My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
 |
Twitter Feed for My Recent Blog Posts and Other Tweets |
My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, August 10, 2008
Hiding in the Den of Thieves
He said to them, “The Scriptures declare, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer,’ but you have turned it into a den of thieves!”
As Jesus entered Jerusalem to cries of “Hosanna,” the crowd had high hopes for him. Surely, if he were the Messiah, Jesus would gather together an army and soon lead a successful attack on the Romans. Yet as soon as he entered the city, Jesus did something that was not only unexpected, but also scandalous. He entered the sacred Temple. Coming upon the place where vendors sold animals for sacrifice, he knocked over their tables. Then, quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures, he accused them of turning what should have been a “house of prayer” into a “den of thieves.”
When we read this story, we might conclude that Jesus was upset about the materialistic enterprise of the Temple. Buying and selling in the temple can be a problem. But, in fact, Jesus’ deeds and words indicate a much more profound critique of the Temple. By turning over the tables of the vendors, Jesus was essentially shutting down, not just their business, but also the whole operation of the Temple itself. Without animals to sacrifice, there would be no sacrifices. Moreover, the phrase “den of thieves” is, in fact, a quotation from the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 7:11). The “den of thieves” was the place where the religious elites believed they could hide from God’s judgment. But, Jeremiah revealed, this was a failed strategy. God would soon destroy his temple. Jesus’ actions in the Temple, combined with his quotation from Jeremiah, undermined the very sacrificial system, and implied that God would soon bring the Temple itself to ruin. By condemning the Temple in this way, Jesus was viewed as blaspheming the God of the Temple. And this, as much as anything, stirred up his opponents to seek his death.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: What is your “den of thieves”? How do you hide from God? In what do you put trust, other than God himself?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, of course I don’t have a literal Temple in which to hide from you. But there are times, I must confess, when I can use the thought of your grace as an excuse to sin. And then there are the times when I simply try to ignore you, almost fooling myself into believing that if I’m not thinking of you, you’re not thinking of me. Sometimes I can hide within the apparent safety of right theology. I tell myself that as long as I’m thinking correctly, everything else is okay. I conveniently forget your call to repentance and obedience.
Lord, I expect there are many more “dens of thieves” in my life. You know them. So today, though I must admit it scares me to do so, I invite you to enter these aspects of my life and turn over the tables. Take away my hiding places, so that I might encounter you fully. May I put my confidence in you, and in you alone. Amen.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | No Comments »
What’s Good About Denominations?
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, August 5, 2008
I’m away on a camping vacation for the next few days, with uncertain Internet access. So I’ll point you to a series I did a couple of years ago called: What’s Good About Denominations? Along with some help from my readers, I came up with quite a few elements. I’ll have more to add next time I add to my latest series on the PCUSA.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 1 Comment »
Is the PCUSA My Church?
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, August 4, 2008
Part 13 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
The recent focus of this blog series has been the biblical and theological issues associated with the ordination of sexually-active gays and lesbians. I have tried to explain what Presbyterians believe and why, and why our divisions over this issue are deep and intractable. Apart from some dramatic work of the Spirit, I do not expect the PCUSA ever to come to a place of agreement on the question of gay ordination (unless one side splits from the denomination, leaving only those who agree on the issue). Moreover, I do not expect folks on the different sides of the debate to give up the fight. The issue of gay ordination will continue to plague our denomination, to drag us down, to debilitate us, and to divide us until we come to some sort of institutional change that allows us to stop fighting . . . or until we kill off the PCUSA. Who was it that said something about a kingdom divided against itself . . . ?
For some, the scenario I have just sketched immediately suggests that individual churches should leave the PCUSA. For others, the solution involves a more coordinated and complicated division within the denomination. For others, the only answer will be a mass exodus by likeminded churches. And for others, we should remain “as is” institutionally, and keep on fighting as we have done for the last thirty years.
I am going to weigh in on these options. Some of my readers will be disappointed to learn that I will not advocate immediate departure from the PCUSA of churches, pastors, and individuals who disagree with recent pro-gay General Assembly actions. My commenters who have accused me inaction will, no doubt, have a field day once again. Others who have feared that my line of argumentation will lead me to advocate leaving the PCUSA will be relieved, perhaps. And those who, like me, are still seeking God’s direction in the matter, will find a fellow seeker. I hope I’ll offer something more than the blind leading the blind.
Those of us who oppose gay ordination as unbiblical face a variety of possible actions. As we evaluate our options, we must continue to let Scripture guide us. It would be sadly ironic if, after fighting for biblical truth concerning homosexuality, we abandoned biblical truth in our response to PCUSA practicalities. Some on my side of the issue, for example, seem to have forgotten the biblical call to speak the truth in love. It’s hard to find speaking the truth with bitterness and meanness is Scripture, even though some of my fellows do this very thing.
Moreover, before we decide how we’re going to relate to our denomination, we need to become clear on the theological character of denominations. If you listen to the rhetoric in this debate, you’ll often hear people on the conservative side say something like this:
“I am an evangelical, and proud of it. But I don’t want to be in a denomination of people who think just like I do. I need to be stretched and challenged by others who see things differently. I need to have [name of valued liberal Presbyterian] in my church!”
As an evangelical who attended Harvard Divinity School and who has taught at San Francisco Theological Seminary (a PCUSA seminary with plenty of liberal Christians in addition to evangelicals), I agree completely about the value of being challenged by Christians whose theology is different from my own. In some cases, I have things to learn from these folks. In other cases, respectful interaction with them helps me clarify my own views. So I agree with those who say “I need to have [name of valued liberal Presbyterian] in my church!”
But I don’t agree with what their statements implies. Their language suggests that the PCUSA is “my church.” It virtually equates our denomination with the church of Jesus Christ. And this, I’d suggest, is a biblical and theological mistake. As I read the Bible, it’s hard to find any support for the idea that a denomination is a church, much less the Church of Jesus Christ. It is either a collection of churches or a part of the one Church. But a denomination is not a church.
