Manna & Mercy - A Critical Evaluation Part 2.

Educating Jesus

Just as Erlander has made no secret of the fact that he has been influenced by Liberation Theologians, so he states plainly that Feminist Theologians have played their part in his thinking and approach to Scripture.

The implication of this is that any portrayal of God as masculine is considered unacceptable and to be not merely avoided but corrected.

One can but admire the determination with which he approaches this task, as pitfalls abound on every hand.

Let’s follow his strategy:

The Bible uses the pronouns he, him and his hundreds if not thousands of times in reference to God. For example: In Psalm 136 the words he, him and his occur 31 times in 26 verses.

Erlander is at pains not to perpetuate this ‘error’, so not once throughout the M & M manual does he refer to God with a masculine pronoun. This requires considerable skill and restraint.

Repeatedly Scripture refers to the relationship between God and Israel as that between husband and (oftentimes unfaithful) wife (Is. 54. 5-8; Jer. 3. 6-14; Hosea Chs. 1-3)

Erlander studiously avoids any reference to God as husband to Israel.

In several places in Isaiah and Jeremiah God refers to himself as the Father of Israel.

Erlander prefers to see the relationship between God and Israel as that between mother and child ( M & M p. 5.) although it is with difficulty that one finds any textual support for this.

God is often referred to as King but never as Queen.

Erlander refrains from any reference to God as King. 

Erlander coins the phrase, “The wombishness of Jahweh” (M & M p 44)

In fact throughout the manual Jahweh is depicted as a somewhat weepy, mothering figure.

Jesus always refers to God as Father (close on 200 times in the Gospels) and instructs us to do likewise. All the New Testament writers refer to God as ‘Father’.

In Romans 8, the evidence of the indwelling Holy Spirit is that we have a natural inclination to address God as “Abba Father” (Rom 8. 15)

Yet Erlander refuses to refer to God as ‘Father’, deeming this to be unacceptably sexist.

Priscilla and Aquila are referred to several times in the New Testament. They are never mentioned singly and present a wonderful model as a married couple of considerable maturity and stature in God. Certainly their ministry has an apostolic profile although they are never referred to as apostles.

Erlander however sees fit to promote Priscilla to the status of ‘apostle’ while making no mention whatever of poor Aquila. The reference given is Romans 16. 3 which simply refers to both Priscilla and Aquila as ‘fellow workers’  of Paul.

Finally, it is clear from the Gospels that only “The Twelve” were with Jesus at the Last Supper. (Matt. 26. 20; Mark14. 17)

Erlander considers this very sexist and remiss of Jesus, so his illustration of the Last Supper augments the 12 males (13 with Jesus) with 13 females resulting in perfect parity of the sexes.

His message to Jesus would run something like this, “Respectfully Sir, I sense that in having only twelve males at the Last Supper, you were unduly influenced by the prevailing mores and sexist attitudes of the time. It would have been far more appropriate to have both men and women at this important event. I have drawn you a picture of the arrangement we regard as being more suitable given the more enlightened understanding we have of such matters in our time.”

There can be little doubt that the overall tenor of Erlander’s Manna and Mercy manual is one of eisegesis rather than exegesis. (see our post entitled “Exegesis versus Eisegesis” of Aug 4, 2016)

As with the liberation motif, Erlander has certain points he wants to make, and he does not shrink from distorting the Biblical narrative in order to make these points.

The trouble is that the Manna & Mercy manual by virtue of its humorous and pictorial presentation, offers itself as a Biblical overview for those beginning to study the scriptures. Such ‘beginner students’ can easily be duped into mistaking Erlander’s distortion of the Scriptural account for the actual narrative of the text.

This is not to say that some of the points that Erlander wishes to make aren’t worth making.

For example, the communion table is most assuredly inclusive and not confined to men. –But this conclusion is the result of theological reflection on a number of texts and does not constitute grounds for a revision of the Gospel texts.

--A pity that Erlander couldn’t have ”played it straight.”

As mentioned in our previous post, this begs the question as to whether one who approaches Scripture in such a careless and cavalier fashion can be considered trustworthy to conduct us through it’s pages.

