Ashland Theological Seminary

ASHLAND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

AN IMPACT STUDY ON COMMITMENT TO OBEYING GOD’S VOICE

THROUGH A SMALL GROUP STUDY OF ISRAEL’S WILDERNESS JOURNEY

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF ASHLAND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF MINISTRY

BY JOHN SHEPPARD

ASHLAND, OHIO

NOVEMBER 13, 2020

To all, past present and future, who hear and reverberate his voice among the

nations

iii

The work of grandparents is to transform the remembered past into present

tense, in order that memory can be available and informative, authoritative, empowering, and summoning…The exodus narrative is indeed paradigmatic for

the grandparental antidote to amnesia among the grandchildren.

Walter Brueggemann (2009, 13)

APPROVAL PAGE

Accepted by the faculty and the final demonstration examining committee of Ashland Theological Seminary, Ashland, Ohio, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Ministry degree.

______

Academic Advisor Date

______

Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program Date

ABSTRACT

To measure its impact, participants completed pre and post-tests. This study most prominently impacted participants’ understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice.

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW 1

2. BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS 26

3. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 67

4. DESIGN, PROCEDURE, AND ASSESSMENT 106

5. REPORTING THE RESULTS 119

6. SUMMARY AND REFLECTIONS 140

Appendix

1. PROPOSAL 167

2. ASSESSMENT TOOL 191

3. BIBLE STUDY QUESTIONS SAMPLE 196

REFERENCES 198

vii

TABLES

Table Page

1. Table 1. Project Goals by Degree of Change……………………………119

2. Table 2. Goal #4: God’s Loving Formation Fuels Our Obedience …….120

3. Table 3. Goal #1: Participants’ Understanding of Obeying God’s voice………………………………………………………………………… .124

4. Table 4: Goal #2: How God’s Actions fuel our obedience………………128

5. Table 5. Goal #5: Obeying God’s Voice on Behalf of His Creation…….132

6. Table 6. Goal #3: God Fuels Our Obedience by Making His Name Renown……………………………………………………………………….136

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project and paper would have never happened were it not for the exhortation and encouragement from Sharon, my wife, and from Joel, our son.

To Dr. Jack McKinney who taught me to appreciate the beauty of the

Bible’s original languages.

To Dr. Paul Pollard modeled scholarship, wisdom, and godliness.

To Dr. Mike Stine who patiently and wisely guided me through writing this paper.

To Dr. Alan Bevere who prompted new perspectives on forces shaping today’s churches.

To Dr. Matt Bevere who proved to be a welcomed and willing conversation partner about many life and ministry topics. I miss our conversations.

To Dr. Dawn Morton who firmly but gently nudged me forward through this project.

To Dr. Daniel Hawk who expanded my vision of God fulfilling his promises.

To Clancy Cruise who welcomed the idea of implementing this project within Marysville Grace and who continually encouraged me through it.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

David Fleer and Dave Bland recount a thirty-year-old conversation with a

Rhetoric professor about the practical applications of public apology. This professor proved himself as a competent scholar in his field. Yet, when Fleer and

Bland proposed analyzing the David and Bathsheba story as an example of public apology, their professor told them that he had never heard that story. Ten years later, while attending a Ph.D. course in narrative theory, their professor read aloud extensive sections from Mark's gospel. To Fleer's and Bland's surprise, several of their fellow students confessed that they were hearing those stories for the first time. Thus, Fleer and Bland discerned that even our culture's best educated people are becoming less familiar with biblical narratives. Even fellow believers sometimes demonstrate their amnesia by their inability to discern degrees of importance within Scripture concerning the large essential narratives intended to shape the ways we think and live. The exodus declares itself to be one of those narratives and the rest of Scripture treats it as such. What God does in Exodus establishes the trend for how God acts throughout history and for how he works today (Fleer and Bland 2009, 1-2).

Purpose Statement and Research Question

1 wilderness journey impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice?

Overview

This project consisted of a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey intended to impact the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice, conducted across seven sessions between

February 23th and June 7th, 2020. To measure this project's impact, I identified five goals and developed three statements (truth claims) per goal, fifteen quantitative questions total. To measure participant responses to each of the fifteen statements I associated the questions with a 7-point Likert Scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

Before leading Session One I administered a pre-test which explored how participants perceived their own understanding of “obeying God’s voice,” the degree to which they understood the relationship between God’s actions in

Israel’s wilderness journey and our obeying his voice, the degree to which participants understood the relationship between God making his name renown among the nations and our obeying his voice, the degree to which participants understood the relationship between God’s loving formation and our obeying his voice, as well as the degree to which participants understood the relationship between our choices to obey or disobey God’s voice and their impact on God’s creation.

At the end of the seven study sessions, I administered a post-test to discern the impact which studying God’s actions in Israel’s wilderness journey

2 had on the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice. The post-test also included five qualitative questions. This project impacted this particular group’s collective verbal commitment to obeying God's voice. Though the participants pre-tests reflected slight to moderate agreement with the assessment’s quantitative questions before the study began, their post-test responses reflected moderate to strong agreement in (a collective difference of .9).

Foundation

What claims on our lives does the exodus narrative imagine? A central problem we face is that we are losing touch with God's fundamental story. Not only is our culture forgetting the Bible's stories faster than the church, our culture is busy inflicting amnesia by dismissing memory as a passive exercise in futility...Despite our disadvantaged milieu, we long for the reliable, identity forming memories that offer hope and provide courage during painful times...Since our preaching is an archive from which the congregation reconstitutes its essential identity, remembering is the preacher's duty. (Fleer and Bland 2009, 2-3)

The following foundational sections establish this project's Personal,

Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Contemporary Foundations.

Personal Foundation

In this Personal Foundation section, I discuss my own experience of committing to obeying God’s voice and how my study of the Israelites ’wilderness journey has aided my pursuit of fuller obedience. For much of twenty years I earned my living and supported my family in a role where my compensation was based solely on commissions paid after customers paid their invoices. During those years, I prayed regularly both for the Lord’s provision and for me to continually remember that my ability to survive and provide depended directly on his provision. We have experienced both times of significant physical blessing and times of lean income that have frequently moved me to prayer and reflection

3 seeking God's provision. I have had to wrestle firsthand with the questions, "Is

God able and willing to sustain me?" and "Am I willing to trust him?"

In 2006, my family sent me to Israel for my fortieth birthday, joining a study tour led by two Old Testament professors, an Archaeologist, and their undergraduate students. While in Israel, I became engaged in multiple unsolicited conversations about historical and geographical challenges related to the Israelites ’exodus and wilderness journey narratives and felt personally drawn to investigate these stories when I returned home. Fourteen years later, I feel both more connected to these materials than ever before, and equally passionate about the God they reveal, his reasons for creating, his plans for his world, his desires for people, and the incalculable depth and breadth of his love and care.

Over the years, I have also come to increasingly appreciate the narrative shape which Exodus' writer(s) gave this story and the message it, too, conveys about

God's sovereignty and transcendence.

After a five-month departure from my eighteen-year position noted above,

I took a hybrid position with this employer for which I now a receive both a base income and commission. However, even with a regular foundation to build on, rebuilding the momentum needed to recover financially took time, and frequently reminded me that we still depend just as much on the Lord's provision as we ever have. That reality never changes. Each day, we rise learning to trust his provision more than we did the day before.

In this role, I now come alongside unemployed or dislocated workers who are eligible for assistance to pursue professional certifications which employers

4 seek in candidates for high demand positions. Over time, without recruiting them, many found me, or someone referred them to me. Some called me to schedule a meeting. Some just walked into our learning center, unannounced, asking to meet with me. They come from both central Ohio and from all over the globe seeking opportunities to provide for themselves and their families in a new land.

Some recently lost positions. Others lost their last job several months earlier.

Some immigrants were highly educated and accomplished people in their home countries but have faced challenges finding jobs in their chosen fields here. In many cases, I meet people at a low point in their lives seeking and needing help.

In this capacity, I've been blessed to function as a connector. If they have not already connected to resources that can fund their professional growth journey, I help connect them to those resources. Then I help them navigate the process of determining their eligibility to receive assistance so that they can develop skills that fit them while increasing the chances that an employer would notice them and consider them for a related long term, high demand role.

In each case, I listen to the individual's story, looking for clues to their previous learning experiences, the skills and knowledge they've already gained, how they are wired, what they are passionate about, and what goals they have for their future. I, then, attempt to help and guide them to learning plan options that fit whom they seem to be and could help them become what they desire to become. Gradually, as I have met these people from the world's nations, I have frequently reflected on the recurring biblical theme of God bringing the world's peoples to some of his own so that his own can bless those peoples in his name

(e.g. Joseph and Solomon). I began praying that God would give me the wisdom

I need to discern how and when I can bless these people in his name. Within the limits of my business role, how can I impact their lives beyond their careers so that when they think of me, they think of Him?

In a few cases, I have discerned some who are open to discussing God, prayer, Scripture, etc. and have had the privilege of getting to know them better.

Some of these have taught me much about faith, prayer, obedience, kindness, compassion, grace, and dedication. Like the journeying Israelites, some know the reality of asking, “Is God both able and willing to care for and provide for my family and me?” Some have asked themselves, "Am I willing to trust God to sustain me?" and "Do I trust him with my life?" They remind me that I too am still learning to increase my trusting, knowing that I must depend on Him for my whole life. Too frequently, in moments of quick decision I have felt led to make specific God honoring choices only to opt for following my own instinct. Every time I have done this, I regrated it later. Some of these people whom I have helped physically have encouraged me to obey God’s voice more than I have encouraged them.

Biblical Foundation

The Biblical Foundation section, first, views the Israelites’ wilderness journey through the lens of Exodus 19:3-8, which begins a covenant event frame completed by Exodus 24:1-11. These two passages bind together all of Exodus

19-24 into a single covenant event (Childs 1974, Old Testament Context--Exodus

24:1-18; Durham 1987, 260-261). Exodus 19:4 prompts readers to remember

God’s actions depicted in the accounts between Exodus 5:1 and 19:2. Exodus

19:4 also builds on the Lord’s leading concern in Exodus: to make his name known to the Israelites, to the Egyptians, and to the nations by prompting the

Israelites to remember that the One who just delivered them from their enemies is the universe's Creator who intends to bring blessing to the world’s peoples through them. Exodus 19:5, 7-8 prompts the Israelites (and readers) to dedicate themselves to obeying the Lord’s voice, so that they may fulfill their role as God’s priestly-holy kingdom-nation. Exodus 24:1-11 sanctifies the Israelites for their role, based on their commitment to obey the Lord’s voice (Blackburn 2012, 83-

119). This opening portion of the Biblical Foundation section will help participants/readers first to wrestle with questions such as: “Who is the Lord?”;

“How do we know him?”; “What does the Lord desire of his people?”; and

“Toward what end?”.

Second, since narrative writers facilitate a story's impact not about but through its characters, plot, and setting, reading and retelling the Israelites’ journey narrative faithfully must account for how Exodus’ writer(s) utilized characters, plot, and setting as contributors to the narrative shape he/they gave this story. If our reading or retelling changes character traits, their actions, the plot, or its setting, we modify the impact the story’s writer(s) intended it to make on readers and hearers. Beginning with Exodus 19:1-2, the Biblical Foundation section will help readers trace Exodus’ clues that determine the setting for

Exodus 19-24 while exploring its relationship to two additional strategically interrelated episodes: Exodus 2:15b-4:23; Exodus 17:1-18:27. It will examine

7 how Exodus’ writer(s) established and maintained unity across the longer narrative by subdividing it into shorter episodes, by linking each episode to a specific location, by developing characters that live and stay in specific locations, by demarcating changes from one episode to another through some characters moving between locations, by conveying the passing of time within or across individual episodes, and by conveying spatial proximity between characters and elements within an episode’s local setting (Walsh 2001, 120-125; Cotterell and

Turner 1989, 241-247; Köstenberger and Patterson 2011, 245-250, 595-596;

Bar-Efrat 2004, 131-175, 181-184; Levinson 1983, 79-83; Cruse 2011, 401-410;

Brown and Yule 1983, 46-54). It will also demonstrate that these clues revealing narrative shape cumulatively convey that Moses, after fleeing Egypt, settled in the land of Midian (northwestern Arabia), married Reuel/Jethro’s daughter

Zipporah with whom he fathered two sons, and lived among them for many years before the Lord appeared to him while he shepherded Jethro’s flock at Horeb, in proximity to Jethro’s home. Within their conversation, the Lord tasked Moses to serve as his human agent to lead Abraham’s descendants from Egypt to this mountain where they spoke.

Third, the Biblical Foundation Section will help readers begin wrestling with the expanse of God’s mission as they observe God doing something in the land of Midian strategically significant for his mission (Exodus 2:23-25 within

Exodus 2:15b-4:23).

Theological Foundation

The Theological Foundation section locates this project’s approach within an arc formed by Hans Frei’s and Stanley Hauerwas’s narrative theologies, as well as by Jacob Goodson’s emphasis that philosophically sound narrative theology needs both Frei's and Hauerwas's approaches mediated by cultivating humility, patience, and prudence as interpretive virtues.

Hans Frei developed narrative theology on the unity of the Bible’s cumulative narrative, which, then, provides the logic for interpreting it (Frei 1980,

282-324). Frei envisioned Christian theology that respects how biblical narratives

“mean” beginning, like a novelist who captures a character’s personality, by retelling the stories of God acting on and in history through both Israel and Jesus, for his creation (Frei 1976, On Interpreting the Christian Story; Frei 1980, 105-

136; Placher 1989). Frei employs Erich Auerbach’s work on narrative’s significance as a literary category to conceive how the Bible leverages narrative through both its micro patterns and macro structure to maintain its own coherence (Auerbach 2003, 554-558). Frei, then, bases his narrative theology on ways the Bible uses narrative. Narrative, for Frei, served as a tool for grasping the Bible’s logic and flow, so that one can be absorbed into its world (Frei 1993b,

145-152). Frei observed the Bible’s narratives describing God forming those who read them into his people through Jesus Christ. If God forms people, through their Bible reading, then believers must pay close attention to both its details and to its overall narrative structure (Frei 1993b, 145-152).

Stanley Hauerwas founds narrative theology on the continuity between

Scripture and Christian tradition’s trajectory, which, then, guides readers on interpreting Scripture (Hauerwas 1981, 89-110). “Where does Scripture fit within

Hauerwas ’narrative theology?” In With the Grain of the Universe: The Church’s

Witness And Natural Theology, Hauerwas uses “narrative” to denote continuity between Israel, Jesus, and the church’s traditions. He considers it theology's task to constructively describe how this community works (Hauerwas 2013, 205-241).

Hauerwas defines "narrative theology” as the Christian tradition’s unfolding as

Israel, the Bible, and the church embody it, and understands the church as a specific type of interpretive community reading the Bible for moral and theological reasons. In Unleashing Scripture, Hauerwas locates the Bible’s literal sense not in its actual words, but in the ways believers use it, claiming that the Bible only makes sense when the church interprets and enacts it (Hauerwas 1993, 39-44,

19-28).

Jacob Goodson's analysis helps balance the strengths of both Frei's and

Haurwas' approaches by grounding theology in hermeneutics that allows biblical narratives to shape theological investigation. Goodson developed a philosophical framework for how one could implement Frei’s hermeneutical bases by cultivating humility, patience, and prudence as interpretive virtues (Goodson

2015, 167). Goodson sees Thomas Aquinas’ reflections on humility, patience, and prudence to depict hermeneutical virtues as a way of reasoning specifically within the Christian tradition (MacIntyre 2007, 204-225; Goodson 2015, 168-170).

Goodson adds that, for hermeneutics to function as a virtue-centered craft or

10 science of interpretation, we should view it as a set of techniques encompassing specific skills that we acquire by cultivating the hermeneutical virtues humility, patience, and prudence. Goodson also explores how every interpreter can implement them while navigating the biblical narratives’’literal sense, with/among those who share our conviction that these texts make up “Scripture” (Goodson

2015, 168-174, 180-181).

Thomas Aquinas, building on both Paul’s and James’s writings, treats humility, patience, and prudence as both moral and intellectual virtues (Aquinas,

Summa Theologiae II.2.161.1). People cultivate humility both by God’s gift of grace, and by pursuing it. Goodson highlights Aquinas’ discussion of humility as an intellectual virtue and expands on it to claim that humility is a hermeneutical virtue required by those conducting theological investigations (Goodson 2015,

170-171). How does humility, as a hermeneutical virtue, counter specific interpretive vices? Kevin Vanhoozer answers that pride commonly tempts religious readers, who seek to “master” the text, by elevating their own commentary to greater importance than the text itself, thus neglecting the

“other’s” voice in favor of their own and ignoring their own finitude (Vanhoozer

2009, 463-465).

Thomas Aquinas reflected on James’ use of patience as a moral virtue in contrast to vices such as self-indulgence, gluttony, and injustice, and considered patience to be a type of courage, both a moral and an intellectual virtue (Aquinas,

Summa Theologiae, II.2.136.1). While humility allows for other virtues in the hermeneutical task, Aquinas considered patience to facilitate the context in which

11 other virtues develop by removing obstacles to their development (Aquinas,

Summa Theologiae, II.2.136.1). This allows us to make meaning in non-coercive and non-violent ways--after we receive it (Goodson 2015, 173-174). Aquinas also emphasized our character as interpreters, developing habits that complement

Scripture’s literal sense, maintaining the biblical narratives’ integrity by enabling an ordered diversity that does not force an interpretation onto Scripture that excludes other potentially true interpretations, preserving the way the words run

(Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.1.1.10; Aquinas, The Power of God, Question 4.

Article 1).

How does prudence work as an interpretive virtue? Eugene Rogers claims that when Thomas Aquinas uses “literal sense” he does not endorse one overarching meaning for a text, but promotes an ordered diversity of readings, which are evaluated outside of hermeneutics within the discipline of ethics and in the particular task of practical wisdom, or “prudence” (Rogers 1996, 64).

Goodson asks, “What is the literal sense’s nature?” Frei answers that the literal sense, in contrast to the allegorical sense, incorporates the grammatical- syntactical and storied senses (Frei 1993a, 111). Goodson goes further, encouraging interpreters to ask, “How does my relationship with the text affect its literal sense?” and “If I were to properly evaluate my interpretations, what kind of interpreter should I seek to become?” Goodson considers questions like these to constitute more ethical ways of approaching a text’s literal sense through practical wisdom and interpretive prudence (Goodson 2015, 181-183). So, the

12 literal sense’s “ordered diversity” preserves’“the way the words run” and mandates prudence as an interpretive virtue (Goodson 2015, 184-185).

Historical Foundation

The Historical Foundation section examines the question, “When the exodus story’s earliest post-biblical interpreters retold this story through their written testimonies, how did they perceive its primary story elements--characters and setting?” Exodus’ earliest post-biblical interpreters were Jewish scholars from both Egypt and Palestine who, between the third century B.C. and the late first century A.D., reflected on the story and testified to how they understood key

Exodus’ characters and their setting. They perceived that Moses fled Egypt and settled in the land of Midian, in northwestern Arabia. They identified “Arabia” as

Arabia Felix, the Arabian Peninsula, and located the city of Madian(m), Jethro and Zipporah's home, east of the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba at the site of the modern

Arabian town of Al-Bad and located Mount Sinai near the city of Madian(m).

Thus, they located the setting of Exodus 16-24 in northwestern Arabia. Early

Christian interpreters between the second and early fifth centuries A.D. also reflected consistently on key Exodus characters and their setting. They testify that, after he fled Egypt, Moses settled in the land of Midian, east of Aila, in the town of Madian, and married into Reuel/Jethro’s family (a descendant of

Abraham and Keturah). They located Mounts Horeb and Sinai near Madian, next to the desert of the Saracens called Pharan, and placed Rephidim (Exodus 17-

18) close to both. Ancient Jewish and early Christian collective testimony concerning the setting and characters depicted in Exodus 2:15b-4:23 and

Exodus 17:1-18:27 is remarkably consistent with the narrative shape of the book of Exodus sketched in the Biblical Foundation section of this paper.

Today, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim pilgrims as well as religious/educational tourists--following a telling of the Exodus story which re- locates its setting--fly into the Cairo airport and travel 6-8 hours to the “Holy

Monastery of Sinai,” at Jebel Musa, in the southern Sinai Peninsula, understanding that they are following the Israelites’ path from Egypt to Mount

Sinai (Bar and Cohen-Hattab 2003, 131-148), to “the very place where God appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, beneath the Mount of the Decalogue”

(Mount Sinai Foundation 2018, General Information; Mount Sinai Foundation

2018, The Pilgrimage; Mount Sinai Foundation 2018, Mount Sinai Monastery;

Paliouras 1985, 7-8). The exodus story clearly continues to wield great power to move people to invest significant resources in response to and in support of how they understand its setting. How, then, did readers across the centuries develop this alternative setting to the exodus story? The Historical Foundation Section, then, examines a complex series of events that unfolded between the early-mid third century A.D. and the early-mid sixth century A.D., and that produced ripple effects first across the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and then across the centuries to shape the perspectives of present-day readers and tourist/pilgrims.

Contemporary Foundation

The Contemporary Foundation chapter recognizes the premise that God intended the Israelites to remember and recite together all that he had accomplished for and through them, so that their future generations would not

14 forget. Nonetheless, when we view Israel's history in panorama perspective, many Israelites disobeyed the Lord. Psalm 106 explains the reason for this as the Israelites forgot what the Lord had accomplished through these very wilderness experiences. Using Carla Dahl's discussion of formation through the lens of the social sciences as a starting point (Dahl 2011a, 15-36, Dahl 2011b

37-52), I explore how recent research on the nature of remembering and forgetting can help us better understand our own remembering and forgetting in order to more fully obey the Lord's voice.

Our finitude shapes every aspect of our existence, even our remembering and forgetting. First, just as we are all born in relationship our memories are also born in relationship, from the experience stimuli triggered by our interaction with others (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 126-127). Second, at any one time, we can never recall everything we are capable of remembering about anything but fall victim to “mnemonic silences” (Marsh 2007, 16-20; Stone,

Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2012, 39-53). These "mnemonic silences" impact both speakers and listeners. When we converse with others, a speaker’s selective retrieval can encourage both the speaker and listener(s) to forget information related to the material she/he recalled but failed to recite.

Additionally, when we converse with others and a speaker repeats something which both she/he and/or the listeners already know(s), both are likely to better remember later this preexisting memory. We remember what we practice, and we more likely forget what we do not practice (Hirst and Echterhoff 2011, 61-73;

Levy and Anderson 2002, 299-305; Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 136;

Karpicke and Roediger 2007, 159-161; Coman, Momennejad, Drach, and Geana

2016, 8171).

Our finitude also locates us temporally, geographically, linguistically, and culturally, and thus limits our perspective accordingly. Our individual location influences what we assume to be true about God, the world, ourselves, and others. These assumptions, mores, can prompt us to miss some of the Bible’s details which original audiences considered significant and understood to reinforce specific meaning (Richards and O'Brien 2012, Mores) and can lead us to project onto the Bible our assumptions and values, encouraging us to think that some interpretations of its content are obvious while others are impossible.

These realities call us to more closely examine a given biblical text’s message to make sure we hear what it is claiming and not claiming and examine whether or not our interpretation of that text adds ideas not found within it or omits important ideas which the text actually articulates (Powell 2007, Social Location; Billings

2010, 145-148; Richards and O'Brien 2012, Introduction, Mores, Language).

This principle remains consistent with Hans Frei’s emphasis on interpreters maintaining Scripture’s “plain sense” (Frei 1980, 300-324; Frei

1993b, 117-152). It also remains consistent with Jacob Goodson’s call for interpreters to conceive and maintain Scripture’s “plain sense” (leveraging both

Frei’s and Hauerwas’s narrative theologies) as its literal senses tested over time through religious leaders properly using and making prudential decisions through/with biblical narratives (Goodson 2015, 185-187).

Context

I began this project with the intent of implementing it within Marysville

Grace’s life group system, either with one of its existing life groups or by creating a new group. Marysville Grace constitutes one congregation within the Charis

Fellowship (CF) of congregations, known before 2018 (and after 1976) as the

Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches (FGBC), a voluntary association of more than 260 congregations in the United States and Canada.

Though I originally intended to implement this project within Marysville

Grace’s Life Group structure, multiple factors occurring during early 2020 hindered doing so. First, most of Marysville Grace’s life groups already committed to a common congregational wide study. Second, though Lead Pastor

Clancy Cruise gave his blessing for me to invite participants from among those members not participating in existing life groups, not enough of those committed to constitute a study group. Third, nine friends from other local congregations who had heard about this study through our family/friends network wanted to participate. Two of these attend Marysville Church of Christ. One is an elder at

Marysville Christian Church. Three attend LifePoint Church, in Delaware, OH.

Two attend Haven Community Church in Marysville, OH. One attends

Cornerstone Community Church in Westerville, OH. Fourth, though we intended to hold these sessions at Marysville Grace’s ministry center on Sunday afternoons between February 23, 2020 and April 5, 2020, due to the COVID-19 shutdown, we only held the first four sessions in person, before holding the final three sessions using Zoom, making this a blended learning study.

The COVID-19 shutdown, further, moved two participants to withdraw from the February-April study so they could adjust to our new reality. One person withdrew due to health complications. One participant withdrew after completing five sessions because his employer needed him to work six to seven days per week, twelve to fifteen hours per day, during the shutdown. As a result, only five participants completed the February 23-April 5, 2020 series. Thus, once some adjusted to social distancing, I reconnected with two who had withdrawn after attending three of the first four sessions, with an additional person who wanted to attend the earlier series but could not, and with the previous participant who had completed the first five sessions. I re-led the seven-week series, through Zoom, between April 26, 2020 and June 7, 2020 for initially three participants. The fourth participant who withdrew earlier after completing five sessions rejoined the study for sessions six and seven. As a result, when combining the five who completed the February-April study with the four who completed the April-June study, nine participants completed this seven-session series.

