.  And then start reading through the book of James.  Think about how your interpretation changes depending on how aware you are of the context and James' audience.  And I'll see you next time.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus, through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.