Anna Barbauld, born in 1743 to Presbyterian parents, was a British poet and essayist who rejected detached, rationalistic interpretation of Scripture. From a young age she exhibited a love of learning and prodded her theologian and classicist father to teach her Greek and Latin. She published several works ranging from hymns, children’s literature, statements on women’s issues to objections against the use of Scripture to support slavery. Barbauld’s love of poetry gave her a particular appreciation for the Psalms. In Devotional Pieces Compiled from the Psalms and the Book of Job: To Which Are Prefixed Thoughts on the Devotional Taste, on Sects, and on Establishment she argues for the importance of emotion in the reading and study of Scripture. After presenting her thesis the book comprises a collection of select Psalms. Below are quotes from Devotional Pieces that give us a window into the mind of a Christian thinker squaring off against the rationalistic Enlightenment trends of her time:
A church in the northeast has been up to some good stuff lately. I accidentally came across Highrock Covenant Church last year when either Beth Allison Barr (The Making of Biblical Womanhood) or Kristin Du Mez (Jesus and John Wayne) posted on Twitter about speaking for a series on American Evangelicalism. I had been pondering my faith heritage within evangelicalism for several years, and certainly since 2016, trying to make sense of it. So, I eagerly signed up for the Zoom links to watch the series live and participate in discussion groups. That’s how I encountered resident theologian Scott Rice, his wife Abigail, and other staff at Highrock like pastor Meghan DeJong
Little did I know that Scott would read my books and invite me to be a speaker for the fall 2023 series on Scripture and Tradition to discuss my latest work, The Word of a Humble God: The Origins, Inspiration, and Interpretation of Scripture. I’m part of a line-up of wonderful scholars including Dennis Edwards (Vice President/Dean; North Park University), Janette Ok (New Testament; Fuller Seminary), Tim Mackie (The Bible Project), and Peter Enns (Old Testament; Eastern University). This will be a fantastic discussion on the meaning of Scripture for our lives. I’m eager to tune in, and I hope you will as well.
The series starts this Tuesday, November 28th from 8-9:00pm Eastern Time. The series is FREE and open to the public. It will run through spring 2024 (about one speaker a month). You can register to receive the Zoom link and more information by clicking HERE. The series will also be recorded, so if you can’t make it to the live Zoom event, still sign up to get details about when and where it will be posted to YouTube.
Highrock is not a flashy megachurch. Nor has it used these stellar theology labs as a means to draw attention to itself. Highrock started these discussions for its own congregational community. For example, when I attended the series on evangelicalism, I was one of the few that was not a Highrock member, despite the line-up of big names. Rather, Highrock was simply trying to create resources for its people to help shape their theological imagination and promote spiritual formation. But as I participated, it quickly became apparent to me that more people need to know about this incredible resource. So far, Highrock’s Theology Lab has done a series on:
Recently, I wrote an article for Logia’s blog entitled, “How Historical Criticism Challenged My Faith . . . Then Strengthened It.” Commonly, when graduate students from evangelical backgrounds continue their studies in theology and the Bible, they encounter truths they didn’t know before, facts that can be unsettling at first. In the article, I share my own journey (as much as one can in a short blog post). If you or anyone you know has felt disoriented or disillusioned when your long-held presuppositions about the Bible are challenged, you might find this article helpful. Here’s an excerpt:
“I began to ask new questions, including what does the world behind the text mean for me as a Christian? At my previous seminary, I was told it didn’t matter because, ultimately, the biblical authors provide their interpretation of history. They selectively reported on events to advance a particular inspired message from God. Other historical facts, then, were superfluous for the spiritual life. And yet, as I studied the world behind the text, I realized it, too, had something truthful to say. Sometimes that truth conflicted with ways I had been taught to read Scripture.
The tension between historical criticism and theological interpretation challenged my faith. In retrospect, that tension was reflected in Prof. G’s response to me. He was an evangelical desiring to be seen as a legitimate scholar within the guild at large. That required him to care about mainstream methodologies. Yet, he hadn’t reconciled the two in his heart. Some part of him believed he needed to suppress religious passion to be a reputable scholar. While my seminary responded to the mainstream guild by ignoring it, Prof. G craved its validation. Neither approach seemed right to me.”
