The Curious Case of Robert Gundry

Ivan Karamazov worried that if God is dead then all things are permissible. Likewise, so evangelicals have been told, if there is no magisterial authority, then all biblical interpretations are permissible. But even if this is not the case, we could still argue that “biblicism” results in pervasive interpretive pluralism, which is a very serious problem. So goes the argument of Christian Smith in his new book The Bible Made Impossible. The conclusion in Smith’s argument seems to be that the Bible alone is not sufficient to bring us to clear, unambiguous answers on whatever topic we might want it to address.

Naturally, evangelicals have been resistant to Smith’s conclusion. The most prominent piece of criticism of Smith’s new book comes from Robert Gundry, which has been cited as a helpful defense of “biblicism” by a number of evangelical blogs. One scholar even goes so far to say Gundry’s article is a “superb review” from “a senior evangelical statesmen.” But it seems that not everyone shares such a high view of Gundry’s evangelical credentials.

Gundry was ousted from the Evangelical Theological Society, the closest thing evangelicals have that resembles a magisterium, in 1983. The reason: the method deployed in a 1982 commentary on Matthew reached conclusions that were judged to be incompatible with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Normal Geisler recounted the history of Gundry’s transgressions in a recent open letter that charges Michael Licona with the same sins. Apparently, Licona made an interpretive move in his recent book defending the historicity of the resurrection that lead him to conclude Matthew 27:51-54 was composed for literary reasons; not for the purposes of recording history. Al Mohler agrees that Licona has made the same interpretive blunder as Gundry and that Licona ought to recant his position.

The central premise in Mohler and Geisler’s argument is that the doctrine of inerrancy entails the historicity of Matthew 27:51-54. Thus any exegetical method that results in “dehistoricizing” the passage is unacceptable. Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement if Biblical Inerrancy is taken to make this clear:

WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

All I will say about how the Chicago Statement is being deployed is that taking account of a text’s literary forms and devices seems compatible with the conclusion that a given text may not have been intended as history. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is the case in the disputed Matthew text, but it is clear to me that there is a noticeable irony in that this text seems to result in the problematic “interpretive pluralism” that Smith highlighted in his book. By all accounts Gundry and Licona are reputable evangelical scholars who are at home in the “biblicist” tradition. Yet at the same time, voices in this same tradition name them as rogues, or at least proprietors of rogue methods of biblical interpretation.

As to what we should think about the issues raised by the controversy between Licona and Geisler/Mohler, William Lane Craig offers a helpful strategy for approaching these issues from an apologetic standpoint. If views like Craig’s are deemed to be wrongly accommodating of Licona, then it seems we need a magisterium, some authoritative interpretive community, to make these calls. Does the ETS play that role? If so, then what do we make of Gundry and the status of “biblicism?” It seems evangelicals are faced with what may be a tough choice: jettison biblicism or the authority of ETS-like institutions as a boundary-setting entities. The curious case of Robert Gundry makes it difficult to accept both.

UPDATE:

I was curious to see what Gundry’s 1982 commentary had to say about the Matthew 27:53. He writes:

Hence, Matthew probably means that the resurrected saints entered Jerusalem only after Jesus’ resurrection. It is unclear whether they came out of their tombs only after Jesus’ resurrection, or came out earlier but stayed in the countryside till Jesus had risen. The doctrine that he is “the first-born from the dead ” (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5) and “the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor 15:20) favors the former view because a delayed exit from the realm of death would seem less liable to contradict that doctrine.” Thus Matthew probably means that the saints stayed in their tombs for several days even though their bodies had been raised to life. Then they came out and “entered into the holy city and appeared to many.” [Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1982), 576.]

So when Mohler says

In 1983, the Evangelical Theological Society voted to request that Robert Gundry resign from its membership. The arguments for his expulsion from the ETS are exactly those that are now directly relevant to the argument that Michael Licona makes about Matthew 27:51-54. The suggestions that these events reported by Matthew are “special effects” and a “poetic device” are exactly the kind of dehistoricizing that led to Gundry’s removal from the ETS. Gundry’s argument concerning Matthew’s use of midrash is virtually parallel to Licona’s argument from classical references and Jewish apocalyptic sources.