Project Goals

The purpose of this project was to impact the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice through a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey. Our culture frequently accepts and encourages amnesia regarding the past in general and about biblical stories in particular. Fellow believers sometimes demonstrate forms of amnesia regarding the Bible’s central narratives which shape how we think and live. The Bible’s account of God delivering the Israelites from Egypt and leading them to Mount

Sinai constitutes one of these identity shaping stories, and one of the stories most impacted by this gradual amnesia outbreak to the point that we are currently experiencing a story emergency. I pray that this project can contribute to the development of antidotes for this amnesia. Toward this end, this project sought to accomplish the following goals.

1. To impact the participants’ understanding of obeying God’s voice.

2. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s actions in

Israel’s wilderness journey fuels our obedience to his voice.

3. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations.

4. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice.

5. To impact the participants' commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation.

Design, Procedure, and Assessment

The research question was to what extent has a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice? This project consisted of seven eighty-minute small group Bible study sessions centered on the Israelites’ journey narrative (Exodus 12:33-19:2).

The research method for this project consisted of administering pre and post-tests centered on fifteen quantitative questions developed to measure each of the project’s five goals, with three questions assessing each individual goal. I

19 associated with these fifteen quantitative questions a seven-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Participants rated each quantitative question between one and seven: (1) Strongly Disagree, (2)

Moderately Disagree, (3) Slightly Disagree, (4) Neutral, (5) Slightly Agree, (6)

Moderately Agree, and (7) Strongly Agree. During the post test, participants also answered five qualitative questions, one associated with each of the project’s five goals.

During the week before each session, I distributed study questions to help participants read Exodus-- along with selected additional passages related to

God’s mission and his people’s role--acquainting them with features of Exodus’ narrative, with the events it recounts, and with the wilderness journey. Ultimately, through these questions, I intended, first, to draw their attention to where the exodus events fit within God’s plan, to what God was in the process of accomplishing through this journey, to the ways the Israelites responded to God, and to the role which God was calling Israel to fill in his mission. I have included a study questions sample as Appendix Three.

Personal Goals

My earliest professors and my personal ministry experiences engrained within me the desire to honor and represent the Bible’s stories in the way their original writers told them, to the best of my ability. Through many experiences I have grown concerned that our culture at large and at least some of our fellow believers are at risk of forgetting this very story which the Israelites forgot, prior to

(or part of) their failure to obey the Lord’s voice. I do not wish follow in those footsteps. Toward this end, I have established the following personal goals:

1. I will more fully obey God’s voice as I discern more clearly how he makes his name renown among the nations.

2. I will discern more clearly how God continues forming me.

3. I will become more aware that when I obey God's voice, I serve his creation.

Definition of Terms

Location Deixis: Narrative writers locate most individual episodes within a single location and provide clues, location deixis [linguistic indicators specifying location], which convey that episode’s setting (Köstenberger and Patterson 2011,

245-250; Walsh 2001, 119-124; Bar-Efrat 2004, 172-174; Brown and Yule 1983,

46-54; Levinson 1983, 79-83; Cruse 2011, 401-410; Cotterell and Turner 1989,

239).

Boundary Markers: Within a larger narrative, changing locations signals the end of one episode and the beginning of a new one (Bar-Efrat 2004, 131-

175, 181-184; Walsh 2009, 18-19). Writers often mark the transition between episodes through statements denoting movement (Walsh 2001, 122; Bar-Efrat

2004, 171-174). When writers demarcate episodes by bookending statements of movement to highlight location changes, they apply a form of literary symmetry which discourse analysts recognize as an Inclusio or an Inclusion to establish the episode’s boundary markers. Thus, narrative writers use a variety of boundary marker types to demarcate an episode’s beginning and end (Walsh 2001,

Inclusion; 2009, 57-60, 64; Cotterell and Turner 1989, 241-247; Köstenberger and Patterson 2011, 595-596).

Inclusio (Inclusión): In a culture driven by oral communication, writers crafted various forms of symmetry into literature to help hearers comprehend important attributes of their messages, such as an episode’s beginning and end, and built this symmetry into a text's wording. Thus, a biblical narrative’s verbal fabric can reveal the limits of a unit of text by marking off its beginning and end using an Inclusio that functions as a type of boundary marker. The inclusio directs hearers/readers to associate everything between the beginning and ending markers to be related (Walsh 2009, 107-111; 2001, Inclusion; Cotterell and Turner 1989, 241-247; Köstenberger and Patterson 2011, 595-596).

Dominant Narrator: In a group's conversation the person who speaks a greater percentage of the time, and who introduces into the discussion memories not shared by at least one group member, has the potential to make the greatest impact on the group’s collective memory and sense of identity. This person functions as the dominant narrator (Cuc, Ozuru, Manier and Hirst 2006, 754-761;

Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 133-134).

Mnemonic reinforcement or Practice Effects (PE): If a speaker in a conversation repeats something which both she/he and/or the listeners already know(s), then both are likely to better remember this preexisting memory later

(Coman, Momennejad, Drach, and Geana 2016, 8171). Jeffrey Karpicke and

Henry Roediger, in Repeated Retrieval During Learning is the Key to Long-Term

Retention, call this phenomenon the “mnemonic reinforcement effect” or “practice

22 effects” (Karpicke and Roediger 2007, 159-161). Mnemonic reinforcement and practice effects are, thus, synonymous terms denoting the outcome of group members reciting together an aspect of their shared past (e.g. a God story).

Retrieval induced forgetting (RIF): When a speaker’s selective memory retrieval encourages both the speaker and listener(s) to forget material, related to the recalled material, which the speaker failed to recollect, she/he can trigger

“retrieval induced forgetting” (Hirst and Echterhoff 2011, 61-73).

Socially shared-retrieval induced forgetting (SS-RIF): Listening to a speaker remember selectively can induce a listener to forget information related to what the speaker shares. A speaker can influence listeners to retain some memories over others, can remind listeners of forgotten information, can reshape listeners’ existing memories, and can implant new memories. When a speaker recounts a story about the past only partially, listeners often retrieve information in sync with the speaker. As the speaker omits elements of the story, listeners retrieve an incomplete version of that story, and like the speaker, forget more about that unmentioned information than they would if the speaker had not recounted the event at all. Multiple research teams labeled this phenomenon socially shared-retrieval induced forgetting (SS-RIF). SS-RIF, though, does not depend simply on the speaker’s ability to recall. Listeners, by their level of active participation in the conversation and the degree to which they think critically about the speaker’s message, still control whether or not they fall victim to SS-

RIF (Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst 2007, 727-732; Coman, Brown, Koppel and Hirst

2009, 137).

Plan of the Paper

This chapter acquaints readers with this project by providing them with a big picture perspective on what I attempted to accomplish through this project.

The rest of this dissertation provides a more detailed perspective of this project’s theoretical foundations, my experiences while implementing it, and its implications for current ministry as well as for future research. Chapter 2 anchors the project to its biblical, theological, and historical foundations. Chapter 3 completes the project's anchoring into its contemporary foundation. Chapter 4 describes how I designed the project, the procedures I used to implement it, and how I assessed its impact. Chapter 5 analyzes the project's impact based on participant responses. Chapter 6 explores the project’s implications for current ministry practices and for future research.

CHAPTER TWO BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS In 1729, when he was only four, Thomas Olivers lost both his parents in close succession, and was passed on to be reared by relatives. He received little education and was apprenticed to a shoemaker. At 18 years old, he became involved in a scandal which forced him to leave his home and travel to Bristol, where he heard George Whitefield preach on the text, “Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” (Zechariah 3:2). In response, Oliver changed his life and eventually joined the Methodist Society at Bradford-on-Avon where he met John

Wesley. While Olivers earned money shoemaking, Wesley recognized Olivers’ talent and, in 1753, recruited him to preach. Olivers collaborated with Wesley for

36 years, during which time he wrote twenty hymns. Throughout his ministry

Olivers enjoyed good relations with Great Britain’s Jewish community. After visiting the Great Synagogue of London in 1770, Olivers loosely translated Daniel ben Judah’s hymn “Yigdal,” publishing it as “The God of Abraham Praise”

(Jenkins 1959; Watson 2004; Olivers 1772).

The God of Abraham praise, who reigns enthroned above; Ancient of Everlasting Days, and God of Love; Jehovah, great I AM! by earth and heaven confessed; I bow and bless the sacred name forever blest. The great I AM has sworn; I on this oath depend. I shall, on eagle wings upborne, to heaven ascend. I shall behold God's face; I shall God's power adore, and sing the wonders of God's grace forevermore.

Biblical Foundation

The purpose of this project was to impact participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice through a small group blended learning study of Israel’s

25 wilderness journey. The Biblical Foundation section views the Israelites’ journey through the lens of Exodus 19:1-8 and Exodus 24:1-11, which frame a single covenant event binding together all of Exodus 19-24 (Childs 1974, 497-511;

Durham 1987, 260-261). Exodus 19:3-8 and Exodus 24:1-11 help participants wrestle with questions such as: “Who is the Lord?”; “How do we know him?”;

“What does he desire?”; and “Toward what end?” Exodus 19:1-2, when read in view of the setting established by Exodus 2:15b-4:23 and 17:1-18:27, helps participants locate this story’s original setting, and honor it in their own retelling.

Exodus 19:3-8

The opening frame, Exodus 19:3-8 raises the pivotal questions: “Who is the Lord?”; “How do we know him?”; and “What does he desire?”

Who is the Lord? How do we know Him? (Exodus 19:3-4)

Once the Israelites camped in the Sinai wilderness, the Lord summoned

Moses up the mountain and voiced his instructions (Exodus 19:3). The Lord’s timing reveals how urgent he considers the Israelites’ recognizing and obeying his voice. Moses, too, models obeying the Lord’s voice (Stuart 2006, 421).

The Lord cited his actions depicted in Exodus 5-18 as events they witnessed (“You have seen what I did…”; Exodus 19:4). These actions extended his leading concern which propels Exodus’s plot: to make known the Lord’s name to the Israelites (Exodus 6:2-9; 10:1-2;16:9-12; 29:43-46; 31:12-17), to the

Egyptians (Exodus 7:1-7, 14-19; 8:9-11, 20-24; 9:13-19, 27-35; 11:4-8; 14:1-4,

15-18), and to the nations (Joshua 2:8-11; Blackburn 2012, 15-18). When the

Lord delivered them, the Israelites experienced him as sovereign over Egypt and

26 its gods (the plagues), over life and death (the final plague), and over the created elements (the sea crossing). They also experienced him as transcendent across space and time (Acts 7:2-34), and faithful to his promises (Exodus 2:23-19:2). In the process, he answered the questions “Who is the Lord?” and “How do we know him?” The Lord, then, reminded the Israelites that, during this journey

(Exodus 12:33-19:2), he cared for and trained them as a mother eagle would her eaglets (Deuteronomy 32:10-12; Fretheim 2010, 208-214; Meyers 2005, 146).

Toward what end? God’s Blessing and Desires (Exodus 19:5-8)

After the Israelites witnessed God delivering them, they may conclude that he was interested primarily in them. Yet, from the vantage point of his mission to creation, he was not. As the universe’s Creator, God owns all creatures (Exodus

19:5b) and can do with them what he wants. He demonstrated this repeatedly through the plagues he inflicted against Egypt (Exodus 5-15; Wright 2010, 118).

Exodus 19:5b) appears ; ֙הָלֻּגְס) ”The Lord’s term for Israel “treasured possession eight times in the HB/OT. Twice it denotes the king’s personal treasure

(Ecclesiastes 2:8; 1 Chronicles 29:3). The other six occurrences identify the

Israelites, not as the Lord’s only possession, but as the people whom he selected from among the nations (Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Psalm

135:4; Malachi 3:17) as a unique entity (Blackburn 2012, 89) to help the earth’s peoples come to know him (Durham 1987, 262-263; Enns 2000, 388, 398).

Considering the Israelites as a “priestly kingdom” and “holy nation” reveals the role the Lord called them to serve. When read together, “nation” and

“kingdom” denote a single entity owning land, and relating with other nations

(Fretheim 2010, 208-214; Blackburn 2012, 15-18, 88-95). “Priestly” and “holy”

(Exodus 29:30; 31:10; 35:19) imply that God intended the Israelites to function among the nations like priests. What role did Israel’s priests serve? First, God set apart priests to mediate his presence and blessing to others. Second, priests taught God’s instruction to the people (Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 33:10;

Malachi 2:6-7; Hosea 4:1-9). Third, priests offered sacrifices before God so that the Israelites could approach him (Leviticus 1-7). Fourth, priests blessed the people in the Lord’s name (Numbers 6:22-27). Fifth, priests lived their lives to bless other Israelites (Goheen 2011, 36-40; Anizor and Voss 2016, 32-39). God, then, intended the Israelites to remember whom he had demonstrated himself to be, to obey his voice as his chosen and newly delivered priestly-holy people, and to serve the world by representing him to its peoples and its peoples to him

(Sarna 1986, 136-137; Enns 2000, 386-387; Durham 1987, 262).

Exodus 24:1-11

The rite Moses transacted in Exodus 24:3-8 formalizes the Israelites’ agreement to follow the Lord’s instructions given in Exodus 20-23. The encounter with God which Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and Israel’s elders experienced

(Exodus 24:1-2, 9-11) signifies that, in light of their commitment, God moved the

Israelites into the sanctity realm required by his covenant.

What does the Lord Desire? (Comparing Exodus 19:3-8 and Exodus 24:1-11)

If Exodus 19:3-8 and Exodus 24:3-8 frame a single event, then they likely share some ideas. First, “you shall say and tell” (19:3); “the words you shall speak” (19:6b); “set before them the words” (19:7); “came and told all the words

28 and ordinances” (24:3); “wrote down all the words” (24:4a); and “read the book of the covenant in the people’s hearing” (24:7) collectively emphasize the Lord’s commitment to teach the Israelites his goals for them, and provide a record so that they remember these experiences (Meyers 2005, 145-150), live as his priestly/holy people, and faithfully recount these experiences as they retell them

(Exodus 24:4a, 7a; Deuteronomy 4:1-14; 6:1-25; Fretheim 2010, 255-260; Sarna

1986, 134-144). As Deuteronomy 4:9-10a stressed, remembering is critical to their obeying. Faithfull retelling is critical to their remembering.

Second, “if you obey my voice and keep my covenant” (19:5); “Everything the Lord has spoken we will do” (19:8); “All (the words) the Lord has spoken we will do” (and will obey; 24:3b, 7b), combined with the repetitions noted above, stress that the Lord’s words, spoken by his voice (Exodus 20-23), and faithfully recorded and told by Moses and Israel’s elders (19:7; 24:3-4a), constitute the

Lord’s covenant to which he invites the Israelites to commit (Fretheim 2010, 255-

257). The Israelites’ response, “We will do/obey” underscores their agreement to accept their role (Meyers 2005, 205-207).

Toward what end? (How does Exodus 24:3-8 relate to Exodus 24:1-2, 9-11?)

Moses’ choice, in Exodus 24:4, to build an altar (conveying the Lord’s presence) and twelve pillars (representing Israel’s tribes) and to sprinkle blood on the people (Exodus 24:8), suggests that God sanctified the Israelites through his actions (Durham 1987, 343; Enns 2000, 494). Two other occasions depict blood applied to a person. Exodus 29:20-21a and Leviticus 8:23-30 depict Aaron and his sons being ordained as priests. Leviticus 14:7-14 depicts ritually cleansing a

29 leper who is then pronounced clean. Applying blood to someone moves them between sanctity realms. Moses applying blood to the Israelites, then, suggests that God moves them from the realm common to all to the realm of those He selected to further his mission. Exodus 24, then, depicts the Lord sanctifying the

Israelites for their priestly calling to the world (Blackburn 2012, 95-99).

Understanding Exodus 24:3-8 as a sanctification ceremony helps us discern its relationship to 24:1-2 and 24:9-11. Source critical interpreters have understood 24:1-11 as two different accounts of the same event born in separate sources merged during Exodus’ final editing (Propp 2006, 147-148, 150-154).

However, before they could share the meal in the Lord’s presence (Exodus 24:9-

11), the Israelites needed the Lord to move them into the realm which that covenant required. If God, through this Exodus 24:3-8 ceremony moves the

Israelites between sanctity realms (Nicholson 1982, 74-83), then it achieves what

Exodus 24:9-11 requires. The Lord’s instruction to bring on to the mountain

Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and Israel’s elders so they could share this meal in his presence (Exodus 24:10-11) confirms that he has moved them into the realm of the holy (Blackburn 2012, 95-99; Nicholson 1982, 74-86).

Summary: Exodus 24:1-11

Exodus 19:3-8 and 24:1-11 form an inclusion framing a single event

(Exodus 20-23) and share several ideas which depict the Lord voicing instructions to Moses for the Israelites to obey as his covenant people. Moses relayed these to Israel’s elders, who taught them to the Israelites, then recorded them in the Book the Covenant and read them so the Israelites’ heard (Exodus

19:3, 6b, 7 and Exodus 24:3a, 4a, 7). For the Israelites to be the Lord’s priestly kingdom, they must commit to obeying his voice (Exodus 19:5, 8; 24:3b, 7b).

Once they do, the Lord moves them into the sanctity realm required by their role.

Faithful Reading and Retelling

The form of any written discourse exhibits the writer’s means for facilitating her/his meaning, making it impossible to separate a text’s message from its form (Ryken 1984, 28-29; Frei 1980, 9-15; Goldberg 2001, 13-15). We

Westerners often favor expository discourse, which explains information, as the form for conveying truth (Bauckham 2015, 27-31; Ryken 1984, 11-33). Literary discourse, in contrast, embodies an experience and speaks through action, sights, and sounds to help readers share it (Ryken 2015, 17-26). Stories, as literary discourse, require three elements: plot (actions/events), characters (who act or experience), and setting--the space/time arena in which characters act

(Ryken 1984, 35). Since characters cannot act outside of space/time, they cannot exist without a story’s setting (Ryken 2015, 27-38). Storytellers communicate, then, not about but through characters, plot, and setting (Ryken

2015, 11-16).

How do these discourse principles help us read and retell Exodus’ account of Israel’s journey? When we retell God’s stories, we do not merely recite verbatim, we interpret (Meretoja 2018, 1-13). Sternberg reminds us that theologians, biblical scholars, linguists, literary critics, and historians all must initially interpret the biblical text. Interpreting it well begins with aligning one’s goals with the nature and shape of that text (Sternberg 1987, 25-42). As

Deuteronomy 4:9-10a stresses, remembering Exodus’ experiences of God delivering is critical to obeying his voice. Faithfully reading and retelling Exodus’ story, allowing its built-in communicative attributes to prompt the experience of

God its writer(s) intended, is critical to remembering. Thus, reading and retelling

Exodus’ story, allowing its built-in communicative attributes to rekindle the experience of God it was designed to reignite, is critical to obeying His voice.

Since narrative writers communicate through a story’s characters, plot, and setting (Ryken 2015, 11-16), if, when we retell this story, we change its character’s attributes, or relocate them to a different setting, our interpreting fundamentally changes the means through which this story conveys its message and creates its effect. Exodus’ writer(s) depicted its characters, their actions, and setting to help hearers and readers experience God’s faithfulness, sovereignty, transcendence, and care. We, then, cannot retell this story faithfully while overlooking how Exodus leverages these elements. When we do, we lose something vital God intends to give us through it.

Exodus 19:1-2 and the Setting of Exodus 19-24

Before the Lord instructs Moses and commissions the Israelites, the writer reflects on the journey from Egypt, and moves the Israelites from their camp at

Rephidim (Exodus 17-18) to their camp at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:1-2).

Exodus 19:1-2: Parameters of the Wilderness Journey

When we say that we are assessing the impact which a small group study of the Israelites’ wilderness journey makes on the study’s participants, what do we mean by “the Israelites’ wilderness journey”? Their journey began when they

32 left Egypt (Exodus 12:33-36) and ended when they camped at Mount Sinai’s base (Exodus 19:1-2-Numbers 10:11). But, when the Israelites arrived at Mount

Sinai, in which setting where they located?

Character Development and Setting

Hebrew narrative writers, consistent with written discourse principles, convey their intentions by the shape they give their stories (Sternberg 1987, 16).

They also establish and maintain unity across longer narratives by dividing them into smaller episodes, differentiating between episodes by changing locations

(setting), by switching characters, and by highlighting time references (Walsh

2001, 119-123; Brown and Yule 1983, 35-50; Levinson 1983, 79; Fuhr and

Köstenberger 2016, Boundary Features).

Writers locate most individual episodes within a single location, and convey that episode’s setting through linguistic clues specifying location (location deixis; Köstenberger and Patterson 2011, 245-250; Walsh 2001, 119-124; Bar-

Efrat 2004, 172-174; Levinson 1983, 79-83; Cruse 2011, 401-410; Brown and

Yule 1983, 46-54; Cotterell and Turner 1989, 239). To account for the setting of

Exodus’ opening episode, multiple elements within Exodus 1:1-2:15a locate its setting within the land of Egypt. First, Exodus 1:1-7 identifies Jacob’s descendants as “the sons of Israel who moved to Egypt with Jacob,” while

Jacob’s son Joseph already lived in Egypt. Second, the human character who dominates the episode’s two opening scenes, 1:8-21 and 1:22-2:10, is Egypt’s new king who did not know Joseph. The other characters within these scenes are those Egyptian subordinates who do the Pharaoh’s bidding (Exodus 1:9, 11, 13-

14, 22), the Israelites whom he ordered to be controlled through forced labor and genocide (Exodus 1:9, 12), the midwives (Exodus 1:15-20), and his daughter, who rescued a Hebrew boy from genocide and raised him as her own (2:5-10).

Third, when this boy, Moses, grew into an adult (Exodus 2:1-11) and witnessed an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave, he killed that Egyptian and buried him in the sand. When Pharaoh discovered Moses’ deed, he tried to kill him (2:11-15a).

Every aspect of these four opening scenes, Exodus 1:1-7, 1:8-21, 1:22-2:10, and

2:11-15a, locates their setting in the land of Egypt. The writer(s) of Exodus 1:1-

2:15a demarcate it as a unified episode, and maintain its unity by using location deixis to establish a common spatial setting (the land of Egypt, Pharaoh, the Nile

River, etc.; Walsh 2009, 23-32, 107-120; Bar-Efrat 2004, 90).

Movement, Boundary Markers, and Literary Symmetry

Within a larger narrative, writers distinguish between episodes by changing locations (setting), marking the transition between episodes using statements denoting movement (Bar-Efrat 2004, 131-175, 181-184; Walsh 2009,

18-19; Walsh 2001, 122). When the Pharaoh attempted to kill Moses (Exodus

2:15a), Moses fled one location (the land of Egypt) and traveled to another--the land of Midian (Exodus 2:15b; Wells 2009, Midian). Thus, the location-setting change noted by Exodus 2:15b marks the beginning of a new episode.

When writers demarcate an episode’s boundaries by bookending statements of movement to highlight setting changes they apply a form of literary symmetry which discourse analysts consider an Inclusio or an Inclusion (Walsh

2001, 57-60, 64; Cotterell and Turner 1989, 241-247; Köstenberger and

Patterson 2011, 595-596). In this episode, we find statements similar to Exodus

2:15b appearing again in Exodus 4:19-23, when the Lord instructed Moses (still) in the land of Midian, that it was time for him to go back to Egypt (4:19) and

“when you go back to Egypt…” (4:21a; statements preparing readers to expect movement). So, Moses went back to Egypt carrying God’s staff in his hand

(Exodus 4:17, 20b). Exodus 4:24 begins with “on the way” (back to Egypt).

Again, we find statements expressing movement—this time away from the land of Midian and back to the land of Egypt. Exodus 4:19-23, then, marks the ending of the “land of Midian” episode and the transition to another “land of Egypt” episode. Exodus’ writer(s), thus, established the unity of this episode (Exodus

2:15b-4:23) by delineating its spatial setting in the land of Midian.

The Setting of Exodus 2:15b-4:23: Characters, Time, and Space

One-way writers convey setting within an episode is through the characters they develop (Walsh 2001, 120-121, 125). Within this episode,

Pharaoh, along with the Egyptian details common to Exodus 1:1-2:15a, fades from view while new characters emerge. Moses takes over as the leading human

in the land of Midian (Exodus 2:15b), and commits to (בֶשֵׁ֥ יַּ ו) character, settles

Kerkeslager ;יַל גֻי־ת ֶיּ וֻיַּ וַל הֶׁ֖יַֹּ ג בֶשׁ ּ֥יַ ו staying with Reuel’s family (Exodus 2:21-22

2000, 35-39). Reuel’s daughters emerge, including Zipporah, whom Reuel gives to Moses as a wife, and with whom Moses fathered two sons (Exodus 2:15b-22;

4:20; 18:2-3; Meyers 2005, 62, 136).

A second way writers develop an episode’s setting is by conveying the passing of time (Walsh 2009, 53-62; Walsh 2001, 122-123). Temporally, Moses’

35 shepherding Jethro’s flock (Exodus 3:1) builds on his agreement to “stay with the

and continues conveying the duration of time he lived in (וֻיַּ וַל man” (Exodus 2:21 the land of Midian. Other features that express the passing of a significant amount of time include Moses fathering two sons with Zipporah while living among her family (Exodus 2:21-22; 4:18-20; 18:1-6), and the narrator’s insertion that “after a long time” Egypt’s king, the Pharaoh of the oppression whose death threat against Moses prompted him to flee Egypt, died (Exodus 2:15a, 23a;

4:19). By the time Moses returned to Egypt and appeared before a new Pharaoh he was eighty years old (Exodus 7:7). Stephen (or Luke) understood that Moses lived in the land of Midian for forty years (Acts 7:23-34; Exodus 2:11, 15b; 7:7;

Krodel 1986, 144-146).

