The FaithX Project

Inventing the Future of Faith-Based Communities and Organizations

PPRI Releases Latest Findings: Conservative Churches Join Mainline In Decline

A Review
click on image to download document

By Ken Howard

The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has just published their findings from the 2016 American Values Atlas in a study entitled America’s Changing Religious Identity.  Their findings add further confirmation those of our research paper, The Religion Singularity, published in the International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society in July, which projects that institutional Christianity will become unsustainable in its current forms before the end of this century.

Of particular significance is the finding that, despite decades insistence to the contrary by their proponents, theologically conservative denominations and churches congregations are not immune to the decline that has affected mainline liberal denominations after all, but rather are making up for lost time, matching or exceeding the current rate of shrinkage of their mainline brethren and sistren. In fact, it may even be worse for them than it looks, as millennials are abandoning conservative evangelical congregations at a rate faster than they are leaving other segments of institutional Christianity.

Also consistent with our findings in The Religion Singularity is the fact that “religiously unaffiliated” is one of the fastest growing and “religious” groups in America, growing at such a rate that they could become a significant majority of the U.S. population in less than 15 years (our projection based on PPRI statistics). Meanwhile, religiously unaffiliated is increasing as a portion of each new generation. More than a third (36%) of Americans 18-30 are religiously unaffiliated, compared to less than a tenth of those 80 or older.

Another finding of significance is how syncretized religious and political affiliation have become, with the two becoming so overlapped that political affiliation is fast becoming a predictor of religious affiliation and theological leanings.  For example, if a person politically identifies as Republican, there is a 73% chance they will be a white conservative Christian, where white Christians make up only 29% of Democrats (14% of Democrats under 30).

Other findings include:

[Read more…]

The Bible & Same-Sex Relations: A Exegetical Analysis from an Incarnational Perspective

By the Rev. Ken Howard

I recently reconnected with a classmate from my high school days. Our first several exchanges focused on updating each other on what had happened in the decades since our graduation. Once we discovered that both of us had become Christ-followers, the discussion turned to sharing our respective points of view on a variety of subjects – prayer, spiritual life, the Bible – and eventually to the issue of sexual orientation. My former classmate was surprised to hear that I had a very high view of the inspiration of Scripture, yet favored the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the Church. He asked if I would mind explaining my thinking on this subject in a plain and straightforward way. This article is my response to that request.

click here to download and read the entire article

This article is revised and expanded from the original version, posted on the Paradoxical Thoughts blog in 2015.

A Paradoxy Post-Election Conflict Transformation Journal – Post #2

by Ken Howard

I know… It’s been a while. My bad. These last few weeks I’ve been simply swamped with the task of writing proposals on deadlines, and generating money came first. I guess that’s just “the way of the world,” right?
Our friends at St. Philip’s, Scotts Valley, in the Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real have been busy since I last posted. They now have two Paradoxy book studies/dialogues going: one after each of their two Sunday services.
The group after the early service, facilitated by the parish’s pastoral associate, was the first group started. That group has reading a couple of chapters between each meeting and reviewing those chapters when they meet, each time with good dialogues on important issues. Participants in this group have included both members and non-members. Most seem to share a desire to find a way to discuss differences with respect and without rancor. One woman, who said she didn’t believe she was very spiritual but simply tried to be “respectful and honest” to everyone she met, beamed and relaxed when others in the group told her that sounded like she “made a priority of following Jesus.” In the entire time the group has been meeting, only once did one of the participants express “raw” feelings.” The group is close to the end of the book now, though I understand some group members are talking of taking a second, deeper pass.
Meanwhile, the recently-started late service group, facilitated by the rector with the assistance of a lay person, is meeting weekly, and discussing a single chapter every time they come together. It’s too early to have many stories to share from this group, though they do seem to be eagerly digging in, and earnestly wanted to take part in dialogue about differences without rancor or disrespect. And like the morning group, they have already increased their number.
That’s it for now. Hopefully, it won’t be as long until the next Paradoxy Journal entry, and I’ll be back with more to share.
Meanwhile, if you’d like snag a free 10-Pack of Paradoxy: Creating Christian Community Beyond Us and Them, along with instructions on how lead a conflict transformation dialogue group, click here.

