Models for the grand narrative of the Bible

Does the Bible have a grand narrative? If so, how does one make sense of this narrative? 

The Bible is 66 separate books, written by (at least) 35 authors, over a period of several thousand years, in diverse locations, and contexts. Nevertheless, there are major themes that seem to run through the whole Bible, such as creation, sin, redemption, and renewal. But, how do these themes fit together?

George Box was a distinguished statistician who said, "All models are wrong. But some are useful." Scientific models can never capture all the details of complex physical, biological, and social phenomena. Hence, in some sense, any model is "wrong." Nevertheless, some models can make successful predictions, provide insight, and even suggest courses of action. The use of mathematical models to describe the current pandemic illustrates Box's aphorism, all too painfully.

I would contend that theology is also about building models: schemes that aim to help us describe and understand very complex phenomena and issues: the Bible, humanity, society, God, churches, ethics, nature,...

Some may disagree, but I think everyone uses models, it is just whether or not they acknowledge they are using a model.

Over the years I have been introduced to many different theological "models". Some I have found helpful, particularly in providing a "big picture" perspective. But, some models leave me cold or I think are unhelpful. I have also become aware of that over time: 

• even the models that I have found helpful, I realise have limitations
• in hindsight, I am too slow to see these limitations and to abandon models that I have loved and advocated
• some proponents of a specific model are unwilling to acknowledge its limitations (I feel this is sometimes the origin of sectarian denominationalism)

Interestingly, the history of science provides many similar examples.

Over the past decade, I have found the schema: creation, sin, redemption, and renewal extremely helpful. For example, I have used it in trying to help myself and others think about a Christian perspective on their own academic discipline and to sketch a Christian vision for the modern secular university.

One model of the Gospel (the good news that Jesus brings) is that provided by the sketch below, known as the bridge illustration. I learnt this while an undergraduate through involvement with The Navigators.

Although there is truth in this model, questions one might ask are "how wrong is this model?" and "how useful is it?" More specifically, is this a good summary of the whole message in the Gospel according to Matthew (and Mark, Luke, and John) in the Bible? Furthermore, is this model consistent with the grand narrative of the Bible? 

As I read through the Bible, I encounter passages that just don't seem to fit with this model, particularly when it is presented as a definitive and complete summary of the message of the Bible. In the Old Testament, there are numerous exhortations that Israel should care for widows, orphans, the poor, and strangers. The prophets proclaim God's judgement on Israel, including sending Israel into exile. Why? It is not just because of the idolatry of Israel, but also their failure to exercise social justice as a community.

Jesus proclaimed an Upside-Down kingdom. He had a particular concern (both by his actions and his teaching) for the marginalised. He often spoke about the dangers of pride, self-righteousness, and the love of money. He condemned the religious leaders of his time for these sins. Two parables told by Jesus that I find particularly troubling are Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) and the judgement of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). The former has featured in more than six blog posts that I have written.

Then there is creation. What are the opening chapters of Genesis actually about? I find it hard to see them as presenting something that is in conflict with or in competition with science. As a keen bushwalker in my youth, I developed a love for the beauty of nature, particularly for wilderness areas. There was something spiritual about being in these spaces. As a scientist, I also see immense beauty in the natural world through science. What we learn about the world is amazing and the process whereby we come to this understanding is also awesome. Is this what humans were made to do? Something that brings me incredible joy is hearing of others serving marginalised communities, along the lines of (literally) good news for the poor, freedom for prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and the oppressed are set free.

Many of my concerns were relieved when four years ago I read A New Heaven and A New Earth: Reclaiming a Biblical Eschatology by Richard Middleton, in our theology reading group.

Middleton, an Old Testament scholar, presents a coherent and compelling picture of the whole Bible that resonates with my own reading of Scripture and (limiited) life experience. It is built around the motif of creation, fall, redemption, and renewal/re-creation. The Bible is not just about how individuals can go to heaven when they die. It is also about God's grand plan to "reconcile all things to himself" and create a world where there is no sin, injustice, suffering, and pain.

We are now re-reading the book and discussing it in our next two meetings. This may be one of the few times I have ever re-read a book. (Something, that I now belatedly realise can be a rich experience).

The book is based on a paper that Middleton published in 2006. The book received a warm review by Christopher Beetham in Themelios on the Gospel Coalition website.

Nevertheless, Middleton is presenting a model which also has its limitations. More on that later...

The integral mission of William Carey

There is a beautiful chapter, "Missionary Science", by John Stenhouse in the recently published volume 8 of the series, The Cambridge History of Science.

Here is one of many gems.

William Carey (1761–1834), an ex-cobbler who led the British Baptist mission to India from 1792, urged readers ... to imitate the “universal benevolence and genuine philanthropy” of “God himself ” by spreading useful knowledge with the gospel. An avid gardener and self-taught botanist, Carey hoped to help Indians periodically decimated by famine by introducing Western agriculture and horticulture, including crop rotation, land reclamation, experimental introductions of new plants, and the European plough and harrow. Establishing the largest private botanical garden in Asia (in which he prayed each morning), Carey founded an Agricultural and Horticultural Society, exchanged seeds, plants, and ideas with gardeners, botanists, and missionaries around the world, and wrote and lectured on the natural history of Bengal. The East India Company had long opposed missionary work as likely to anger Hindus and Muslims and disrupt trade; Carey oiled relations by befriending Company botanists and publishing their major botanical works (such as William Roxburgh’s Flora Indica) on the mission press. 

When an American evangelical wrote threatening to withhold money unless the Baptists focused on theological training, not science, Carey replied: “I have never heard of anything more illiberal. Pray can youth be trained up for the Christian ministry without science? Do you in America train youth for it without any knowledge of science?”

Context matters

 "A text without a context is a pre-text". I have sometimes heard preachers say this in the context :) of interpreting a verse or passage in the Bible. Verses need to be interpreted in terms of passages. Passages need to be interpreted in terms of whole books. Books of the Bible need to be interpreted in terms of the context in which they were written.

Context also matters in many other areas of life. Everything that happens, whether a thought, a political revolution, a work of art, or a new technology happens in a context. There are many dimensions to a context: social, political, cultural, historical, geographic, linguistic, and economic. When trying to understand a specific event important questions about the context of the event include:

How do you define the context of the event? Specifically, what dimensions to the context may be relevant to understanding the event?

To what extent does the specific context influence the specific event?

On the latter, there are two extreme views. I will call them universalist and determinist. A universalist will say the context does not really matter. A determinist will say that the context determines the event. 

These questions are relevant to issues in the philosophy of science. Consider Einstein's theory of special relativity. It occurred in the context of Einstein working in the Swiss patent office, a time of rapid social change with Europe heading towards world war I, the beginnings of the decline of modernism, new "relativist" perspectives in art (Picasso),... Universalists say the context is irrelevant. The theory is true, was developed on purely scientific grounds, and the only thing contextual about it is that its development required the brilliance of Einstein. The social constructivist view of science tends towards a determinist view. Although, that tends to mostly focus on the influence that the scientific community as a social entity has on the acceptance of theories.

Broadly, these questions are at the heart of one of the biggest and most contested questions in sociology: what is the relationship between human agency and social structures?

There are several reasons why I am interested in the question of context. One concerns the issue of contextual theology. Another motivation is to understand how contexts influence discussions of the relationship between science and theology. But, more on these topics later...