Narrative vs. Propositional (and a little bit about Romans)
It’s funny to me that people seem to be experiencing this weird tension between seeing the bible as narrative and seeing it as propositional. Let me use the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and the book of Romans to illustrate why this is unnecessary.
First a point on the side of narrative: What if I told you that there was a short person called a Hobbit who found an evil ring and in an act of self-sacrifice willingly embarked on what would be his certain death in order to destroy the ring in the fires of Mordor, and that his friend Sam Wise carried him on his back up the side of the mountain when he could no longer go on. Are you moved? Did I capture the essence of the story? These are the essential facts, correct?
Many narrative guys feel that the bible reduced to a list of propositional statements accomplishes just about as much. The Bible doesn’t come to us in a list of facts, but in songs, poems, letters, stories and gospels (to name a few). Now, on the other hand: What if I told you that in LOTR there was a elf named names Steve who found an evil flower and decided to destroy it by taking it to Mordor, only at the last minute decided to keep the flower for himself thus insuring the destruction of Middle Earth. Well, that’s one story, but it’s not Lord of the Rings. You see, the facts are all wrong, and the story is completely changed.
For those of you who would say, “Well, what about the book of Romans? That seems like a book of propositions to me.” Ok, well what was the context for Romans? Was it not the breakdown in Jewish and Gentile relations in the church? Almost 95% of people miss the entire point of that text, because they read it primarily as a book of propostitions, and view it through an American indivicualistic mindset. Case in point, how do you interpert Romans 12:1?* As a commendation to live holy lives? Look harder. 12:1 is a exhortation for Jews and Gentiles to present their two “bodies, or members” as one singular living sacrifice, and it is this unity that is the pleasing act of worship. The pattern of this world is disunity and discord, Jews hating Palestinians, Shiites hating Sunnis, Americans hating the French. Get it? The whole book is a story of the corporate church in Rome. Don’t miss the forest for the trees, nor the trees for the forrest. In making his case for unity, Paul does list several propositions. Why should they be unified? Because all are equally condemned before God. Because he is the only Judge and he shows no partiallity. Because salvation is his work. To deny these propositions is to cut out the heart of his argument. Likewise, to focus only on these propositions is to miss the entire point he is trying to make. Narrative and Proposition work best when viewed as being in a marriage relationship, let’s not force them to get a divorce.
* These are not my original ideas, they came to me through Dr. Tomlinson of Midwestern Baptist Seminary. If you doubt the interpretation of Romans 12:1 go back and read the book in context, not just 12:1. Why would the whole book be corporate and then shift to an individual exhortation? Why is the word for “bodies” plural, and the words, “sacrifice” “holy” and “pleasing” all singular? Romans 11:33-36 all about God’s judicial impartiality and independence, why is this so? Yes, the language in Greek is judicial. Who shouldn’t think more highly of themselves than they ought in 12:3? Why does he go straight into the talking of the body and it’s gifts if 12:1 is about individuals? I submit to you that making 12:1 about personal holiness and personal worship is a raping of the text and robs of us of the most profound argument against racism in the entire New Testament. Wow, that last sentence totally changed the carefree tone of the first half of my post. Oh, well. Quit raping the text ; )