   

Manna & Mercy: A Critical Evaluation Part 1

Daniel Erlander’s course entitled “Manna and Mercy” presents itself as an overview of the entire Bible. It is user-friendly in its presentation and includes many of Erlander’s (often humorous) line drawings.

It is inevitably something of a whistle-stop tour and clearly some things have to be left out, but as one is whisked past well known landmarks one often thinks, “Hey what about this?” The reply seems to be, “O that, yes but what you really need to see is this.”

Take for example Noah and the Flood: Perhaps because the overall theme of the course is God’s mercy, Erlander reasons that God would not, could not, should  not do such a thing as wipe out nearly all of humankind even though they were behaving incredibly badly (Gen 6. 5-8). With that he takes his censor’s scissors and excises Genesis 6. 7 to Genesis 8. 22 from the Biblical record. Feeling that this leaves a bit of a hole in the narrative, instead of God saying, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land …” (Gen. 6. 7), he has him saying after considering the destruction of the human race, “I will not! Can a mother destroy her child, her delight, her joy. (see M & M p 3.)The reference given is Gen. 9. 11 which bears no relation to the preceding statement. In fact the reference to mother and child is lifted out of context from Isaiah 49. 15 where, referring to Israel in exile the Lord says,

 “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast, and have no compassion on the child she has born? Though she may forget, I will not forget you.”

Erlander makes no secret of the fact that his view of Scripture is strongly influenced by Liberation Theologians.

This accounts for his racing through the book of Genesis without a mention of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob nor yet of the twelve tribes of Israel.

To be fair they do get a mention in a throwaway line at the start of the section dealing with the Exodus. (M & M p 4.)

Exodus however, does have a liberation motif which is both strong and clear. Erlander teases this out over the next three chapters (M&M pgs. 4-15)

However, the Biblical record of the conquest of Canaan presents a problem to Erlander: with the exception of Rahab and her household, Joshua’s strategy is to put to death everyone, men, women and children, in the towns and cities which he conquers (Joshua Chs. 6 through 11)

It is always going to be hard to discover motifs of mercy and liberation in accounts such as this. Erlander’s solution to this difficulty is as bold as it is inventive: He decides to re-write the book of Joshua.

In the Revised Erlander Version (R.E.V.) “…victory came when Joshua’s army attacked from the outside while oppressed slaves revolted from the inside. When the cities fell, these collaborators then became full members of the people of Israel. ” (M & M p 17)

So then it was only the ‘big deals’ who were killed.

Any serious student of the Bible should continuously be asking three questions which in turn constitute three steps:

1.                 What does the text say?

2.                 Using sound hermeneutic principles how do we interpret the text?

3.                 Taking due note of the interpretation, how does the text apply to our context

There is usually scope for a range of interpretations in steps 2. and 3., but because Erlander tampers with the source data at step 1., it renders any attempt to answer the questions in steps 2. and 3., futile.

In addition to Erlander’s propensity to excise and revise texts he also has a marked tendency to trivialize key texts. Take for example the Passover (Exodus Chapter 12) This is alluded to in the following sentence: “Before they left, the slaves ate a special dinner called Passover.” (M & M p 4.)

There is no mention of the blood of an unblemished lamb being applied to the doorposts and lintel of each dwelling so that death would not befall the firstborn of the children of Israel – this a clear prefiguring of Christ’s death on the cross, the Lamb of God shedding His blood that we might have life.

A special meal? Yes indeed! A very special meal!

There can be little doubt that the overall tenor of Erlander’s Manna and Mercy manual is one of eisegesis rather than exegesis. (see our post entitled “Exegesis versus Eisegesis” of Aug 4, 2016) He has certain points he wants to make, (some of them valid) and he is prepared to excise, revise and trivialize texts in order to enlist the support of Scripture in making these points.

All the above begs the question as to whether one who approaches Scripture in such a careless and cavalier fashion can be considered trustworthy to conduct us through it’s pages.

A Pocket Pack of Hermeneutic Principles

Hermeneutics, is the discipline concerned with ‘Interpreting the Scriptures Correctly,’ or as stated in 2 Timothy 2. 15, “…rightly dividing the Word of God” (KJV)

Hermeneutics at an academic level can be a vast and complex business, yet any student of the Bible can grasp the elements of the matter. Indeed, whether one is a preacher or teacher of God’s Word, a leader of a Home Group, a Sunday School teacher or simply reading the Bible for one’s own spiritual nourishment, it is important to have a few important Hermeneutic Principles under one’s belt.