A third way writers develop setting within an episode is by conveying spatial proximity (Walsh 2009, 43-44). When Moses tended Jethro’s flock, the writer implies that he led them to pasture and water in proximity to Jethro’s home

(Exodus 2:15b-22; 3:1). The writer(s) first established this expectation when

Reuel’s daughters led their father’s flock to a well near his home (Exodus 2:15b-

22). Since it is unlikely that Reuel’s daughters merely watered the flock without feeding them, they likely also pastured Reuel’s flock near their home, and then wound up at the well. They apparently had time to return home once from the well, return to the well to invite Moses to dinner, and then return home that same evening with Moses in tow (Exodus 2:18-21). Though this does not necessarily mean that, when Moses shepherded Jethro’s flock to Horeb (Exodus 3:1-4:17) he returned to Jethro’s home that same day (Exodus 4:18), it does not preclude

36 this either. It does suggest, though, that Moses remained in relative proximity to

Jethro’s home. The writer(s) further imply proximity when Jethro later (Exodus

18:1-5, 27) navigated from his home to Horeb and back (Propp 1999, 171; Propp

2006, 752; Kerkeslager 1998, 70-89).

One scene within this episode (Exodus 3:1-4:17) includes that extended conversation in which God tasked Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

During this conversation, Moses responded to the Lord’s calling by questioning his own fit-ness (Exodus 3:10-11). The Lord promised to be with him, and gave him a sign that, after he led the Israelites out of Egypt, he would worship the Lord on this mountain—near Jethro’s home (Exodus 3:12; Propp 1999, 633-634).

When Moses led the Israelites to Rephidim (Exodus 17:1-18:27), the writer(s) repeated location details and reintroduced characters that had not appeared since the first land of Midian episode (Exodus 2:15b-4:23) to set up the expectation God was about to fulfill this promise to Moses (Childs 1974, 326-32;

Jaeyoung 2017, 291-293). First, after the Israelites established their camp at

Rephidim, the Lord summoned Moses to meet him at “the rock at Horeb,” from which he would provide water for the thirsty Israelites (Exodus 17:5-6; 3:1). In this scene Moses returned to the area where he earlier conversed with God

(Exodus 2:23-4:17). Second, while Moses and the Israelites camped at

Rephidim, Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro came into that wilderness bringing

Zipporah and her (Moses’) sons (Exodus 18:1, 5-12, 27; 2:21; 4:20-21, 25).

When Jethro offered sacrifices celebrating all God had done for Israel’s sake, and when Moses, Aaron, and Israel’s elders, with Jethro, ate a sacrificial meal in

37 the Lord’s presence, they worshiped God near “the rock at Horeb” (Exodus 18:8-

12). Moses, then, experienced God fulfilling the promise he made in Exodus 3:12

(Morales 2016, 121-143; Wells 2009, Midian).

The Exodus writer, thus, by using location deixis to link characters with specific locations, established proximity between Jethro’s home, the mountain of

God, Rephidim, “the rock at Horeb,” Mount Sinai, and the land of Midian. Further, he links the characters and events presented in Exodus 2:15b-4:23 with those presented in Exodus 17:1-18:27 to portray the setting of both episodes as the land of Midian. In the 8th century B.C., God, through Isaiah, reflected on the events depicted in Exodus 17:1-16, as occurring at the “rock at Oreb/Horeb” in

(the land of) Midian (Isaiah 10:26 [10:5-27]; Judges 7:24-25).

The setting of Exodus 2:15b-4:23 and Exodus 17:1-18-27, as depicted by the shape of Exodus’ story, governs the direction of the Israelites’ journey depicted in Exodus 12:33-18:27 as a journey from Egypt to the land of Midian.

Retelling this story faithfully (in light of its characters, plot, and setting) should account for how this story celebrates God sovereignly delivering his people while transcending space (earthly kingdom boundaries—Ur, Haran, Canaan, Egypt, and Midian) and time (fulfilling his promises across generations). In light of

Exodus’ narrative shape, retelling this story faithfully, rather than deemphasizing the time Moses lived in the land of Midian (Hoffmeier 2005, The Wilderness

Itineraries-Exodus 3:1), should prompt us to ask at least, “Why does Exodus’ narrative shape stress Moses’ and God's activity in the land of Midian?”

Summary and Transitions

Exodus’s narrative shape highlights the significance of the time Moses lived in the land of Midian, where God appeared to and called him from Horeb, instructing him to return the Israelites there. Exodus’ writer used the common techniques of a leading character moving from one location to another to distinguish episodes within the larger narrative, of linking characters specifically with each new episode’s location, and of wrapping an episode within an Inclusio to establish boundary markers identifying this land of Midian episode (Exodus

2:15b-4:23). Further, he used multiple techniques to convey the passing of a long period of time while Moses lived in the land of Midian. Finally, the writer applied these techniques to establish a common location between the episodes recorded in Exodus 2:15b-4:23 and Exodus 17:1-18:27, locating both in the land of Midian.

When we consider the function of the remaining passage within this first land of Midian episode, Exodus 2:23-25 makes readers aware that more is happening in these events than meets the eye. God, transcending time, is fulfilling the promises he made to Abraham to bless the world’s peoples through his descendants (Exodus 2:24; Genesis 12:1-3; 15:12-16). The position of

Exodus 2:23-25 within the first land of Midian episode (Exodus 2:15b-4:23) implies a theological connection between God’s promises to Abraham, his mission to/for his world, the role he intends his people to serve, and the land of

Midian. This passage prepares readers to expect to see God doing something in the land of Midian strategically significant for his mission (Acts 7:23-34 [6:8-

7:53]). Within the episode, this passage also functions to prepare readers for the

39 conversation Moses has with God (Exodus 2:23, 25 and 3:7-9; 2:24 and 3:6).

Theological Foundation

We should not . . . force such an interpretation on Scripture as to exclude any other interpretations that are actually or possibly true, preserving the way the words run: this extends to the integrity of Holy Scripture, that under the one literal sense many others are contained. It is thus that the sacred text not only adapts itself to the diverse intellects of human beings, so that each marvels to find their thoughts expressed in the words of Holy Scripture; but also is all the more easily defended against unbelievers... when one finds his own interpretation of Scripture to be false he can fall back upon some other...Consequently, every truth that can be adapted to the sacred text, preserving the way the words run without prejudice to the literal sense, is the sense of Holy Scripture. (Aquinas, On the Power of God, Question 4. Article 1)

Hans Frei develops narrative theology on the unity of the Bible’s cumulative narrative, which, then, provides the logic for interpreting it (Frei 1980,

282-324). Stanley Hauerwas founds narrative theology on the continuity between

Scripture and Christian tradition’s trajectory, which, then, guides readers on interpreting Scripture (Hauerwas 1981, 89-110). Jacob Goodson demonstrates that philosophically sound narrative theology needs both approaches, and requires interpreters to adopt three virtues: the humility to yield their authority to the Bible, allowing biblical narratives to speak on their own terms--in “the way the words run;” the patience to allow biblical narratives to reveal multiple meanings; and the prudence to wisely consider and balance others’ interpretations

(Goodson 2015, 19-26, 33-54, 167-192). The Theological Foundation section locates this project’s approach within an arc formed by Hans Frei’s and Stanley

Hauerwas’s narrative theologies, as well as by Jacob Goodson’s emphasis that we cultivate humility, patience, and prudence as interpretive virtues.

Hans Frei’s Narrative Hermeneutics

Hans Frei traced the ways Christian theologians interpreted the Bible across the centuries and observed that most pre-modern theologians interpreted the Bible literally, as a realistic narrative that told the world’s overarching story, and made sense of their own lives by locating themselves within that story. This story’s coherence made possible "figural" interpretation (Frei 1980, 1-16, 17-50).

Frei also observed that European scholars, who bridged the 17th and 18th centuries, began distinguishing between narratives and their subject matter, locating their meaning in this separate subject matter. They, further, began allowing their own experiences to define what they considered “real,” and attempted to locate the Bible’s meaning in their world rather than attempting to locate themselves in its world (Frei 1980, 5-8).

Many Christian theologians during the 18th and 19th centuries, then, changed how they handled biblical narratives. First, they applied historical critical methods as if the Bible’s narratives existed merely to recount historical events.

Second, they handled biblical narratives as if they existed to provide general lessons which they could apply to their time (Frei 1980, 9-10, 17-18, 51-65). Frei argued, and William Placher agrees, that both approaches overlook biblical narratives’ literal reading, and distort their actual meaning (Frei 1980, 10-16, 307-

324; Frei 1974, 29-74; Placher 1989). Goodson, following Frei, concurs that, over the last 200 years, Christian theologians who initiated their process by referencing human experience, and who then attempted to link it to the Bible, have treated biblical narratives in primarily these two ways, tempting us toward

41 both revolving the interpretive process around ourselves, and idolizing our own ideas (Goodson 2015, 50-51).

Frei envisioned Christian theology, that respects how biblical narratives

“mean,” beginning, like a novelist who captures a character’s personality, by retelling the stories of God acting on and in history, through both Israel and

Jesus, for his creation (Frei 1976, On Interpreting the Christian Story; Frei 1980,

105-136; Placher 1989). Frei envisioned “narrative theology” produced by theologians who allow biblical narratives to take the lead when developing philosophic and systematic theology (Frei 1980, 307-324).

Frei employs Erich Auerbach’s work on narrative’s significance as a literary category to conceive how the Bible leverages narrative through both its micro patterns and macro structure to maintain its own coherence (Auerbach

2003, 554-558). Frei, then, bases his narrative theology on ways the Bible uses narrative, and urges Christian theologians, philosophers, and believers to perceive narrative theology as part of Christian theology rather than the reverse.

Narrative, for Frei, served as a tool for grasping the Bible’s logic and flow, so that one can be absorbed into its world (Frei 1993b, 145-152). Frei observed the

Bible’s narratives describing God forming those who read them into his people through Jesus Christ. If God forms people, through their Bible reading, in this way, then believers must pay close attention to both their details and to its overall narrative structure (Frei 1993b, 145-152).

Springs observed Frei’s conviction that his work would facilitate a

“generous orthodoxy” between liberals and evangelicals, without merely

42 summarizing either position (Springs 2010, 184-185). Frei understood the Bible to foster a “literal sense” interpretive etiquette that encompassed individual believers and their Bible reading communities “bending” and “stretching” to accommodate diverse emphases within and implications outside its stories (Frei

1993b, 117-152). Goodson considers Frei’s leading contribution to modern theology to be his recognizing that both “conservative” and “liberal” Christians understand the Bible’s narratives to reference something outside themselves.

Conservative or evangelical Christians make the Bible’s “truth” depend on how well it “gets the facts right,” which implies that the biblical narratives’ meaning depends on historically or scientifically verifying the events to which they refer.

More liberal Christians base the biblical narratives’ meaning on the universal principles to which they refer. Both perspectives demonstrate how deeply

“ostensive reference” dominates the ways Christians handle the Bible’s narratives, perpetuating the modernist distinction between narratives and their subject matter (Goodson 2015, 48-50).

Stanley Hauerwas’ Narrative Hermeneutics

Jacob Goodson introduces Stanley Hauerwas’ theological reasoning by using Mark Ryan’s work to explore connections between Hauerwas and philosophers such as Elizabeth Anscombe (Goodson 2015, 55-58). Anscombe argues that coherent, complete, and consistent practical reasoning must link to both human agency and to the politics of actual communities who practice their beliefs together in ways others comprehend (Anscombe 1958, 1-19; Ryan 2011,

1-2, 15-50, 51-98). Stanley Hauerwas’ early work builds on Anscomb’s “practical

43 reasoning,” and establishes the necessary link between human agency and practical reasoning (Hauerwas 1994, 56-61). Hauerwas also envisioned the church functioning as a political community that grounds practical reasoning in theological ethics (Hauerwas 1991, 96-115). However, Hauerwas’ theological ethic attempts to transform readers into ecclesial-centered practical reasoners who remain aware of their moral agency (Ryan 2011, 99-146). Goodson considers that Hauerwas seeks to satisfy and improve on Anscombe’s standard of practical reasoning, and his practical reasoning proves both coherent and complete (Goodson 2015, 57).

“Where does Scripture fit within Hauerwas’ approach to practical reasoning?” In With the Grain of the Universe: The Church’s Witness And Natural

Theology, Hauerwas uses “narrative” to denote continuity between Israel, Jesus, and the church’s traditions. He considers it theology’s task to constructively describe how this community works (Hauerwas 2013, 205-241). Mark Ryan sees

Hauerwas recognizing the Bible’s emphasis on narrative as the impetus for

Christians remembering the connections between their past and Jewish history

(Ryan 2011, 127-130). Hauerwas defines “narrative theology” as the Christian tradition’s unfolding as Israel, the Bible, and the church embody it, and understands the church as a specific type of interpretive community reading the

Bible for moral and theological reasons. In Unleashing Scripture, Hauerwas locates the Bible’s literal sense not in its actual words, but in the ways believers use it, claiming that the Bible only makes sense when the church interprets and enacts it (Hauerwas 1993, 39-44, 19-28).

As Goodson observes, Hauerwas creates dialogue between

“heroes”/“witnesses” and “villains.” “Witnesses” reason practically about the

Christian life, and develop the skills needed to witness truthfully. Their lives develop Christian virtues so that their actions and testimony witness in a manner worthy of the truth Jesus Christ embodied and the narrative he makes possible.

Eventually, the witness’s life takes on the shape of that very narrative (Hauerwas

1995, 31-57; Hauerwas 2013, 65-86, 87-112; Goodson 2015, 58-60).

Hauerwas concludes that theological metaphysics expresses itself through narrative, because narrative links to the nature of reality. We did not create ourselves, and we Christians inherit a story which God wrote and in which we participate. This story continues with or without us. Narrative helps us articulate how we become part of a community determined by a story counter to the one we ourselves write. Christian theologians, for this reason, study the Bible to cultivate humility and patience so that the world learns that our stories depend on

God’s story, and that God’s story continues (Hauerwas 2015, 146-149;

Hauerwas 2001, 54).

Jacob Goodson’s Virtue-Centered Philosophical Foundation

Jacob Goodson developed a philosophical-theological foundation for interpreting the Bible’s narrative’s scientifically. He proposes grounding theology in hermeneutics that allows biblical narratives to shape theological investigation, and developed a philosophical framework for how one could implement Frei’s hermeneutical bases by cultivating humility, patience, and prudence as interpretive virtues (Goodson 2015, 167). Goodson sees Thomas Aquinas’

45 reflections on humility, patience, and prudence to depict hermeneutical virtues.

He also recognizes Alasdair MacIntyre’s reflection on Aquinas, that, since both

Aristotle and his disciples (e.g. Baruch Spinoza, and David Hume) considered humility to be a vice rather than a virtue, examining humility and patience as virtues, therefore, reasons specifically within the Christian tradition (MacIntyre

2007, 204-225). Eugene Rogers observes that Thomas Aquinas considered theology to be both a craft and a science (Rogers 1996, 73). Goodson adds that for hermeneutics to function as a virtue-centered craft or science of interpretation, then, we should view it as a set of techniques encompassing specific skills. Goodson claims that we acquire those skills by cultivating the hermeneutical virtues humility, patience, and prudence, and explores how every interpreter can implement them while navigating the biblical narratives’ literal sense, among those who share our conviction that these texts make up

“Scripture” (Goodson 2015, 168-174, 180-181).

Humility

Thomas Aquinas, building on both Paul’s and James’s writings, treats humility, patience, and prudence as both moral and intellectual virtues. Paul establishes the humility Jesus Christ demonstrated in the incarnation as both a moral standard that helps us consider others as more significant than ourselves, and as an intellectual virtue of right reason, that moves us to humble ourselves before God, and to regard others’ interests in addition to our own (Aquinas,

Summa Theologiae II.2.161.1). People cultivate humility both by God’s gift of grace, and by pursuing it. Thus, those who refuse God’s grace, may pursue

46 humility as an intellectual virtue (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II.2.161.6).

Goodson highlights Aquinas’ discussion of humility as an intellectual virtue, and expands on it to claim that humility is a hermeneutical virtue required by those conducting theological investigations (Goodson 2015, 170-171).

How does humility, as a hermeneutical virtue, counter specific interpretive vices? Kevin Vanhoozer answers that pride commonly tempts religious readers, who seek to “master” the text, by elevating their own commentary to greater importance than the text itself, thus neglecting the “other’s” voice in favor of their own and ignoring their own finitude. Simultaneously, sloth commonly tempts scholarly readers to ignore a reader’s freedom and responsibility, thus treating texts inattentively, and indifferently (Vanhoozer 2009, 463-465). Goodson, follows Vanhoozer’s reasoning that humility counters the common temptation to make idols out of our interpretations, highlighting its function as an interpretive virtue (Goodson 2015, 171-172).

Patience

Thomas Aquinas reflected on James’ use of patience as a moral virtue in contrast to vices such as self-indulgence, gluttony, and injustice, and treated patience as a type of courage, both a moral and an intellectual virtue. When people grumble against each other they fail to display the types of patience exhibited by farmers waiting for the earth to produce fruit once it receives the seasonal rains, by biblical prophets who spoke in God’s name while waiting for him to act, and by Job’s example of persevering while waiting. Aquinas considers patience an intellectual virtue that safeguards our minds against sorrow

(Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II.2.136.1).

Goodson, following Eugene Rogers (who also follows Aquinas), argues that patience is a necessary hermeneutical virtue which theologians and philosophers can perform while becoming virtuous readers, without necessarily possessing those virtues (Rogers 2006, 173-175; Goodson 2015, 174). Aquinas considered patience to facilitate the context in which other virtues develop by removing obstacles to their development (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae,

II.2.136.1). While humility allows for other virtues in the hermeneutical task, and ensures that we properly receive meaning from the Bible’s narratives, patience works alongside humility to safeguard the potential for developing other virtues by removing obstacles to their growth, which allows us to make meaning in non- coercive and non-violent ways--after we receive it (Goodson 2015, 173-174).

John Howard Yoder incorporated patience concretely into his non-violent, pacifist epistemology, offering nineteen ways patience functions as part of teaching and learning within Christian theology and religious ethics (Yoder 2005,

24-44). For Yoder, patience is a necessary intellectual virtue because engaging in conversation takes time and hard work, requiring each participant to practice intellectual patience and willingness to dialogue with the Bible’s narratives in ways that move us to self-reflect and self-critique, remaking ourselves in response to their call on us (Yoder 2005, 24-44). Jacob Goodson adds

Interpretive Patience which thinks alongside biblical narratives, without necessarily asserting their meaning, and which remains open to other interpretations (Goodson 2015, 180-181). To claim that we make meaning

48 requires from us serious patience to navigate the process that begins when we read and ends not merely when/if we grasp the text in our minds, but when we allow our interpretations to shape our actions. When we use hermeneutical questions as part of theology, we suggest that interpreting is a craft, a set of techniques that incorporates specific skills (Goodson 2015, 180-181).

Prudence

Aquinas understood our relationship with the text’s literal sense in light of our relationship with God. God, as Scripture's author, signifies his meaning through it, not only through words but also through what its words signify (the first historical/literal sense), and through what he signifies through the entities which the words signify (a second/spiritual sense). This second/spiritual sense is based on and presupposes the historical/literal sense (Aquinas, Summa Theologia,

I.1.1.10). Aquinas also emphasized our character as interpreters, developing habits that complement Scripture’s literal sense, maintaining the biblical narratives’ integrity by enabling an ordered diversity that does not force an interpretation onto Scripture that excludes other potentially true interpretations, preserving the way the words run (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.1.1.10;

Aquinas, The Power of God, Question 4. Article 1).

How does prudence work as an interpretive virtue? Eugene Rogers claims that when Thomas Aquinas uses “literal sense” he does not endorse one overarching meaning for a text, but promotes an ordered diversity of readings, which are evaluated outside of hermeneutics within the discipline of ethics, and in the particular task of practical wisdom, or “prudence” (Rogers 1996, 64). To

49 illustrate, Goodson asks, “What is the literal sense’s nature?” Frei answers that the literal sense, in contrast to the allegorical sense, incorporates the grammatical-syntactical and storied senses (Frei 1993a, 111). Goodson goes further, encouraging interpreters to ask, “How does my relationship with the text affect its literal sense?” and “If I were to properly evaluate my interpretations, what kind of interpreter should I seek to become?” Goodson considers questions like these to constitute more ethical ways of approaching a text’s literal sense through practical wisdom and interpretive prudence (Goodson 2015, 181-183).

Goodson sees in Aquinas’ reflections a rationale for humility, patience, and prudence as necessary interpretive virtues. When we learn to interpret with humility and patience, our cultivating prudence, then, addresses the question,

“What do we do when Scripture adapts itself to human intellect’s diversity to the degree that we find our thoughts expressed in Scripture’s words (not in the sense that we claim to know a biblical passage’s meaning, but that we cautiously apply interpretive prudence and practical wisdom following “the way the words run”)?”

So, the literal sense’s “ordered diversity” preserves “the way the words run” and mandates prudence as an interpretive virtue (Goodson 2015, 184-185).

Connecting Frei’s and Hauerwas’s Narrative Theologies

Goodson articulates potential cooperation between Frei’s and Hauerwas’ narrative theologies by defining Scripture’s plain sense as religious leaders testing the Bible’s literal senses over time, by properly using and making prudential decisions with biblical narratives. Defining Scripture’s plain sense this way includes both Frei’s observation that its literal sense “stretches” into

Christian interpretation and Hauerwas’ insistence that Scripture’s plain sense takes shape as Christians interpret the Bible in community, applying it to moral and theological contexts. Scripture’s plain sense is neither fluid and completely vague, waiting for readers to inscribe meaning on/to it, nor is it merely the sum of the text’s structures apart from their contexts. Rather, Scripture’s plain sense is partly established by practitioners reading and consulting texts’ grammar and syntax. These textual norms restrict how practitioners read biblical texts and what they do with them. Simultaneously, what practitioners do with texts constrains how they view themselves and who become (Goodson 2015, 185-186).

Stanley Hauerwas’s narrative theology focuses on how prudence works for interpreting within a worshiping community that performs and witnesses to the

Bible’s narratives. Though Hauerwas addresses humility and patience in specific contexts, he does not apply them to the task of doing hermeneutics within theology. However, both humility and patience, not prudence alone, impact what kind of interpretive community we should become. Though Goodson argues that

Frei does not establish the necessity of humility and patience for doing hermeneutics within theology (Goodson 2016, 186-187). I would argue that, though Frei may not have used the specific terms “humility” and “patience,” his work nonetheless demonstrated their necessity and modeled them.

Summary and Project Connections

This project attempted to apply to Exodus Jacob Goodson’s “humility” and

“concrete patience” modeled by Thomas Aquinas’ reflections, by John Howard

Yoder’s delineation of patience, and by Hans Frei’s respect for how biblical

51 narratives “mean,” allowing Exodus itself--in the way its words run (both in its micro patterns and macro structure)--to lead the investigation, the message development, the small group discussions, and the retelling of this particular story about how God acted on and in history, through Israel, for his creation. I pray that doing so helped both participants and me find our lives in its world, and allow God to form us increasingly through it.

This project also attempted to apply to Exodus, to the small group discussions, and to the retelling of this story Elizabeth Anscombe’s “coherence” and “consistency,” as well as Jacob Goodson’s “prudence” modeled by Thomas

Aquinas’ reflections and by Stanley Hauerwas’ theological reasoning, as one path toward obeying the Lord’s voice through this Exodus story, for transforming participants into church-centered practical reasoners whose words and life witness to and take the shape of this story.

Though Hauerwas rightly observes continuity which the Bible’s narrative itself establishes between Israel, Jesus, the church, the church’s memory of who she is, and the process of who she becomes, by defining the Bible’s literal sense in a sphere external to it, his model can make adopters vulnerable to imposing onto the Bible’s narrative external grids of their own making that shape how they read, reconstruct, retell, and live its stories. This chapter’s Historical Foundation section illustrates, through Jewish and Christian history, how theological reflection that allows present experience to shape the way Bible readers understand a particular biblical story’s setting can produce unintended ripple effects lasting millennia.

Historical Foundation

Emphasizing the continuity between Scripture and tradition enables scholars to recognize that we do not study the biblical narratives alone, but rather, study alongside a long tradition of multiple perceptions (Interpretations)--and judgments made based upon these perceptions-- that determine the ways in which scholars and students engage with, interpret, and study the biblical narratives today. (Goodson 2015, 22)

We base what we claim to know on testimony from others to generate both practical insights for daily life and intricate theoretical frameworks (Coady

1992, 11). In practical contexts, we allow testimony from those we trust to correct our perceptions, in case we founded our judgements on our own subjectivity. In theoretical contexts, the social sciences and physics all base truth claims on current or past testimony. Further, early truth claims within any of these disciplines can, by the power of unexamined tradition, be perpetuated for many years by later testimony, even if that later testimony goes beyond what the authors of the original testimony actually intended (Coady 1992, 11, 21-27). The historical foundation section examines the question, "When the exodus story's earliest post-biblical interpreters retold this story through their written testimonies, how did they perceive its primary story elements--characters and setting?"

Jewish Testimony

Exodus’ earliest post-biblical interpreters were Jewish scholars who, between the third century B.C. and the late first century A.D., reflected on the story, and testified to how they understood its characters and setting.