At least that’s true for Protestants. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folk, though they eschew the denominational label, could at least defend the equation of their church with the Church. I don’t agree with this, obviously enough. But I respect it. I’m often amazed by how some Presbyterians argue for remaining in the PCUSA, without realizing that their arguments actually point to reunion with Rome.
So, if I were to decide at some point to leave the PCUSA, I would still have [name of valued liberal Presbyterian] in my church. Just like I have millions of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, Pentecostals, and Independents in “my church.” My church, after all, isn’t mine. It’s the church of Jesus Christ, in which all who confess him as Lord and Savior are members.
The PCUSA is not my church. It is my denomination. It’s been my denomination for forty years, ever since I joined the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood in 1968. In the last twenty years I’ve been a member of three presbyteries in the PCUSA: Pacific, Los Ranchos, and Mission. I have received many gifts from my denomination, and I hope I have contributed to it as well. (Photo: PCUSA logo)
In many ways, the PCUSA is more like my extended family than it is like my church. I’m thinking of my relatives, some of whom I dearly love, some of whom I rarely see, some of whom see life as I see it, and some of whom see and live their lives in very different ways from me. I’d hate to imagine what it would be like if my extended family and I tried to get together in some common cause. Our values are so diverse that I doubt we could focus on some common mission. My denomination, on the contrary, should find mission as a central aspect of its communion. I’ll have more to say about this in my next post.�
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 31 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, August 3, 2008
The Gracious Landowner
“When those hired at five o’clock were paid, each received a full day’s wage.”
Jesus did not tell the story of the generous landowner to comment on the validity of human pay scales. He was not suggesting that, in real life, those who work little should be paid just as much as those who work less. Rather, Jesus told this parable to illustrate the generosity of God, and to contrast his generosity with the stinginess of people.
In his ministry, Jesus was inviting into the kingdom those who had done nothing to earn such an honor. In fact, many of those who responded to Jesus were notorious sinners who had failed dismally to live according to the Jewish law. This bothered the religious folk who had spent their whole lives trying to obey God. It just didn’t seem fair that the Johnny-come-latelies should receive the reward for which the pious had strived for years and years.
In fact, it wasn’t fair . . . thanks be to God! If God offered what was fair, we’d all be in big trouble, even those of us who have labored a lifetime working for God. Our efforts would still not add up to an entrance ticket into the kingdom. But God gives us what we do not deserve, whether we first put our faith in Jesus as children, or whether we do trust him in the closing moments of our lives. Is this fair? Not at all. Is it gracious? Yes, indeed.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Have you received God’s grace in your life as you have put your trust in Jesus? Do you live by this grace, or do you live as if you were earning your salvation? Have you ever been resentful of people who have lived a life apart from God, but who have, nevertheless, received God’s grace in abundance? What has God given you that you have not deserved?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, I must confess that sometimes I am envious of those who come to know you later in life. I have walked with you for over forty years, and have enjoyed rich blessings from your hand. But then new believers come along with such zeal, such delight in you. I don’t resent them, but I do envy them. I yearn to be excited about you!
I do recognize, Lord, that you have “paid” me what I have not earned. You have been generous with me beyond anything I deserve or expect. How I thank you! Help me to live in daily gratitude, thanking you, not only for what I received, but also for what you give freely to others. Amen.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | 1 Comment »
More Laity Lodge Photos
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, August 2, 2008
Some more photos from recent Laity Lodge retreats . . . .
Earl Palmer, Senior Pastor of University Presbyterian Church in Seattle, holds forth in the Great Hall.
A soft-shelled turtle and some giant catfish in the Frio River at Laity Lodge. The turtle is about three feet long.
Topics: Sharing Laity Lodge | 4 Comments »
Laity Lodge Photos
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, August 1, 2008
Here are a couple of fun photos from recent Laity Lodge retreats.
A flower arrangement made by my daughter at our of our art workshops.
Yours truly with J.I. Packer and Steven Purcell, the Director of Laity Lodge. Dr. Packer did an exegetical study of 1 John.
Topics: Sharing Laity Lodge | 2 Comments »
But Won’t Presbyterians Ultimately Change Their Position on Gay Ordination, Just Like They Did on the Ordination of Women?
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, July 31, 2008
Part 12 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
One of the most common arguments you’ll hear these days from proponents of gay ordination goes something like this:
Presbyterians used to oppose the ordination of women on the basis of the Bible. But in spite of biblical teaching to the contrary, we now ordain women. So it will be with the ordination of gays and lesbians. In time, we’ll realize that they should be ordained. It’s inevitable.
On the surface, this argument from analogy seems to be convincing. It’s true that Presbyterians once opposed the ordination of women, but now we ordain them. (To be precise, some Presbyterian denominations, such as the PCUSA or the EPC, allow the ordination of women, while others, such as the PCA or the OPC, do not.) And when we see how our culture is moving rapidly in the direction of normalizing homosexuality, it seems reasonable that many Presbyterians will follow suit. In fact, I am convinced that within relatively few years there will be either a Presbyterian denomination or a large grouping within an existing Presbyterian denomination that does, in fact, ordain gay and lesbian people.
But the analogy between the ordination of women and the ordination of active homosexuals is a flawed one. It is quite logical for someone to endorse the ordination of women while opposing the ordination of active homosexuals. For one thing, the “women’s issue” has to do with including or excluding people on the basis of their identity. Women were precluded from ordained ministry, not because of anything they had done or not done, but simply because of their gender. The “gay issue,” on the contrary, is primarily about behavior, not identity. In the Presbyterian Church USA, a person with a homosexual orientation is not prevented from being ordained if that person pledges to live a chaste life. It’s only a person’s intention to be involved in homosexual behavior that prohibits his or her ordination.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the analogy between women’s ordination and gay ordination is flawed because it implies that biblical teaching about women in ministry is more or less similar to biblical teaching about gay people in ministry. But this implication ignores the huge differences between biblical teaching on women and biblical teaching on homosexuals. Let me explain.