Midrash: Ancient Bible Study for a Postmodern World – Part 2

By Ken Howard

Part 2: Jots and Tittles – Applying Midrash to the Words of Jesus

In my previous blog post on Midrash, I reflected on the dilemma in which the Church finds itself today: attempting to apply univocal, linear approaches to the study and interpretation of Scripture in a world in which both science and theology have discredited Enlightenment Modernism’s promise that human reason could arrive at objectively certain, universal truths in all areas of human knowledge, including religion.

To extricate ourselves from this predicament, I suggested, we need a deeper approach to the study of Scripture – one that would allow us to “triangulate in on the truth” by harnessing the Bible’s multiple voices – and that such an approach already existed in the ancient Jewish method of Bible study and interpretation known as Midrash, the workings of which I then set about to explain.

Having set forth the principles and the process of Midrash, I would like to invite my readers to participate in applying them. Over the next couple of weeks, I’d like to walk through the steps of Midrash with time in between each of the steps for your observations, comments, and questions. The text I have in mind is very familiar – the “jot and tittle” passage from Matthew, in which Jesus says “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Mt. 5:17-18 – KJV).

To review, the four steps of Midrash are:

  1. Peshat (lit. Simple). Read the text for its simplest, most literal meaning.
  2. Remez (lit. Hint). Rather than seeking to avoid or rationalize what appear to be contradictions or textual errors, seek them out as hints of deeper meaning.
  3. Drash (lit. Investigation). Use imagination to explore all possible meanings of the text.
  4. Sod (lit. Secret). Meditate on the mysteries revealed through the Drash and open ourselves to surprising revelations.

In today’s post I will walk us through the first two steps of Midrash.

Midrash on Matthew 5:17-18

Step 1: Peshat (Simple).

Since the first step In Midrash is examining the simple meaning of the text, let’s establish the literal definitions of a few key words:

  • Destroy (vs. 17). From the Greek katalu’sai. Literally, to dissolve, to disunite, or to break down into component parts.
  • The Law (vss. 17 & 18). From the Greek nomon. Corresponds to the Hebrew ha-Torah. Literally, Law or Instruction. Refers to the portion of the Hebrew Scriptures known as The Law (i.e., the five books of Moses).
  • The Prophets (vs. 17). From the Greek propheta). Corresponds to the Hebrew ha-Navim. Refers to the portion of the Hebrew Scriptures know as The Prophets.
  • Fulfill (vs. 17). From the Greek plarosai. Literally, “to fill completely.”
  • Jot (vs. 18). From the Greek iota. Smallest letter in the Greek alphabet. Corresponds to the Hebrew yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.
  • Tittle (vs. 18). From the Greek keraia. Literally, little horn. Often translated as “the smallest stroke of a letter” (e.g., a serif, a breathing mark in Greek, the dot on the “i” in English). Corresponding mark in Hebrew is unclear.
  • Fulfilled (vs. 18). From the Greek genatai. Literally, brought into existence or being.

Step 2: Remez (Hint).

Our familiar exegetical methods tend to assume that a specific Biblical text must have a single, definitive meaning. Therefore, when we come upon what looks like a contradiction or textual error, depending upon where we fall on the conservative-liberal theological continuum, we are predisposed to make one of two choices. Those of us on the conservative “side” tend to ignore or rationalize contradictions in order to harmonize them, while those of us on the liberal “side” tend to discount the authenticity or authority of the passage.

Midrash considers such choices as a false dichotomy and avoids them both. Rather than seeking to avoid or rationalize apparent contradictions/errors, or discount the text because of them, Midrash assumes that God meant them to be there as hints to make us dig deeper. So let’s track down a few of those “contradictions,” shall we?