Characters and Setting: Jethro, Zipporah, Moses, and the Land of Midian

The LXX/OG translators (about 250 B.C.) rendered the land of Midian

:(Μαδιαμסto which Moses fled in Exodus 2:15b as “Madiam” (γῆν ,(ן ִיַיְַ ה־ֶ ְֶֹֻּב)

Μαδιαμ); Numbers 25:18; 31:3, 7-9; Joshuaסand γῆς ה־ֶ ֶֻיְּב יַ ְַ ִ) Habakkuk 3:7

13:21; 3 Kingdoms 11:17-18 (Kerkeslager 1998, 70-76). They considered

“Madiam” a city with a council, located in northwestern Arabia (Numbers 22:4-7

and τῇ γερουσίᾳ Μαδιαμ), and identified Jethro as the town’s civic priest ה־ִֶֶֻב י־ ְֵ֥ ֶ

(Exodus 2:15-16; 3:1; 4:9; 18:1-5; Kerkeslager 1998, 70-76; Kerkeslager 2000,

35). Also in the third century B.C., Demetrius the Chronographer (222-205 B.C.), who lived in Alexandria during Ptolemy IV’s reign (222-205 BC) and could access

Alexandria’s library (Collins 2000, 27-30; Clement Stromata 1.141.8), identified

Zipporah as an Ethiopian living in northwestern Arabia, in the city of Madian

(Demetrius, cited in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 9.29.1-3; Kerkeslager

1998, 69-89).

The Alexandrian geographer Claudius Ptolemy (A.D. 100-160) identified the same town as Μαδια´μα (Madiama), located it in northwestern Arabia, and provided longitudinal coordinates locating it east of the gulf of Aqaba and about

111 km south of modern Eilat (Ptolemy Geographia 6.7.2, 27). The modern

Saudi Arabian town Al-Bad matches Ptolemy’s estimate of 111 km south of Eilat perfectly (Kerkeslager 1998, 70-76). Abshire, Gusev, and Stafeyev translated

Ptolemy’s coordinates into GIS readable data and confirmed that the city Ptolemy named Madiama (Μαδια´μα) corresponds to the site of the modern city of Al-Bad,’

Saudi Arabia (Abshire, Gusev, and Stafeyev 2016, 1-23).

Philo (25 BC-AD 50) considered Zipporah a Midianite Arab living in Arabia

Felix, the Arabian Peninsula (Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.47, 51-76; Kerkeslager

1998, 81-89). Thus, both Philo and his audience identified the location to which

Moses fled (Exodus 2:15b), as Arabia Felix, and believed that Moses' burning bush experience (Exodus 3:1-4:17) happened there (Philo, De Vita Mosis

1.47.51-52, 63-66). Philo portrayed Moses living in Arabia Felix for several years, shepherding Jethro's flock, and becoming the most skilled herdsman of his time

(Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.47, 51-76; Kerkeslager 1989, 81-89). Setting and Mount Sinai

Demetrius the Chronographer (222-205 B.C.) located Mount Sinai near

Madian(m), in northwestern Arabia, the same city the LXX translators envisioned, and the city in which Reuel/Jethro and Zipporah lived (Demetrius, cited in

Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 9.29.1-3; Kerkeslager 1998, 69-89).

The author of Jubilees (second century B.C.) provided the oldest post- biblical, Jewish statement locating Mount Sinai, aligning Mount Sinai, the Garden of Eden (southeastern Arabia; Jubilees 8:16, 19, 21; 9:2-4; Kerkeslager 1998,

91-94), and Mount Zion (Jerusalem) with each site facing the other (Jubilees

8:19; Kerkeslager 1998, 96). Whether the writer envisioned the sites aligning in a straight line or at points of an equilateral triangle, he, nonetheless, located Mount

Sinai southeast of Mount Zion and in northern Arabia (Kerkeslager 1998, 94-97).

Philo, like the LXX/OG translators, identified Mount Sinai as the tallest mountain near the city of Madian(m), in northwestern Arabia, east of the gulf of

Eilat/Aqaba (Philo, De Vita Mosis 2.70 [2.66-70]; Kerkeslager 1989, 81-89).

Josephus exhibited an interpreter from Israel who explicitly placed Mount Sinai by locating Rephidim (Exodus 17:1-18:27) near Petra, Jordan, directly east of

Mount Seir, and by identifying Mount Sinai as the tallest mountain near “the city

Μαδια´νη; Josephus, Antiquities 3.33, 39-40, 62; Daviesסof Madiane” (πο´λις

1979, 10), the same city which Ptolemy and other writers located east of the gulf of Aqaba (Ptolemy Geographia 6.7.2, 27; Kerkeslager 1998, 117-118).

Wilderness Journey and Its Setting

Between Egypt and the Sea crossing, Philo depicts God leading Moses and the Israelites first on a direct path through a desolate country, then on a winding path through an untrodden wilderness to the sea (Philo, De Vita Mosis

1.163-169). Between the sea and the mountain(s), Philo depicts God leading them through another uninhabitable wilderness of sandy plains, high mountains, little to no vegetation, water, or animal life (Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.181-195).

Summary--Jewish Testimony on Characters and Setting

Greco-Roman Jewish writers from both Egypt and Palestine testified about key Exodus characters and their setting, perceiving that Moses fled Egypt and settled in the land of Midian, in northwestern Arabia. They identified “Arabia” as Arabia Felix, the Arabian Peninsula, and located the city of Madian(m), Jethro and Zipporah's home, east of the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba at the site of the modern

Arabian town of Al-Bad and located Mount Sinai near the city of Madian(m).

Christian Testimony

Early Christian Greek and Latin scholars from the second to early fifth centuries A.D. considered Jethro and Zipporah to descend from Madian, one of

Abraham and Keturah's sons. They also believed that, when he fled Egypt,

Moses lived several years in the city of Madian (which Ptolemy identified as

Μαδια´μα in northwestern Arabia) among Zipporah’s family.

Characters and Setting: Zipporah, Moses, and Madian(m)

Origen (A.D. 185-254) considered Zipporah to descend from Madian, one of Abraham and Keturah’s sons, and believed that when Moses fled Egypt, he lived several years among Zipporah’s family, in the city of Madian, in northwestern Arabia, east of the Red Sea (Gulf of Aqaba). Thus, when God called Moses back to Egypt, he called him from there (Genesis 25:1-4; Exodus

4:21; Origen Homilies on Genesis, XI.23-28; Homilies on Exodus, IV; Selecta in

Genesim 39; Patrologia Graeca 12.120; Kerkeslager 1998, 124).

Setting: Pharan, Rephidim, Mount Sinai, and Madian(m)

Though Davies interprets Eusebius’ Onomasticon (A.D. 320) to locate the city of Faran (and the wilderness Pharan) west of Aila, in the southern Sinai

Peninsula, at Tell el-Mekharet at the northern end of the Wadi Feiran (Davies

1979, 31-33), and though, Davies claims that Eusebius located Rephidim in the southern Sinai Peninsula (Davies 1979, 32-33), Eusebius actually located the city of Faran next to the desert of the Saracens, in the wilderness of Pharan, three days journey east (not west) of Aila, (Eusebius, Onomasticon, Pharan.917;

Chōrēb.949). He located Mount Sinai next to the desert called Pharan, east of

Aila, and distinguished Mount’s Horeb and Sinai, locating Horeb nearby Sinai in the outlying countryside (χωρα) near the city of Madiam (Μα´διαμ; Eusebius,

Μαδια`μ) on theסOnomasticon 172). He, further, located the city of Madiam (πολι´ς far side of the desert of the Saracens, east of the Gulf of Aqaba (Eusebius,

Onomasticon 124; Madiam.652; Kerkeslager 1998, 124-126).

Jerome (A.D. 347-420) translated Eusebius' Onomasticon into Latin and

57 added his own commentary. Like Eusebius, Jerome located Pharan east of Eila, and located Rephidim and Mount Horeb close to Pharan. Yet, Jerome, unlike

Eusebius, considered Horeb and Sinai to be two names for the same mountain, not two distinct mountains (Jerome, Eusebius Onomasticon, 173 Horeb; Choreb).

Though Jerome sometimes disagreed with Eusebius, he agreed that Mount

Horeb/Sinai was located near the city of Madyan, in northwestern Arabia, east of the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba (Jerome, Eusebius Onomasticon 125 Madiam; 143

Rafidim; 167 Faran; 173 Choreb; Kerkeslager 1998, 129).

Summary--Christian Testimony

Post-biblical early Christian scholars—from the second through the early fifth century centuries A.D.—reflected consistently on key Exodus characters and their setting. They testify that, after he fled Egypt, Moses settled in the land of

Midian, east of Aila, in the town of Madian, at the site of the modern Arabian town of Al-Bad and married into Reuel/Jethro’s family (a descendant of Abraham and

Keturah). They located Mounts Horeb and Sinai near Madian, next to the desert of the Saracens called Pharan, and placed Rephidim (Exodus 17-18) close to both. Ancient Jewish and early Christian collective testimony concerning the setting and characters depicted in Exodus 2:15b-4:23 and Exodus 17:1-18:27 is remarkably consistent with the narrative shape of the book of Exodus sketched above in the Biblical Foundation section of this paper.

Christian Pilgrimage

Today, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim pilgrims as well as religious- educational tourists, following a telling of the Exodus story which re-locates its

58 setting, fly into the Cairo airport and travel 6-8 hours to the “Holy Monastery of

Sinai,” at Jebel Musa, in the southern Sinai Peninsula, understanding that they are following the Israelites’ path from Egypt to Mount Sinai (Bar and Cohen-

Hattab 2003, 131-148), to “the very place where God appeared to Moses in the

Burning Bush, beneath the Mount of the Decalogue” (Mount Sinai Foundation

2018, General Information; Mount Sinai Foundation 2018, The Pilgrimage; Mount

Sinai Foundation 2018, Mount Sinai Monastery; Paliouras 1985, 7-8). Recently,

South Sinai provincial governor Khaled Foda, speaking at an international conference on the development of religious tourism, reinforced this understanding by declaring the Sinai to be "the cradle of three world religions."

Deputy Minister for Antiquities Affairs Muhammed Abdel Latif added that St.

Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai is “an important religious site where Moses spoke to God.” Head of the State Committee for Tourism Development, Khisham ad-Dumari insists that the Egyptian government is ready to aid the Sinai's religious tourism by ensuring good roads leading to St. Catherine's Monastery, a suitable airport, and good hotels (Friends of Mount Sinai Monastery 2017, Egypt

Aims To Make Sinai A Place Of Pilgrimage). The exodus story clearly continues to wield great power to move people to invest significant resources in response to and in support of how they understand its setting. How, then, did readers across the centuries develop this alternative setting to the exodus story?

Changing the Story’s Setting

To answer this question, we must examine the interrelationship between a complex series of events that unfolded between the early-mid third century A.D.

59 and the early-mid sixth century A.D., and that produced ripple effects first across the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and then across the centuries to shape the perspectives of present-day readers and tourist/pilgrims.

Third Century A.D. Roman Instability and the Allegorical Method

First, in A.D. 235 Roman troops assassinated Emperor Severus

Alexander, initiating a fifty-year span which witnessed twenty-six emperors. In this politically unstable climate, the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under invasion, civil war, plague and economic depression (Gonzalez 1984, 85-88;

Grant 1985, 156-159). Fearing the threat that socio-religious groups who distanced themselves from the state could have on Roman stability, Emperor

Trajanus Decius (A.D. 249-251) ordered all citizens (except Jews) to offer sacrifices, before Roman magistrates, to the Roman gods, and to his well-being.

Though some believers yielded, many refused and were executed (Grant 1985,

156-159). Some Alexandrian believers who refused to sacrifice sought refuge in the deserts east and west of the Nile, including in the “Sinai” (Regnault 1999, 3-7;

Ward 2015, 44-47; Paliouras 1985, 8, 10).

Inspired by their new setting, and nourished by the Bible’s wilderness narratives, some found the surrounding desert inviting and chose to live there ascetically (Paliouras 1985, 8). By the end of the third century A.D., ascetics increasingly retreated to the wilderness (Regnault 1999, 4-5), where they read the Bible allegorically, and linked the Israelites’ wilderness journey and Mount

Sinai encampment to their new setting, by naming sites in their immediate vicinity after sites mentioned in Exodus (Smith 2007, 12-18; Limor 2001, 1-16). They,

60 thus, disassociated the wilderness journey narrative from the setting Exodus gives it, and from ancient Jewish and Christian testimony about both the life setting of Jethro's family into which Moses married after fleeing Egypt, and from their testimony about the location of Mounts Horeb and Sinai (Schwartz 2010,

355-374; Kerkeslager 1998, 67-131, 140; Paliouras 1985, 8, 10; Ward 2015, 4-8,

47-48).

Fourth Century A.D.: Constantine and Helena

Second, during the autumn of A.D. 324, Constantine declared his mother,

Helena, to be Augusta Imperatrix (Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3.47.2-3; Cohick and Hughes 2017, 111). In A.D. 327, moved by her desire to pray for her son in the "holy lands," to better understand the Bible (Eusebius, Vita Constantini 3.42-

47), by Constantine’s encouragement for her to embody imperial presence enhancing his building efforts, and by her pursuit of penance for Constantine’s and/or her own sin (Hunt 1984, 32-37), Helena searched the eastern empire for biblical sites she could label as topographically “Christian” (Dietz 2011, 110-113;

McClanan 2002, 14-16; Cohick and Hughes 2017, 110-115).

At least one tradition claims that Helena traveled to Egypt to retrace the

Israelites’ journey, where she learned about the Christian ascetics living in the southern Sinai Peninsula. Helena traveled to Jebel Musa where she encountered monks who, reading Exodus allegorically, had already named several sites in the area after Exodus sites, including naming Jebel Musa as Mount Sinai (Allen

2002, Kerkeslager interview; Melton 2007, 145, 232; Mount Sinai Foundation

2018, Saint Helena). Helena uncritically accepted their reinterpretation of

Exodus’ setting (Melton 2007, 231-232, 285-286; Paliouras 1986, 8-10; Mount

Sinai Foundation 2018, Saint Helena). When Helena returned from her voyage and shared with Constantine news of the sites she visited, he unquestioningly accepted the veracity of their and her testimony, and promoted the sites she identified as the authentic locations of biblical events, including the site of Jebel

Musa as Mount Sinai (Smith 2007, 11-14; Wilkinson 1999, 170-171).

From the fourth century A.D. onward, Christians began targeting the South

Sinai as a pilgrimage destination (Coleman and Elsner 1994, 77-78). According to Ward, the fourth-fifth century Antiochene theologian Theodoret testified that the Syrian Monk Julian Saba, motivated by claims of its connection to God and

Moses, built an altar and small church on top of Jebel Musa around A.D. 362. In response, Ephrem the Syrian considered Julian a Moses like hero (Ward 2015,

48-49). By the time Egeria, believing she was obeying God’s command, pilgrimaged to the Holy Lands and to Mount Sinai during late fourth century A.D.

(Limor 2001, 10; Sivan 1988, 66; McGowan and Bradshaw 2018, 23-26), monks living in the Sinai provided food, spiritual nourishment, and shelter to pilgrims within the mountain cells and valleys surrounding Jebel Musa and "the burning bush" (Ward 2015, 49). Egeria testifies that monks guided her journey along paths which they claimed the early Israelites traveled, identifying biblically important sites along the way by praying and reading aloud biblical texts they deemed appropriate for each site, thus tracing the Bible onto the “Sinai” landscape (Smith 2007, 11-14, 25-26; Leyerle 1996,126-129; Limor 2001, 12-14;

Coleman and Elsner 1994, 77-78; Sivan 1988, 59-72; Wilkinson 1999, 170-171).

By the late fourth century A.D. a large monastic community had settled around the site which they had named after the burning bush (Schwartz 1981, 7-14;

Schwartz 2010, 355-374; Paliouras 1985, 8, 10; Ward 2015, 4-8, 47-48).

Fifth and Six Centuries A.D.: Justinian

By the mid-fifth century A.D., numerous satellite monastic communities emerged in the southern Sinai Peninsula (Ward 2015, 47-48). In the mid sixth century (between A.D. 548 and A.D. 560), Emperor Justinian sponsored the construction of a church and the Monastery of Saint Catherine on the northwest slope of Jebel Musa (Ward 2015, 47-48), the site which had already become the traditional site of the burning bush (Coleman and Elsner 1994, 77). Justinian also sponsored a smaller church located on Jebel Musa’s peak, which had become the traditional site where Moses received the law (Coleman and Elsner 1994, 75-

77). Choosing architectures he borrowed from Constantine’s pilgrimage churches two centuries earlier, Justinian helped institutionalize imperially encouraged pilgrimages to the “Sinai” Peninsula (Coleman and Elsner, 73-89; Ćurčić and

Kenfield 2012, The Main Church of the Monastery).

As the anonymous Piacenza Pilgrim (570 A.D.) testifies, by Justinian's time (A.D. 527-565), Christian pilgrims increasingly targeted Jebel Musa as a pilgrimage site: carrying crosses, praying, singing hymns, and engaging in the

Eucharist at various stages along their journey, particularly as they neared the mountain (The Piacenza Pilgrim, 35-39). Monks assisted these travelers by leading them in worship, and by interpreting biblical texts to help them map the

Exodus story setting onto the “Sinai” landscape (Coleman and Elsner 1994, 78).

Perpetuating the Change

The Roman-Byzantine administration, then, through the powerful voices of

Constantine and Justinian, perpetuated this alternative setting and gave it the momentum it carries today. Built on this framework, recent scholars producing histories of Israel (Provan, Long, and Longman 2015, 185-186), Bible atlases

(Curtis 2007, 77-82), commentaries (Stuart 2006, 98-99), monographs (Kitchen

2003, 254-272; Hoffmeier 2005, 47-74, 111-148) and collaborations (Moshier and Hoffmeier 2015, 101-108) depict Exodus’ setting following this model that grew out of the early monks’ allegorical retelling of Exodus, which relocated its original setting in the land of Midian to a new setting in the “Sinai.”

Historical Foundation--Summary and Significance

The historical foundation section examined the question, "When the exodus story's earliest post-biblical interpreters retold it, how did they perceive its primary story elements--characters and setting?" The early Jewish and Christian writers, between about 250 B.C. and the early fifth century A.D., located its setting in the land of Midian (Northwestern Arabia), in the city of Madian (modern

Al-Bad), where Moses lived after fleeing Egypt, and marrying Reuel/Jethro’s daughter Zipporah. They located Mounts Horeb and Sinai near Jethro’s home.

Their testimony about Exodus’ characters and setting is remarkably consistent with Exodus’ narrative shape sketched above in this paper’s Biblical Foundation section.

In contrast, recent association of Mount Sinai with the “Sinai” Peninsula and current tourist/pilgrimages to the “Sinai” are built on a secondary setting for

64 the exodus story which did not emerge until Christian monks, living in the Sinai during the late third century A.D., read Exodus allegorically and named sites in their immediate vicinity after sites mentioned in Exodus. This tradition emerged disconnected from both Exodus’ narrative shape and from earlier Jewish and

Christian testimony concerning the setting of Jethro’s family and of the location of

Mounts Horeb and Sinai. Once Helena, then Constantine, uncritically accepted as authentic this alternative setting, and promoted it as genuine, the idea of relocating Exodus’ setting gained momentum it has never lost.

Following Deuteronomy’s lead (4:9-10), since faithful reading and retelling this particular story is critical to obeying the Lord’s voice, and since writers convey messages through a story’s characters and setting, then God, through telling this story in its original setting intends to give us something of him we would not otherwise gain. This project, thus, retold Exodus’ journey narrative setting as articulated by both Exodus’ narrative shape and by the earliest Jewish and Christian testimony concerning the exodus’ characters and their setting. Our goal was simply to tell this story according to its original shape and put ourselves in position to gain what God intends. As Chapter Three will expound, the elements we choose to include or exclude when telling God’s story can impact the way our listeners grasp, remember, and respond to what he has done. Since remembering and forgetting God’s mighty exodus deeds has directly impacted whether God’s people obeyed or disobeyed his voice, telling this great story from this particular perspective has been one part of my ongoing attempts to obey his voice.

CHAPTER THREE

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The world has changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it . . . . Some things, that should not have been forgotten, were lost . . . History became legend. Legend became myth. (Jackson 2001, Prologue)

Israel’s wilderness journey impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying

God’s voice?” The Deuteronomist and Psalmist link reading and reciting this story with shared memory, and link shared memory with obeying--while linking shared forgetting with disobeying. This chapter, then, explores formation, particularly how people remember and forget, to answer the question, “How can we foster climates which support shared remembering while guarding against collective forgetting so that we equip our members and ourselves to obey God’s voice?”

Broad Field of Research: Spiritual Formation

What is “spiritual formation”? Carla Dahl answers in Wholeness and

Holiness: Selves in Community with God and Others, that formation is a multifaceted process with several entry points, the outcome of God working on and in us while we align ourselves with him, open ourselves to his working, and listen for and to His invitations to take “the next step.” Formation’s multi- dimensional processes affect every aspect of our lives, incorporating intellectual work as well as emotional and psychological healing, relational integrity, spiritual

66 understanding, wisdom, and discernment (Dahl 2011b, 38-39).

What Formation is Not

Dahl, in Being and Becoming: A Journey Toward Love, also reminds us what formation is not. First, formation is not solely our responsibility. Though many self-help books encourage us to improve our performance, reputation, and income, they commonly encourage veiled attempts to control our environment, and can produce exhaustion and discouragement while devaluing God’s role in spiritual formation (Dahl 2011a, 20). Formation is also not solely God's responsibility. For centuries, God’s people have utilized spiritual practices to orient themselves before him, opening to his healing, equipping, exhortation, comfort, and nurture. Although people certainly can abuse spiritual practices, their intent was to help reorient ourselves before God (Dahl 2011a, 20).

Second, formation is not inevitable. Developmental theories can imply that we grow inevitably. Although we can sometimes grow in spite of our efforts, the type of “becoming” we consider spiritual formation does not happen merely because time passes (Dahl 201a1, 20-21). Third, formation is not linear.

Development metaphors frequently include steps and progression. However, metaphors of transformation, recapitulation, or of spiraled growth more accurately represent spiritual formation (Dahl 2011a, 21). Fourth, formation is neither unrelated to its context, ahistorical, or asocial. Rather the context(s) in which it occurs directly shape(s) the formational goals and processes which shape the person or community (Dahl 2011a, 21).

Formation and the Bible

All humans are in process. None have achieved the fullness of all she/he can become. How and by what means are we formed? As Jeannine Brown argues in Being and Becoming: The Scriptural Story of Formation, the Bible’s comprehensive story provides the best resource for addressing these questions.

Within the Bible’s plot, God’s relationship with people provides several opportunities for understanding human formation (Brown 2011a, 66).

Though not all of the Bible’s literature is explicitly narrative, the biblical canon implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) locates its non-narrative literature within the framework established by its narrative books, which use several storytelling and historiographical techniques that assert their collective story’s unity. Thus, the Bible tells a coherent story of God’s work (Bauckham 2003b, 38-

53; Bauckham 2015, 1-16; Brown 2011a, 66). Whenever any of us interpret any part of the Bible we both assume and assert a particular telling of the its comprehensive story (Brown 2007, 120-138; 232-251; Brown 2011a, 65-66).

When we understand the Bible’s story in its original context, we can draw from it theological and ethical insights, including what it means to be formed.

God's creational purposes, human existence, and formation

In order for humans to “become” something other than we are, we must first “be” something. Since our “formation” implies that we have an existing identity which is then re-shaped, we must ask, “What does it mean to be human?” Wyndy Corbin Reuschling, in Being and Becoming: The Trinity and Our

Formation, joins Jeannine Brown in reminding us that God created humans

68 inherently good and gifted us with our very lives (Genesis 1:26-27). He created us to bear his divine image (Genesis 1:26-27), to care for and rule his earth

(Genesis 1:26; Psalm 8), to image him by relating as male and female (Genesis

1:27), and to carry on his creative work (Corbin Reuschling 2011, 115). God himself, then, is the standard for understanding what it means to be human, and how he intends us to live (Brown 2011a, 66). God, then, filled human existence with dignity and worth (Corbin Reuschling 2011, 112-117).

Brown continues, God also created people as finite creatures. Humans fell, ironically, by trying to shed our finitude, to achieve godlike knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:5). Yet, anytime we put anything, including ourselves, in God's place we commit idolatry. God specifically intends that we, finite creatures, image him, and live in relationship with him. Imaging God, though imperfectly, propels people toward formation. While we affirm that God revealed himself to people, we must never forget our own finitude (Brown 2011a, 66-70).

Terence Fretheim, in God and World in the Old Testament, observed that

Yahweh calling the Israelites to be like him moves forward the OT theme of imaging God (Fretheim 2005, 41, 276). God intended Israel to carry forward his intentions for all humanity (Genesis 1:26). Brown observes that the Bible emphasizes God’s desire for the Israelites to reflect his holiness to those nations who do not yet know him as the one true God (Exodus 19:5-6). For the Israelites to live holy lives among the nations means more than looking differently from their neighbors. It means looking like Yahweh, their God (Brown 2011a, 66-67).

Brown’s observations continue, God’s faithful covenanting and Israel’s

69 pledged obedience provide the backdrop for Jesus’ vocation. NT writers saw in

Messiah, Jesus one who manifests God’s glory (2 Corinthians 4:1-6; Colossians

1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-4). Though the people struggled to obey (2 Kings 24:20-

25:21; Jeremiah 31:32; Matthew 2-4), Jesus, on behalf of Israel and its witness to the nations, embodied Yahweh’s identity and mission, faithfully demonstrating how to obey God’s voice (Matthew 2:2, 11; 3:3; 28:7, 17), even to the point of death. He, thus, fulfilled both God’s and our side of the covenant, making it possible for all those who trust God’s and his joint work to overcome idolatry

(Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:9), and to be fully restored in God’s image

(Romans 8:18-23; Colossians 3:9-10; Brown 2011a, 70-71).

Corbin Reuschling concludes, just as God built formation into human nature, he also founded our existence in relationships. We cannot come into existence without them and can only survive within them. We both depend on

God’s gracious gifts and inter-depend on others to live. When we acknowledge our inter-dependence, we recognize our similarities and our differences. When we ignore or break these relationships, we create problems for ourselves and for those to whom we connect (Corbin Reuschling 2011, 117-121).