The biblical case against the ordination of women depends primarily on three New Testament texts: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (veiling of women); 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (silence of women); 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (silence of women). Opponents of women’s ordination will often point to Ephesians 5:21-33 (submission of wives to husbands) and Genesis 2 (secondary creation of women) to buttress their position, as well as to Jesus’s choice of twelve males as his most intimate disciples. Now I happen to believe that all of these biblical passages, when rightly understood, actually support the ordination of women. But I will grant that, on the surface, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy 2 appear to oppose this practice. (Photo: A woman praying with a veil on her head. A third-century A.D. painting found in the Catacombs of Priscilla, in Rome. This photo can be found at the excellent website: EIKON – Image Database for Biblical Studies.)
Yet the passages I have just mentioned are not all the Bible has to say about women in positions of authority in God’s kingdom. In fact, there are many, many passages that either portray women in positions of authority or provide theological support for this perspective. Let me mention some of the main passages:
Genesis 1:26-28 - Man and woman created in God’s image; Man and woman given the command to fill the earth and subdue it.
Genesis 2:18 - Woman is created as a “helper” for the man. Ezer, the Hebrew word for “helper,” almost always refers to a stronger person, and, in the Old Testament, usually to God.
Judges 4-5 - Deborah was a prophetess and judge of Israel, with obvious and divinely endorsed authority over Israelite men.
Luke 8:1-3 - Jesus had many women among his entourage of disciples.
John 20 - The resurrected Jesus chose a woman to be the first “evangelist” who bore witness to his resurrection.
Acts 2:17-18 - In fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, the Holy Spirit is poured out on men and women, and it is stated that women will prophesy.
Romans 16:1-2 - Phoebe is a minister (Gk. diakonos) and someone whose authority should be respected by the Roman church.
Romans 16:7 - Junia is named as a prominent apostle. (Most likely reading, in my opinion, among several options.)
1 Corinthians 7:4 - A wife has authority over her husband’s body, even as he has authority over hers.
1 Corinthians 11:5 - Women pray and prophesy in church.
Philippians 4:2-3 - Euodia and Syntyche are leaders in the Philippian church and Paul’s co-workers.
Titus 2:3 - Older women are “to teach what is good.”
Revelation 2:18-29 - The church in Thyatira accepts a woman as a prophet and a teacher. This acceptance is never criticized, only the content of her teaching.
Of course I could point to many other passages that, in my opinion, support the ministry of women, and therefore their ordination. And, of course, I realize that those who oppose the ordination of women have their own ways of interpreting the passages I have just mentioned. But even the staunchest opponents of women’s ordination would have to admit that some of these passages, at least on the surface, suggest that God can use women in positions of authority in his ministry, even in positions of authority over men.
When it comes to homosexuality, do we find a similar division of the house when it comes to biblical teaching? No, not at all. Here are some basic facts:
Every time the Bible speaks directly about homosexual activity, it regards it as sinful.
When the Bible speaks positively about human sexuality, it always does so only in the context of heterosexual relationships.
Two passages in the New Testament (Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6) appear to regard all homosexual behavior as sinful. Several leading biblical scholars show that this appearance is in fact what the biblical passages actually intended (Richard Hays, N.T. Wright, Robert Gagnon, etc.).
Nowhere in Scripture is a homosexual person portrayed positively as a leader in God’s kingdom.
So, whereas proponents of women’s ordination have many biblical passages to call as witnesses for their position, proponents of gay ordination have no specific biblical passages on their side. Thus you’ll find proponents building their case upon arguments from silence, such as: “Jesus never condemned homosexual behavior.” That’s true. But he also didn’t condemn rape or child molestation or fouling the environment or racism. So we’d better be wary of arguments from silence, especially when everything we know about Scripture and everything we know about Jesus’s culture points in the direction of his not approving of homosexual behavior.
The fact that the Bible offers nothing specific to help proponents of gay ordination explains, to a great extent, whey they have stopped trying to interpret the Scripture to their advantage. They just can’t get any traction for their argument. The only way to get the Bible to support homosexuality is to point to passages that commend love or justice, and then to argue that it is loving and just to approve of the ordination of active homosexuals. But this exposition of love and justice flies in the face of Scriptural teaching. It is neither loving nor just to approve of that which the Bible reveals to be sin.
Although I don’t claim to be a prophet or a soothsayer, I think it’s highly unlikely that Presbyterians who confess the full authority of Scripture will ever endorse the ordination of active gay and lesbian people, even though they endorse the ordination of women. From a social and cultural perspective, these two ordination issues might look similar. But from a biblical perspective, they are radically different.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 26 Comments »
Why, If We Share the Same Bible, Do Presbyterians Differ So Widely on the Issue of Gay Ordination? Section 3
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Part 11 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
I closed yesterday’s post by suggesting two reasons why many Presbyterians no longer regard the whole of Scripture as authoritative. These were:
1. The fact that this view is held by many seminary professors in PCUSA seminaries.
2. The fact that some passages in the Bible are troubling has led many to reject their authority.
Today I’ll suggest two more reasons.