Read the rest at Logia. Logia is an initiative in partnership with The Logos Institute at St. Andrew’s University in Scotland. The program and blog site are currently under the oversight of Executive Director, Christa McKirland, who is based out of Carey Baptist College in New Zealand. The initiative was founded in 2017 to address barriers that women face in higher education and theological leadership. The program is “designed a) to highlight the excellence of women already active in leadership in the academy and the church; and b) to develop the excellence of women training for such roles.”
Have you seen the movie Noahstarring Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly? Given my interest in Old Testament reception history, I could not pass it up. How would two Jewish men today interpret this flood story? The Genesis account itself is a product of unique Israelite interpretation of a common ancient Near Eastern narrative. The story appeared in ancient texts long before Genesis was written. But, the biblical authors offer their own theological perspective on the event.
Similarly, the flood has been the subject of midrash (Jewish interpretation of the biblical text) throughout history. Ancient Jewish writers sought to fill in narrative gaps in Genesis with commentaries like I Enoch and Jubilees. In fact, from these ancient Jewish texts, the movie draws content about the Watchers and Noah’s visit to Methuselah—narrative details not found in most biblical canons. Those Transformer-looking rock creatures in the film might seem like fantasy fiction invented by modern movie makers, but their role did not come out of nowhere. They are the fallen angels of lore—albeit their appearance a bit embellished.
I recently read Christian Smith’s book The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (2012) published by Brazos Press. It critiques a form of biblical interpretation that too often treats the Bible in a wooden and rule book fashion, thereby diminishing the richness of Scripture. Having grown up in fundamentalism, I understand the problem he is describing. At the same time, I often felt he did not capture important nuances by choosing to critique the most fundamentalist version of evangelical Scripturreading.
What is Biblicism?
Smith defines biblicism as “a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability” (viii). He lists ten assumptions of biblicism:
How do we make sense of difficult passages in the Bible? What about the violence or apparent contradictions? Peter Enns addresses these concerns in his book The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It. Enns is concerned that instead of honest engagement with Scripture some Christian thinkers make unreasonable attempts to cover up or explain away the challenges. He specifically sees this occurring among those who treat the Bible like a rule book of fixed, timeless truths. Instead of a rule book, Enns suggests we read Scripture in the genre of storytelling, with inspired examples of how God-fearers of the past have wrestled with their faith.
To be clear, Enns affirms the value of Scripture—we know God better by reading it—but he believes we have erroneous expectations of it. He wants to help his readers understand the nature of Scripture and, therefore, how to correctly read and apply it. Instead of diminishing reverence for the Bible, Enns seeks to affirm it by accepting it for what it really is: an inspired but messy text.
Before I provide my own reflection on the book, here are the stats. The book is divided into seven chapters that each have multiple, short readable essays. He centers his thesis on three primary realizations that challenged him to re-think the nature of Scripture. The Bible depicts:
Numerous books have been published in recent years addressing challenging passages in the Old Testament. Many of them have focused on the Israelite conquest of Canaan, while others discuss a palette of “problems.” In this post I review three books that engage these challenges. I especially consider how they handle violence in the Old Testament.
Did God really command the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites? That is the moral dilemma that Copan and Flannagan take up. These scholars offer an apologetic response to philosophers and New Atheists who dismiss the Old Testament as barbaric. But, does their apologetic meet the task? Yes and No.
The book has four parts:
Genocide Texts and the Problem of Scriptural Authority
Occasional Commands, Hyperbolic Texts, and Genocidal Massacres
Is It Always Wrong to Kill Innocent People?
Religion and Violence
The book is largely a summary of the apologetic arguments espoused by William Lane Craig and Nicholas Wolterstorff with atheist philosopher, Wes Morriston, serving as one of their primary opponents. In this regard, the book serves as “Cliff Notes” to broader conversations happening on the topic. The authors begin by asserting that the words of Scripture are not the result of mechanical dictation. In other words, they acknowledge the human side of Scripture; God does not always affirm what the human author affirms, such as psalms of vengeance (28). That is, we must consider whether or not what the human author wrote is what God wants to say to us today through Scripture. God might want to appropriate the words of Scripture for an intention different than the original authors. The original meaning might have been important only for the Israelites’ time and place, and now we have to draw a general principle from the text. At the same time, Copan and Flannagan reject the dichotomy between the Old and New Testament God (war God vs. loving God), as well as Seibert’s distinction between the “textual” God (how the Israelites imagined God to be) and the “real” God (who is not always like the Israelites portrayed God to be; 39-44).
