Scripture and culture
Don Carson's final chapter deals with a few
applicatory issues coming out of the topic at hand. The major one is how best
to communicate the gospel to Muslims and whether avoiding the title Son of
God for Jesus is helpful for eliminating some of the barriers
there. Having recently done some introductory studies on Islam, I feel the
weight of the issue. The Quran has Jesus vehemently rejecting his title as
Son of God, it is something that Muslims are explicitly taught as a
Christian belief that's gravely in error. Does this mean it's a big
problem for them when they read the Bible?
This issue of Bible translation highlights
the same ideas explored in my first two posts. How important is it to be
precise in our terminology? Roses by any other name would apparently smell
just as sweet, said Shakespeare, but, if God chooses to call it a rose, what
does that signify?
This is indeed a wisdom issue, the Bible
calls us to remove stumbling blocks for the proclamation of the gospel, but
does removing this stumbling block become a rejection
of God's chosen terms for self-revelation? Which sounds ill advised. Pragmatism
in ministry methods often worries me. It's just too close to decision making on
our own terms, rather than seeking God's ways. How ironic, too, that this
appears to be more of a Western preoccupation (page 108). Another symptom of
our loss of faith in the power of the gospel to save?
Something really clarifying that comes out
of this discussion is the reminder that the Son of God title does
indeed have such a wide semantic range. The concept of
a trajectory, or to give this concept the more familiar term: typology,
is demonstrated by reminding us of how 2 Samuel 7:14, Psalm 2:7 and
Psalm 45:6-7 are applied to Jesus progressively. Carson also identifies
these biblical teachings as a 'complex interplay of themes,' which helps
to explain for me the ambiguity of references that I was struggling with last
week. There are definitely two uses of 'Son', and this works to argue that you
can't use the term Messiah for all of the passages, as some Muslim friendly
translations propose. As Carson writes, the biblical affirmations of
Jesus' sonship are multi-faceted. This makes the translation task
much more complex. In an ideal world, as Carson suggests, it is good to provide
the personnel along with the translation to explain these
complexities, but that's not possible in many Muslim
countries.
Carson's observation that dealing with the
biblically illiterate has the potential to force a change in our language has
got me thinking about what biblical language offends our culture. I
didn't have to think too hard: it's submission for the feminists and rejection
of homosexual practice for a large section of modern Sydney. But we ought not
be ashamed of God's Word. The task we have in all these contexts is to allow
Scripture to challenge our antecedent cultural understanding. And as
Carson also asserts, the overcoming of such barriers shows the genuine converts
from the merely interested.
Having said all that, perhaps my proposal in
the previous post for God the Son to be used more often would not be the best
option in most Muslim contexts? I'm happy to concede that.