These fall naturally into two groups namely:

• Principles of Context
• Principles of Interpretation

So here is a Pocket Pack of Hermeneutic Principles which I hope will be found useful by any student of the Scriptures wishing to unlock their rich treasure:

The Master Key

The purposes and character of God are fulfilled and revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

As the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testaments speak of Him, so He affirms their truthfulness and authority.

Principles of Context

1.     The text must be understood within the context of the passage in which it occurs

2.     The text must be understood within the context of the book and the literary genre in which it occurs.

3.     The text must be understood within the sweep and thrust of the entire Bible.

4.     The context of the writer must be taken into account.

5.     The purpose of the writer must be taken into account.

6.    While we take note of the historical context of the text, in applying it to our current context, we yet allow Scripture to be the yardstick for what is pleasing and acceptable to God. We do not allow our context to be the yardstick for what is acceptable in Scripture.

Principles of Interpretation

1.     Scripture is its own interpreter: one text will expand upon or give insight into another.

2.     The New Testament interprets the Old.

3.     John’s Gospel interprets the Synoptic Gospels

4.     The Epistles interpret the Gospels.

5.     The systematic and didactic Epistles such as Romans and Galatians, interpret the historic and incidental.

6.     The universal interprets the local and cultural.

7.     The clear interprets the obscure.

8.     There is an unfolding (or progressive) revelation evidenced in Scripture such that our understanding of God and his purposes both creative and redemptive become clearer and fuller as they are revealed “line upon line and precept upon precept.”

9.    Taking due account of the above principles, unless there is compelling Scriptural evidence to the contrary, the plain meaning of the text is the true meaning.

In earlier posts we explained ‘The Master Key’ and also Principle 8. more fully.

In subsequent posts we may tease out certain other of the above principles in order to make them clearer.

A Safe Place

I want our church to be a safe place.

 I want it to be a place where the un-churched and those who are groping after the truth or seeking help in their distress, may come and not feel any trace of finger-pointing Pharisaism. A place where the members walk always with a profound sense of God’s grace and, knowing that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, are careful to refrain from condemnatory attitudes and conduct.

For the great good news of the Gospel is that we don’t have to clean up our lives in order to come to Jesus. We come to Jesus and He then makes us right with God, both as we come to faith in Him and then by an ongoing process of becoming like Him in our behaviour and character. Thus the church must open its arms wide to sinners of all descriptions: the Great Physician comes for the sick and not for the healthy, and indeed there is ‘none righteous no not one’. 

The Gospel is inclusive in its essence.

 Yet just as we may not exclude anyone on the grounds of race, gender, nationality, age or any other criterion, for all are in need of God’s salvation, so too we may not exclude anyone from the pursuit of holiness, ‘without which no-one will see the Lord’. We may not presume to lower the bar for anyone, for we all alike must ‘press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus’. It is God who sets the bar and it is nothing less than complete Christ-likeness.

I want our church to be one that demonstrates the Christ-like ability to say not only, “I do not condemn you,” but also, “Go and sin no more.”

A church where one is encouraged to do what is displeasing to God or where sin is winked at, is not a safe place.

A church where one is misled as to the truth of God is not a safe place. 

I want our church to be a safe place.

Science Says!

One quite often encounters, generally in popular publications, the phrase, “Science says” or its variant, “Scientists say,” or “Science has proven.” Generally this is held to be ‘game, set and match’ in any controversy.

Coming from a scientific discipline myself, I maintain an innate skepticism whenever I come across such language.

Here it is helpful to realise that ‘Science’ falls into three broad categories each with its own methodology:

Applied Science

This is my background, the discipline of Engineering and Technology. She is a stern mistress, for if practice does not accord closely with theory one’s bridges fall down and one’s machines fail to work. It is a very public discipline and one can easily get mud on one’s face. This branch of science has a well-established theoretical basis yet it employs a high degree of empiricism. If something breaks, make another one a bit stronger so that it will not break. If something doesn’t work, try another approach until you find something that does work.