We should not take him to be making the impression that Licona’s interpretation mimics Gundry’s. It seems that Mohler and Geisler would be inclined to agree with Gundry here, making the Gundry/Licona connection less pronounced. It would be a matter of using the right hermeneutical method, not the necessarily getting the right results.

 

The Rename Game

This week, the Southern Baptist Convention announced it is launching yet another committee to examine changing its name. The goal is to better reflect the fact that, aside from folks who live at the North Pole, they’re not necessarily always geographically “Southern” anymore.  Whether or not the name change will go through is up in the air — this is the eighth attempt at renaming the organization.

But it isn’t just the Southern Baptists. Name change fever is in the water. The interwebs are abuzz with the announcement by Netflix this week that it’s changing the name of its DVD service to Qwikster — a name that conjures up images of oil changes and bunnies with chocolate milk. Campus Crusade for Christ, in a move which resulted in a public relations nightmare, recently announced it was changing its name to Cru (rowing teams or short haircuts, anyone?).

Often, name changes are a result of corporate mergers.  If you were a customer of AT&T Wireless back in the day, your cell phone company for a time was renamed Cingular — until, of course, it reverted back to AT&T.  Kinko’s became FedEx Kinkos, and then just FedEx, even though everybody still calls it Kinko’s.

Women seem to have perfected the art of the name change, since the most common changes of name happen with marriage.  Women bear well the burden of changing all their documentation and notifying their friends — unless the husband takes his wife’s name, in which case the man bears the brunt of jokes for the rest of his days.

When I was a kid, I knew a girl named Nicole who, for whatever reason, felt inspired to change her name to Michelle.  And, for whatever reason, her parents relented and legally changed her first name.  I can’t recall exactly, but she may have been referred to as “Micole” for a while thereafter.

The changing of one’s name does have biblical precedence.  Abram became Abraham. Simon became Peter. Saul became Paul.  The book of Revelation even tells us that the ones who overcome will be given a white stone with a new name written on it (Rev. 2:17).  All of these changes, I think, reflect a radical inward transformation.  The new name represents the new man.

This recent spate of name changes, however, seems to tout the continuity of the old.  Qwikster will offer the same great service, same red envelopes, etc.  Cru will remain committed to the Great Commission, etc.  Those proposing the Southern Baptist Convention’s name change aren’t seeking a change in the  its mission.

Ultimately, I think, we make our names more than they make us.  After all, Amazon.com isn’t a website about a South American river, and few are under the impression that it is. Will Qwikster, Cru, and the Earthen Baptist Convention (What do you think, SBC committee?) make radical differences in the groups that carry those names?  Probably not.  But then again, they can always change it back.

 

Obama As Swede

So yesterday I open up my browser, all innocent-like, and saw that Drudge had a match-up between Obama and Cain. This, coupled with Cain's strong showing in the Florida straw poll, and his arrival in the first tier of candidates in at least one major poll, indicates that it is now his turn to have a run at the anybody-but-Romney demographic.

In discussing this I am not backing away from my general dubiousness about our religious faith in polls. Too often the wild variegations we see in polling are treated as a testimony of the mercurial temperament of the god Demos, and not a reflection on the quality of weed that the prophet of Demos, the pollster in question, has been smoking.

But with that aside, let's work with the polling results, just for grins. None of this is an endorsement, or a detailed discussion of Cain's policy positions. He is generally conservative, which is enough to provide us with room for a fun thought experiment. Let us just say that an Obama/Cain race is possible. A few thoughts spring to mind.

The first might appear to be the general trippiness of having the nominee of each major party be a black man. But there is more to it than that. When Obama is thrown out on his ear, which one doesn't matter, it needs to be because he is a hard leftist who couldn't govern his way out of brown paper lunch bag. It must be because of the content of his character, and not the color of his skin -- as that guy sculpted forever into very white marble once told us.

When Jimmy Carter was thrown out for being an epic failure, it was because he was an epic failure. When the same thing happens to Obama, it will be for the same reason. Obama will have proven to us all that a black man can be just as inept as a long line of white men who have occupied that same office. Ah, but when Obama is frogmarched out of the White House by the Electoral College, our entire ruling class is poised to say, and indeed is eager to say, that this tragedy will have been because of the deep racism of the American people. Unless . . . Obama is replaced by another black man.

