Blue Cord

No, this is not a deep essay on how wonderful baseball is. I will leave those to George Will and Bob Costas (although I agree with everything they write on the subject). Instead, here are a few thoughts — mostly pet peeves — that came to me while watching the Atlanta Braves vs. the Washington Nationals on Sunday and the Milwaukee Brewers vs. the Chicago Cubs on Monday, and while following the Tampa Bay Rays vs. the Baltimore Orioles through MLB’s gameday on-line that gives pitch-by-pitch updates.

• The Orioles are horrible again this year. The only thing that allows me to keep going as a Baltimore fan is my love for the city and the practice I have had waiting for Jesus to return.
• People all over Nationals Park were taking pictures with their digital cameras to catch the first pitch, the first home run, the first player to score, etc. Flashes were going off all over the place. Don’t people realize that the flashes on most cameras are only powerful enough to light things within 15–20 feet? Every flash going off in the park was absolutely useless. Now, if it was only a question of wasting batteries, it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. But when the flash goes off, a digital camera expects thing to be lit fairly brightly and reduces its sensitivity normally. When the flash distance is too large, all this does is make the picture dimmer. If the people took the time to read their manuals (or perhaps a good book on digital photography) they would learn that turning the flash off would cause the camera to adjust to the actual light down on the field, thereby resulting in better pictures. Some people don’t deserve technology.
• Eric Gagne really, really needs to shave.
• The only thing that keeps the Tampa Bay Rays’s name change from being the stupidest ever is the fact that the Angles became the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim last year. And do they really think abandoning teal for blue will turn them into a winning team? Or is this just a cynical marketing ploy?
• Teams that began more recently than the 1970s should not be allowed to wear pinstripes.
• Players who wear baggy uniforms look really stupid. You make millions of dollars a year; you shouldn’t dress like a fourteen-year-old.

I have not really been following the kerfuffle at Westinster Theological Seminary. I have not read Peter Enns’s book Inspiration and Incarnation, but the seminary announced on Wednesday that they were suspending from the seminary faculty because of views expressed in this book. Enns has the support of the majority of the faculty at the seminary, which voted 12-8 against suspending him, and a web site has been set up by those who support him.

The issue comes down to the fact that Enns approach to the Scriptures does not line up with traditional Reformed theology, as is recognized by De Regno Christi, a web site set up by Reformed Christian Witness (the author’s of the site seem to approve of Enns’s suspension). My purpose in discussing this issue is not to debate whether Enns should or should not have been suspended. While I generally err on the side of academic freedom, a seminary can have a reasonable expectation that its faculty will teach from the point-of-view of the tradition of the seminary. Any good seminary will have professors from multiple denominations on their faculty, but if they are to serve their primary mission the majority should represent the tradition of the seminary.

My purpose for discussing Enns’s suspension, however, is to point out that this is in fact a Scripture vs. tradition debate. Enns has been suspended not because he has put forth an interpretation of the Bible which is unfaithful to the Scriptures, but because he has put forth an interpretation that is unfaithful to the Reformed tradition. The ironic thing is that this is being done at a Protestant seminary. One of Protestantism founding ideas during the Reformation was that our traditions should never take primacy over Scripture. Enns’s ideas may not be in line with Reformed traditions, but they are certainly in line with Reformation principles of Scripture being allowed to critique tradition.

What this should point out is that there is no such thing as a “Bible only” denomination. We all interpret Scripture within our traditions. This is, of course, how it should be. Scripture and tradition both have a role to play in our theology. It is either intellectually dishonest or just plain arrogant to claim that your church is faithful to the Bible alone while other churches rely on “man-made” traditions. It is never ever an either/or proposition.

We should all continue to interpret the Bible within our own traditions, while at the same time allowing our interpretation of the Bible to critique those traditions. Tradition can never be allowed to become a static entity. It must always be open to revision and — dare I say? — reformation.