Pure Science

This branch of Science uses the classical scientific method consisting of, postulate followed by repeated experiment followed by conclusion and revision of postulate if the conclusion does not confirm the postulate. It is essentially an iterative methodology and depends on the ability to repeat an experiment. Applied scientists stand on the shoulders of pure scientists and use their findings and their theoretical formulations in building their devices and structures.

Speculative Science

Some may object to this term, but I can’t offhand think of a better and ‘Impure Science’ does not seem appropriate.

This is not to imply that the scientific disciplines falling within this category are not respectable, but simply to acknowledge that the methodology employed here is quite different. This is because they deal with past events which by their very nature are not repeatable. Thus they are not susceptible to the classic scientific method which requires repeated experiments. The methodology used here is forensic such that historic data is analysed and evaluated in order to arrive at the truth. It is like Sherlock Holmes examining the body and its situation in order to determine whether the cause of death was murder or suicide.

Often Sherlock will come to a different conclusion to the police as to the cause of death though they both access the same data.

There are obviously blurred boundaries between these branches of science, but what should be noticed is that the first two employ closed-loop methodologies, the third branch is essentially open-loop. This is why it is a happy hunting ground for theorists whose theories cannot easily be proven or disproved.

Accordingly, when encountering an assertion attributed to ‘science,’ a good practice is to establish which branch of science is making the claim. If it is the third branch, then,

KEEP THE JURY OUT A LITTLE LONGER.

Reflections in Reception - Some Days Later

Well the workers were paid on time Lord,

Not from the R18000 although I did receive that eventually.

But of course you know all this,

You know too about the unexpected refund from the Revenue Department

That arrived in the nick of time.

I have no doubt that you arranged this.

I suspect that at some subliminal level

Employees in the Tax Department know that they owe you one,

Because you extended grace and friendship to tax collectors

When they were reckoned the scum of the Earth.

So it seems like an all round win:

The workers have been paid,

I have been paid,

Relationships are in pretty fair shape,

Why the chief even called about a quotation for another machine.

(I hope I may be forgiven for having inflated the price a bit)

But best of all, I have further evidence (as if I needed more)

Of your utter faithfulness!

Reflections in Reception - Day Three

No transfer into account by 10.30 am

So here I am

Back in reception

Wondering what kind of reception

I’ll get.

Wasn’t sure if I’d be allowed

Into the building,

But S… the sweet receptionist

Pressed the button

That opened the door.

So here I am

I have asked the P.A. to let him know I’m here.

I’m leaning on that promise

That I’ll be given the right words.

J… has just come through

Says that the boss has agreed to pay me

Subject to inspection of the machine.

Can it happen to today?

He checks with the attorney.

“No chance before Monday” she says.

I’ll be quite hungry by Monday.

So will my workers.

But God……

Well now the machine needs to be inspected

By big D…

Before the money is released.

When can it be inspected?

I walk to the factory where D… has his office.

I have a good relationship with D…

Forged over the years,

But he is very busy.

He is waiting for the epoxy-coating expert to come

It is now 1 pm

The epoxy man comes.

He comes to solve a problem.

J… comes to watch him solve it.

The chief comes to see if it is solved.

Sees me looking on.

Offers me a job.

I say, “I might as well be on the payroll,

I’m spending so much time here,

But I don’t come cheap:

R18 000 just to start”

This exchange is actually quite cordial!

I’m now back in reception,

Reading magazines,

But I have the feeling

That this is now counter-productive.

I have become part of the furniture.

I am effectively on the payroll

With a salary of zero.

S… the receptionist doesn’t hesitate to let me in

When I tell her my name.

I ask to see J… and she waves me through.

I pass the chief in the corridor

And tell him where I’m going.

No problem.

I am now on friendly first name terms with

W…,J…,V…,P…,S…,N…and D…,

Not to mention Lindiwe

Who makes such excellent coffee.

It was Lincoln who said,

“Do I not defeat my enemy when I make him my friend”

I sit and chat with J…

He is a marvelous man.

Totally genuine.

He assures me that he will do his best

To see that I am paid.

He has already gone the extra mile.

I sense that my time in reception is over

And ask him to give the chief a message

To this effect.

The question is:

Am I not to eat until the money is in my account?

What’s that Lord?

It’s my call?

I’m going to eat.

To be Continued