Even Peter Leithart realizes that the Bible doesn’t give the kind of moral specificity that so many practically minded believers desire?
The Bible rarely lives up to our ordinary standards of practicality. Page after page is given over to genealogical lists of obscure people whose only role is to be a human bridge between famous ancestors and notorious descendants. A third of Exodus is nothing but verbal blueprints for building the tabernacle and the first quarter of Leviticus contains detailed regulations concerning sacrifice. Two lengthy chapters of Leviticus diagnose the varieties of skin disease that cause impurity. It seems so tedious, and even when the Bible holds our interest, it doesnt seem very useful. Stories of plagues, exodus, and wars of utter destruction make for juicy reading, but how do they help one become virtuous? Why cant the Bible be more relevant?
While one can mine nuggets of moral instruction from the depths of the text, the Bibles apparent lessons are difficult, and not infrequently troubling. Abraham goes to Egypt, deceives Pharaoh about his relationship to Sarah, and leaves Egypt richer than ever. Whats the lesson-that lying pays? What moral do we draw from Moses killing of the Egyptian, or Joshuas slaughter of everything that breathed at Jericho? The more we read the Bible, the clearer it becomes that the book isnt a Hebraic Aesops fables.
Treating Scripture as a directory of moral lessons or compendium of moral rules assumes a constricted view of moral practice and reasoning. We dont pursue virtue simply by applying general principles to particular situations, and true morality is never simply obedience to commandments. Practical morality requires the ability to assess situations accurately, memory of our own past patterns of action and of others inspiring examples, and enough moral imagination to see how a potential tragedy might become the birthplace of unforeseen comedy.
Scripture is ethical paedeia, not an ethics manual.
Or Carl Trueman acknowledges that expansive claims for kingdom work and redeeming culture run rough shod over the marks of the church?
So what happens to church discipline when the means of grace start to be expanded beyond word and sacrament? When we include art, or music or even sports? I have no sympathy whatsoever with such an expansion; but, given the emphasis on these emerging in certain quarters and, indeed, the arrival of arts and sports pastors on the scene, I wonder if those who do in practice seem to see these things as means of grace have really thought through the practical consequences for church discipline. Perhaps we have to stop people looking at pictures (unless it is something by Thomas Kinkade?), listening to anything but 70s disco music, and playing anything but American football? Answers on a postcard.
Old Life 
In reading Old Life, and specifically this blog post, it is clear that both sides talk past the other. People are getting defensive, and there is no productivity in this intramural debate. DG, I would like to hear your thoughts on how you (if given the sceptor for a day) would promote unity of understanding within the Reformed community on this issue.
LikeLike
Peter Leithart: The Bible rarely lives up to our ordinary standards of practicality. Page after page is given over to genealogical lists of obscure people whose only role is to be a human bridge between famous ancestors and notorious descendants. A third of Exodus is nothing but verbal blueprints for building the tabernacle and the first quarter of Leviticus contains detailed regulations concerning sacrifice. Two lengthy chapters of Leviticus diagnose the varieties of skin disease that cause impurity. It seems so tedious, and even when the Bible holds our interest, it doesnt seem very useful. Stories of plagues, exodus, and wars of utter destruction make for juicy reading, but how do they help one become virtuous? Why cant the Bible be more relevant?
RS: Perhaps, then, our ordinary standards of practicality are misplaced. Perhaps God has other purposes in what He reveals and why He reveals them other than something to be relevant and useful in the ways we want. The interest level of a person as s/he reads the Bible may in fact reflect more on the person reading than on what is read. As has been said, what we say and think about classical music judges us and not the music. I would say the same thing about those who judge Jonathan Edwards. However, certainly that is true about those who pass judgment on the Bible. The words of Leithart judge him, not the Bible.
One can marvel at the ways of God and the character of God in virtually all parts of the Bible if one is looking for God. However, if one is looking for a science book or a book on morals in terms of focus, it will not provide that. On the other hand, in looking for God one finds the real standard as well as source of power in all moral situations. God has commanded us to be holy as He is holy rather than be moral according to what some call moral. God has commanded us to revere and love Him, so love for Him is the height of morality. Maybe some people are looking for things that interests them and morality in all the wrong places.
LikeLike
Dan, the whole point of 2k is that no unity would nor should exist on the way that Christians live out their vocations beyond those matters confessed by the church (like the decalogue). I don’t think we need to agree about plumbing or politics. What is annoying is that the neo-Cals think they own the market on what it means to be Reformed and keep trying to exclude 2k.
LikeLike
Dan,
I’m sure there is some talking past each other, but you also have a situation of two or more theological orientations that will never live well together. 2k or 1k(my taxonomy) are borne of covenantal considerations that aren’t compatible with each other and eventually in about 20- 30 years when there’s enough distance and personal affiliations are long removed( ” I know, such and such and you’ve misrepresented him, etc) hopefully we can try it in the courts and get a rendering for one or the other.
LikeLike
DG, many “Neo-Cals” (I hate using that term, but you used it, so…) would claim that some recent so-called 2K proponents (I say “some” because not everyone defines 2K the way you do) narrow the Reformed market to their view as well. Indeed, we are talking past each other, and the talking lacks much salt and grace.
LikeLike
Sorry, Dan, but I first heard snickers about Old Princeton (and we weren’t even talking 2k then) being fundamentalists from Dutch Reformed over thirty years ago. I admire Dutch chutzpah. But it has always included a dose of condescension (and then they don’t even honor their genes in the case of VanDrunen).
LikeLike