Implications for human formation

Brown asks, what are the formational implications of the Bible’s story of

God redeeming the nations through Israel, then through Jesus? First, if our dilemma centers on idolatry, then for us to be formed into God’s image we must allow God to restore us so that we return to him (Isaiah 31:6-7; 44:22; Ezekiel

14:6; 36:26-27; Hosea 14:1-3; Zechariah 1:3; Mark 1:4, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:9).

God’s covenant with Israel provides both the context that empowers us and the opportunity we need to return to God (Brown 2011a, 71). Second, after responding to God’s restoring work and returning to him, we again participate in

God’s intention that we image him (Exodus 19:3-6; 1 Corinthians 1:4-9; Brown

2011a, 72-75). The Bible’s story of God’s creating, redeeming and restoring people, then, establishes the vision for our ongoing formation (Brown 2011a, 75).

How do we cultivate spiritual formation?

God’s commitment to humanity invites us to respond by participating with him in his creational and redemptive purposes. How do we cultivate a life characterized by responding to God's redemption?

Dependence

Brown sees the Bible’s story depicting human dependence, the inverse of pride and ambition (but not passivity), as the proper stance of finite people in relation to the infinite, faithful God. Because of the fall, people resist dependence.

We, Americans, are thoroughly embedded in a culture that celebrates independence and individualism. In contrast, the Bible’s story about what happens when people live as if the true God doesn’t matter calls into question our commitment to our own independence. God, meanwhile, continues calling people back into relationship with him on the condition that we choose to depend on him (Psalm 131). Thus, humbling ourselves to recognize that we depend on

God provides the foundation for contentment and hope (Brown 2011a, 78).

How does dependence contribute to spiritual formation? Brown answers, first, accepting that we depend on God prompts us to ask different questions

71 about how we grow. Humbly accepting that we depend on God helps us recognize that He is already working, and prompts us to ask, “What is God already doing in this (situation, experience, etc.)?” Second, accepting that we depend on God prompts us to invite others into our journey. Brown notes that the communal contexts from which each biblical book was written reinforces the

Bible’s emphasis that human formation happens in community (Ephesians 1:3-

14; 4:1-16; Psalm 22; Matthew 27:39-46; Mark 15:29-34; Luke 23:34-36; John

19:24-28; 1 Peter 1:3-21; 2:21-23; Brown 2011a, 79-80). Dahl also recognizes that our relationships form us. God intends the Christian community to function as the context for developing the wisdom and nurture we need to grow (Dahl

2011b, 46-50).

Discernment

God’s ways are not always immediately obvious, and his people have long struggled to discern them. Brown recognizes that when we trust and depend on

God and allow him (his voice) to direct us, he develops our discernment

(Proverbs 3:5-6). Because we trend toward idolatry, our first inclination is not always following God’s lead. We must, though, set our course in God’s direction, and discern his right ways (Brown 2011a, 80-81).

Project Connection

God’s statement in Exodus 19:4 (when read in the context of Exodus’ plot, and further within the Bible’s cumulative story) indicates that he intended the

Israelites’ exodus and wilderness experiences to form the Israelites into his people who obeyed his voice (the missio ecclesiae). When we consider the

Israelites’ recorded history in panorama view, God frequently reminded them to remember all they witnessed Him doing to deliver them, so that they would obey his voiced instructions. To ensure that they would remember, he urged them to read, recite, and teach to their children and grandchildren the stories about what he had done. Yet, while experiencing God’s deliverance, though the people initially believed and worshiped, when they experienced great fear, fatigue, hunger, and thirst, they recited a selective version of their Egyptian story remembering the time as if they lived in safety (Exodus 14:10-12) while eating and drinking as much as they wanted (Exodus 16:2-3; 17:2-3), forgetting that the

Egyptians oppressed them to the point that they cried out for help (Exodus 2:23).

The wilderness generation, the Judges, the kings, and the exile periods, then, remind us that many Israelites disobeyed God’s voice. Psalm 106 reflects on

God rescuing the Israelites from the Egyptians by parting the sea’s waters so they could cross on dry land, and asks, “Why did the Israelites disobey God's voice?” The answer is that they specifically forgot how/why he delivered them during the exodus.

When we also observe that God instructed the Israelites to regularly recite this story to help them remember, the reality that they, generally, forgot implies that formational issues led them to forget and disobey. In this project, as the next section indicates, I attempted to apply principles from recent research in the nature of human remembering and forgetting to develop the discussion within each of the study’s sessions. My goal was to help us understand the impact our remembering and forgetting makes on the process of our being formed.

Theologically, if as Fitch and Holsclaw declare, we are mission, one of God’s methods for making his name known to the world by functioning within incarnational communities and practicing his kingdom ways (Fitch and Holsclaw

2013, Signpost Seven), then our ability to function as his incarnational people depends directly on our collective ability to remember God’s story of which we are now a part.

Summary: Formation and the Bible

We all are in the process of becoming. No one has “arrived” at the fullness of all she/he can become. The Bible’s comprehensive story provides the best resource for exploring how we become something beyond what we already are.

God created us to bear his image, to care for and rule the earth on his behalf, and to carry on his creative work. Imaging God, though imperfectly, propels people toward formation. Yahweh calling the Israelites to be like him moves forward the OT theme of imaging God. God intended Israel to represent him among and to those nations who do not yet know him as the one true God.

Though Israel struggled to obey, Jesus, on behalf of Israel and its witness to the nations, fully demonstrated how to obey God’s voice. His willing obedience fulfilled both God’s and Israel’s side of the covenant, making it possible for all those who trust God’s and his joint work to overcome sin and idolatry. If our dilemma centers on idolatry, then we must allow God to restore us so we can return to him. After allowing God to restore us, we humbly acknowledge that we depend completely on him and, again, can fulfill his intention to reflect him.

Forming Shared Memories Dahl’s application of social sciences research to aid our understanding of formation provides a useful starting point for the rest of this chapter (Dahl 2011a,

15-36, Dahl 2011b, 37-52). Given the biblical link between recital and sustained remembering, between remembering and obeying, as well as between forgetting and disobeying, this section asks, “How might recent research in the nature of human remembering and forgetting help us understand our own remembering and forgetting, so that we more faithfully recite and remember God's mighty acts, and more faithfully obey?”

What are memories?

Consistent with Dahl’s and Brown’s assessment that we are both finite and dependent creatures, Alin Coman, Adam Brown, Jonathan Koppel, and

William Hirst demonstrate, in Collective Memory from a Psychological

Perspective, that memories are not merely representations of the past stored in our minds, but depend on encounters between our stored representations and the experience stimuli produced when we interact with others (Coman, Brown,

Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 126-127). Further, our memories are both selective and incomplete. When we remember in conversation, speakers can only recall, at any one time, part of what they are capable of recalling (a symptom of our finitude).

This phenomenon produces what Elizabeth Marsh, in Retelling Is Not the Same as Recalling: Implications for Memory, and others, call “mnemonic silences”

(Marsh 2007, 16-20; Stone, Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2012, 39-53).

Memory’s incompleteness, though, specifically reshapes speakers’ and

75 listeners’ memories. Alin Coman, Ida Momennejad, Rae Drach, and Andra

Geana, in Mnemonic Convergence in Social Networks, observed that if a speaker in a conversation repeats something which both she/he and/or the listener(s) already know(s), both are likely to better remember later this preexisting memory (Coman, Momennejad, Drach, and Geana 2016, 8171).

Jeffrey Karpicke and Henry Roediger, in Repeated Retrieval During Learning is the Key to Long-Term Retention, call this phenomenon the “mnemonic reinforcement effect” or “practice effects” (Karpicke and Roediger 2007, 159-

161). In other words, we remember what we practice. Further, Hirst and

Echterhoff, in Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing and

Reshaping of Memories, observed that a speaker’s selective retrieval can also encourage both the speaker and listener(s) to forget material, related to the recalled material, which the speaker failed to recall, or “retrieval induced forgetting”--RIF (Hirst and Echterhoff 2012, 61-73). We forget what we do not practice.

What are “collective memories”?

In our natural dependence, we humans (sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and friends) are socially embedded creatures. We belong to multiple social groups through employment, personal interests, and religious affiliations.

Coman taught us, then, that our memories arise in our social contexts. When we remember, we apply to our memories the languages of the groups to which we belong. It is impossible to isolate any one of our memories and then dissect it into personal and social elements (Coman 2015, 188-192).

Just as individuals remember their own pasts, so too do groups remember the events that shape their shared identity. To understand how shared memory develops, though, do we account for how individuals remember? Or do we just focus on the social processes which contributed to the forming of these group memories? Maurice Halbwachs, in On Collective Memory, understood that, to comprehend collective memory, we must first understand how individual group members remember (Halbwachs 1992, 22). Jan Assmann distinguishes between communicative memories (conversationally constructed memories with limited time horizons) and cultural memories (longer lasting, publicly available cultural products like monuments, texts, images and rituals) which emphasize meaningful events in the group's history. According to Assmann, when we utilize transient communicative memories we focus on individuals and their interactions. But only when a group translates its communicative memories into “objectivized culture,” do they become cultural or collective memories. According to Assmann, scholars studying collective memory should focus on these stable cultural memories

(Assmann 1995, 126-130; Assmann 2008, 110-112, 114; Assmann 2013, 37-39).

Social scientists, then, disagree about whether or not to integrate individually specific memory processes when studying shared memory. Jeffrey

Olick, in Collective Memory: The Two Cultures, proposes a “social memory studies” framework in which collected memory scholars study the aggregation of memories while collective memory scholars investigate institutionalized objects, allowing each discipline to implement their separate research programs while respecting their differences. Olick’s framework accepts that one cannot easily

77 remove an individual from her/his social context. Since individuals develop memories as they interact with others, the nature of that interaction directly impacts those memories (Olick 1999, 333-334, 345-347). Coman notes that a social interactionist who integrates this interdependence into her/his model recognizes that one cannot understand social artifacts without considering how individuals understand those artifacts (Coman 2015, 188). In this light, then, how can researchers account for both individual cognition and the dynamics which help us understand how shared memory develops (Coman 2015, 188-192)?

Collective memories grow out of a dynamic system which depends on communication. Families, organizations, and even nations remember events which shape their collective identities by transmitting memories between their members (Hirst and Echterhoff 2012, 55-79; Roediger and Abel 2015, 359-361).

How these collective memories form depends on the way conversations between group members shape individuals’ memories. When people recount their past, their conversations can both selectively reinforce and weaken their memories of those experiences. This effect can reshape their memories to bring them in greater alignment with each other (Coman, Momennejad, Drach, and Geana

2016, 8171).

Though collective memories are more than merely “shared individual memories,” they are also more than merely “publicly shared symbols.” Coman noted that, just as individuals can restructure their world to remember better (e.g. by using memory cues), groups and societies can also restructure their world in order to better remember their past, to leverage it for making present and future

78 decisions (Coman 2015, 188). Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst illustrate this principle through how Americans use the Lincoln Memorial. Americans not only built the Memorial so that later generations would never forget Lincoln, but so that people would remember Lincoln as a god-like figure. The memorial portrays

Lincoln sitting Zeus-like in a building constructed on the model of a Greek temple located prominently at the western end of the National Mall, across from the

Washington Monument. These attributes help the Lincoln Memorial shape

American collective memory by changing the memories of visitors one at a time, and gradually impacting the memories of all who visit. If a memorial can substantially shape an individual’s memory years after an experience, and can generate that same impact across other visitors, then that memorial can effectively shape collective memory. If that memorial only minimally shapes an individual’s memory, then it will only minimally impact collective memory (Coman,

Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 128-129).

In this sense, collective memories can include “shared individual memories.” Coman and Hirst noted that, not all shared memories, though, are collective memories. Specifically, those individual memories which, when shared across a community, impact people’s attitudes, decisions, and the community’s identity become collective memories (Coman and Hirst 2012, 321-336; Kameda,

Ohtsubo, and Takezawa 1997, 296-309; Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009,

129).

Spreading memories within a group

People often talk to others about past events important to their community.

Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst asked, “What factors impact memory spread within a group, prompting members to converge on a shared memory” (Coman,

Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 130-139).

What kinds of conversations trigger the development of shared memories?

Henry Roediger, Michelle Meade, and Erik Bergman, in Social Contagion of Memory, noted that memory spreads from person to person through social interaction (Roediger, Meade, and Bergman 2001, 365-371). Coman, Brown,

Koppel, and Hirst found that conversations can help spread memories across a group, even across a nation. Though they do not possess the permanence of memorials or commemorations (Assmann 1995, 125-133), conversations may, nonetheless, foster the development of shared memory similarly to a textbook, or a memorial (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 130-131).

Roediger, Meade, and Bergman found both that not all conversations effectively reshape their participants’ memories, nor do all conversational participants induce social contagion in their listeners (Roediger, Meade, and

Bergman 2001, 365-371). Alexandru Cuc, Yasuhiro Ozuru, David Manier, and

William Hirst, in On The Formation Of Collective Memories: The Role Of A

Dominant Narrator, demonstrate that, in naturally occurring conversations, participants selectively recount the past, recalling more than any individual would alone but less than the sum of what all the individuals are capable of recalling

(Cuc, Ozuru, Manier, and Hirst 2006, 752-762; Coman, Manier, and Hirst 2009,

627-633). Brown, Coman, and Hirst add that group members more likely recount memories that all possess, than they would regularly insert memories which

80 some do not possess. This phenomenon limits the chance to spread unshared memories to other group members (Brown, Coman, and Hirst 2009, 119-120).

However, there are exceptions to this rule. Coman, Brown, Koppel, and

Hirst ask, “What variables influence the degree to which a conversation triggers social contagion?” First, speakers must introduce information that at least one person does not possess, an unshared memory. Second, only when this new information makes such an impact that it reshapes the memory of other participants will a conversation trigger social contagion (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 131-132). In what types of conversations do these two variables present themselves (Brown, Coman, and Hirst 2009, 119-120, 126-127)?

Speakers as Dominant Narrators

Cuc, Ozuru, Manier, and Hirst studied conversations across multiple families centered on their shared experiences and observed that participants assumed any of three roles. Narrators advanced the narrative of an episode.

Mentors aided and prompted narrators to continue advancing their narratives.

Monitors evaluated whether the narrator’s particular account of the event(s) was accurate and complete (Cuc, Ozuru, Manier, and Hirst 2006, 752-762).

When recounting past events, conversationalists more frequently referenced shared memories over non-shared memories. When the families Cuc,

Ozuru, Manier, and Hirst studied remembered a story they just read, initially, each person remembered the story differently from the others. After they discussed the story, their memories of the story proved to be more like each other’s, specifically relating to story details shared during their collaboration,

81 indicating that the group conversation through which they recounted the story reshaped their individual memories about the story into a more unified collective memory (Cuc, Ozuru, Manier and Hirst 2006, 754-758).

When they examined the nature of that conversation more closely, Cuc,

Ozuru, Manier and Hirst observed that a dominant narrator specifically influenced the shape of that conversation. In addition to recounting shared memories, narrators also introduced unshared memories (memories of events which only they experienced) more frequently than did non-narrators. Out of 24 families Cuc,

Ozuru, Manier and Hirst studied, a dominant narrator emerged in 17 of them

(Cuc, Ozuru, Manier and Hirst 2006, 754-758). Those conversations in which a dominant narrator emerged and transmitted her/his perspectives into the group’s subsequent collective memory more effectively shaped the family’s collective memory about the stories they read. The dominant narrator influenced not only whether the family formed a collective memory around the story, but also shaped the content of that memory. When a dominant narrator did not emerge, the family’s recall and subsequent collective memory centered on memories they shared before the conversation (Cuc, Ozuru, Manier and Hirst 2006, 758-761;

Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 133-134). Do the dominant narrator’s previously unshared memories more directly shape other participants’ memories than do the occasionally recounted unshared memories of non-narrators?

Speakers as Experts

Garold Stasser, Dennis Stewart, and Gwen Wittenbaum, in Expert Roles and Information Exchange During Discussion, observed that, just as dominant

82 narrators specifically influenced the spreading of memories between group members during conversational recall, the same is true of those who possess (or whom the group perceives to possess) expertise related to the conversation. Like dominant narrators, experts tend to talk a lot and control much of the conversation by introducing unshared memories (Stasser, Stewart, and

Wittenbaum 1995, 244-249, 259-264).

Brown, Coman, and Hirst discovered that when both experts and dominant narrators converse in the same group, they significantly influence what non-expert members remember in post-conversation recall. Their study ably distinguished between the function of “experts” and of dominant narrators.

Though group members may view dominant narrators as experts, dominant narrators still influenced other group members’ memories even when they were not experts. Their impact also did not come merely from how frequently they spoke, but by speaking a greater percentage of the conversation, they crafted the group’s narrative. Brown, Coman, and Hirst’s findings suggest that expertise alone cannot account for the effect a dominant narrator makes on a group’s subsequent remembering. This underscores the powerful impact a narrator can make toward shaping a group’s collective memory, potentially impacting multiple listeners in a chain reaction--and thus impacting the group’s sense of identity— whether or not the group considers the narrator an expert (Brown, Coman, and

Hirst 2009, 119-129; Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 131-135).

Roediger, Meade, and Bergman labeled this phenomenon of prompting a chain reaction as “social contagion,” but also restricted it to speakers implanting

83 false memories into listeners (Roediger, Meade, and Bergman 2001, 367-371).

While the research incorporated into this chapter grants the impact which conversations make on both individual and shared memories, given the diversity of contexts in which conversations arise and the manifold reasons why people converse (Koppel, Wohl, Meksin, and Hirst 2014, 148-180) and given the dynamic nature of memory itself, the impact which conversations make on later participant recall does not have to produce memories that are necessarily false.

Project Connection

On the family level, God intended Israelite parents and grandparents to function as “dominant narrators” passing along “unshared memories” to their next generations, even narrating themselves and their children into the stories, so that these stories of what God accomplished would not fade from their memories. At the community level, God also intended Israelite priests to function in a similar manner, teaching and representing God to the people. God still intends parents, grandparents and church/ministry leaders to function as “dominant narrators,” reciting these stories of him in action so that we and our children never forget. In this project, I both functioned as a “dominant narrator” telling the story of God’s redemptive mission and remained alert for other dominant narrators to emerge within the group as they responded to each session’s study questions.

Summary: Forming Shared Memories

Conversations develop, shape, and spread collective memories within groups. When groups converse about the past together, what they remember has the potential, through the principles of social contagion, to shape each

84 individual’s subsequent memories, and thus increase the cohesiveness of what were once separate memories. In other words, they create a shared rendering of the past (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 135).

The Impact of Group Member Roles on Remembering and Forgetting

The roles group members assume significantly impact the content of their shared memories. When dominant narrators and/or experts arise within conversations, those conversations more directly shape the group’s shared memories than do conversations in which neither a dominant narrator nor an expert emerges. Additionally, when dominant narrators and/or experts do arise, the group’s subsequent collective memory converges around the narrator or expert’s specific recall of the past (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 135).

Forming Collective Memories by Inducing Forgetting

If group conversations about the past have the power to implant new memories through “mnemonic reinforcement,” could the selective nature of human remembering shape memories that reflect both what group members mention and what they do not mention? Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst found that, in addition to social contagion, group members can forget the same memories because conversationalists either fail to recall certain aspects of events they recount or omit specific events altogether in their recounting. When this happens, group members can develop more cohesive memories, though neglecting potentially significant aspects of the past (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and

Hirst 2009, 135-139).

Selective Remembering Over Time

Benjamin Levy and Michael Anderson, in Inhibitory Processes and the

Control of Memory Retrieval, noted that when we retrieve specific memories, we also automatically retrieve other related memories. For us to successfully retrieve and focus on the specific memory we desire, we must exclude these related, but competing, memories. Over time, if we repeat this cycle, we will experience difficulty recalling those related, but competing, memories (Levy and Anderson

2002, 299-305). Multiple research teams have come to call this phenomenon retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF). Retrieval induced forgetting specifically affects material related to what one remembers but is the “victim” of human remembering’s selectivity (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 136).

Selective Remembering (RIF) in Groups

Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst examined the question, “In which scenario is a listener more likely to forget unmentioned information: when a speaker recalls related information, or when a speaker fails to recall related information?” Their experiments indicated that listening to a speaker remember selectively can induce a listener to forget information related to what the speaker shares, leading them to say, “The seemingly innocent conversations people have about their shared past can distort their memories.” A speaker can influence listeners to retain some memories over others, can remind listeners of forgotten information, can reshape listeners’ existing memories, and can implant new memories (Cuc,

Koppel, and Hirst 2007, 727). When two speakers, for example, avoid talking about an issue completely, their prolonged silence will encourage them to forget

86 other information related to that issue. What happens, though, when they recall some information about the issue but choose to omit related information? Does their silence about this related information lead their listeners to forget more than they might forget if they had never had the conversation at all (Cuc, Koppel, and

Hirst 2007, 727)?

Overall, Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst found that when a speaker recounts a story about the past only partially, listeners often retrieve information in sync with the speaker. As the speaker omits elements of the story, listeners retrieve an incomplete version of that story, and like the speaker, forget more about that unmentioned information than they would if the speaker had not recounted the event at all, prompting them to consider this phenomenon socially shared- retrieval induced forgetting (SS-RIF). Exceptions to this phenomenon seem to occur when events within a story’s plot are closely related to each other by more than just their juxtaposition within the story. Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst also acknowledged that SS-RIF does not depend simply on the speaker’s ability to recall. Listeners, by their level of active participation in the conversation, and the degree to which they think critically about the speaker’s message, still control whether or not they experience SS-RIF (Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst 2007, 732;

Coman, Brown, Koppel and Hirst 2009, 137).

Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst’s test results suggest that even everyday conversations can reshape memories by inducing both speakers and listeners to forget in similar ways and, in doing so, promote a collective memory. When listeners listen to a speaker, not only will they expand their memories by

87 information the speaker shares, they may also more likely forget information related to the speaker's topic of conversation (Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst 2007, 732-

733; Coman, Brown, Koppel and Hirst 2009, 137).

Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst observed that members of the same community will come to remember and forget the world in comparable ways. If such exchanges become part of a larger social network, then people across a network could experience collective forgetting in ways that reshape the entire community’s collective memory (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 138;

Coman and Hirst 2015, 5-6).

Project Connections

In the history of ideas about the Exodus story’s characters and setting

(which defines the wilderness journey’s parameters and is determined by the interrelationship between Exodus 2:15b-4:23, 17:1-18:27, and 19:1-Numbers

10:11), the Biblical Foundation section claims that the Exodus writer(s) used narrative shaping techniques to center it in the land of Midian, setting up reader expectation that God was doing something strategically significant for his mission in the land of Midian.

The Theological Foundation section, by locating this project’s approach to

Exodus within an arch running through Hans Frei’s and Stanley Hauerwas’ narrative theologies, as well as through Jacob Goodson’s interpretive virtues

“humility,” “patience,” and “prudence,” attempts to establish a basis for honoring the shape of Exodus’ narrative, humbly (and patiently) allowing its shape to aid our hearing of its/God’s voice. Within this framework, considering the whole

88 trajectory of the Jewish-Christian interpretive witness to this story’s setting and characters (sketched in the Historical Foundation section), reinforces the Biblical

Foundation section’s observation that Exodus’ shape highlights God doing something strategically significant for his mission in the land of Midian, and prompts questions about the role this theme plays within the Bible’s cumulative story, within missiological applications, and within ecclesiological reflection on what it means to be God’s people in the world. Such approaches could remain consistent with Goodson’s expression of Scripture’s plain sense as religious leaders testing the Bible’s literal senses over time, by properly using and making prudential decisions with biblical narratives.

The Historical Foundation section demonstrated that, at least six hundred years before the earliest testimony re-centering the exodus story’s setting in the

Egyptian Peninsula, early post-biblical Jewish and Christian scholars consistently centered the exodus story’s setting in the land of Midian, in northwestern Arabia.

When we view this dynamic through the lens of recent research in the nature of human remembering and forgetting, once three dominant narrators (early

Christian ascetic allegorists, Constantine, and later Justinian) promoted the idea that the exodus setting centered in the Egyptian Peninsula, the power inherent in their socio-political-religious positions gave momentum to this particular interpretation of the exodus story, inducing SS-RIF of earlier readings. At the same time, as Christians and Jews increased their social distance, the earlier understanding of Moses’ life in northwestern Arabia lost momentum and became, largely, forgotten. One goal of this project has been to remind participants and

89 readers of the depth and consistency of the earliest renderings of this amazing story, so that we hear it again as they told it.

Summary: The Impact of Group Member Roles

We began this section by asking how do individuals and groups come to share the same renderings of the past? Multiple studies have identified conversations as environments in which memories can be introduced, discussed, and reframed based on the influence of the individuals recounting those memories and the social dynamics within the conversation. When groups remember together in conversation, the specific recall which narrators and

(perceived) experts provide creates the foundation for collective remembering. At the same time, the selective nature of human remembering may also create a context for collective forgetting, both for events that participants have experienced together and for events that are merely similar to those experienced by some group members. In this manner, conversations transform the isolated memories of individuals into memories accepted by groups, and, thus constitute an important medium for creating shared memories.

What factors impact the spread of shared memories across a network?

Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst, in Mnemonic Convergence: From

Empirical Data to Large-Scale Dynamics, investigated how memory propagates through sequences of social interactions. They envisioned communities as networks of connected nodes. Each node possesses a memory which can be transmitted to connected nodes, impacting the memories of both the recipient and sender (Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst 2012, 256-257). They focused on

90 two psychological processes: “practice effects” and “induced forgetting,” and asked, “When the memories of multiple nodes converge on a shared representation of the past, does that effect depend on the community’s size and the number of conversations occurring between individual agents/nodes?” They also asked, “How does the rate of mnemonic convergence vary across network structure types?” (Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst 2012, 256-264).

Practice Effects (PE) and Retrieval Induced Forgetting (RIF)

Karpicke and Roediger observed a principle they termed “practice effects.”