Within the Passage. There are several apparent inconsistencies within the two verses we are examining.

  • Mt. 5:17 – Jesus lists only two of three parts of Hebrew Scripture:The Law and The Prophets. The section of known as The Writings (ha-Ketuvim) – roughly equivalent to what Christians know as the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the books of Wisdom – is omitted.
  • Mt. 5:18– Jesus lists only The Law, dropping any reference to The Prophets.
  • Mt. 5:17-18– The words translated as “fulfill” and “fulfilled” have different meanings: “to fill to the full” and “to bring into existence or being,” respectively.
  • Mt. 5:18– The literal meaning of “tittle” is unclear. We do not know its equivalent mark in the Hebrew and Aramaic with which Jesus and the Gospel writer were familiar.

In the Context of the Passage. After making a statement that appears to rule out making the smallest of changes to any text, Jesus appears to do exactly that, making them more specific and strict.

  • Mt. 5:21-22: You have heard it said…that you shall not kill…but I say…
  • Mt. 5:27-28: You have heard it said…that you shall not commit adultery…but I say…
  • Mt. 5:33-34: You have heard it said…that you shall not make false oaths…but I say…

In Comparison to Related Passages. In the Gospel according to Mark, Jesus appears to go even further in amending the Law, overturning the entire section dealing with kosher food laws.

  • Mk. 7:19: Thus [Jesus] made all foods clean.

Examine the passage yourself. You may well find other apparent contradictions, omissions, or errors that I overlooked. If you do, I hope you will include them in any comments you care to make.

Step 3: Drash (lit. Investigation).

This step is your chance to fully engage this passage. In the step of Midrash known as Drash or Investigation, we are called upon to use our imagination and creativity in order to explore all possible meanings of the text.

So here are your instructions:

  1. Review all of the apparent contradictions/omissions/errors I identified above along with any you have spotted yourself.
  2. Assume that every apparent contradiction/omission/error is inspired: that God caused them to be placed there as hints to spur your curiosity and imagination, and to drive you toward a deeper, broader, and more complete understanding of God’s word.
  3. Using your imagination and creativity, brainstorm all of the possible meanings of the text.

When you have completed these three steps, I hope you will share your thoughts with me. After all, Drash is at its best when it is done as communal dialogue.

I look forward to Midrashing with you!

 

“Jonah in Prison” by Alma Sheppard-Matsuo (a visual midrash)
Originally posted on August 13, 2012 on the blog “Paradoxical Thoughts”

Midrash: Ancient Bible Study for a Postmodern World – Part 1

by Ken Howard

Part 1: The Need for a Deeper Method of Bible Study

A number of you have asked me to expand on comments I made in Paradoxy commending the ancient Jewish method of Bible study and interpretation known as Midrash as well-suited to the post-modern world in which the Church finds itself today: a world in which both science and theology have discredited Enlightenment Modernism’s promise that human reason could arrive at objectively certain, universal truths in all areas of human knowledge, including religion.Inscience, what caused the death of certainty was the developing field of Quantum Physics, including the Observer Effect and the Werner Heisenberg’s infamous Uncertainty Principle. As a result, science no longer seeks absolute certainty of truth but rather increasing verisimilitude (i.e., something approaching truth – by triangling in on the truth through repeated observations, so that errors related to observer bias are statistically reduced.

Meanwhile, theology has come to a renewed realization that our modern attempts to achieve certainty of religious truth through appeals to Biblical inerrancy (conservative) or Biblical text-critical analysis (liberal) will most certainly fall short as well. Both rest on the same flawed assumption that human subjectivity can be eliminated: the former from the reader’s understanding of the inerrant Word and the latter it from the scholar’s critical analysis of Scriptural texts. This could only be the case if the human mind were somehow less fallen — less affected by sin — than other human faculties, a presumption that flies in the face of the Judeo-Christian understand of human nature.