Westminster’s “About Us” page contains this paragraph at the top:

Westminster is committed to Scripture and to the systematic exposition of biblical truth known as the Reformed faith. The very name of the institution signals clearly that our systematic theology has been and remains an outworking of the theological documents known as the Westminster Standards. In addition to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the Seminary treasures the rich and harmonious diversity of creeds and confessions within the historic Reformed tradition. In particular, it recognizes that the system of doctrine contained in Scripture is also confessed in the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort).

While their statement beings by noting that they are committed to Scripture, they immediately turn to enumerating the documents that inform their tradition. They are up front about the fact that theology at Westminster is done within the boundaries of these confessions. Their suspension of Enns, however, suggests that theology can never be allowed to go outside of these bounds, even when led there through the study of the Bible.

Update: Nick Norelli has a round up of bloggings pertaining to the Peter Enns situation at WTS at Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.

I received word this morning that my proposal for a paper at this year’s SBL meeting has been accepted for the Pentateuch section. The paper is on the demotion of the Levites in PT and HS. It builds on some of the work that Steve Cook has done on interbiblical exegesis between the Torah and Ezekiel. I wrote about half this paper in the summer of 2006. Unfortunately, I got busy with other things and never got around to finishing it. It will be interesting to dive back into the topic at some point this summer.

I am spending part of the afternoon grading exams that my Bible 101 students took on Wednesday. This test covered the second half of the Old Testament.

There is one thing that all my students know: Hosea married a prostitute named Gomer. They may not be able to explain the role that Hosea’s marriage played in his message. They may not be able to tell me the kings of the United Monarchy. They may not know what message Isaiah delivered during the Syro-Ephraimitic War. They may not be able to give me the dates of the exile. They may not be able to explain the world view that underlies wisdom literature. And far too few of them can correctly locate Jerusalem on a blank map.

But by golly they all know about Gomer the Prostitute.

And apparently “one of Solomon’s wives” is the default answer to any person on the test they are not able to identify. In a “Definition and Identification” section, I listed the names of some people in the Bible. The students are supposed to explain who the person was and the role they played. Among those who have been identified as Solomon’s wives are Baruch, Haggai, Nathan, and Qoheleth. The fact that all of these are male names apparently didn’t register. And among the more disturbing identifications are those who listed Bathsheba as the woman with whom Solomon had an affair. Nope, nothing oedipal going on here!

Update: I just came across this gem: “Haggai was a woman who tempted David, but he stayed faithful to Gomer (even though she wasn’t faithful to him).”

I have been tagged in the Zwingli Meme by Chris Brady at Targuman. The entire purpose of this meme is to annoy Jim West, who has threatened to remove anyone who participates in the meme from his blogroll. I was removed from Jim’s blogroll about a year ago for sins unknown, so I risk little by participating. Besides, Jim’s blogroll is down to single digits at this point, so I am not sure how big of a threat that is.

The rules of this meme are simple:

1. Post something rude about Zwingli. (Outrageous slander especially welcome.)
2. Tag someone who is not Jim West.

Personally, I was under the impression that zwingli was a type of pasta.¹ The meme seems to suggest that he was a theologian, so I looked him up. I tried most standard theological reference books, but he doesn’t seem to have been important enough to have been included in any of those works. I loaned someone my copy of Irrelevant Theologians of the 16th Century last week, so I had no choice but to head to Wikipedia.

I learned from Wikipedia that Zwingli was actually a stand-up comedian known primarily for doing a passable impersonation of Martin Luther. Although his impersonation gained him a good deal of popularity in Reformation circles, he stopped doing it after the Diet of Worms over fear of how it might hurt his standing with the Catholic church. This effectively ended his show business career, although his twin brother Elmer Fudd — a well-known actor — was able to get him cameo appearances in films from time to time. Years later, Zwingli was able to meet his hero Martin Luther while Zwingli was working as a bus boy at the Marburg Colloquy.²

I hereby tag Jim Getz.

1. They used to serve a baked zwingli casserole at seminary that was to die for! [back]
2. Zwingli’s role in the colloquy has been greatly exaggerated in subsequent accounts. [back]