Now I am not predicting that any of this will happen. I am just jotting down what the nature of my enjoyment will be if it does happen. If Cain defeats Obama, the motive force of racism will still in fact be alleged -- it will just be a lot more fun to listen to and watch. I am looking forward to the possibility of a deep punditry that will show how racist it is to replace one black man with another one.

My second point is this. I have to admit that in the back of my mind, every presidential election, I harbor secret hopes that the European consternation factor will be high. That is one of the guilty-pleasure reasons why a Palin presidency would be so appealing. This means that anything that would highlight European racial hypocrisies would be most welcome. When Obama was elected, Europe rejoiced, and they all pretended that it was because he was a black man. But Europe was actually rejoicing because Obama is a Swede. Just as Massachusetts is Europe without the castles, so Obama is a Swedish pol without the yumpin yiminy accent.

Of course, on real race issues, Europe has harbored terrible racial wars within living memory, Europe has openly racist political parties that can still get their candidates elected, and Europeans won't even go to the movies if the headliner is a black man -- and yet Europeans like to lecture Americans on our race relations.

Try as I might, the third point has nothing to do with race. Herman Cain is a businessman, and has not ever held elective office. So that might be fun to try. Cain could argue that running anything so massive as the federal government is clearly beyond his abilities, and so he intends to shrink it to a size that a good businessman could run. Let's whittle this baby down so that it will fit within his skill set.

So I think it was Dennis Miller who suggested the bumper sticker "Cain vs. Not Able." Because, you know, thought experiments can be both fun and edifying.

 

Til ‘Lack of Consciousness’ Do Us Part

Last week, Pat Robertson told his viewers that he believes Alzheimer’s disease to be a “kind of death,” a basis for the un-afflicted spouse to seek divorce and move on with their life—so long as they act mercifully and provide a means for care of that spouse. This view logically corresponds with the evangelical expansion of views on divorce with very little to say on reconciliation. I never thought I would see the day when the difficult work of staying married is further undermined by an otherwise theologically conservative Christian. As a result of Robertson’s very irresponsible words, I’m sure there are many wondering if their situation equally represents a “kind of death” of their spouse as well. Don’t underestimate Robertson’s influence in living rooms everywhere.

On par with Robertson’s views on disease, dignity and death is the embrace of reproductive technologies that willingly and knowingly risk the lives of embryos (small humans at the earliest stage of life) or the Terri Schaivo’s whose lives are deemed without worth because the quality of life and the relationship has been compromised. Both examples speak to the lack of commitment by able, responsible agents in the relationship. Parents don’t yet need to act like parents to their embryos because the embryos are not yet warm, cooing little people to be physically bonded with yet. Spouses no longer need to abide by the marriage vows because the other spouse is, sorry to be crass, better off dead—and so, too, is the quality of the relationship.

Though small or disabled, they are fully human—a sufficient argument for defending their life (without a vitalist mentality that makes no room for death). The personhood debate has only done harm to the way we view and value these image bearers. As a philosophical term, “personhood” has been imported into our theological conversation to account for human capacities, not as a way to address ontology. The fruit of it is rotten and I believe this is what we are seeing in Robertson’s “kind of death” message.

In Robertson’s comments, we see the coalescing of views on marriage, divorce and human dignity that we should have come to expect because, as he so aptly demonstrates, evangelical Christians neither understand how to think about medical ethics issues nor how they impact other areas of the Christian life. Every day pew dwellers have been offered little in terms of framework for how to live through these types of situations to the glory of God. Instead, they get “pat” answers for how to make life more immediately pleasurable.

There are plenty self-described evangelicals who likely agree with Robertson on the diminished moral obligation in an Alzheimer’s (or cancer) relationship. In fact, I’m sure some are grateful he is taking the heat for a stance that they have been secretly embracing. Some evangelicals, of course, have rightly come out in defense of sacrificial living within marriage, a position summed up in the age-old expression vow “til death do us part.” But with the recent tendency toward emotional-therapeutic approaches to ethical discourse—to the Christian life in general—“til ‘lack of consciousness’ do us part” is likely to become a morally sufficient argument for how Christians can choose to cope in similar circumstances. So as a matter of consistency, if our individual situations are going to have any determining weight in the rightness or wrongness of beginning of life questions, then Robertson’s view fits well within this new theological schema for end of life scenarios. If disease warrants the end of a parental relationship through diagnostic testing in utero or in the petri dish, certainly the prospect of terminal illness can justify the end of the marital relationship. May it never be.