In Chapter 3 of Paradoxy (“Reality Ain’t What It Used To Be”), I suggested that the Church, faced with a similar inability to eliminate human error from Biblical interpretation, needed a method of Bible study that would similarly achieve increasing verisimilitude by counteracting its own observer effect, through a similar kind of triangling in on the truth. Providentially for us, I noted, such a method had already been developed long ago by our Jewish brothers and sisters: a method known as Midrash.  Perhaps not surprisingly, given my own Jewish roots, Midrash is my own preferred method of Bible study.

What is Midrash?

Black Fire and White Fire

As Rabbi Rami Shapiro points out in his eponymous article, the ancient rabbis spoke of the Torah as “black fire on white fire,” the black fire being the printed letters and white fire being the spaces around and between. Both kinds of fire must be read and interpreted if anything like a full understanding of God’s Torah (literally, “instruction”) is to be reached. God gave the Torah without the vowel marks or punctuation that would enable us to pin down a single, absolutely literal translation, so that even the mere act of reading Scripture requires creative interpretation. Since God does not make mistakes, God must intend for us to bring our creativity and imagination to the task of reading and interpreting Scripture.

Multiple Meanings – Multiple Perspectives –Multiple Levels – And It Was Good

Multiple Meanings. As an example of multiple legitimate meanings, Rabbi Shapiro points to Leviticus 19:18.  The most common verbalized reading of this passage is “Ve’ahavta et, rayecha k’mocha” (“Love your neighbor as yourself”). However, it can also be vocalized as “Ve’ahavta et, rahecha k’mocha” (“Love your evil as yourself”). Both are legitimate readings. Both must be considered to fully understand the text.Multiple Perspectives. Midrash also recognizes that each person who reads the Torah cannot do so without bringing his/her own perspective to bear, each resulting in a slightly different understanding of the text, all of which are legitimate. Therefore, the more of the perspectives we take into account, the more complete is our understanding of the passage.

Multiple Levels.  Finally, Midrash recognizes that any passage of Scripture must have multiple levels of meaning – from the surface-level meaning of the literal words, to deeper/metaphorical meanings, to life applications, to hidden mysteries waiting to be revealed.

And It Was Good. To use the language of quantum physics, Midrash tells us that achieving the highest level of verisimilitude about any passage requires us to consider all meanings, all perspectives, and all levels of meaning about the text.  Jewish tradition regarding the giving of the Torah at Sinai holds that while all the people present received the same text, each person present received a slightly different understanding of it based on his/her unique perspective.

By multiplying the number of literal readings by the number of adult men and women present by the number of levels of meaning, the ancient Rabbis arrived at the conclusion that there must be at least 345,600,000 different legitimate interpretations of any letter, word, or verse of the commandments. And as Rabbi Shapiro notes, this figure doesn’t even count the kids.Jewish Pedagogy Values Paradoxy.  Midrash places a high value on the ability to entertain seemingly contradictory ideas without choosing between them.  By encouraging us to seek out and wrestle with the paradoxes of Scripture, Midrash pushes us to transcend our own limited perspectives, with their inherent blind spots and biases, and move towards broader and deeper understandings that are closer to a “God’s eye view.” As Rabbi Shapiro points out, the governing principle in Midrash is “Elu v’elu divrei Elohim, Chayyim,” which roughly translated, means “these words and those words (no matter how contradictory) are both the words of the Living God.”

How is Midrash Done?