Third, the rejection of the full authority of the Bible reflects our postmodern and relativistic culture. In general, people today don’t accept established traditions and authorities. They claim the right to pick and choose what to believe and obey, especially in matters of religion. People who affirm the full authority of Scripture and who live in obedience to Scripture are a counter-cultural minority.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, many Presbyterians have come to know faithful Christians who are gay and lesbian, people who have truly confessed Jesus as Savior and Lord. Often they have tried to live by biblical teaching about sexuality, but have found this burden to be unbearable. In the end, they have come to believe that their homosexual orientation is not a result of the fallenness of the world, but rather a gift from God. They believe that God blesses their same-sex intimacy just as he does heterosexual intimacy. And some of these people also believe that they are called by God into ministry, and they deeply desire to be ordained. Many good-hearted Presbyterians, paying close attention to the experiences of gay and lesbian believers, and feeling empathy for them in their painful struggle for denominational approval, have chosen to give more authority to the experience and feelings of gay and lesbian Christians than to Scripture. For these Presbyterians, if Scripture teaches that homosexual behavior is always wrong, then Scripture itself simply has to be wrong in this teaching.
I can understand why some of my Presbyterian brothers and sisters have gone this direction. Throughout my life and ministry, I have had several close personal or pastoral relationships with gay and lesbian Christians. As I have walked with them on the tortuous road of their discipleship, I have wished that I could simply bless their homosexual feelings and behavior. No matter how hard I’ve tried to be kind and compassionate, I haven’t been able to tell folks what they have wanted to hear from me. Usually, this has led to brokenness in our relationships, as people have felt personally misunderstood and judged by me. I must confess that if I had only a tad less confidence in the inspiration and authority of the whole Bible, I’d be on the other side of this issue. But my convictions about biblical authority and interpretation, combined with my conclusions about what the Bible actually teaches, leave me no choice but to conclude that homosexual activity is not okay in any situation. I am not able to say, “Well, I guess Paul was wrong here,” even though his teaching contradicts the experiences of well-intentioned Christians I have known.
Because so many proponents of gay ordination do not affirm the full authority of Scripture, arguments by opponents that continually point to biblical texts have fallen on deaf ears. A substantial number of Presbyterians today simply don’t care what Romans 1 actually teaches about the morality of homosexual activity. Similarly, claims by proponents that depend primarily on the experiences gay and lesbian people and not on Scripture have little impact on opponents. We are simply talking past each other because we no longer share a common understanding of how God makes his will known to us.
Thus, every time Presbyterians form groups of people with diverse views on the gay ordination issue, charging these groups to understand and to love each other, hoping that such a process might lead to some sort of compromise on the ordination issue, the results are the same. People with diverse perspectives do come to understand and love each other. They often develop close relationships in the context of mutual respect. Yet they almost never change their minds on the matter of gay ordination. No compromise is produced. No matter what the Bible says, those who favored gay ordination going in continue to favor it. And no matter how many testimonies by gay and lesbian people are heard, those who opposed their ordination going in continue to oppose it going out. In the end, both sides do their favoring and opposing with more love and mutual respect, which is surely a good thing. But it fails to resolve our denominational impasse. The idea that we can somehow sit down and come up with a loving compromise about this issue, one that maintains our denominational unity in practice, is naïve and unsupported by years of valiant efforts.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 19 Comments »
Why, If We Share the Same Bible, Do Presbyterians Differ So Widely on the Issue of Gay Ordination? Section 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Part 10 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I suggested that the gap between Presbyterians who endorse gay ordination and Presbyterians who oppose it has much to do with their views on the authority and interpretation of Scripture. Opponents tend to affirm the inspiration and authority of the whole Bible, while proponents tend to limit biblical inspiration and authority to certain transcendent passages.
Consider, for example, two New Testament passages that address homosexual behavior. Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 both speak of homosexual behavior in a way that, at least on the surface, appears to censure it. Here are the passages in the NRSV translation:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth . . . . Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen! ¶ For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. ¶ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. (Rom 1:18, 24-32)
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes [malakoi], sodomites [arsenokoitai], thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)
I don’t want to get into the exegetical issues right now, but rather to make another observation. In my experience, those who oppose gay ordination would say about these passages, “If, after careful study, they can be shown to condemn all homosexual activity, then such activity is always sinful.” Those who favor gay ordination disagree. They tend to say, “If, after careful study, Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 can be shown to condemn all homosexual activity, then these passages are incorrect.” For example, while teaching at San Francisco Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian seminary with an extension program in Southern California, I had a brilliant Christian student who was also a lesbian. She wrote an exegesis paper on Romans 1:18-32. She concluded that this passage cannot be used to support the cause of gay ordination because it condemns all homosexual behavior. Yet she did not believe that gay ordination was wrong because, in her view, Paul was wrong in his views.
For more than thirty years, I have been involved in discussions of homosexuality and ordination. In the early years of this conversation, there was lots of debate about the meaning of biblical texts that deal with homosexual behavior. There seemed to be a common assumption among the debaters that biblical teaching, if rightly understood, should be binding on the church. But, in the last decade, as folks who oppose gay ordination have kept talking about specific biblical texts, those on the other side have mostly stopped this conversation. I haven’t heard one proponent of gay ordination say: “If it can be shown that the Bible truly regards all homosexual behavior as sinful, then I will change my mind and oppose it.” Rather, I have heard many say, in effect, “Whatever the Bible might teach about homosexuality, I am convinced that homosexuality is not always wrong. So, given this conviction, the biblical call to love and justice means that I will support gay ordination, no matter what the Bible might actually say about homosexuality.” Notice that this position is still based, to an extent, on Scripture and its authority. But the individual interpreter assumes the freedom to decide which portions of the Bible are inspired and which are not.
This view of biblical authority is relatively new in the Presbyterian church, and is certainly inconsistent with our Reformed heritage. You can’t exactly imagine John Calvin saying, “Well, the Bible shows that homosexual activity is sinful, but I think it’s just fine.” What has led so many Presbyterians to endorse a view of biblical authority and interpretation that is far removed from our theological roots?
I can think of several factors, though surely there are more. For one thing, the view that the Bible is not fully inspired, but contains culture-bound errors, is held by many if not the majority of professors in PCUSA seminaries. For decades, pastors in training have been taught this view, which they in turn have passed on to their churches.