When someone experiences an event and later recalls and recites that event, they more likely remember the information about that event which they actively recall and express than they are information which they neither recall nor express

(Karpicke and Roediger 2007, 151-162). Other research teams found the flip side to this “practice effects” principle. The related information which speakers neither recall nor articulate is subject to retrieval induced forgetting (Cuc, Koppel, and

Hirst 2007, 727-733; Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst 2012, 257-258).

Alin Coman and William Hirst, in Cognition Through a Social Network: The

Propagation of Induced Forgetting and Practice Effects, examined, “Under what conditions might one-person progressively influence a network of connecting and interacting individuals?” Their work demonstrated that micro-level memory processing within a single conversation can shape memories that reverberate through a small social network, and suggests that individual conversations can trigger processes which move through a social network to form a shared memory

(Coman and Hirst 2012, 321; Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst 2012, 258-259).

Community Size

Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst found that smaller communities can develop shared memories through fewer conversations than larger communities and may, through conversational dynamics, converge on a memory which is a variation of the original information to which they were exposed or the event which they experienced (Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst 2012, 262-263).

Network Density

As Stair and Reynolds discuss, in Fundamentals of Information Systems, in any network, digital or social, the connected entities (whether persons or devices) are considered “nodes” (Stair and Reynolds 2018, 159-163). Lewis, and

Hirst noted that, within a network, nodes commonly connect directly, indirectly, or potentially. A potential connection denotes a connection which could exist, regardless of whether it actually exists. “Network density” denotes the percentage of potential connections that constitute actual connections. Family reunions, where many participants are directly connected, exhibit high network density. Public concerts, where few people actually know each other exhibit low network density (Coman, and Hirst 2012, 321-336). Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and

Hirst demonstrated that networks exhibiting greater density develop shared memories faster than networks exhibiting lesser density (fewer actual connections). Their results also suggest that even larger social networks can develop collective memories, but only if the members of those networks are richly connected to each other (Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst 2012, 263-264).

Project Connection

Though not fully testable within this project, this research has implications for the way pastors and other ministry leaders not only plan to foster climates which encourage conversations about God’s mighty acts, but also to simultaneously foster climates encouraging members to invest in each other.

Doing this applies what Fitch and Holesclaw, Prodigal Christianity: Ten Signposts into the Missional Frontier, describe as “incarnational communities practicing

God’s kingdom ways” (Fitch and Holesclaw 2013, Signpost Seven: Communities of the Kingdom). In addition to the benefits commonly associated with investing in each other, this research provides an additional motive. Establishing multifaceted connections across a congregation’s network founds a framework for God stories to reverberate more effectively through this network, rekindling our shared memories and encouraging our collective obedience to his voice.

Summary: Spreading Shared Memories Across a Network

Through conversations, people spread their memories across the social networks to which they are connected, producing collective memories shared by members of the network. Factors which impact how effectively individual memories spread across networks to become shared memories include community size, the number of conversations occurring across the network, and the degree to which members connected through the network have developed direct connections with other network members (network density). Conversing to Remember and to Obey The purpose of this project was to impact the participants’ commitment to

93 obeying God’s voice through a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey. The research question was “To what extent has a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of

Israel’s wilderness journey impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying

God’s voice?” Barat Ellman, in Memory and Covenant, traces how the HB/OT interconnects God’s covenant with Israel to God’s creational purposes

(compared with earth’s present reality) and presents God’s covenant as the way of restoring God’s original ideal. To embrace God’s covenant and pursue his ideals, remembering what he has done (and all practices which God designed to rekindle those memories) is vital. Collective forgetting leads to prolonged disobedience and continued decline (Ellman 2013, 6, 75-104). If the Israelites who directly witnessed or whose parents directly witnessed the Lord’s delivering disobeyed his voice because either they failed to recite (with each other, their children and others) these God stories, or because the ways they recited these stores led them to forget his works and they disobeyed, how might recent study of remembering and forgetting help us better understand our own finitude, so that we can learn how to recite these stories in ways that sustain our shared memories so that we more faithfully obey his voice?

God’s Instruction and Human Finitude

Ellman observed that both God and Moses understood the impact a written record of God’s mighty acts would make on Israel’s later ability to recall not only those events but also the peoples’ experiences associated with them.

After the Lord instructed Moses and the Israelites how he wanted them to live

(Exodus 20-23), not only did Moses write down the Lord’s words in “the book of the covenant,” and led the Israelites in a covenant consent ceremony, but he also read this book so the people could hear, triggering what Ellman calls semantic and episodic memory (Ellman 2013, 32). This book, then, became a written record of the Lord’s instructions directly linked to his mighty acts by which he delivered the Israelites from Egypt (Exodus 20:2). It functioned not only as a list of what to do (Semantic memory) but embodied all that happened on this mountain as the Israelites stood before the Lord.

Reading the written account of the Lord’s voice would prompt the

Israelites who were there to recall the sights, sounds, smells, and memories of that total experience. Those who were born later would recall memories of family stories about and reenactments of these events (Episodic memory). As multiple authors have observed, reading this book, thus, prompted later Israelites to recall the events that defined their individual and collective identity as the Lord’s people

(Mulholland 2001, 25-47; Ward 2009, 20-36, 51-67, 86; Silva 1996, 204-208,

212-215), and became part of Moses’ larger written record of all the Lord accomplished from creation to the promised land (Exodus 34:27-28;

Deuteronomy 31:1, 9-12, 24-29; 2 Kings 23:1-3, 21-23; 2 Chronicles 34:29-33).

Ellman’s observations continue, God himself underscored the importance of creating a written record of his instruction, an example of “semantic memory,” when he wrote the covenant tablets for the Israelites (Exodus 24:12; 31:18;

32:15-16; Deuteronomy 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2-4; Ellman 2013, 32). He intended them to read his instruction, listen to it, discuss it, internalize it, and sing it

(Deuteronomy 31:19-22, 30-32:47). He also instructed the Israelites to create diverse forms of objective symbolism (e.g. fringes on garments, or an altar erected to the Lord at a site where God delivered them) in order to stimulate their episodic memories of all he had done (Ellman 2013, 32).

Thus, from the very beginning, God built into the Israelites’ identity and formation a process of recounting their shared past within their homes, with their children and grandchildren, in worship together with their fellow community members (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:18-23; 1 Chronicles 16:7-20), and with aliens who lived among them, as well as with neighboring nations. God considered reading and reciting their past to be vital to their survival and normal functioning as his people (Ellman 2013, 75-85; 2 Timothy 3:14-17).

Human Finitude, Memory’s Limitations, Dependency, and Biblical Interpretation

Jeannine Brown reminded us earlier that God created humans as finite creatures (Brown 2011a, 66-70). Our finitude shapes every aspect of our existence, even our remembering and forgetting. First, just as we are all born in relationship, our memories are also born in relationship, from the experience stimuli triggered by our interaction with others (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst

2009, 126-127). Second, multiple teams have observed that we can never recall, at any one time, everything we are capable of remembering, but fall victim to

“mnemonic silences” (Marsh 2007, 16-20; Stone, Coman, Brown, Koppel, and

Hirst 2012, 39-53). Third, a speaker’s selective retrieval can encourage both the speaker and listener(s) to forget information, related to the material she/he recalled, but failed to recite (Hirst and Echterhoff 2011, 61-73; Levy and

Anderson 2002, 299-305; Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 136). When we converse with others, then, and a speaker repeats something which both she/he and/or the listeners already know(s), both are likely to better remember later this preexisting memory (Karpicke and Roediger 2007, 159-161; Coman,

Momennejad, Drach, and Geana 2016, 8171).

Fourth, Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brien, in Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, remind us that our finitude locates us temporally, geographically, linguistically, and culturally, and thus limits our perspective accordingly. When we consider that all the Bible’s individual books were written millennia ago to people living in non-Western cultures, and written in Hebrew,

Aramaic, or Greek, Bible study is, by definition, a cross cultural experience. Our individual location influences what we assume to be true about God, the world, ourselves, and others. Such assumed mores can prompt us to miss some of the

Bible’s details which original audiences considered significant and understood to reinforce specific meaning (Richards and O'Brien 2012, Mores).

Fifth, Mark Allan Powell, in What Do They Hear?: Bridging the Gap

Between Pulpit and Pew, reminds us (and Todd Billings echoes in The Word of

God for the People of God) that our cultural located-ness can lead us to project onto the Bible our assumptions and values, encouraging us to think that some interpretations of its content are obvious while others are impossible. Some of our assumptions, though, are specifically Western. We have received certain mores from being part of the American Christian community and its traditions, which may or may not come from the Bible. Yet, we can no longer pretend that

Western biblical interpretations are normative for all believers in all locations

(Powell 2007, Social Location; Billings 2010, 105-148; Richards and O'Brien

2012, Introduction, Mores, Language).

Further, Richards and O’Brien encourage us to more closely examine a given biblical text’s message to make sure we hear what it is claiming and not claiming and examine whether or not our interpretation of that text adds ideas not found within it or omits important ideas which the text actually articulates.

Richards and O’Brien also encourage us to read what Christians from other cultures and times have written about the biblical text(s) we are studying. By allowing ourselves to become informed by how believers in other cultures--past and present--interpret these texts we more likely make ourselves aware of the mores we bring to the text and can correct those which unfairly shape our interpretation and our recounting of God’s mighty acts (Richards and O'Brien

2012, Introduction, Mores; Powell 2007, Social Location; Green 2007, 137-141).

This principle remains consistent with Hans Frei’s emphasis on interpreters maintaining Scripture’s “plain sense” (Frei 1980, 300-324; Frei 1993b, 117-152).

It also remains consistent with Jacob Goodson’s call for interpreters to conceive and maintain Scripture’s “plain sense” (based on an interplay between Frei’s and

Hauerwas’s narrative theologies) as its literal senses tested over time through religious leaders properly using and making prudential decisions through/with biblical narratives (Goodson 2015, 185-187).

Project Connection

Applying lessons learned from Richards and O’Brien as well as from

Powell, Billingsley, Frei, Hauerwas, and Goodson to this project, many of us have read Exodus through the lens (promoted by Constantine and Justinian but shaped by larger cultural forces) which we inherited across the last sixteen hundred years of biblical interpretation. Many of us have done so, in our finitude, unaware that any other lens ever existed. We simply applied/imposed the mores we received from our membership in the Christian community on to our reading of Exodus. By doing so, we have added ideas into the Exodus story not found within the story itself. Specifically, we have defined the biblical expression

by the parameters established by the later (֙־ ְִֶֶ ֶ ה־ֶןֶ ְ) ”wilderness of Sinai“

Allegorical-Roman-Byzantine model. Since Exodus’ writer(s) conveyed its message through its characters and setting, one goal of this project has been to show that part of our being open to hearing God’s voice through the exodus story includes identifying and challenging the mores that prompt us to change its characters and setting, by reminding participants that the earliest interpreters understood both differently. Implications for Pastors, Teachers, and Ministry Leaders If our finitude limits us to only remembering selectively and incompletely, when we hear a speaker recall a biblical account of God in action her/his partial and selective recall can impact our memory of this event, if we listen uncritically.

If speakers repeat this cycle (recounting events selectively and partially) they risk forgetting related (but potentially significant) material and encouraging their listeners (who may still be developing the ability to listen critically) to gradually shape how they view what God has done by this partial recall of the story. In

99 cases like these, we and our members become more vulnerable to forgetting material we need to be further formed in God’s image and to obey his voice

(Coman and Hirst 2015, 717-722; Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst. 2007, 727-733).

Reflecting on the implications of the remembering and forgetting research noted earlier, if we consider that congregations primarily offer their members preaching, teaching, small groups, and personal Bible as the main opportunities to be formed by God through Scripture, then If we increase our risk of forgetting facets of what God has done by not recalling biblical material related to the “topic of conversation” in any instance, then the methods pastors, teachers, and ministry leaders use to select content as the basis for group formation directly impacts the areas where members face the greatest risk of forgetting.

Sidney Greidanus, in The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, reminds us that pastors select preaching texts based on diverse criteria including congregational or Church needs, her/his own preferences, texts which contribute strategically to the Bible’s cumulative message, or defined literary units within a book (Greidanus 1988, 124-128, 221-222, 250-251, 296-297, 323-324). If pastors select preaching texts primarily by congregational need and personal preference, then their selection is more likely to leave some biblical material not covered in the pulpit. Both recent research on remembering and forgetting and biblical teaching about remembering and forgetting suggest that, if God’s people stand a greater chance of obeying the Lord’s voice when they internalize and articulate the Lord’s mighty acts and his related instruction, then pastors would more effectively equip their members to obey the Lord’s voice by complementing

100 their preaching with congregational teaching and small group discussions centered on biblical books and materials which they omit in the pulpit.

The scope of God’s written record provides a stable reference point which can remind us of what we have recalled together and what we have not recalled, providing a lifetime’s worth of material that holds us accountable for continuing to recall his mighty acts, to remember our dependence on him, and (as Richards and O’Brien remind us) to discern what his voice is speaking in our specific culture, community, and time (Richards and O’Brien 2012, 25-90). Yet, Joel

Green, in Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture, argued that God’s people often adopt ways of reading Scripture which muzzle its effectiveness

(Green 2007, 1-25). Richard Schultz, in Out of Context: How to Avoid

Misinterpreting the Bible, added that, though, the Bible can do a thousand things, in, for, and through God’s people, believers often use it to only sustain a few things they already do (Schultz 2012, 19-24, 39-56, 103-126). N.T. Wright, in

Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, added that, to be Christians while not allowing the Bible to do, in us and through us, all that it is capable of is like trying to play the piano with your fingers tied together (Wright 2009, 174).

Since the biblical canon gives us a defined record of God’s past mighty acts, and since we remember and recite selectively, we need to continue reciting those acts we already remember, but to reduce the effect of retrieval induced forgetting, we also need to learn and recite those acts with which we are less familiar (Koppel, Wohl, Meksin, and Hirst. 2014, 148-180). In other words, as

Christopher Wright noted, rather than focusing on only our favorite passages or

101 the passages with which we are most comfortable (Frequently these two are the same.), we need to recommit, through our formation ministries, to teaching and reciting all of Scripture, the whole plan, mission, will, and council of God, so that we learn how to wrestle with and live out of all of it (Wright 2010, 24-32).

Following the exhortations which Richards and O’Brien as well as Mark

Alan Powell have given us, when pastors, teachers, and ministry leaders provide opportunities for members to recall and recite God’s mighty acts from Scripture, we also face the challenge to help them recognize how their temporal and cultural location shapes their recalling and reciting by creating “blind spots” limiting their perspectives about what God has done. One way to help them recognize the located-ness of their own remembering is to help them read interpretations by past and present believers from different cultures which relate to the specific aspects of God they're focusing on at a given time. Some examples of potential resources include the Ancient Christian Commentary on

Scripture series and the JPS Torah Commentary series (Lienhard 2001; Louth

2001; Sheridan 2002; Salkin 2017; Sarna 1991). Another way to help members recognize how our location impacts our understanding, and to help them think beyond their/our location, is by developing stronger and regular interaction between current and former cross-cultural missionaries focusing on the same conversation topics (or texts) we currently engage in our congregations (Richards and O’Brien 2012, Read Together; Be Teachable; Powell 2007, Social Location;

Billings 2010, 105-148).

102

Congregational Leaders as “Dominant Narrators”

As Kevin Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan remind us, in The Pastor as

Public Theologian: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, many of the roles pastors assume

(e.g. shepherds, teachers, prophets, priests, evangelists, theologians, and worship leaders) place them in position to articulate the congregation’s past in ways that his/her reconstruction either develops and maintains, or shapes the congregation’s existing shared memories and sense of collective identity

(Vanhoozer and Strachan 2015, 1-28, 37-60,139-176), in the same way as would a dominant narrator described in the research noted earlier (Cuc, Ozuru, Manier, and Hirst 2006, 752-762; Brown, Coman, and Hirst 2009, 119-129). This observation only underscores the obligation pastors and congregational leaders have to tell God’s stories in multiple ways, yet faithful to their original telling.

Congregational Leaders as “Experts”

Both Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson in The Pastor Theologian:

Resurrecting an Ancient Vision, and Gerben Heitink, in Practical Theology:

History, Theory, Action Domains, remind us that members in many congregations perceive their pastors, teachers, elders, as well as small group and ministry leaders (justifiably or not) to be experts in the matters of God,

Scripture, theology, and spirituality which they discuss (Hiestand and Wilson

2015, 9-52; Heitink 1999, 316-317-321; Stasser, Stewart, and Wittenbaum 1995,

244-249, 259-264). If a congregation’s members view their leaders as “experts,” and if these leaders function as dominant narrators, then those leaders may significantly influence what their members recall about God’s actions after

103 participating in group conversations, and influence how members envision their individual and collective identity (Brown, Coman, and Hirst 2009, 119-129;

Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 134-135). As a result, if congregational leaders are to create contexts in which members encounter all formational resources God has made available in Scripture to equip us to obey his voice, then leaders are tasked, as Wright encourages us, to help members develop, from Scripture, as wide and clear a vision of God’s mission as possible (Wright

2010, 163-178).

Further, the specific parts of the Bible’s story which leaders emphasize influences how their group members perceive God and his activity, and how they perceive their role within God's mission. If leaders purposefully or habitually emphasize some parts of the Bible’s story over others, they may gradually shape a group’s understanding to take in only part of who God is and what his mission entails, and thus, lead them to only consider part of the role he intends them to fulfill within his mission. Hiestand and Wilson describe the long-term impact pastors make on their congregations when they feed them less than all that

Scripture is capable of providing believers: Christians who are theologically and spiritually malnourished and lesser equipped to handle trials, temptations and other challenges all believers face (Hiestand and Wilson 2015, 53-64, 65-78).

Summary: Implications for Pastors, Teachers, and Ministry Leaders

God’s people share their encounters with his mighty acts recorded in

Scripture by hearing, reading, rehearsing, reciting, reenacting, and teaching to others what he has done. Even single conversations, born within this dynamic,

104 can trigger memories of God which reverberate across a congregation’s network to produce shared memories of what He has done. Though smaller groups may develop shared memories faster through this process than larger groups/congregations, if members of larger groups/congregations develop multi- layered direct connections across small groups and throughout the congregation’s network, then even larger congregations can develop shared memories about what God has done which are capable of equipping them to obey the Lord’s voice.

105

CHAPTER FOUR DESIGN, PROCEDURE, ASSESSMENT The purpose of this project was to impact the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice through a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey. The research question was to what extent has a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice?

Goals

This project sought to accomplish the following goals.

1. To impact the participants’ understanding of obeying God’s voice.

2. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s actions in

Israel’s wilderness journey fuels our obedience to his voice.

3. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God fuels our

obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations.

4. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s loving

formation fuels our obedience to his voice.

5. To impact the participants' commitment to obeying God’s voice on

behalf of his creation.

Context

I began this project with the intent of implementing it within Marysville

Grace’s life group network, either with one of its existing life groups or by creating a new group. Marysville Grace constitutes one congregation within the Charis

106

Fellowship (CF) of congregations, known before 2018 (and after 1976) as the

Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches (FGBC), a voluntary association of more than 260 congregations in the United States and Canada. Between 1939 and

1976 the fellowship was known as the National Fellowship of Brethren Churches, formed by a conservative split from the Brethren Church. The word Charis comes from the biblical Greek term for “Grace” (χάρις). Each church in the FGBC/CF is governed autonomously while maintaining a commitment to the principles of the

Bible as developed through roots in the Pietist and Anabaptist movements of

Germany (Scoles 2008, 11-63).

Marysville Grace's threefold Mission is, first, “Learn It.” We believers must know who God is, the good news about what he has done for us, and what that means for our lives. In other words, we need to learn the gospel. Second, “Live it.” We believe that we practice living God's attributes in relationships or in community with others. We must both know others and allow ourselves to be known. Third, “Give It.” We believe that the good news about what God has done compels us to serve and share with each other and with the world. Loving each other like God has loved us means giving freely of what he has given to us

(Marysville Grace 2019, Our Mission). Though this project’s context evolved due to the factors noted below, it still connects to all three levels of Marysville Grace’s mission.

Though I originally intended to implement this project within Marysville

Grace’s Life Group structure, multiple factors occurring during early 2020 hindered doing so. First, most Marysville Grace life groups already committed to

107 a common congregational wide study spanning at least 2020’s first quarter or beyond. Second, though Lead Pastor Clancy Cruise gave his blessing for me to invite participants from among those members not participating in existing small groups, not enough of those members committed to constitute a study group.

Third, nine friends from other local congregations who had heard, through our family and friends’ network, about this study wanted to participate. Two of these attend Marysville Church of Christ. One is an elder at Marysville Christian

Church. Three attend LifePoint Church, in Delaware, OH. Two attend Haven

Community Church in Marysville, OH. One attends Cornerstone Community

Church in Westerville, OH. Fourth, though we intended to hold these sessions at

Marysville Grace’s ministry center on Sunday afternoons between February 23,

2020 and April 5, 2020, due to the COVID-19 shutdown, we only held the first four sessions in person, before holding the final three sessions virtually using

Zoom, making this a blended learning study.

The COVID-19 shutdown, further, moved two participants to withdraw from the February-April study, so they could adjust to our new reality. One participant withdrew due to health complications. One participant withdrew after completing five sessions because his employer needed him to work, during the shutdown, six to seven days per week, twelve to fifteen hours per day. As a result, only five participants completed the February 23-April 5, 2020 series.

Thus, once some adjusted to social distancing, I reconnected with two who had withdrawn after attending three of the first four sessions, with an additional person who wanted to attend the earlier series but could not, and with the

108 previous participant who had completed the first five sessions. I re-led the seven- week series, through Zoom, between April 26, 2020 and June 7, 2020 for initially three participants. The fourth participant, who withdrew earlier after completing five sessions, rejoined the study for sessions six and seven. As a result, when combining the five who completed the February-April study with the four who completed the April-June study, nine participants completed this seven-session series.

Participants

Four of these nine participants were women and five were men. Their ages ranged between less than 40 (one participant) to greater than 70 (one participant). Two were between 51 and 55 years old. Three were between 56 and

60 years old. Two were between 66 and 70 years old.

All participants were believers. One had been a believer between 16 and

25 years. The remaining 8 had been believers for greater than 25 years. One had participated in his current congregation less than 3 years. Three had participated in their current congregations between 3 and 5 years. Two had participated in their current congregations between 11 and 15 years. One had participated in her current congregation between 16 and 25 years. Two had participated in their congregation more than 25 years.

All participants completed at least secondary education. Two participants had completed secondary education. Four participants had earned a college degree. Three participants had earned a graduate or professional degree.

All participants had read at least one complete biblical book. One had read

109

Genesis through Joshua, Psalms, and Proverbs. Eight participants had read the whole Bible. Two had completed a group Bible study covering Genesis. Two had completed group Bible studies covering Genesis and the NT. One had completed a group Bible study covering the OT. Three had completed group Bible studies surveying both the Old and New Testaments. One of those also completed additional group studies covering Genesis through Deuteronomy and the NT.

One participant stated, “Though I’ve completed many Bible studies, none of them have ever focused on one particular book.”

Procedure and Assessment

This project was born out of what now has become fourteen years of personal study, triggered by a trip to Israel in January 2006. I joined an archaeological study tour led by two OT professors, an archaeologist, and accompanied by their undergraduate students. During this trip, I landed, unintentionally, in multiple conversations about historical questions prompted by events recorded in the exodus narrative. At the time, I had not yet asked some of the questions these conversationalists were asking, so I mostly just listened.

However, these conversations prompted my curiosity. When I returned home, I immersed myself into studying Exodus and have not yet stopped. In this project, I attempted to allow Exodus, and intertextual connections prompted by it, to guide both my questions and my pursuit of answers. On that foundation, I have examined several commentaries, monographs, book chapters, journal articles, online articles, and selected multimedia produced by OT and NT scholars, archaeologists, Egyptologists, theologians, philosophers, literary critics, and

110 linguists.

This project consisted of seven eighty-minute small group Bible study sessions centered on the Israelites’ journey narrative (Exodus 12:33-19:2).

During the week before each session, I distributed study questions to help participants read Exodus and acclimate to its narrative features, to the events it recounts, to the wilderness journey itself, and to with selected additional passages related to God’s mission and his people’s role. Ultimately, through these questions, I intended, first, to draw their attention to where the exodus events fit within God’s plan, to what God was in the process of accomplishing through this journey, to the ways the Israelites responded to God, and to the role which God was calling Israel to fill in his mission. I have included sample study questions as Appendix Three.

Second, I distributed these study questions before each session to help participants internalize the wilderness journey narrative so that they felt comfortable discussing it when we met. Third, I intended their experience of answering the questions to prompt other questions which they could ask during our sessions. Fourth, I intended these questions to help me get to know better the participants in this study by hearing their voices as they engaged in our conversations. In some cases, I asked what I thought would be difficult interpretive questions but stressed that I was less concerned that anyone articulate the “one right answer” to any question. Rather, I wanted them to at least wrestle with the question.

In addition to distributing study questions a week before each session,

111 during each session I also presented on screen various visual aids. Initially, I presented using a projector at Marysville Grace’s ministry center. After the

COVID-19 shutdown, I presented using Zoom. When we read passages together, I displayed the text on screen using Accordance Bible Study Software. I also created and distributed a few handouts. Any handout which I distributed electronically, I also displayed on screen when we discussed its relevant topic during the session.

I opened each session by leading the group in prayer, and then began by quickly acclimating us to key elements of that session’s study. For multiple sessions, we read together passages relating to that week's lesson. For sessions three and four I used a few selected photographs of locations in northwestern

Arabia, the land of Midian, including sites around the modern town of Al-Bad, which my Historical Foundation section claims (following Claudius Ptolemy and other ancient Jewish writers) to be Jethro's ancient home. If we began a session using a lead-in other than a biblical passage, we quickly transitioned from that lead-in to a Scriptural passage relevant to that evening's discussion.