 

Probably Really Good

For those following the recent blog posts, there has been a goodish bit of interaction on the subject of Eastern Orthodoxy here and here.

It all began with a brief clip from CanonWIRED. In that clip I recommended a book on EO that I had not read -- Through Western Eyes by Robert Letham. I recommended it because I had read other stuff by Letham, which really was top drawer, and I assumed this would be the same. But, as a result of the hubbub, I went back and read his section on icons and prayer, which I really can't recommend. He doesn't give away the store entirely, but he does give away a good portion of the inventory. So here is my retraction. I still like Letham's other stuff, but this was not so hot.

While on this personal note, in the comments section of those posts I have been pressed to reveal what I had or had not read in preparation for my column in that infamous edition of Credenda way back then -- back in the days of the early church. To this point I have not replied to those demands, not because I wanted to look coy, or dig arabesques in the carpet with my shoe, but because I honestly had no idea. That column was written sometime prior to 1994, about 17 years ago.

This is not a retraction at all -- just a little sharing time. I have before had someone point at a book on my shelf and ask if I have read it. To my shame, I do not know. I pick it up and look through it, and my blue highlighter is all through it. Heh. I have sometimes thumbed through books I know I have read, and read some comment with blue exclamation marks beside it. The only problem is that I don't recall ever reading such a sentiment before in my life.

Now seventeen years from this time (2028), I will no doubt be assailed by a young man for my podunk reading schedule during these, the lazy days of his fourth grade year. And I will no doubt not be able to remember, aided in that lack of remembrance by the weight of seventy five winters. But I will say this, for this is how I operate -- I know I must have been reading something right about now. And boy, I bet it was good.

 

“Why Can’t I Own Canadians?” Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

by Dr. Michael Horton at the White Horse Inn blogOn her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, an Orthodox Jew, said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, which was posted on the Internet. It creates a great opportunity to talk about how we interpret the Bible (especially the Old Testament). We need to have good answers—better than Dr. Laura would have—to the frequent criticism that if we’re going to follow Leviticus on one thing (like the vileness of homosexuality), we have to take the rest (such as stoning homosexuals and rebellious children—not to mention, the ban on pork, etc., and holy war in defense of a holy nation).

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination …. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)