Second, there are many portions of the Bible that are troubling for Christians, passages in the Old Testament, for example, that call for the killing of Israel’s opponents, or Old Testament laws that contradict our sense of decency. Some people have dealt with this problem by concluding that these offensive passages are simply not inspired. Once they have rejected the authority of some passages, it’s easy for them to do the same with others, passages such as Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6
Tomorrow I’ll suggest two more reasons why, in my opinion, many Presbyterians have begun to think of the Bible as authoritative in parts, but not in other parts.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 26 Comments »
Why, If We Share the Same Bible, Do Presbyterians Differ So Widely on the Issue of Gay Ordination? Section 1
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, July 28, 2008
Part 9 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
As I pick up my blog series on the PCUSA, I want to consider the question of why we Presbyterians, given that we share the same Bible, differ so widely on the issue of gay ordination. I realize that some of my readers want me to stop analyzing the issue and start proposing solutions (or dissolutions!). I will get to the “What are we going to do about this?” question soon enough. But I believe that it’s essential for us to understand not only what Presbyterians believe but also why we believe as we do. Clarity about these matters will help us make wise choices when it comes to tangible actions. It will also help us speak truly and respectfully of those with whom we disagree. Too often in this debate folks on both sides have misrepresented the other side.
A word of caution: I will be painting with a broad brush here as I try to capture major differences among Presbyterians. The reality is more complex than my analysis. But I think I’m getting the main brush strokes in the right place.
The fact that Presbyterians disagree widely on gay ordination is beyond question. In my recent posts I have tried to show what’s underneath this disagreement. Supporters of gay ordination see their cause as a matter of biblical justice. Opponents of gay ordination see their cause as a matter of biblical righteousness. This means something rotten is the state of Presbyterianism, because God’s justice would never actually be in conflict with God’s righteousness! Somewhere along the line somebody has missed God’s will in the matter.
A Question of Biblical Authority and Interpretation
Opponents of gay ordination often explain why proponents believe as they do by saying something like: “We follow what the Bible teaches. They do not. We uphold the authority of the Bible. They do not. This whole debate isn’t really about homosexuality. It’s about the authority of the Bible.” Supporters of gay ordination sometimes object to this explanation: “That’s not true. We also uphold the authority of the Bible. We just interpret it differently. This isn’t a matter of the biblical authority. It’s about the interpretation of the Bible.”
In my opinion, both sides are partly right. That means both sides are partly wrong as well. In fact, what leads Presbyterians to such different conclusions with respect to homosexuality is a matter both of biblical authority and of biblical interpretation. In the end, these are interlocking issues that can’t be completely distinguished.
Almost all Presbyterians agree that the Bible is authoritative in some sense. Almost all Presbyterians agree that biblical truth comes to us embedded in culture (or cultures, to be more precise). And almost all Presbyterians agree that the Bible is both divine and human. We differ, however in our estimation of just how much of Scripture is divine, and therefore just how much of it is authoritative.
In general, opponents of gay ordination believe that all of the Bible is divinely-inspired and therefore authoritative. The timeless truth of God, because it comes in a cultural package, needs to be carefully discerned, so as to clarify that which is authoritative for us. So, for example, those who believe that the whole Bible is inspired do not argue, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11, that women in today’s church should be veiled. But they don’t dismiss 1 Corinthians 11 as something that was relevant for first-century Corinth at best, or simply wrongheaded at worst. They believe that Paul’s discussion of veiling contains and reflects timeless truth that is authoritative for us today, and that needs to be unpacked so we can implement it. This truth would include such things as the authority of women to pray and prophesy in church, the essential male/female character of creation and church, and the need for doing in church that which is edifying.
In general, proponents of gay ordination believe that the Bible contains divinely-inspired portions, but also portions that are merely human, and therefore not authoritative for us today. Paul’s claim that women should be veiled, therefore, is seen as culturally-bound, or even as simply wrong. One must look elsewhere for the timeless truth of Scripture, which is found, for example, in Jesus’s instruction to love, or in the consistent call of the Bible to seek justice for the oppressed. The interpreter of Scripture has the responsibility of sifting out the timeless from the time-bound, so that God’s Word might be properly understood and applied today.
When we come to the issue of gay ordination, therefore, opponents of gay ordination believe that the Bible clearly reveals the sinfulness of homosexual activity because such teaching is found in several biblical passages. Proponents of gay ordination deny this. Some argue that the Bible never addresses the case of loving, mature, committed homosexual lovers. But proponents tend to believe that even if the Bible condemned all homosexual activity, this would not reflect God’s inspiration, but rather human enculturation and limitation. As they interpret the Bible, they believe they have the freedom and the responsibility to sort out what is inspired and authoritative and what is neither inspired nor authoritative. The Bible’s consistently negative teaching on homosexuality falls in the neither inspired nor authoritative category.
In my next post in this series I’ll continue this conversation.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? | 4 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, July 27, 2008
Childlike Discipleship
Then he said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.”
When the disciples came to Jesus to ask who was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, they were expressing the values of their culture. Being honored by others was more important even than life itself. Perhaps the disciples were hoping that Jesus might identify them as the greatest in the kingdom, given how much they had sacrificed to follow him.
How surprising Jesus’ answer must have been to the disciples. He didn’t identify the most exalted person in the kingdom. Instead, he called them to childlikeness and humility. We enter the kingdom through childlike dependence upon God’s grace. We live fruitfully in the kingdom by daily offering ourselves to God in humble submission.