For Session Two I also created a landscaped table visualizing the clues

Exodus provides revealing the setting of its two opening episodes (Exodus 1:1-

2:15a and Exodus 2:15b-4:23). For sessions three and four, I created a seven- page landscaped document displaying a table highlighting key aspects of each wilderness journey station. Anticipating questions about how the (now) traditional view locating Exodus’ setting and Mount Sinai in the Egyptian Peninsula developed, I displayed on screen a timeline I developed over the last few years,

112 using an application called Aeon Timeline, visualizing viewpoints expressed by

Exodus’ earliest Jewish and Christian interpreters. This timeline visualized when interpreters changed the way they articulated Exodus’ setting. I also frequently visualized locations along the journey using Google Earth.

Session One: We opened Session One by first administering the Pre-Test.

I, then, shared about my journey and personal study, encouraged by visiting

Israel in January 2006. In Session One, I attempted to give participants a glimpse of God thinking missionally about his rescue and redemption plan of which Israel, and Exodus, are a part. I also attempted to expand their view of where the Bible’s cumulative plot actually begins. At least six NT passages stood out to me as candidates for achieving these goals. Three passages (Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter

1:20 and John 17:24 [also John 17:5]) utilize the same expression “before the foundation of the world” (πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου) to depict God and Messiah,

Jesus collaborating together to (s)elect and adopt as God's children those who embrace what they would achieve on their behalf. Paul, Peter, and John/Jesus, then, provide insight into God's Pre-Creation activity, allowing us to articulate

God's acting missionally before he began to create the world (before the time portrayed by Genesis 1-2). In three additional passages (1 Corinthians 2:7; 2

Timothy 1:9; and Titus 1:2), Paul used similar expressions “before the ages” (πρὸ

τῶν αἰώνων) and “before the ages of time” (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων) to depict God and Messiah, Jesus collaborating further. Due to Session One’s time limits, and to my desire to allow sufficient discussion time for each passage, I narrowed this list down to just Ephesians 1 and 1 Peter 1.

113

Reflecting on the combined contribution made by these passages, Jesus was specifically incarnated into a Jewish family within Abraham's descendants,

Israel. This means that God foreknew Israel (collectively). Since he foreknew humanity’s rescue plan and foreknew Israel, God also foreknew the exodus and planned for it. We used these passages, then, to discuss how the exodus events contributed to God's mission to/for his world. Then, across the rest of the study we gradually and repeatedly located the exodus and wilderness journeys within

God's mission.

Session Two: I began the study questions for session two by stating two principles to inform participant’s reading. First, Hebrew narrative writers commonly subdivide longer narratives into smaller units (episodes) and draw readers’ attention to the differences between episodes by providing clues to changing locations, by switching characters (in each location), or by highlighting time indicators. Second, most narrative episodes occur within a single location.

Changing that location signals the end of one episode and the beginning of a new one.

Next, I helped participants subdivide Exodus’ two opening episodes (1:1-

2:15a and 2:15b-4:23) into shorter scenes. I asked them, then, to examine each scene and episode and to perform multiple tasks. First, identify as many location clues as they could which indicate where the writer located the setting of the events which occurred in each scene and episode. Second, identify the features that mark movement from one location to another, thus the features distinguishing one episode from another. Third, identify the prominent human

114 characters in each scene and briefly articulate the role each character played.

Fourth, identify what God was doing (if they could discern it yet). Fifth, observe any clues reflecting the Israelites’ awareness of God. Sixth, review their notes and reflect on the clues they observed from Exodus. Seventh, I asked them if their observations helped them discern the setting which the Exodus writer(s) assigned to Exodus’ two opening episodes.

Sessions Three and Four inter-related together to help participants navigate the Bible's account of the journey station by station. Each journey station (and the path between each one) consisted of a narrative scene. With each scene we asked, “What was God doing?”, “How did the Israelites respond?”, “What do we learn about both from their respective actions?”, “What were the Israelites supposed to remember, say, and do in response this scene?”, and “What can we learn from this scene, in the context of this journey, about the process of obeying God's voice?”

Session Five focused on the Biblical Foundation section's two core passages: Exodus 19:1-8 and Exodus 24:1-11. We opened this session by examining a handout paralleling the statements which these two passages share in common, to discuss how these two passages function to unite all of Exodus

19-24 together as a covenant event culminating the wilderness journey and ending with a ceremony which sanctifies the Israelites to serve God's purposes within his global mission. We also discussed a couple of the ways these passages reverberate into the NT (e.g. 1 Peter 2:9-10; Revelation 1:4-6; 5:9-10).

We ended by inviting them to briefly discuss a few implications these passages

115 have for how we should think about the church's (collective) role in the world.

I intended Session Six to help participants explore Exodus’ emphasis on

God making his name known/renown to the Israelites, to the Egyptians, and to the nations through the ways he delivered the Israelites (Exodus 3:18-20; 5:1-9;

6:1-9; 9:13-21; 18:1-12; Joshua 2:8-11). While tracing this theme, we examined how it develops between Exodus 3-8 and then, how God directly articulates that his reasons for allowing this particular Pharaoh to live were to show this Pharaoh

His power, and to make his name resound through all the earth (Exodus 9:15-

21). We ended this session by unpacking the implications Joshua 2:8-11 has for demonstrating that God was, indeed, achieving this goal.

I intended Session Seven to help us transition from reflecting on how the journey narrative (along with Exodus 19 and 24) depicts God and what he desires from his people, to reflecting on how we retell this story more effectively when we understand the role narrative plays within human remembering and forgetting. I led participants through the leading implications of the remembering and forgetting research that lies behind this project’s Contemporary Foundation to reflect on how the ways in which we retell God’s stories can both help us remember and forget key story elements (e.g. characters, plot, and setting) by which writers used stories to create their intended impact on readers/hearers.

Not only can we reinforce central elements of our faith by retelling God’s stories, but If our retelling repeatedly neglects needed story elements, we also risk forgetting some things God intends to give us.

116

Assessment

The research method for this project consisted of administering a Pre-Test at the beginning of the first session, a Post-Test at the end of the last session, and then comparing the results. To assess the extent to which this project achieved its goals, I created, in relation to each of the project's five goals, three quantitative questions and one qualitative question, totaling fifteen quantitative questions and five qualitative questions. Within the assessment tool I reordered these quantitative questions so that no two consecutive questions related to the same goal. The assessment tool asked participants to select their level of agreement with each statement across a seven-point Likert scale ranging from

Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7), thus, the higher the Likert score, the stronger the participant's level of agreement with the question, the lower the

Likert score the weaker the participant's level of agreement with the question.

The Pre-Test asked only demographic questions and fifteen quantitative questions. The Post-Test asked demographic questions, fifteen quantitative questions, and five qualitative questions.

Of the fifteen quantitative questions, three explored the participants’ understanding of the relationship between obeying God's voice and respecting his created order, as well as his delivering his people and his instruction. Three more explored the participants’ understanding of the relationship between God's actions across the wilderness journey and his character, his sovereignty, and his desires for his world. Three more explored the participants’ understanding of the relationship between God's making his name renown among the nations, his

117 greatness, his covenant faithfulness, and the scope of his mission. Three more explored the relationship between the participants’ understanding of God's loving formation and his covenant faithfulness, the expanse of his love, and the value he places on the role each member of his people plays in his mission. The final three explored the relationship between participants’ commitment to obeying

God's voice and their reflecting God's character, their impacting our local context, and their impacting the world as a whole.

The first four of the five qualitative questions asked how this study impacted the participants’ understanding of obeying God’s voice, of how God's actions on Israel's behalf fuel our obedience to his voice, of how God's loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice, and of how God's making his name known among the nations fuels our obedience to his voice. The fifth qualitative question asked how this study impacted their commitment to obeying God's voice as decisions made on behalf of his creation.

As I have reflected on the experience of developing and leading this project, I have encountered some instances in which the way I articulated a goal or its related statements may have influenced participants’ responses to the pre- post test instrument. If I were to lead this project again, I would make adjust the goal and goal statement wording as I note in the Goals section of Chapter Six of this paper. I have included a copy the Pre and Post Test instruments in Appendix

Two. In Chapter Five, I will analyze and report on the assessment results.

118

CHAPTER FIVE

REPORTING THE RESULTS

The purpose of this project was to impact the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice through a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey. The research question was to what extent has a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice? This chapter presents the results of participant responses to fifteen quantitative pre and post-test questions, as well as to five qualitative post-test questions developed to measure the success of the project's five goals. This chapter also orders goals in order of prominence. Table 1 reflects the difference between pre and post-test responses, as well as the overall impact (Change).

Table 1: Project Goals Ranked By Degree of Change Goals Pre-test Post-test Change

#4 God’s Loving Formation Fuels Our Obedience 4.3 6.6 2.3

#1 Understanding of “obeying God’s voice” 4.8 6.1 1.3

#2 How God’s Actions Fuel Our Obedience 6.1 6.7 .6

#5 Obeying God’s Voice on Behalf of His Creation 6.5 6.9 .4

#3 God Making His Name Renown Fuels Our 6.5 6.6 .1 Obedience

Average 5.6 6.6 .94 Note: These are mean scores for each project goal based on 9 participants responding (n=9), after seven weeks, on a scale from 1-7: (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Moderately Disagree, (3) Slightly Disagree, (4) Neutral, (5) Slightly Agree, (6) Moderately Agree, (7) Strongly Agree.

119

Table 1 ranks this project’s goals in order of prominence. This study most impacted participants’ understanding of how God’s formation fuels our obedience to his voice. Participants reflected a pre-posttest change of 2.3. This study also significantly impacted participants’ understanding of what “obeying God’s voice” means. Participants reflected a pre-posttest change of 1.3. Overall, this project impacted participant’s commitment to obeying God’s voice reflecting a pre-post test average of .94.

Goal Four: God’s Loving Formation Fuels Our Obedience

Participants rated goal four as this project’s most impactful goal at 2.3: To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice. Statements 10, “I understand God’s covenant faithfulness when I experience his loving formation,” 14, “I understand the expansiveness of

God’s love when I experience God’s loving formation,” and 5, “I understand that

God values my role within his people’s mission when I experience God’s loving formation, measured Goal Four’s impact.” Participants assessed goal four by rating its statements on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly

Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

120

Table 2. Goal #4: God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice. Question Pre-Test Post-Test Change 10. I understand God’s covenant faithfulness 4.1 6.7 2.6 when I experience his loving formation.

14. I understand the expansiveness of God’s 4.2 6.7 2.5 love when I experience God’s loving formation.

5. I understand that God values my role within his people’s mission when I experience God’s 4.6 6.3 1.7 loving formation.

Average 4.3 6.6 2.3 Note: These are mean scores for each goal question based on 9 participants responding (n=9), after seven weeks, on a scale from 1-7: (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Moderately Disagree, (3) Slightly Disagree, (4) Neutral, (5) Slightly Agree, (6) Moderately Agree, (7) Strongly Agree.

Participants assessed Question 10 as Goal Four’s most prominent statement at 2.6, “I understand God’s covenant faithfulness when I experience his loving formation.” Question 10 explored the relationship between the participants’ experience of God forming them and their associating it with His covenant faithfulness. Three participants did not answer Question 10 on the pre- test. After completing this study, these three participants post-tested Question 10 at 7, 5, and 7 respectively, indicating that this study elevated “formation” to an awareness level they had not previously experienced. When asked the qualitative question, "In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice?," participant six responded, "He formed us to glorify Him. In obedience to my created purpose I need to obey his direction."

Participants assessed Question 14 as Goal Four’s second Goal Four’s second most prominent question at 2.5, “I understand the expansiveness of

121

God’s love when I experience His loving formation.” The same three participants who did not answer Question 10 due to “formational silence,” also did not, initially, answer Question 14. However, after completing this study, these three participants post-tested Question 14 at 7, 5, and 7 respectively. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice?” participant nine responded, “I am still struggling with my understanding of the term ‘loving formation.’ If it means that God is intentional in all that He does, then this study has really helped me see how God’s hand directed even the smallest part of the Israelites’ exodus story. Before the world was formed God knew the plot and all of the pieces of the bigger story. In that regard, this study has been such a personal revival for me!”

Finally, participants assessed Question 5 as Goal Four’s third most prominent statement at 1.7: “I understand that God values my role within his people’s mission when I experience God’s loving formation.” Through Question

5, I explored the extent to which the participants connected God forming them with His clarifying their role within his people’s mission. The same three participants who did not answer Questions 10 and 14 also did not, initially, answer Question 5. However, after completing this study, these three participants tested Question 5 at 6, 5, and 7 respectively. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice?” participant three responded, “I previously never gave much thought to how important the sharing

122 of stories is in my personal spiritual formation. Through such story sharing and remembering I can more clearly hear and obey God's voice.”

Seven Participants responded to Goal Four’s qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice?” Of the seven, four focused on our response(s) to what God has done. All four emphasized our need to obey

God’s voice. Two of the four focused on how our responses to God should flow from his/our created purpose. One of the four reflected on how this study awakened in him the new realization of how vital remembering and sharing God’s stories with each other is a foundational response needed for our personal spiritual formation to help us more fully obey his voice. One of the four emphasized our need to view our lives within God’s bigger picture and respond by trusting him and obeying his voice. The other three participants responded by reflecting on how the story reveals what God has done. Two of these three focused on some of God’s attributes reflected in his activity which drives the story’s plot. Of these two one gravitated to the patience and mercy God demonstrated by being willing to incorporate imperfect people into his mission to make himself known to the world’s peoples and to trust his people to represent

Him accurately, even while he keeps teaching and forgiving us. Another gravitated to God being willing to take care of our needs and desiring only good for us. The third participant reflected on the implications of God knowing the plot of his larger story before creating the world, and on God’s lovingly forming his people as part of his eternal intentionality.

123

Goal One: Understanding “Obeying God’s Voice”

Participants rated goal one as this project’s second most impactful goal at

1.3: To impact the participants’ understanding of obeying God’s voice.

Statements 2, “I must embrace God’s created order in order to obey his voice,”

12, “I must recognize that God has already delivered me in order to obey his voice,” and 7, “I must embrace God’s instruction as the path to life in order to obey his voice measured Goal One’s impact.” Participants scored Goal One by rating its statements on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly

Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

Table 3. Goal #1: The participants’ understanding of obeying God’s voice. Question Pre-Test Post-Test Change 2. I must embrace God’s created order in order 4.0 6.0 2.0 to obey his voice.

12. I must recognize that God has already 4.0 5.5 1.5 delivered me in order to obey his voice.

7. I must embrace God’s instruction as the path 6.4 6.8 .4 to life in order to obey his voice.

Average 4.8 6.1 1.3 Note: These are mean scores for each goal question based on 9 participants responding (n=9), after seven weeks, on a scale from 1-7: (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Moderately Disagree, (3) Slightly Disagree, (4) Neutral, (5) Slightly Agree, (6) Moderately Agree, (7) Strongly Agree.

Participants rated Question 2 as Goal One’s most impactful statement at

2.0, “I must embrace God’s created order in order to obey his voice.” Two participants (7 and 9) did not select a pre-test answer to Question 2 and stated later to me that they were not certain what “embracing God’s created order” entailed. These same two participants post-tested Question 2 at 7. One other

124 participant (8) pre-tested Question 2 at 2 and post-tested it at 5. During session four we discussed Exodus 16’s linking together God’s own creational pattern when he worked six days before Sabbath-resting on the seventh and God providing manna and quail for the hungry Israelites to test whether they would trust him to provide and would obey his (voiced) instructions. Exodus, then, directly links embracing God’s created order with obeying his voice. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey impacted your understanding of obeying God’s voice?” participant two stated, “I was reminded time and time again of our God’s greatness. He knows the desires of my heart and that I want to obey Him. There are times, however, when I am like the Israelites and forget about his goodness. I am thankful for His redemption and that He is a God of second and third chances to get back on the right path and continue the work he has put in front of me to do.”

Participants rated Question 12 as Goal One’s second most impactful statement at 1.5, “I must recognize that God has already delivered me in order to obey his voice.” Participant 7, one who shared with me privately that he did not answer some of the questions because he didn’t know how he thought on the issue raised by the question, did not submitting a pre-test answer to Question 12.

After completing this study, participant 7 post-tested Question 12 at 7.

Participant 8 pre-tested Question 12 at 2, but after completing this study, post- tested it at 7. Two participants (a married couple) pre and post-tested Question

12 at 1, reflecting no change. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways

125 has this small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey impacted your understanding of obeying God’s voice?” participant four responded, “Obeying

God’s voice is putting faith into action and is a powerful way to proclaim God’s sovereignty in my life for others to observe. Hopefully they become curious enough to investigate and pursue God for themselves.”

Participants rated Question 7 as Goal One’s third most prominent statement at .4, “I must embrace God’s instruction as the path to life in order to obey his voice.” Six of Nine participants pre-tested Question 7 at 7, strongly agreeing. Two additional participants pre-tested it at 6, moderately agreeing. So,

8 out of 9 participants pre-tested Question 7 at either 6 or 7, reflecting mostly strong agreement with its statement before experiencing this study. One-person pre-tested Question 7 at 4 but post-tested it at 6. Eight out of nine participants post-tested Question 7 at 7. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey impacted your understanding of obeying God’s voice?, participant three responded, “The study made me realize that obeying God's voice requires community to help me remember God's story, and hear His voice. I must also participate in sharing

God's story so that others don't forget and miss His voice.”

Seven participants answered the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey impacted your understanding of obeying God’s voice?” Three of seven participants focused their thoughts on their/our responses to what God has done. Each of these three emphasized different aspects of our responses to God. One emphasized the need to tell

126

God’s stories in community with fellow believers to help each other remember so that we more fully obey. A second emphasized that obeying God’s voice puts our faith into action for others to observe while declaring God’s sovereignty over our lives, hopefully in ways that draw them in. A third reflected that God’s word is living and active. Reading it, if we are listening to God speaking through it and responding faithfully, should change us.

One participant focused on God’s actions rather than on our response, specifically that God repeatedly demonstrated his trustworthiness and called his people to respond by trusting him, though they often did not. The final three participants focused partly on God’s actions and partly on our responses to him.

Of these three, one stressed our need to observe how God had been leading the

Israelites (and the qualities he demonstrated in the process) and then respond to what we see by trusting God and obeying Him. A second saw in this story God’s greatness, God’s goodness, God as redeemer, who both delivers and repeatedly forgives his people. and God’s awareness of his peoples’ heart condition.

Though God knows that this participant desires to obey him, she sometimes resembles the Israelites in the wilderness who forgot God’s goodness. When this happens, she relies on God’s redemption to get back on the right path and continue the work to which he has called her. The third participant observed God shepherding his people through the desert and the sea as the pillar of fire and cloud. He also observed that this study helped him better understand the story’s characters and setting in ways that will help him declare to others both God’s miracles and how God has worked in his own life.

127

Goal Two: How God’s Actions Fuel Our Obedience to His Voice

Participants rated goal two as this project’s third most prominent goal at

.6: To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s actions in Israel’s wilderness journey fuels our obedience to his voice. Statements 4, “I understand who God is by studying his actions through Israel’s wilderness journey,” 9, “I understand God’s desires for his world by studying his actions along Israel’s wilderness journey,” and 13, “I understand God’s sovereignty by studying his actions through Israel’s wilderness journey,” assessed Goal 2. Participants scored goal two by rating its statements on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

Table 4: Goal #2: How God’s Actions fuel our obedience Question Pre-Test Post-Test Change 4. I understand who God is by studying his actions 5.7 6.8 1.1 through Israel’s wilderness journey.

9. I understand God’s desires for his world by studying his actions along Israel’s wilderness 6.2 6.7 .5 journey.

13. I understand God’s sovereignty by studying his 6.5 6.5 0 actions through Israel’s wilderness journey.

Average 6.1 6.7 .6 Note: These are mean scores for each goal question based on 9 participants responding (n=9), after seven weeks, on a scale from 1-7: (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Moderately Disagree, (3) Slightly Disagree, (4) Neutral, (5) Slightly Agree, (6) Moderately Agree, (7) Strongly Agree.

Participants rated Question 4 as Goal two’s most impactful statement at

1.1, “I understand who God is by studying his actions through Israel’s wilderness journey.” Four participants pre-tested question four at 6. Four participants pre- tested question four at 7. One participant did not submit a pre-test answer. Eight

128 of nine participants post-tested Question 4 at 7. The participant who initially did not answer Question 4 post-tested it at 7. Since this participant is one who stated that his reason for not answering some questions was that he did not understand the realities to which they pointed, then this study at least raised his awareness level concerning the connection between God’s wilderness journey actions and his identity. This study also prompted three additional participants to move from moderately agreeing to strongly agreeing that God’s actions helped them better understand his identity. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s actions across

Israel’s wilderness journey fuel our obedience to his voice?” participant two responded, “How God acted and reacted to the Israelites during their wilderness journey is the same way that he acts toward us today. Not only did I see His powerful through His mighty acts, I also saw Him as a redeemer, deliverer, and a provider. He revealed his mercy, love, and grace to a people who constantly seemed to “forget” who he was. I also saw that everything happened in his timing. He knows what is right, best, and good for His people. What then should my response be? To worship him in all that I say, think and do!”

Participants rated Question 9 as Question Two’s second most impactful statement at .5, “I understand God’s desires for his world by studying his actions along Israel’s wilderness journey.” Three participants pre-tested Question 9 at 7.

Five participants pre-tested Question 9 at 6. Thus, 8 of 9 participants expressed moderate to strong agreement pre-test agreement with Question 9. One participant pre-tested Question 9 at 5, expressing slight agreement. Seven of

129 nine participants post-tested Question 9 at 7, expressing strong agreement. Of these seven, this study moved three from moderate to strong agreement and a fourth from slight to strong agreement. Two participants who pre-tested Question

9 at 6 reflected no change. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s actions across Israel’s wilderness journey fuel our obedience to his voice?” participant three responded, “This study has helped me see more clearly how the Exodus narrative’s setting was critical to what God was doing with the Israelites in bringing them both out of Egypt and into the promised land. For example, by bringing the Israelites to the very place where Moses was called (in Midian), it is clear that God has total control of all circumstances. Also, seeing where the

Israelites actually crossed the Yam-Suph helped me appreciate more deeply the anxiety that the Israelites’ experienced and the incredible nature of God’s deliverance. Hence, I am more encouraged to obey God’s voice because I know how trustworthy and faithful, He is, even in the middle of perplexing circumstances.”

Participants rated Question 13 as Goal two’s third question reflecting no pre to post-test change, “I understand God’s sovereignty by studying his actions through Israel’s wilderness journey.” Six of nine participants pre and post-tested

Question 13 at 7, reflecting strong agreement. Two participants pre and post- tested Question 13 at 6, reflecting moderate agreement. One participant pre and post-tested Question 13 at 5, reflecting slight agreement. Thus, eight of nine participants expressed moderate to strong pre-test agreement. When asked the

130 qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s actions across Israel’s wilderness journey fuel our obedience to his voice,” participant four responded, “To see the great lengths

God is willing to go in order to demonstrate His love and mercy reveals His character. He is worthy of our faithful obedience and I want to be part of what

God is doing in this world in preparation for the next. I also see the parallels between their wilderness journey and what we are going through now.”

Seven participants answered the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s actions across

Israel’s wilderness journey fuel our obedience to his voice?” Six of seven participants categorized their responses as God’s attributes/actions triggering our responses. Of these six, four depicted God in clusters of “power” terms. All four discussed God’s power specifically. One of the four described God as

“sovereign” and as “the one who does the impossible.” One described God as

“exalted among the heavens” and “exalted in the earth.” Two of the four described God using the more specific power terms “redeemer,” “protector,” and

“deliverer.” In addition to describing God using power terminology, participants also used terms related to God’s steadfast love to describe him. Two specifically noted God’s love and care. One person, flowing out of God’s love and care, referenced God’s plan for his people and the world. Two more used terms flowing out of God’s love and care describing God as faithful and trustworthy, and as provider to/for his people. Two participants specifically noted God’s mercy.

While one participant observed God’s grace.

131

When describing our responses to God six of seven used obedience terminology. One of those three linked obedience to how we think and to our worship. Three linked obedience as a response to God proving himself trustworthy. One of these three added that when we operate based on our feelings, we tend to not trust God, but it is better for us if we wait on him to reveal his purposes. One linked obedience to discerning what God is already in the process of doing in this world joining him in it.

Goal Five: Obeying God’s Voice on Behalf of His Creation

Participants rated Goal Five as this project’s fourth most prominent goal at

.4: To impact the participants' commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation. Statements 1, “I commit to obeying God’s voice when I realize the impact my behavior makes on his world,’ 11, “I commit to obeying God’s voice when I grasp the impact my behavior makes on my local context,” and 8, “I commit to obeying God’s voice when I recognize that he intends my behavior to reflect his character measured Goal Five’s impact. Participants scored Goal Five by rating its related statements on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

132

Table 5. Goal #5: Obeying God’s Voice on Behalf of His Creation Question Pre-Test Post-Test Change 1. I commit to obeying God’s voice when I realize 6.0 7.0 1.0 the impact my behavior makes on his world.

11. I commit to obeying God’s voice when I grasp the impact my behavior makes on my local 6.8 7.0 .2 context.

6. I commit to obeying God’s voice when I recognize that he intends my behavior to reflect 6.8 6.8 0 his character.

Average 6.5 6.9 .4 Note: These are mean scores for each goal question based on 9 participants responding (n=9), after seven weeks, on a scale from 1-7: (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Moderately Disagree, (3) Slightly Disagree, (4) Neutral, (5) Slightly Agree, (6) Moderately Agree, (7) Strongly Agree.

