aldenswan.com

In keeping with prior posts on hermeneutics (that is, how to read and actually understand the Bible in some reasonable fashion), more hermeneutics, discovering the nature of God, and too many posts to link to directed at shaking a bit of sense into mindless pop Christian culture, check out Ben Witherington, once again, as he provides a great post on how we should read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.

The “old dude” I’m referring to is “Saint” John Chrysostom, one of the gems of the Early (4th Century) Church. We don’t hear too much from Chrysostom, and some may never of heard of him. It seems as though many people assume that there were no brilliant theological minds between the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther (or Calvin, for you Reformed folks). Born in 349, Chrysostom was actually a contemporary of Augustine, who was 5 years younger. Chrysostom became the Archbishop of Constantinople, while Augustine joined the Church in Italy after being converted in Milan. Of course, at that time there was still only one church, although Rome always seemed to always claim a higher status. While both men are considered saints in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the West seemed to follow Augustine’s thinking, while Chrysostom seems to carry more clout in the East. But, enough history.

The point that Witherington & Chrysostom make concerning the reading of the Old Testament is that since the coming of the New Testament (basically, I think, the appearance of Jesus) the Old Testament must be read and interpreted in light of the New Testament. Here’s a quote that Mr. W quotes from Chrysostom:

Now when you see these things merely sketched out you neither know everything nor are you totally ignorant of everything, but you know that a man and a horse are drawn there, though they are indistinct. But you don’t accurately [or fully] know what sort of emperor or what sort of prisoner it is until the truth of the colors comes and makes the face distinct and clear. For just as you don’t ask everything of that image/portrait before the truth of the colors, but if you receive some indistinct knowledge of what is there, you consider the sketch to be sufficiently ready , in just that same way consider with me the Old and New Testaments , and don’t demand from me the whole fullness of the truth in the [OT] type…For as in the painting, until someone draws in colors it is a shadowy sketch.

Much weirdness comes from reading the Old Testament separate from the New, and as a consequence confusing how the testaments fit together. Witherington says:

Now what is so interesting about this whole hermeneutical approach is that it believes that one must do justice to the history if one is to do theology and ethics right. Christianity was a religion grounded and founded in history, and so theology proper was a reflection on God’s mighty acts in history which had a before and after to them. It was not an abstract science or philosophy where one took ideas and simply linked them together without them arising out of historical events and their substance. In the end, Chrysostom’s hermeneutic mirrors that of Paul and the author of Hebrews. It would be my view that we should go and do likewise.

Good stuff again from Mr. Witherington. Go read the whole article.

Those who know me will probably not be surprised that I listen to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida fairly regularly. In fact, over the past 2 or 3 days, I’ve let it play a dozen or more times. Sometimes I rotate a number of Iron Butterfly cuts, but my all-time favorite has to be In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. Now, I am aware that IAGDV has become somewhat of a rock joke due to it’s simple, repetitive bass/guitar riff and it’s utterly meaningless title. However, IAGDV shouldn’t be taken lightly.

There are, various myths about where the name came from, and I’m not sure anyone really knows the truth (perhaps not even the band members). My personal theory is that Doug Ingles, who mumbled everything anyway, was simply misunderstood as he sung what seems to have been the original lyrics, “In the garden of Venus.”

IAGDV is, of course, one of the rock classics. Released in 1968, the album on which the 17-minute song appeared (also named In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida) became the very first “platinum” album (the designation was actually created by the RIAA for this album). As far as I know, it was the first studio-recorded full-side rock song. It paved the way for other treats such as Rare Earth’s Get Ready and Uriah Heep’s Salisbury (other favorites of mine). Also, it is perhaps the only rock song that is identifiable by merely a measure or two of its drum solo.

Iron Butterfly itself should not be taken lightly. Poke fun, if you will, at the simplicity of IAGDV or at the guitar-string-scraping noises of Eric Brann (an inspiration to Tom Morello, no doubt), but these musicians were no slouches. Many of their songs were lyrically fairly sappy, flower-powerish things, but just listen to the complex bass lines of Flowers and Beads or Most Anything That You Want. Lee Dorman, the bassist, went on to form the prog-rock Captain Beyond with a later IB guitarist, Larry Reinhardt.

The 60’s and early 70’s were strange times musically; you had all kinds of experimentation going on (chemical and otherwise), and even the early “heavy metal” bands were hoping to get top-40 airplay. “Rock” was everything from folk and country to blues to jazz-inspired bands like Chicago, and it was all groovy. Rumor even has it that Neil Young once auditioned for IB lead guitarist (to be beat out by Erik Brann). Iron Butterfly, with its various lineups, explored a lot of new ground (especially 1970’s Metamorphasis with the extended cut Butterfly Bleu).

So what is so special about IAGDV? I really don’t know… perhaps to me it’s the musical equivalent of comfort food. When I listen to it, I am not reverting back to a 60’s mentality or reliving my teenage years (God forbid!), but I do find it comfortable and relaxing. And, at 17 minutes, I can trust that it’s not going to pull some major time or style change on me. When I click “play” (yeah, I listen to an mp3… my turntable belt snapped) I can be assured that “dunt dunt dadada dunt” will be there for 17 minutes (more, if it’s on “repeat”).