Disciples of Jesus today are not unlike the first who followed him. We also are impressed by greatness, both in the world and in the church. Which of us wouldn’t like to meet a famous Christian leader or author or pastor? And, if we’re honest, which of us wouldn’t like to be thought of as great? So the call of Jesus to childlikeness continues to challenge his disciples to a new way of thinking and living.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Do you ever get caught up in the race for greatness? When? Why? How do you feel about being like a child in God’s kingdom? What helps you to depend upon God fully? What helps you to be truly humble before God and people?
PRAYER: O Lord, in this story I can so easily see myself. Like the disciples, I can get caught up in worldly values. I too can seek my own greatness, either in my accomplishments or in being with people whom others consider great.
So, I must confess that I hear the call to childlikeness at first as a word of rebuke. And I receive this as a word of grace. I need the freedom that comes with a kingdom-based values readjustment.
As I come before you, Lord, may I come as a child: unpretentious, simple, dependent. And as I live my life in the world, may I express genuine humility as I offer myself to you fully, and as I give myself to others in servanthood. Amen.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | 1 Comment »
National Worship Leader Conference
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, July 25, 2008
First, a word of explanation. Many of you have emailed me, asking me to get back to my series on the PCUSA. I will do that. But I should explain that this is my “high season” at Laity Lodge, with several retreats almost back to back. Last week it was J.I. Packer and Terry Hargrave. This week it’s Earl Palmer and John Medina. Next week it’s Lauren Winner and Tod Bolsinger. So I’m pretty swamped these days. I will get back to the good ol’ PCUSA, I promise. But please be patient.
Plus, earlier this week I was speaking at the National Worship Leader Conference sponsored by Worship Leader Magazine. This was an outstanding conference, and I was pleased to be part of it. Here are a couple of photos from the first evening’s main session.
Matt Redman is leading worship for the conference, which met at the Riverbend Church in Austin, Texas. Matt, apart from being an outstanding songwriter, is a humble and effective worship leader.
After the evening speaker (Skip Heitzig), Paul Baloche led another worship set. Joining him in the band was his son, David, who is pictured in the background. Paul is one of the most influential worship songwriters in the world today (for example, “Open the Eyes of My Heart, Lord”). One of the songs he used on Monday evening was “Hosanna,” which he co-wrote with Brenton Brown. This is a fantastic song, and can be found on Paul’s album called A Greater Song. If you’re interested, here’s a YouTube video of Paul leading this song.
Topics: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
Interview of Chris Smith: Part 4
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, July 24, 2008
Part 4 of series: Rediscovering the Beauty of the Bible
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Note: I have more to say about the PCUSA issues, but am away speaking at a conference right now. So I’ll put up an interesting interview I recently did with Chris Smith. I’ll get back to the PCUSA soon.
This is the final part of my interview of Chris Smith, a pastor, scholar, and old friend from college. We’ve been talking about a fantastic project, The Books of the Bible. The last part of this interview is more personal. As you read about Chris’s search for God’s direction, you might find some encouragement for your own life.
Mark: Chris, let’s conclude on a more personal note. You’ve told me that you read my recent series on “discerning God’s call to ministry,” and that you recognized in your own story some of the “seeds” I discussed. Please tell us what those seeds are, particularly as they relate to your participation in the Bible Design Project.
Chris: Well, I recognize most of them, actually. But let me concentrate on the ones like sovereignty, surprise, blessing, and redemption that speak of how we see God stepping into our lives to make connections, open doors, and arrange circumstances that allow us to fulfill the calling He has given us. I think I truly was trying to use the gifts and pursue the interests God had given me. That would relate to “seeds” like stewardship, obedience and whole-heartedness. But for me the really exciting part is when we see how God has been at work and it becomes apparent that we’re not just trying to do things on our own.
Mark: Yes, that is exciting. And scary sometimes, too. It takes lots of trust in God and his sovereignty.
Chris: Indeed. I certainly see God’s sovereignty in my family background, which I mentioned earlier. If God’s plan was for me one day to help reformat the Bible along literary lines, it’s hard to think of a better set of parents than a pastor and a literature professor. As someone said to me recently, “You’ve got the DNA for this.”
I also see God’s sovereignty in a combination of experiences I had in college. In my courses, we were studying the concept of the “shaping principle” of a work of literature. The idea was to try to identify what overriding goal had determined an author’s choices in genre, plot, themes, characterization, etc. At the same time, I was introduced to the method of manuscript Bible study that you mentioned earlier. This helped me recognize that the Bible wasn’t a compendium of short devotional passages or pithy sayings, as chapters and verses suggest it is. It was a collection of great literary works, and I could appreciate, investigate and experience them as such, looking for their “shaping principles,” just as I did for other writings.
Mark: It’s funny how such a relatively simple change in the biblical text, such as taking away familiar chapters and verse numbers, makes such a large difference. And, of course, you’re not tampering with the actual text of Scripture, only with the things that human editors have added to God’s inspired Word.
So, any other ways you have sensed God’s sovereignty in your life?
Chris: I can also see God’s sovereignty at other significant places along the way. When I taught my course on “The Bible Without Chapters and Verses” at Regent College, the students and summer school administrators encouraged me to write up the material as a book. I did, but for various reasons, I wasn’t able to find a publisher. My wife and I finally said to each other, “Well, God has our address, and if He wants to make use of this, He knows where to find us.” So I posted the book on the Internet. I told various friends that it was out there. Only a few days later, I heard back from a friend who had been in a Sunday School class where Glenn Paauw was the guest teacher. Based on what Glenn was saying, this friend recognized he would be interested in my work. He got Glenn to read the book online, and Glenn then asked me to join the Bible Design Group. The disappointment of not finding a publisher was redeemed by the surprise of being connected with a group that had already developed a vision for the kind of format changes I was advocating, and which had the resources to make a new format a reality. (And my book finally was published as The Beauty Behind the Mask.) (Photo: from left: Glenn Paauw, Jim Oraker, who introduced Glenn to Chris Smith, on right)
Mark: That is a great story. God’s “coincidences” are amazing sometimes, aren’t they? So where are you in your journey of discipleship right now?
