In a nutshell, Enns explains that the OT writing process most likely started around the time of David’s reign, when there was relative peace and tranquility within the kingdom, and ended during the postexilic or second temple period (referred to by some as the “inter-testamental period”). Contrary to what many think about the second temple period, in that it was largely silent especially from a prophetic point of view, this was most likely an extremely active time for Israel’s scholars in terms of recording, editing and compiling the nations long-held oral tradition as well as historical records (e.g. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is referenced in the book of Kings as a source). The motive behind this activity was Israel’s desire to make sense of their national failure; they wanted to look back at their history, which was inextricably permeated with broad-sweeping theological ideas, in the hopes that it would provide some clear answers for their present plight as well as a road map for the foreseeable future. Enns quotes Old Testament scholar and theologian, Walter Brueggeman [1] who says,

It is now increasingly agreed that the Old Testament in its final form is a product of and response to the Babylonian Exile. This premise needs to be stated more precisely. The Torah (Pentateuch) was likely completed in response to the exile, and the subsequent formation of the prophetic corpus and the “writings”  [i.e., poetic and wisdom texts] as bodies of religious literature (canon) is to be understood as a product of Second Temple Judaism [=postexilic period]. This suggests that by their intention, these materials are…an intentional and coherent response to a particular circumstance of crisis….Whatever older materials may have been utilized (and the use of old materials can hardly be doubted), the exilic and/or postexilic location of the final form of the text suggests that the Old Testament materials, understood normatively, are to be taken precisely in an acute crisis of displacement, when old certitudes—sociopolitical as well as theological—had failed.

While no interpretive model is free of erroneous thinking, this particular model is one that deeply resonates with me. Even from a casual reading of the OT, it is fairly obvious that an editing process took place and, upon further inspection, that all of the texts put together as a whole present a cohesive theological and historical message. In terms of the editing process, we have the death of Moses recorded at the end of Deuteronomy, which would be implausible had he been the sole author of the book. I’ve seen quite a few strain mightily to reconcile phenomena like this; for instance some would say that Moses’ death was revealed to him beforehand, thus giving him the ability to record it. I am the type of person who likes to look at the evidence, regardless of how unpleasant it is, head on. In light of the scholarship of the past century or so that has informed Enns’ interpretive model, I can no longer embrace interpretations which vociferously attempt to hold on to fantastical and implausible ideas concerning the authorship of the OT. This being the case, I do not subscribe to naturalism or materialism; I believe in the occurrence of the type of miracles which are recorded in the Bible.

An Inspirational Analogy

I am by no means a conspiracy theorist, therefore I do not believe that there existed a nefarious or duplicitous motivating reason as to why the OT was edited the way it was. The way I see it is that God certainly inspired those who were editing and compiling what would eventually be known as the Old Testament; he used a multiplicity of human agency for this creative, thoughtful and expansive (in terms of both time and geography) reflective process. This kind of inspiration comports somewhat analogously with how the Christian community today finds its bearings and maps out a future for itself in human history.

As those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, believers are powerfully moved, with great effect, to contribute their godly gifts to the furtherance of His cause. They pray for guidance, think, write and speak reflectively about their current collective place in history as well as ponder and plan out their future endeavors. Many are convinced that they are being inspired by God both directly as well as indirectly through one another, in various ways. And this proves true when something radically heart-changing and truly impactful in human history takes place through the church, of which there are many examples.

Destructive Dividing Lines

My previous point speaks to another issue I have with a narrow or rigid view of Scriptural inspiration. Often times, the church marks out its intellectual limits by way of its interpretation of particular passages of Scripture. This may be beneficial in some cases, but recently, it has led to the loss of the creativeness, thoughtfulness and fearlessness of the church, thus preventing its message from resonating with those in our present day and age.

The entire evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design debate is a perfect example of this. The creationist (young and older earther alike) hopelessly binds themselves to such a narrow interpretation of what the first several chapters of Genesis “clearly say” as to become a laughing stock and a source of derision to those espouse well-founded, modern scientific findings. This is absolutely tragic and unnecessary because in the first place the OT was never meant to address everything under the sun, so to speak, but rather was meant to inform the theological thought processes of an ancient people group.

Therefore, this particular assertion from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is to be taken as authoritative by evangelicals, places a burden upon Scripture which it simply cannot bear (and was never intended to, for that matter):

We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may be properly used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. (Article XII)

And secondly, if the saying “all truth is God’s truth” is accurate, then certain parts of the body of Christ are needlessly and harmfully demonizing those who embrace certain observational truths discovered by modern science.

Of course, many will argue that Enns introduces a slippery slope, which in some respects may indeed be true. For instance with an interpretive model like his, how much of the OT should we take to be true or historically reliable? What if archaeological evidence eventually reveals that some of the things recorded in the OT are embellishments or outright false? What does this then say about the nature of inspiration and furthermore about the character of God?

These are genuine concerns, but might I submit that there is already present a slippery slope on the other side of the argument which is driving the church further and further back into a brand of fundamentalism which says that it is “the church versus those godless and agenda-driven scientists” or “biblical inerrantists versus those syncretistic, liberal bible scholars” or what have you.