I just finished reading Hemant Mehta’s book I Sold My Soul on eBay, thanks to my own friendly atheist, Mike (is that enough links for one sentence?). Overall, it’s a very good book, and I would strongly encourage any church leader or “friendly Christian” to read it.

For those of you who may not know of Mehta, he is a young former Jain turned atheist. A while ago he decided to put himself up for bid on eBay, agreeing to visit whatever church the highest bidder wanted him to attend. The winner was Jim Henderson, a former pastor and now head of Off the Map, a group dedicated to “doable evangelism” and making Christians more educated about the non-Christian world. Jim is known for inviting atheists off the street to talk at his conferences, and now for buying atheists off eBay.

Mehta sounds like an incredibly likable guy. He’s intelligent, witty, sensitive (that’s where the “friendly” comes in) and a reasonably good writer. I believe he’s now a math teacher (or that’s his goal), and I’m sure he’s a good one. Hemant visited a number of churches of varying sizes and shapes, and in a few different cities, to try to get a feel for what Christianity is all about. He has some very interesting observations, and also demonstrates several misconceptions people have about Christianity and “church.” Unfortunately, many Christians seem to share some of these misconceptions, which makes the book that much more relevant to Christians.

One his misconceptions is that a church worship service should be understandable to visitors. This is, of course, the “seeker-sensiitive” approach to church services that has become the rage in evangelicalism. Now, if this is a a particular church’s goal, it is certainly fair to judge how well they are doing in that area. However, for the majority of churches, the purpose of the Sunday morning service is to simply “be” the Church, joined in a corporate worship experience. Here, of course, it is fair for Hemant to comment on whether or not he had a clue what was going on, but this probably isn’t a fair basis to evaluate that church, such as suggesting that they don’t sing so many songs, or cut down on the standing, kneeling & sitting. He also suggests cutting down on “distracting” behaviors such as raising hands, and so on. This may be a distraction, but only if you are looking at the service as a performance; however, worship is in fact a group activity, and each group has their own cultural idiosyncrasies.

I have heard this analogy: Suppose a visitor from a very foreign country came to American and went to a baseball game. Certainly he wouldn’t expect that they would take the time to explain the rules so he could understand it, and probably wouldn’t complain that people kept standing and shouting, which of course can be very distracting. A visitor, knowing he is going somewhere he will not understand, should take the time to either go with someone who can “interpret” or spend a few minutes on wikipedia to familiarize himself with the game. Or, simply watch and ask questions later. Of course, baseball is not an evangelical activity; but, neither are most church services. The stated purpose is for the church to come together to focus on God. The liturgy, the songs, and whatever else they do has a meaning for the members, and it is not necessarily designed to act as an advertisement to the secular world. Christians, by the way, have the same problem if they visit a different church tradition, especially for those visiting a liturgical church for the first time. Often the first visit begins a discovery process into what is very much a whole new culture. Not that I’m finding fault with Hemant here, I’m just pointing out this misconception that many people have.

Another common misconception shown in the book is the definition of faith. It is presumed that faith is something apart from reason, when faith, in the Christian sense, is not unreasonable. If I have faith that a certain chair will hold my weight when I sit on it, it is not without reason; however, I do not test the weight-bearing capacity of every chair I sit in, but my experience tells me that the chances are very good that it will, so I put my faith in that chair. The Christian version of faith is not unlike this, although you will find Christians whose faith would fall more under the definition of superstition. However, this is not what the Bible talks about as faith.

It is also interesting that the author feels his minority status, even mentioning the lack of atheists on TV. This comment will be somewhat shocking to most any Christian, who sees TV populated with “unbelievers,” although they may not identified as atheists. And, unfortunately, the majority of Christians you see on the cable channels are very poor representations of Christianity. My beliefs are not typically represented at all.

Hemant does, however, make many good points in his observations of the various churches he visits. One that I particularly agreed with is the quality of the preaching found in many churches. Personally, I disagree that the sermon should be the focal point of the worship service. Basically, I tend to think that if you can’t make your point in 15 minutes, just give up. However, if someone is going to try to speak to me for 45 minutes, they’d better be interesting, informed, and have put some effort into the message. It shows a complete lack of respect for the congregation to bore them to death every week, just so the pastor can justify his salary. (Yes, it’s a pet peeve of mine.)

He also makes a good point about community outreach. Many churches seem to have an ulterior motive for whatever good works that they do. This, of course, comes from a goal of evangelism, but it turns out to be somewhat manipulative (what is sometimes called “Amway evangelism”). Jesus, of course, healed the sick with no strings attached, although he sometimes tossed in a little advice. Mehta’s point is made: if you really love people as you claim, help them. On the other hand, Mehta’s perspective is somewhat skewed as he presumes a material-only world; he does not take into consideration how the existence of Heaven (and Hell) will change some priorities.

Now, I am not pointing out these misconceptions to speak negatively about the book, just to point out that his comments need to be understood in both the context of what “church” is, as well as Mehta’s own point of view. If these are considered, it’s a very good, informative and enjoyable book. And, of course, one cannot invalidate Hemant’s impressions of the churches he visited; they are what they are, and I thank him for being willing to share these impressions. Besides pointing out issues with various church practices, the book also highlighted some of the misunderstood issues of Christianity, as I’ve pointed out.

Bottom line, I heartily recommend that you add this book to your reading list.