Chris: Right now I’m waiting for the next “surprise” God has for me. I felt last summer that the time was coming for me to move on from University Baptist Church because I’ve been more and more attracted to postdenominational expressions of American Christianity. There are lots of energetic and forward-looking things happening in the denominations today, but I also see some new forms emerging that I’d like to explore and help develop. I fully expected that by the time I finished my ministry at University Baptist this spring, I would know what my next long-term kingdom assignment was going to be. But I still don’t. This, in itself, is something of a surprise. But as you wrote in your series on discerning God’s call to ministry, we need to “submit to God again and again.” When the assignment is to wait patiently and trustingly, we have to accept that, and believe that the sovereign God is still at work in us “to will and to do to His good pleasure.” In the meantime, I’m having the opportunity to do some writing and consulting, which I’m really enjoying. Whatever my next longer-term assignment turns out to be, my goal will be to continue helping people experience the life-changing message of God’s word, in a form that allows its literary beauties and theological truths to shine through more clearly.
Mark: Your situation reminds me of that of Buddy Owens, a dear friend who once worked for Marantha! Music. He and I worked closely on a Bible project, actually, The NIV Worship Bible. Anyway, Buddy sensed that it was time for him to leave Maranatha!, but he wasn’t sure what God had in store for him. For several months he walked with faith but not sight, trusting God for the next step. Finally, God opened an amazing door for Buddy, giving him a major leadership position in Purpose-Driven Ministries, at just the time when everything there was about to explode because of the publication of The Purpose-Driven Life. I was thrilled to see what God did in Buddy’s life, and through him in the kingdom of God.
Chris, I have no doubt that God has incredible things in store for you. I’ll be praying about this, to be sure. I expect some of my readers will join me.
In the meanwhile, thanks for doing this fascinating interview. I’ve enjoyed hearing about your project, and will be sure to recommend The Books of the Bible and The Beauty Behind the Mask.
Thanks so much, Chris, for doing this interview!
Topics: Books and Beauty of the Bible | No Comments »
Interview of Chris Smith: Part 3
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Part 3 of series: Rediscovering the Beauty of the Bible
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Note: I have more to say about the PCUSA issues, but am away speaking at a conference right now. So I’ll put up an interesting interview I recently did with Chris Smith. I’ll get back to the PCUSA soon.
Today is the third part of my interview with Chris Smith. We’re focusing on his recent project, The Books of the Bible, an exciting new way to help folks get into the biblical text and story.
Mark: Chris, when we left off yesterday, you were saying that the traditional order of the biblical books can confuse us about the literary genre of certain biblical writings. Would you give us an example of what you mean?
Chris: Sure. The book of James actually has strong affinities to wisdom collections such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. But its placement at the head of a group of “general epistles” encourages us to read it as a letter instead. We will be disappointed and confused if we expect James to develop systematically like an epistle.
Mark: Maybe that’s why Martin Luther didn’t like James! Anyway, you didn’t do what Luther once recommended, did you, and take away James or some other books from the Bible?
Chris: No. All the books are there, I promise. The Books of The Bible presents all of the biblical books in a new order that we believe is better attuned to their historical and literary character. The First Testament has three main groups: the “Covenant History” (the continuous historical narrative that runs from Genesis through Kings); the Prophets, major and minor together, in their likely historical order; and the Writings, grouped by genre: poetry, wisdom, history and apocalypse. In the New Testament we have created four groups, each containing a gospel followed by related works. The gospel and letters of John, for example, are grouped together. Luke-Acts is paired with Paul’s letters, since Paul and Luke were co-workers in the Gentile mission. As we write in our preface, through such groupings we hope to “express the ancient concept of the fourfold gospel in a fresh way.”
Mark: Fascinating. I’ve sometimes thought it would be interesting to create a version of the New Testament that put the books in the order in which they were written chronologically. Most folks would be surprised to find the letters of Paul at the very beginning, with the gospels later (though Mark may have been written while Paul was still composing his letters). Anyway, enough of my wild ideas. How have people been responding to this very different way of presenting the Scriptures?
Chris: Really enthusiastically. Even when we circulated a preview edition of the format as it was being developed, people began to tell us what a difference it made. One person explained, “I have been a reader of the Bible for all my life. But after reading just a few pages (literally), I was amazed at what I had been missing all of these years.” Since The Books of The Bible was published last summer, we’ve been getting lots more feedback like this.
Mark: Have you had responses from any bloggers? We bloggers can be a mean, critical bunch, you know?
Chris: In fact people have been out there blogging about their experiences with The Books of The Bible. One guy has given himself the goal of reading through the Bible in a year, and he reports that he’s way ahead of schedule. As he was going through the Pentateuch he wrote, “I’m surprised when I finish a book! Normally chapter numbers chart my progress for me whether I want them to or not. And, let’s admit it, many of us find ourselves wondering how much longer Leviticus is going to last. With The Books of the Bible, I reached the end without ever thinking that.” We’re delighted to hear that people are reading the Scriptures so eagerly.
Mark: Well, if you can get me to read through Leviticus without wishing for the end, that’s quite an accomplishment. So where can people get more information about The Books of The Bible, and how can they get a copy?
Chris: There’s an informational web site and blog at www.thebooksofthebible.info. There’s a Facebook group called De-versify. I’ve also written a companion volume to the new edition entitled The Beauty Behind the Mask: Rediscovering the Books of the Bible. It goes into much more detail about everything we’ve been talking about here. (Photo: The Beauty Behind the Mask by Christopher R. Smith.)