A Weight Lifted

For my part, I desperately wanted to believe that there was a magic bullet that would prove everything in the Bible as factually true; that if given enough time and with enough archaeological investigation, scholars would exactly match every claim stated in our sacred text. To be honest, this type of view ironically led me to be very uneasy because for instance, the veracity of the Bible and thus the trustworthiness of God rested on the claim that, at one point in history, humans lived for several hundreds of years or that there was a literal Noah’s ark, that the entire world was flooded or that Isaiah was the sole author of his eponymous book.

Through modern scholarship, there appears to be very convincing alternative explanations for the things written in Scripture that chafe against our modern sensibilities. Are these findings mere coincidences or could this be evidence of God leading us into necessary, deeper, albeit uncomfortable truth? Some critics would shoot back that in the liberal scholar’s attempt to think outside of the box on theological matters, they run the risk of going so far off the deep end that they will lose God altogether or sully his name. But I echo the Franciscan friar, Richard Rohr’s sentiment in which he says that ideological boxes are good for a time; they provide a necessary foundation for many things, however they are never a good way to continue or to end.

At some point we have to put ourselves in the midst of the uncomfortable and inconvenient facts that reality presents to us for this is ultimately where life-changing, beneficial truth is found. As Christians we should know that, both factually and experientially, standing in the center of various paradoxes is where we begin to discover the nature of God. While views like Enns’ introduce a different kind of uncertainty to my walk with God and the Christian community, I believe that this will ultimately help me to continue in a healthier type of communion with Him and his people.

Some questions for our readers

• What is your view of biblical inspiration and why does it matter to you?
• In what way is the church’s battle against certain ideologies held by secular society helpful or harmful?
• How can an interpretative model like that of Enns serve to either add to or detract from our view of Scripture and/or God?

[1] W. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 74-75.

Ambition… Virtue or Vice?

This article was written by ‘RJS’ who is a frequent contributor on the Jesus Creed website. RJS is a sincere Christian, a woman, an accomplished scientist, and a faculty member at a secular university. She writes primarily about the relationship between faith and science and occasionally about the role of women in the church.

In this article, she discusses what brain imaging technology (fMRI) has revealed about some of the Seven Deadly Sins. She reports that lust, especially in males, “sets nearly the whole brain buzzing,” producing a biochemical response that can be very addicting and destructive. Envy produces patterns of brain activity that reflect ‘a kind of social pain,’ and when the object of envy (the person who incites it) experiences a downfall, the response is a kind of pleasure which is well described by the German word schadenfreude.

Then she goes on to discuss the deadliest of the deadly sins, which is pride. Brain scans have shown that it takes less mental energy to puff ourselves up with pride than to think about ourselves critically in sober self-examination. And, even more interestingly, “the experiments demonstrate that righteous humility, deliberate self depreciation, is but arrogance and pride in disguise.”

The heart of RJS’s article is a discussion of how we view ambition. Ambition is usually regarded as a good thing. We treat it as a virtue in the workplace, in academia, and in the evangelical church. We admire people who set large goals and strive to achieve them. But ambition is closely related to greed and pride. Ambition can wreak havoc on personal relationships and community life, even more so than sexual immorality. She concludes that, although ambition may sometimes produce results that seem beneficial (e.g., church growth), it is like ‘playing with fire’ because it so easily turns into a poorly disguised effort to gain ‘influence and power hidden behind a veneer of righteous humility.’

What do you all think about this?

One line of research that has recently gotten a lot of attention deals with what are called “lay theories of intelligence.” This is not a theory on what intelligence is as much as a theory about what people think intelligence is and how it shapes their behavior.

Essentially the theory states that people typically hold either an incremental or entity view. People holding an incremental view say that intelligence is malleable and changes across life time. These people believe that intelligence is like a muscle that if you work hard, you can increase it. Hence, incremental theorists typically exert greater effort across task even if they initially struggle with them and place a greater emphasis in mastery. By contrast, there are people who hold an entity theory of intelligence which is a belief that intelligence is fixed and stable. Entity theorists would endorse the view that “You’re either smart or your not. If you happen to be one who isn’t smart, too bad, there’s nothing you can do about it.” As a consequence, people holding an entity view of intelligence may disengage from difficult tasks since they feel that their difficulty is a sign that they are just not intelligent enough. Several research studies have supported the predictions made by this theory showing, for example, that children as young as 7 begin to endorse one of the two theories, and it can greatly affect how they view academic struggles and influence their goal persistence.

Additionally, it has been found that one of the ways that children develop one of these theories is by the type of praise that they are given. Process praise, such as “Wow… I see you’re working hard, since your doing so well,” encourages children to take an incremental view and persist even after initial failures. Whereas ability praise, such as, “Wow… you’re really smart, no wonder your doing so well,” encourages children to take an entity view, which keeps them motivated if they succeed on a task. However, if they fail at the task, they typically stop trying in subsequent attempts.

Interestingly, it has also been found that people who hold an entity versus incremental theory of intelligence will usually also hold an entity theory of personality as well, meaning that they will view personality as a fixed variable which leads them to judge people on a limited amount of information. Say, for example, a guy in one of your classes responds rudely to you after requesting a pencil. An entity theorist might come to the conclusion that this guy is just a jerk, whereas an incremental theorist that might posit that the guy is just having a bad day.

Therefore, consider this question: How you think our view of intelligence might shape how we live out our faith in terms of how we view salvation, our efforts to persist in the face of trials against sin, and how we view other Christians who struggle with sin? What do you all think about this?