The process of Midrash can be remembered by the mnemonic PRDS, which is pronounced PaRDeS, which means Paradise. The four steps of Midrash are:

  1. P’shat (lit. Simple).  Read the text for its simplest, most literal meaning. For example, if the Torah says God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, we are not allowed to say God spoke to Moses through an exploding cigar. It is also known as the grammatical level.
  2. Remez (lit. Hint).  Rather than avoiding what appear to be contradictions or textual errors, or trying to explaining them away, this step calls us seek them out as hints of deeper meaning. This is sometimes called the allegorical level.
  3. D’rash (lit. Investigation).  In this step, we use our imaginations (and the imaginations of others) to explore all possible meanings and applications of the text. This is sometimes called the parabolic or homiletical level of Midrash.
  4. Sod (lit. Secret).  Finally, we are called to open ourselves to the mysteries revealed to us through creative imagination of Drash. This level of meaning is sometimes referred to as the mystical level.

Take Leviticus 19:18, for example.  If we were to hold the two meanings in paradoxical tension rather than dismissing one of them as incorrect, we might come to the conclusion that the deeper meaning the passage is that we cannot fully love our neighbor until we learn to love ourselves despite our own shortcomings.

It is interesting to note that in the early Church, the more literalist schools of Biblical interpretation similarly insisted on treating apparent contradictions as hints to go deeper.

As Rabbi Shapiro says, when you bring all for levels of meaning together, “you are in PaRDeS, Paradise.”

But What about Greek?

I know what some of you are thinking…

“Okay,” you say, “It’s all well and good to use Midrash to interpret Hebrew, since it lacks vowel points and such. But what about Greek?  Aren’t Greek words much more precisely written, leaving little room for alternate word readings?”

Good question.

Lack of Punctuation.  There are no commas, periods, or other forms of punctuation. Therefore, a passage like Luke 16:14 could be legitimately be read as either, “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and ridiculed him,” or “The Pharisees who were lovers of money heard all this, and ridiculed him.” The first reading condemns all Pharisees as lovers of money; the second only those who loved money. The first could be taken as a political statement: that the party of the Pharisees, as a whole, had become corrupt. The second could be taken as a statement about the morality of individual Pharisees.  Both are legitimate translations. Both might be true.

Yes. Greek words are more precisely written, so on a word-for-word basis, the meanings are significantly clearer. However, there are several characteristics of Koine Greek (the version of Greek in common use at the time the Bible was written) that can give rise to alternate, yet legitimate, interpretations.Multiple Word Meanings.  Just as in English the same word may have different meanings depending on context, the same is true in Greek.  And it is nearly impossible to translate a word from one language into another while retaining all of the word’s various connotations.

Non-Linear Sentence Construction.  Because the Greek language is based on case-endings of words, word order does not hold the same meaning it does in non-case-ending languages like English.  For example, the English translation of 1 John 4:18 is “Perfect love casts out fear.” However, in the original Greek, the words in the sentence can be read in either direction or even both directions at once.  So it also could be legitimately read as “Perfect fear casts out love” or even as “Love and fear are inversely related: The more you have of one, the less you have of the other.”

In Summary, Let’s Not Fool Ourselves

Much is often made of the difference between translation and interpretation.  But let’s not fool ourselves, okay?  There is no such thing as Biblical translation that does not involve interpretation.  All languages are culturally bound.  The idioms, metaphors, nuances of connotation (the double, triple, or quadruple entendres) of one language are more often than not simply lost in simple word-for-word translation. If we are to express the anything approaching a full and complete understanding of what God wants us to learn from Scripture, interpretation is not optional, and to be faithful interpreters of God’s word, we must bring to bear our imagination and our creativity. At the same time, we are not free to use the biblical text merely as a pretext: a mere jumping off point for creative expression or imaginative theological navel gazing. If we to arrive at anything close to an accurate expression of what God is trying to communicate to us through any text, we must never allow ourselves to become disconnected from the literal text.

To summarize, this is why I think Midrash is such a wonderful Bible study: because it keeps us anchored to the Words of God while harnessing our God given creativity and imagination in order to achieve an increasingly complete understanding of the Word of God.

“Midrash” – by Charles Bragg

 

This article originally published July 23, 2012 on the blog, “Paradoxical Thoughts”

Subscribe to the FaithX Newsletter