The Books of The Bible can be ordered for $8.99 plus shipping from the International Bible Society at (800) 524-1588 or at this website. Unfortunately it’s not available right now in bookstores. (IBS is a non-profit organization that supplies churches and other ministries, and distributes to the public only by direct order.) However, the New Testament can be ordered on amazon.com for the Kindle reader, in four installments priced at 99¢ each. And commercial publishers may produce editions of the Scriptures in this format for sale in bookstores at some point in the future.
Mark: Hah! I’ve been waiting for a good reason to get a Kindle! Now I’ve got one. So if I could only come up with an extra $359, I’d be all set.
Topics: Books and Beauty of the Bible | 3 Comments »
Interview of Chris Smith: Part 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Part 2 of series: Rediscovering the Beauty of the Bible
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Note: I have more to say about the PCUSA issues, but am away speaking at a conference right now. So I’ll put up an interesting interview I recently did with Chris Smith. I’ll get back to the PCUSA soon.
Yesterday I began interviewing Chris Smith, a pastor, scholar, and old friend from college days. Chris has been involved in a fascinating project to restore the original look and feel of the Bible, thus increasing its readability.
When I ended Part 1 of the interview yesterday, Chris was talking about how important it is to engage the Bible as a collection of genuine literary creations.
Mark: I’m tracking with you. So what did you and the others team do to solve these problems?
Chris: The first change we made to the Bible’s format was to remove chapter and verse numbers entirely from the text. We included only a chapter-and-verse range at the bottom of each page. We also removed the TNIV section headings, which the translators explain are included just as an “aid to the reader” and are “not to be regarded as part of the biblical text.” We moved the translators’ notes, which are an integral part of their work, to the back of each book. We printed the text in a single column. We used white space of varying widths to indicate the literary structures of books, so that readers could follow them visually and inductively. When people see all of this, they say, “This makes the Bible look like a real book!” “It is a real book,” I tell them. “Read it, and it will change your life.” (Photo: A comparison of the opening of Luke in a traditional format and in The Books of the Bible format.)
Mark: This conversation has stirred up some old memories of studying the Bible while I was in college. We used a method recommended by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. It was called “manuscript study.” Basically, we looked at an English translation of some book of the Bible that was very much like the original Greek manuscript of that book, without chapters or verse numbers. Our English manuscripts did have spaces between words and punctuation, however, unlike the original Greek writings. I was glad for that. Anyway, it was fascinating to study the Bible without the familiar crutches of chapters and verses. I learned a lot from those exercises. It sounds like you’re doing something similar. You want people to appreciate the books of the Bible in the form they were written, not in the shape they were later given. Was that why you put some books back together?
Chris: Yes. Some of the longer books became divided over time. Samuel-Kings, for instance, is really one long narrative. It describes the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah from Saul to the exile. A single literary structuring device is used throughout the whole work. At the beginning or end of a reign, a formula appears that tells us how old a king was when he came to the throne, how long he ruled, and from what city. Samuel-Kings is known in the Septuagint, the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, as the “Book of Reigns,” and I think that’s a pretty accurate title. It was divided into four parts so that it would fit on scrolls that could be handled conveniently. But these parts are “stitched together” editorially by a scribal convention in certain Septuagint manuscripts. The opening words of “2 Samuel” are copied onto the end of “1 Samuel,” to show that the two parts should be attached to one another. The same thing happens between the other parts of the work. So it’s really one long book.
Mark: What about the New Testament? Did you combine any of those books?
Chris: Yes, we did. Luke and Acts, to give another example, are two volumes of a single historical study. Together, they have an overarching “journey to Jerusalem/journey from Jerusalem” outline. We want readers to be able to appreciate these large literary structures that tie together what we are used to thinking of as separate books. In fact, IBS has now published Luke-Acts as a single book, in the new format. (Photo: Kingdom Come, Kingdom Go, one-volume publication of Luke-Acts. Can be ordered here.)
Mark: Why did you change the order of the books?
Chris: We are used to encountering the books of the Bible in a fixed order, but this is actually another later development. Before the advent of the printing press, the biblical books were presented in a great variety of orders, based on different historical, literary and liturgical considerations. The gospels, for example, appear in nine different sequences in the manuscript tradition. Paul’s letters are found seventeen different ways.
The order we’re familiar with today gives us little help in situating the biblical books in their historical contexts. Paul’s letters, for example, are now arranged by length, from longest to shortest. If we numbered them according to a reasonable account of when they were written (scholarly opinions will vary in some cases), with “1″ being the first epistle written and so forth, we’d discover that the current arrangement presents them roughly in this order: 6, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 7, 1, 2, 11, 13, 12, 9. How can we hope to understand these letters in the context of Paul’s life and the development of his thought when we read them in this sequence?
Mark: Maybe people would be able to get into Paul if we put them in the opposite of the biblical order, with the shortest one first. After all, Romans is a pretty tough start for most readers. Philemon would be a whole lot easier. But I can see the value in using a more or less chronological order for Paul’s letters. Do you have any more examples of order changes you made?
Chris: Yes. Let’s consider the Old Testament prophets. If we read through the prophetic books in the traditional order, we will find ourselves seesawing wildly back and forth between centuries. We should really read Amos, Hosea, Micah and at least the beginning of Isaiah together, since they all speak to the same historical situation in the eighth century B.C. But in the usual order, to get from Hosea to Amos you have to read Joel, which many scholars believe was written several centuries later. And to get from Amos to Micah, you have to read Obadiah, which came 150 years later, and Jonah, which could also be another late book. I think people often give up trying to situate these books in their historical contexts and end up seeing the Bible as a collection of airy precepts removed from human experience and the flow of redemptive history.
Mark: Oh my. When I was young, I spent a lot of time memorizing the books of the Bible in order. Now I’m learning that order wasn’t terribly helpful.
Chris: Sorry, but that’s true. The traditional order can also confuse us about the literary genre of certain biblical writings.
Topics: Books and Beauty of the Bible | 2 Comments »