On Proverbs and Presbyterians

The Saints & Ain’ts Sunday School Class has been looking at the Seven Deadly Sins this summer through a curriculum that draws on Gilligan’s Island. That curriculum draws heavily from Proverbs in providing teaching on each of the areas of sin. It raised the question, “Why do some denominations use Proverbs so much more in their teaching and preaching than we do in the Presbyterian Church?” The more I thought about it, the more I realized it was a great insight and an important question.

In scripture (in both Testaments) there are multiple “voices.” In the Old Testament for example, one points to God's covenant with Israel as being unconditionally given by a God who will fulfill his promise to Israel despite its lack of merit whereas the other points a conditional covenant between God and Israel where the obedience of God's people is the necessary condition for God's promises being fulfilled for them. Similarly, Wisdom literature (of which Proverbs is a prime example) points toward our right living leading to wellness for us whereas our disobedience leads to suffering for us. Job and some other Old Testament texts, though, demand to know why the world is not so morally coherent as Wisdom literature suggests. After all, sometimes the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper. What are we to make of that?

We see a similar variety of voices in the New Testament regarding God's grace versus our call to obediently follow Christ. Matthew and James almost make it sound like grace doesn't enter the equation--our obedience is what is necessary. Either we bear fruit, or we are cut off. Either we respond correctly to Christ or we end up in the place where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth." We're to be not just hearers of the word, but doers.

Paul, having been through a radical conversion to Christ for which he could take no credit at all, credits everything to God's grace. John seems to agree, with Jesus reminding the disciples, “You did not choose me, I chose you.” Luke does, too, with parables about the lost coin, the lost sheep and the lost son and with the story of Zacchaeus.

For Paul, Luke and John, it is almost inconceivable that someone would not respond to such grace with sacrificial obedience. If they don't respond, they must not realize either how unmeriting they are (like the rich young ruler, the Pharisees, and the "Judaizers"--Jewish Christians who demanded the circumcision of Gentile converts) or how good and unconditional God's grace is. Certainly anyone who understood would respond. (I'm over-simplifying here admittedly, but the point—in general—is valid, I believe.)

It seems like the early communities of faith--Jewish and Christian--realized that both of these voices needed to remain in the texts. Similarly, modern physicists will refer to light both as matter (particles) and energy (wavelengths) while still believing that nothing can be both at the same time. They also recognize that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle both appear to be totally correct until you try to put them together--at which point they become mutually exclusive.

Perhaps our ancestors in the faith were like physicists who long for a "grand unified theory" but who ultimately have to settle for describing two independent realities that come as close to the truth as we can comprehend while also contradicting each other at some level. Perhaps our ancestors of the faith knew enough about human nature to know that if we're to have any hope of staying out of the ditches on either side of the road that leads to life, we need to hear both threat of punishment and unconditional love and grace.

Our Christian brethren who are more drawn to Wisdom literature (like Proverbs) are probably also more drawn to an understanding of God's grace that requires our response to become efficacious for us (and perhaps toward secular politics that emphasize responsibility for one's own actions and well-being?) whereas Presbyterian theology tilts more towards Job, Paul, and unconditional grace (and secular politics that emphasize the responsibility of the community to provide justice for the most vulnerable?) Again, a lot of oversimplifying here, but perhaps an insight as to why we use Proverbs much less than other Christian communities.

Clearly, though, an emphasis on personal responsibility to an extreme can lead to works righteousness for those who think they've made it and despair for those who think they can't. Equally dangerous, an emphasis on unconditional grace can be misconstrued and lead to laziness and presumptiveness (that we're the "pampered darlings of Providence"). It can also fail to recognize and teach that there are many important lessons in the Bible that, if we'll just learn, can save us from a lot of the hardship that comes when we repeatedly shoot ourselves in the foot.

Finally, a similar difference between faith communities can be found in what we name our kids. Think of people you know or have heard of who are over 30 years old and carry names like Amos, Isaiah, Moses, Jeremiah, or just about any other OT prophet. Chances are that they're all black, right? My guess is that the black churches read from those books a lot more than we do in white churches. If you read Amos or think about what Moses was called to do, you’ll quickly see why African-Americans might be particularly drawn to Israel’s prophetic tradition while it might make those of us who are more comfortable with the status quo uneasy.

In seminary, we talked about our "canon within the canon"--a recognition that all of us as Christians tend to focus heavily on some books while quietly avoiding others. The challenge to read them all is a good one. I admit to Proverbs being one of my least favorite books. In part, I like narrative more than lists of advice or rules. Might be a good reason for me to spend more time in Proverbs, though!

Grace & Peace,
Dan