Although the responses aren’t usually this clever, the “Do you really want to go to Leviticus?” argument packs a punch in contemporary debates. Often, the critic assumes that every biblical command is a timeless and universal law. They really can’t bear the blame by themselves for this misunderstanding, since it’s common to a lot of Christian preaching through the ages. Medieval popes invoked these “holy war” passages for the crusades and appealed to Leviticus for prohibiting the charging of interest on loans to Christians.
In fact, John Calvin took aim at medieval canon law on just these very points, explaining that while the moral law is indeed universally binding for all time and places, the civil and ceremonial laws attached to it in the Old Testament covenant code were given uniquely to the only nation that has ever been chosen and separated as holy to the Lord. Anticipated by John the Baptist’s fiery announcement of a judgment in God’s house, Jesus pronounced his covenant curses on the religious leaders and in word and deed replaced the Temple. The only holy land after Jesus’ resurrection is his body, those who are united to him through faith, “from every tribe, kindred, tongue, people, and nation” (Rev 5:9). Already in Hebrews 8:13, the old covenant could be called “obsolete.”
The commands in the old covenant law (viz., Leviticus and Deuteronomy) are specific to that remarkable geo-political theocracy that foreshadowed the universal kingdom of Christ. The deliverance of Israel in the exodus anticipates a far greater exodus through the waters of death and hell in Christ. The holy wars pale in comparison with the judgment of the nations that Christ will execute at the end of the age. Even if Israel had been faithful to this covenant, Canaan would have only been a type or small-scale model of the extensiveness and intensiveness of God’s reign at the end of the age. Moses could not give God’s people rest in the land of everlasting Sabbath. As the prophets proclaim, this would only come when one greater than Moses would rescue his people and lead them victoriously into the perfect peace, love, and joy that he would win for his co-heirs.
Sure, we learn from Leviticus 18:22 that God considers homosexuality an abomination. Yet our critics (at least the clever ones) will point out that the same code threatens excommunication for eating any meat with blood in it (Lev 17:10) and eating animals that chew the cud or part the hoof (like pigs) is strictly forbidden as “unclean” (Lev 11). The responder above points to many other examples.
Few of these commands can be explained in terms of general wisdom for hygiene, sanitation, and gastronomic health. They focus attention on God’s act of separating Israel (“clean”) from the unclean nations. Each set of prohibitions is a facet in the diamond of an old covenant system that sparkled with anticipation of the coming Messiah. It takes a good knowledge of the covenantal context and import of these commands for Israel to recognize their unique significance in this history of redemption. It also requires that we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, allowing the fulfillment to guide our understanding of the typological promise.
A good place to start in digging deeper is M. G. Kline’s Kingdom Prologue, especially where he talks about “Intrusion Ethics”: that is, the suspension of ordinary providence in favor of miracle, ordinary wisdom in favor of God’s direct word through the prophets, just war among common nations in favor of holy war on behalf of God’s holy land and nation. Homosexuality is still a violation of God’s moral law for all times and places, but the sanction for it under the old covenant (death by stoning) was theocracy-specific.
Living in an era that foreshadowed the last judgment, the Psalmist properly offered imprecatory prayers calling for God’s judgment on the ungodly. Nevertheless, in Jesus’ ministry this identification of heaven with a geo-political nation was declared no longer in effect. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes some of these passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: “You have heard it said, ‘…..’ But I say,….” These old covenant commands were not wrong; they had their place in the theocratic government that God exercised directly over his people. However, Jesus rebukes James and John when they seek to call fire down on the Samaritan village that rejected the gospel. I offer a summary of this argument in The Christian Faith (chapter 29).
In the moral law that runs not only through the whole Bible but throughout the codes of so many civilizations across the ages, God reveals his righteous character. In the specific legislation that God attaches to this moral law for Israel alone, however, God’s moral will is in service to his saving will in Jesus Christ. These Israel-specific laws are not intended to regulate the constitutions of common nations, but ultimately to play their part in a theocratic system that leads us ultimately to Christ and his everlasting kingdom. So you can’t invoke the old covenant passages for common nations in this era in which Christ’s kingdom is not identified with any geo-political nation. It’s an era of forgiveness, a stay of execution before the dreadful day of judgment. In this in-between time, the kingdom of Christ (regardless of what the secular kingdoms of this age determine) announces God’s righteous judgment and gracious salvation. It calls all people everywhere—gay, straight, gossips, and the pious grandmother who trusts in her own righteousness—to repent and embrace God’s only Son.

Said the Spider to the Fly

When the Constitution first came out of the convention, the opposition to it (as it then was) was identified with the anti-Federalists, led by men like Patrick Henry. The support for it was called Federalist, led by men like James Madison. In the resulting clash between the two factions, the Federalists compromised enough to agree to a Bill of Rights, which was enough to secure passage. This means that it is not too much to call the Constitution a (moderate) anti-Federalist document. The steady encroachments of federal power since that time simply show us that the moderation should have been a little less moderate, and a little more suspicious.

Speaking of suspicion, there are two approaches to constitutional law, each having to do with where the default suspicions lie. One side is suspicious of citizen, who might be off in a corner, you know, making a profit or something. The other view is suspicious of the power of government, which always wants to play the game and be the ref at the same time.

In the founding era, the basic orientation was this: "How can we protect our rights from Congress?" Today, the assumption for many has become: "How can we have our rights protected by Congress?" Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly.

This basic division of thought is shaking out again in our own time. A generation ago one party thought the government should solve our problems by doing x and the other party thought the government should solve our problems by doing y. Now things are quite different. Now one faction believes that the government should solve our problems by doing x and the other believes government is the problem.

And of course, a number of Republicans want to get the support and energy of this latter group . . . so they can get in office and do y.