Chapter 10 - Understanding the Gospels

Just a quick blurb / comment on this 10th chapter!

I think Drane's most astute comment of the whole chapter came about a third the way through. He says, "So to understand the gospels fully is a rather complex business." (p. 173) Drane's writing focuses primarily on technicalities:

• What type of writing are they? Are they biography, collections of various works, kerygma (or preaching), narratives, or something else?
• The answer is "yes." Perhaps it is "D" if that means "All of the above."

Drane goes on to show how the anonymous evangelists would have sourced each other and a yet unfound, yet much postulated document called "Q," to construct their individual Gospel accounts. Drawing on the Old Testament, a record of Jesus' own teachings and earliest remembrances of His life (Q - Quelle), Matthew and Luke would each have had Mark's record of Peter's memories on which to draw.

Analysis of the historical documents available to scholars leads to contention - and for some in the world of Biblical study, the issues surrounding authenticity and authorship remain unanswerable. Blind acceptance of anything does not necessarily lead to fact, but those who want to find fault with the Gospels and the understanding and traditions of the historical Church always will. For me, I agree with Drane that understanding the Gospels can be complex - I'd just rather focus on their lessons than their composition.

Chapter 13 - Engaging the Wider World

"After the resurrection of Jesus, his followers were faced with some hard choices." (p. 237) Yes they were; yes we are. As I read this chapter, I couldn't help but think that I was actually reading about the Church today. But I guess in a lot of ways, I was. The story of the first Church is our story too.

"[What] was so different about Jesus - and what was to set his followers radically apart from Judasim [/the world] - was the framework in which he set his teaching." (p. 238) Jesus, although He seemingly spoke in ways that may have opposed the Law or Torah, actually was talking about living in a way that pleases God rather than obeys the black and white of the written word. Today, Christians have the same struggle - to break free of codification and live as a people who have the "law in their minds and [written] on their hearts." (Jer. 31:33, NIV) God still judges our character by our inner nature, and not from our adherence to religious rules.

Yet, there are still many in the Church today, just as there were in those first days who judge others (inside the Church and out) on the merits of accomplishment. For many in the first century, the task to be completed was the loss of a little (yet surely painful) flesh. Today, in some circle we contest on the form of baptism, or the volume of water used. Is the "Torah" we have created in some areas today, and our obedience to it, any more pleasing to God than it was in those first days. It should be no wonder to us, that we see new congregations emerge from those who maintain the Law at all costs - this is what happened in Palestine those many years ago.

And yet, perhaps this must happen - perhaps it is a part of God's plan. If the local church (its buildings, programs, and liturgies) is a place of comfort and warmth, a womb if you please, then there must be a period of gestation, and an inevitable time of birth. Just as Peter was propped up and given the necessary strength to stand before the masses and preach by the Holy Spirit, should we surprised when such things happen today? Perhaps the local church is continuously "in the process of being born." (p. 243)

As our congregations grow, and diversify in character, should we expect that everyone found within them will always agree on every issue - sometimes even matters of serious importance. Just as conflicts arose in those early days which caused the Church to spread, perhaps today the same is happening. As painful as congregational separations are, dispersion of Christocentric, Bible preaching, evangelical local church groups may actually provide the world with more opportunities to hear the Gospel than would otherwise be possible.

Now I'm not saying that I'm certain of any of this, but maybe it's worth a little thought. Maybe we each need moments in our lives, like Peter, when God reaches through what we think we know, to teach us what we need to know.

Chapter 12 - Can We Trust the Gospels?

Sorry I'm so late gang - some times there are balances to be made between church and school - and this week has been a tough one to do right!

One of Drane's opening remarks to this chapter is that there are serious students of the Gospels who will say that they "reveal nothing of importance about Jesus, [and] we need to take serious account of their arguments." (p. 218) It's not that I want to be disagreeable with everything that comes my way in life, but I really don't take the author's side on this one.

Sure there are challenges to be found in the messages: at best they are each Greek written translations of Aramaic oral moments in time, and plenty of their stories overlap - yet somehow diverge at times. But, that's all minor stuff isn't it? Drane is right to point out that even today we have news media and legal systems that generate and procure differently sourced, and told stories of same incidents in life.

Maybe Drane is right when he says that "Western thinkers have often imagined that only people like them are capable of making rational assessments of" (pp. 222-3) historical information. Perhaps many of us are intellectually imperial in our ways of thinking, but that doesn't really get the heart of Drane's point that many think the Gospels have nothing significant to offer about Jesus' life. Using the language and context of His day, Jesus claimed to be no one shy of God-with-us. Either the Gospels did shout out the good news, or Jesus was a lying lunatic. Any way you look at it - that's significant.