Participants rated Question One as Goal Five’s most prominent statement at 1.0, “I commit to obeying God’s voice when I realize the impact my behavior makes on his world.” Five of nine participants pre and post-tested Question 1 at

7, indicating strong agreement. Two pre-tested it at 6 and post-tested it at 7, indicating that this study moved them from moderate to strong agreement. One participant did not submit a pre-test answer to Question 1 and cited his lack of familiarity with connecting obeying “obeying God’s voice” with “impacting his world.” All nine participants post-tested Question 1 at 7. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation?” participant four responded, “It’s difficult to find the words to describe the way our faithful obedience reaches into and impacts the spiritual realm at cosmic levels because it’s so difficult to understand how it happens exactly. I only know that it does

133 based on Ephesians 3:10-11. We are engaged in a spiritual warfare against spiritual forces of darkness. It necessarily requires us to be fully equipped and engaged. It’s not a fight we can be ill-prepared for if we expect to win.”

Participants rated Question 11 as Goal Five’s second most prominent statement at .2, “I commit to obeying God’s voice when I grasp the impact my behavior makes on my local context.” Six of nine participants pre-tested Question

11 at 7, reflecting strong agreement. Three of nine participants pre-tested

Question 11 at 6, reflecting moderate agreement. All nine participants post-tested

Question 11 at 7, reflecting strong agreement. Thus, three of nine participants indicated that this study moved their response from moderately agree to strongly agree. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation?” participant eight responded, “It has made me more inclined to hear/listen for God's voice, so that I can obey. It has strengthened my desire to hear him and to be used by him. To actively seek his voice.”

Participants rated Question 6 as Goal Five’s third statement reflecting no change, “I commit to obeying God’s voice when I recognize that he intends my behavior to reflect his character.” Through Question 6, I explored the degree to which participants connected “obeying God’s voice” with reflecting, to others, His character. Eight of nine participants pre and post-tested Question 6 at 7, reflecting strong agreement. One participant pre and post-tested Question 6 at 6, reflecting moderate agreement, but no change from moderate to strong agreement. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small

134 group study impacted your commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation?” participant eight responded, “By increased sensitivity to the Holy

Spirit's leading, obeying God’s voice brings blessing.”

Seven participants responded to the to the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation?” Five out of seven used “obey/obedience” terms or concepts to describe how they desired to God in light of this study. Two of the five saturated their responses with “obey/obedience” terms. Both used

“obey/obedience” three times and disobey/disobedience once. Three of these five specifically linked obeying with hearing God’s voice and with reflecting Him to or impacting others. One linked obeying/disobeying to spiritual warfare. One linked obeying to following the Holy Spirit’s leading and to bringing blessing. The two who did not directly use “obey/obedience” terms still conveyed similar ideas naturally linked to obeying God “glorify Him,” and “spiritual eyes and ears to see and hear.”

Goal Three: God Fuels Our Obedience by Making His Name Renown

Participants rated Goal Three as this project’s fifth most impactful goal at

.1: To impact the participants’ understanding of how God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations. Statements, 8, “I understand that God making his name renown among the nations propels me to obey his voice,” 15, “I understand that God making his name known through creation obeying his command propels me to obey his voice,” and 3, “I understand that God making his name known through training his people to trust

135 him propels me to obey his voice.” I assessed Goal Three by exploring the degree to which participants connected “obeying God’s voice” with God’s work to fuel our response through making his name renown among the nations, through creation, through training his people. Participants scored Goal Three by rating its related statements on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly

Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

Table 6. Goal #3: God Fuels Our Obedience by Making His Name Renown Question Pre-Test Post-Test Change 8. I understand that God making his name renown 6.4 6.6 .2 among the nations propels me to obey his voice.

15. I understand that God making his name known 6.3 6.4 .1 through creation obeying his command propels me to obey his voice.

3. I understand that God making his name known 6.7 6.7 0 through training his people to trust him propels me to obey his voice.

Average 6.5 6.6 .1 Note: These are mean scores for each goal question based on 9 participants responding (n=9), after seven weeks, on a scale from 1-7: (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Moderately Disagree, (3) Slightly Disagree, (4) Neutral, (5) Slightly Agree, (6) Moderately Agree, (7) Strongly Agree.

Participants rated Question 8 as Goal Three’s most prominent statement at .2, “I understand that God making his name renown among the nations propels me to obey his voice.” Exodus locates God’s delivering Israel within his initiative to make his name renown as the driving force behind His actions which move forward Exodus’ plot and which provide the foundation for His calling Israel to obey. Through Question 8, I explored the degree to which participants understood the link between God’s making his name renown among the nations

136 and obeying his voice. Five of nine participants pre and post-tested Question 8 at

7, reflecting strong agreement. Two participants pre and post-tested Question 8 at 6, reflecting moderate agreement. Seven of nine participants, then, expressed moderate to strong pre-test agreement with Question 8. One participant pre and post-tested Question 8 at 5, reflecting no change. One participant pre-tested

Question 8 at 6 and post-tested it at 7, indicating that this study moved her agreement from moderate to strong. When asked the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations?” participant three responded, “In this study it became even more apparent how all the different narrative elements came together to show how news of God’s power impacted the surrounding nations, like in the case of those living in Jericho (Rahab's story). When I obey God’s voice, I present a case to the unbelieving world why they, too, should listen and obey His voice.”

Participants rated Question 15 as Goal three’s second most impactful statement at .1: I understand that God making his name known through creation obeying his command propels me to obey his voice. Exodus depicts both non- human creatures and earth’s foundational elements (e.g. water) obeying God’s command as they collaborate to facilitate Israel’s deliverance. One implication of this theme is that the narrative’s non-human elements model part of what God desires from people. Through Question 15 I explored the degree to which participants connected creation’s response to God with their own obeying his voice. Six of nine participants pre-tested Question 15 at 7, expressing strong

137 agreement. Two pre-tested Question 15 at 6, expressing moderate agreement.

Eight of nine participants, then, expressed moderate to strong pre-test agreement with Question 15. One participant pre and post-tested Question 15 at

6, reflecting no change. One participant (1) pre-tested Question 15 at 3 and post- tested it at 4, for a difference of .1. One participant pre-tested Question 15 at 6 and post-tested it at 7, for a difference of .1. When asked the qualitative question,

“In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how

God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations?” participant 6 six responded, “This study reinforced for me that God is the Great I Am! Creator of all and overall. Watching how he brought the plagues and delivered the children of Israel reinforced that.”6

Participants rated. Question 3 as Goal Three’s third statement reflecting no change: I understand that God making his name known through training his people to trust him propels me to obey his voice. Exodus links God making his name known to Israel as the first stage of a sequence through which God’s name becomes known to the nations through Israel. Exodus also depicts God training his people to trust him as part of making his name known to them, to propel forward the rest of the sequence. Through Question 3, I explored the degree to which participants associated obeying God’s voice with God’s training his people to trust him. Participants pre- and post-tested Question 3 at 6.7, reflecting no change. Seven of 9 participants pre- and post-tested Question 3 at 7, reflecting strong agreement. Two participants pre- and post-tested Question 3 at 6, reflecting moderate agreement but no change. When asked the qualitative

138 question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations?” participant nine stated, “The connection that God’s chosen people were to be to the nations a display of His greatness and power impacted me because we too are to be making His name famous. What a great time to be talking and having conversations about remembering His great name!”

Seven participants answered the qualitative question, “In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations?” Three of the seven emphasized that God’s power triggered the process that led to making his name known among the nations. One of these three observed that biblical narrative elements worked together to show how news of God’s power impacted surrounding nations, and specifically cited the example we studied during Session 6: Rahab’s testimony. One of these three also extended the notion of God’s continuing to reverberate his power among the nations as articulated in Jesus’ statement in Acts 1:8. Four of the seven focused on the role believers play in making God’s name renown among the nations. One of the four stressed reflecting God’s love to the nations. One stressed that obeying God’s voice presents a case for unbelievers to listen and obey. One stressed that we share in God’s kingdom mission of winning the world’s peoples (far and near).

One stressed that we make God’s name known among the nations by reflecting his power in us.

139

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY AND REFLECTIONS

We are in the middle of a story emergency. The stories we are living by are failing us. Our framing stories of domination, revolution, purification, victimization, isolation, and consumption are paralyzing us, polarizing us, trapping us in a suicidal downward spiral. And better stories have not yet presented themselves. The stories we need are there. They are whispering themselves softly and persistently, just below the threshold of hearing, overcome by the noise of traffic, the blare of commercials and the jangling voices of preachers and politicians seeking power. If we turn off the radio, if we mute the TV, if walk away from the traffic-jammed highway and follow a less-traveled pathway to a quieter place, we will find these stories being told again and again. These stories offer us something we can find nowhere else. These are the stories of Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah--the stories of creation, liberation, and peaceable kingdom. Creation is the prequel and peaceable kingdom is its sequel. Liberation is central. So much depends on our rediscovering this central story. (McLaren 2009, 151)

This project consisted of a small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey narrative intended to impact the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice, conducted across seven blended learning sessions based in Marysville,

OH between February 23 and June 7, 2020. This project impacted this particular group of mature believers’ collective commitment to obeying God's voice. Though the participants pre-tested slight to moderate agreement (5.6) with the study’s quantitative questions, they post-tested moderate to strong collective agreement

(6.5) with the study’s quantitative questions, for a difference of .9. Project Goals The purpose of this project was to impact the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice through a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of Israel’s wilderness journey. The research question was to what extent has a Marysville, OH based small group blended learning study of

140

Israel’s wilderness journey impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying

God’s voice? This project sought to accomplish the following goals.

1. To impact the participants’ understanding of obeying God’s voice.

2. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s actions in

Israel’s wilderness journey fuels our obedience to his voice.

3. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations.

4. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice.

5. To impact the participants' commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation.

In this chapter, I will analyze each goal in descending order by this project's most prominent findings.

Goal #4: How God’s Loving Formation Fuels Our Obedience

Through Goal #4 I sought, “To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice.” W. Ross Blackburn notes how Deuteronomy 8:1-4 links God’s purposes for this wilderness journey and the Israelites’ later wilderness wanderings as training the Israelites in how and why to trust in the Lord, to keep alive their memories of all he had done so that they would obey his voice, reflect his image faithfully to those around them, and live long in their new land. The implication is that God’s people cannot be all he intends them to become unless they go through trials—God’s training

(Blackburn 2012, 78-81). Participants pre-tested Goal #4 at 4.3 (neutral) and

141 post-tested it at 6.5 (moderate to strong agreement) for a difference of 2.2.

Exodus links God’s efforts to form the Israelites with leading motives for obeying his voice. This study impacted participants’ understanding of how Exodus’ wilderness journey narrative reveals God forming his people by demonstrating his covenant faithfulness, the expansiveness of his love, and by God confirming his people’s role in his mission.

Analysis

Participants rated Goal #4 as most prominent for multiple reasons. First, as I noted when discussing Goal #4 in Chapter 5, prior to completing this study three participants did not submit pre-test answers to some of Goal Four’s questions (10, 14, 5). Unprompted by me, all three approached me outside the study to explain. Though they were the three oldest participants in this study, and though all three had been believers longer than 25 years, none of their congregational contexts emphasized “formation,” and they had never thought of describing God’s work on us as “formation.” This formational “silence” directly impacted how they answered these questions. A fourth participant (9), though she pre-tested Goal #4’s three statements at 7, 6, and 6 respectively, also shared after completing this study that she was “struggling with (how to define) the term ‘loving formation.’” Since, after completing this study the first three participants post-tested Goal #4’s questions at an average of 5.6, 6.3, and 6.3, this study raised to the level of their awareness and even moderate agreement that they observed God forming his people through Exodus’ journey episodes.

Second, participant responses to Goal #4’s statements may have been

142 influenced by the wording of Goal #4 and its related statements. Though God lovingly forming his people may well describe God’s activity in the journey narrative, Exodus itself does not describe God’s activity specifically as “forming.”

I chose Goal #4’s wording while viewing the journey through the lens of God’s statement, “I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (Exodus

19:4). Since the metaphor God uses is based on the parenting behavior of his creatures (Fretheim 2010, 208-214), perhaps an expression more fitting than

“forming” would have been “nurturing.” Additionally, though Exodus links God’s wilderness activity with his covenant faithfulness, with the expansiveness of his love, and with clarifying the role he desires his people to fill (Brown 2011a, 70-

71), if we specifically define Goal #4’s statements using the wilderness narrative itself, statements more directly related to Goal #4 might include: First, when I experience God's nurturing, he demonstrates that he is able and willing to sustain me. Second, when I experience God's nurturing, he demonstrates that he seeks my good. Third, when I experience God's nurturing, he demonstrates that he won't abandon me. Fourth, when I experience God's nurturing, he confirms my identity/role in his people and mission. Had I re-worded Goal #4 and its statements in this way, participants may have pre- and post-tested them statistically closer than they did.

Goal #1: I Understand “Obeying God’s Voice”

Though Goal #1 I sought, “To impact the participants’ understanding of obeying God’s voice.” As Christopher Wright observed, the starting point for the

Bible’s moral teaching is that God always acts first out of his great love and grace

143 to redeem and rescue. He then calls people to respond by obeying his instruction out of their gratitude for what he has done and within the context of the relationship they experience with him. God founded their relationship on his redeeming grace but maintained that relationship through is forgiving grace

(Wright 2004, 25-30). Participants pre-tested Goal #1 at 4.8, expressing neutral to slight agreement, and post-tested it at 6.1, expressing moderate agreement, for a difference of 1.3. This study impacted how participants understood “obeying

God’s voice” specifically in relation to its connection to embracing God’s created order, to recognizing that He has already delivered us, and less prominently to embracing God’s instruction as the path to life.

Analysis

Understanding what it means to obey God's voice lies at the heart of what it means to be God's people. The Exodus writer's strategic positioning of God's instruction to obey his voice (Exodus 19-40) after he acted mightily to secure the

Israelites' attention by redeeming, protecting, and providing for them and before he re-connects them to neighboring nations (Numbers 10:11-Joshua) draws attention to the indispensable function this instruction has for God's people. Since we have embraced the call to accept what God has accomplished on the world's and on our behalf, we are continually tasked with seeking, "What has God's voice declared, in Scripture?", "What is God's voice saying in our place and time?",

"What does it sound like?", and "How do we recognize it when we hear it?"

Christopher Wright asks, “How do we let the light of Old Testament Israel penetrate the centuries and illuminate our world?” Wright views God’s working

144 through Israel as a paradigm that can describe or explain many situations in our time by the governing principles God established with Israel and can also critique or evaluate those current situations through God’s governing principles. When the Israelites obeyed God’s covenant, he moved them into the state of being distinctive from the nations while simultaneously calling them to teach, model and mediate for the nations. God never intended the Israelites’ obeying his instruction to be an end in itself. Rather, their obeying God’s instruction was the very reason for their existence (Wright 2004, 62-65).

Though Exodus 16 specifically links embracing God’s created order with obeying his voice, participants pre-tested this connection neutrally (4.8) and post- tested it at moderate agreement (6.1). This may indicate that participants had not reflected on this connection before completing this study. One potential reason for a pre-test disconnect is that these participants come from faith communities whose congregational services are determined more by pastor choice than by a religious calendar that structures services around strategic biblical events, as well as biblical holidays and festivals designed to rekindle specific memories of

God’s past activity including his creative acts. Since they have not experienced the rhythm a creative-event approach can provide, they may not have perceived the link between obeying God’s voice and his creative order.

Additionally, though Exodus specifically provides several examples reflecting the need to recognize that God has delivered us (and the need to remember it) as part of the foundation for obeying his voice, participants pre- tested only a neutral response. This, too, may indicate that participants had not

145 reflected on this connection before completing this study.

Further, though Exodus’ wilderness journey narrative does not specifically use “trust” vocabulary, every transaction between God and Israel within this narrative assumes trust as a prerequisite for obeying God’s voice. Yet, when formulating Goal #1 and its supporting statements, I neglected to include “trust” vocabulary. If reworking this study, I would likely reword Goal #1’s statements like these two examples. First, I must trust God to provide for my needs in order to obey his voice. Second, I must trust God's plan for my life (or trust God with my life) in order to obey his voice.

Goal #2: How God’s Actions Fuel Our Obedience

Though Goal #2 I sought, “To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s actions in Israel’s wilderness journey fuels our obedience to his voice.” Similar to the discussion in Goal #1 above, the Bible always begins its moral teaching in God’s loving initiative to rescue and redeem his creation. Only after establishing his prior initiative does God call his people to obey his instruction out of their thankfulness for His love and grace (Wright 2004, 25-30).

God’s loving initiative and his calling the Israelites to obey defines the role of

God’s people. God calls us to participate as his people, at his invitation and command, within his own mission within the history of the world, to redeem his creation (Wright 2006, 22-23).

Participants pre-tested Goal #2 at 6.1, expressing moderate agreement, and post-tested it at 6.7, expressing moderate to strong agreement, for a difference of .6. This study of Exodus’ journey episode specifically impacted how

146 participants understand God’s identity and character (pre-testing at slight to moderate agreement and post-testing at moderate to strong agreement) as well as how they understand God’s desires for his world (pre-testing at moderate agreement and post-testing at moderate to strong agreement).

Analysis

Participant responses to Goal #2 questions indicated that this study impacted their understanding particularly concerning how Exodus’ journey narrative helps them understand who God is (pre-testing Question 4 at 5.7 and post-testing it at 6.8 for a difference of 1.1) and concerning Exodus’ journey narrative helps them understand God’s desires for his world (pre-testing

Question 9 at 6.2 and post-testing at 6.7 for a difference of .5).

In Session One, I attempted, by reflecting on the expression “before the

κόσμου) in Ephesians 1:4 and 1 Peterסκαταβολῆςסfoundation of the world” (πρὸ

1:20 to depict God and Messiah, Jesus, before creating, thinking missionally about God’s rescue and redemption plan of which Israel, and the exodus, are a part, and collaborating together to (s)elect and adopt as God's children those who embrace what they would achieve on their behalf. Paul and Peter, then, provide insight into God's pre-creation activity, allowing us to articulate God's acting missionally before he began to create the world (before the time portrayed by Genesis 1-2). Reflecting on the combined contribution made by these passages, Jesus was specifically incarnated into a Jewish family within

Abraham's descendants, Israel. This means that God foreknew his rescue/redemption plan and the role Israel (collectively) would play in it, and it

147 means that he foreknew Israel (collectively). This also means that God foreknew the exodus and planned for it as a mighty redemptive act. In sessions 2, 3, and 4 we examined in more detail how Exodus depicts God as redeemer.

This broader view accentuates how the exodus vividly manifests God as redeemer. Yet. when developing my Goal #2 questions, I neglected to include a question exploring participants’ understanding of God as redeemer through the exodus/wilderness narrative. If I led this study again, I would include a Goal #2 statement such as, “I understand God as redeemer by studying his actions depicted in Israel’s wilderness journey narrative.” Incorporating “redeemer” specific questions may impact participant response to Goal #2.

Goal #5: Obeying God’s Voice on behalf of His Creation

Through Goal #5 I sought, “To impact the participants' commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation.” As Michael Goheen observes,

God pursued his purposes for all of creation through Israel by first making

Abraham’s descendants into a great nation, whom he called to embody His creational intentions, and then by blessing all nations and all creation through that nation. When God’s people obey his voice, they embody his creational intentions and allow his blessings to reverberate through networks of the world’s peoples (Goheen 2011, 49).

Participants pre-tested Goal #5 at 6.5 (moderately to strongly agree) and post-tested it at 6.9 (strongly agree), for a difference of .4. This study of Exodus’ journey narrative impacted the participants’ awareness of the link between obeying God’s voice and the impact their behavior makes on God’s world.

148

Participants expressed moderate pre-test agreement (6) and strong post-test agreement (7) with Question 1. This study also positively impacted their awareness of the link between obeying God’s voice and impacting their local context. Participants expressed moderate to strong pre-test agreement (6.6) and strong post-test agreement (7) with Question 11.

Analysis

Goal #5 seeks to reinforce the recurring biblical theme, highlighted by several Exodus episodes, that human behavior creates ripple effects that reverberate positively and/or negatively through the web of human relational connections and even penetrating into the spiritual realm. Thus, our behavior makes a cosmic/creational impact. Participants tested Goal #5 fourth in prominence out of this project’s five goals. I entered this study anticipating that participants might assess this goal higher than fourth out of five. Across my own fifty-four years as a church member, I have periodically heard sermons on the impact our behavior makes on those close to us. However, I have rarely heard sermons or teachings about the impact our behavior makes on creation as a whole. My anticipation of how participants might assess this goal, though, may not have accounted for either the convictions participants would bring into this study from their many years of walking with the Lord, or for the differences between the messages they have heard during their years as believers and the types of messages I have heard. They may have entered this study having heard messages stressing the impact our behavior makes on creation as a whole.

Though participants expressed moderate pre-test agreement with Goal #5,

149 when I more closely examine its statements, two lack a strong conceptual link to the impact our behavior makes on God’s creation. First, I commit to obeying

God’s voice when I recognize that he intends my behavior to reflect his character. Second, I commit to obeying God’s voice when I grasp the impact my behavior makes on my local context. Though these two statements may constitute fitting reflections on the wilderness narrative, they do not reinforce the link between obeying and creation. If I facilitated this series again, I would rewrite these statements something like the following three. First, I serve God's creation when I obey his voice. Second, when I consider how my behavior impacts others,

I commit to obeying God’s voice. Third, When I remember that my behavior impacts God's world, I commit to obeying His voice.

Goal #3: God Making His Name Renown Fuels Our Obedience.

Through Goal #3 I sought, “To impact the participants’ understanding of how God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations.” In Exodus, God makes his name known both through his might acts

(Exodus 6:7; 7:5; 7:17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29-30; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12) and through how his people respond to his redeeming, training, and calling them to obey his voice. W. Ross Blackburn asked, “What does it mean to be the Lord’s people?” God intended Israelites to demonstrate for the world God’s intentions to restore and govern his creation. God made himself known to Israel so that he could make himself known to the world through Israel (Blackburn 2012, 89-95).

Participants pre-tested Goal #3 at 6.5 (moderately to strongly agree) and post-tested it at 6.6 (moderately to strongly agree) for a difference of .1. This

150 study impacted participants’ understanding of God making his name renown as a trigger for our obeying his voice. It also slightly impacted participant understanding of how creation obeying God’s command propels us to obey his voice.

Analysis

Exodus’ plot moves forward by God’s efforts to make his name known to

Israel, to the Egyptians, and to the world’s nations (through Israel). Rahab testifying (Joshua 2:8-11) that stories about God drying up a path through Yam-

Suph so the Israelites could cross when they left Egypt had circulated north to

Jericho confirms that creation obeying God’s command contributed to God making his name renown among the nations. Goal #5’s first two statements express these realities. However, its third statement, God making his name known through training his people to trust him, exhibits a less direct connection with God making his name renown as a catalyst for our obeying, and participants pre- and post-tested it reflecting no change. If I re-led this series, I would rewrite that statement to something more like the following: When I join God in making his name renown, I obey his voice. Modifying this statement could lend to more clearly determining whether participants connected God making his name renown through them with their obeying his voice. Application Our God-created finitude shapes every aspect of our existence, even our remembering and forgetting (Brown 2011a, 66-70; Coman, Brown, Koppel, and

Hirst 2009, 126-127). We can never recall, at any one time, everything we are

151 capable of remembering, but fall victim to “mnemonic silences” (Marsh 2007, 16-

20; Stone, Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2012, 39-53). A speaker's selective retrieval can encourage both the speaker and listener(s) to forget information, related to the material she/he recalled, but which she/he failed to recite (Hirst and

Echterhoff 2011, 61-73; Levy and Anderson 2002, 299-305; Coman, Brown,

Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 136). At the same time, when we converse with others and a speaker repeats something which both she/he and/or the listeners already know(s), both are likely to better remember later this preexisting memory

(Karpicke and Roediger 2007, 159-161; Coman, Momennejad, Drach, and

Geana 2016, 8171).

In this section I weave together and apply elements from this project's

Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Contemporary Foundations to the task of equipping believers to more effectively remember and obey the Lord's voice by more clearly understanding the story of which we are a part, by becoming more aware of the impact our finitude--experienced in our remembering and forgetting-

-makes on our recall of God's mighty acts and our commitment to obey his voice.

I will also identify a potential skeleton plan for equipping parents, grandparents, and congregational leaders to function as God's “dominant narrators” deliberately focusing on how they can implant God's stories into current and future generations to equip them to obey the Lord's voice.

Identity

How do we know who we are? We learn who we are by coming to know how God positioned rescuing humanity as a focal point of his mission to redeem-

152 restore his creation. We come to know what God has done by witnessing him in action through the accounts of the Bible’s cumulative story. Thus, we come to know who we are by the Bible's account of the role God intended his people to serve in his creation. Genesis and Exodus lay the foundation for these.

Helping others know God's grand story of which we are a part

Some churches I have attended over the last several years focus their educational and small group attention on current books covering a variety of spiritual or life related topics at the expense of ensuring that their members can account for the one story we all claim. One factor influencing this phenomenon may be that we grow intimidated by the Bible’s scope to the degree that, when we have specific spiritual questions, we are drawn to the writings of those who have already studied those questions. Without devaluing what we can learn from what our fellow believers have written (We, in fact, need them to write; and we need to learn from them.) we cannot afford, though, to prioritize their writings over Scripture, or study them at the expense of Scripture. Thus, one application of this project would be to help others rediscover Bible study on multiple levels, with the goal being to equip members with foundational Bible study skills, then to help them experience the Bible’s texts firsthand while applying those skills.

Procedurally, I would first seek to help them gain a clearer grasp of the story we all are in, the Bible's grand story of all God has done from pre-creation to new creation. Second, I would seek to help acquaint them with the resources each biblical book provides to seek the Lord and obey his voice in ways that are consistent with how their writer's intended these books to equip their first readers.

153

A few models for implementing a strategy like this could include Gordon Fee and

Douglas Stuart's, How to Read the Bible Book by Book (2009). Stephen Witmer developed a Two-Year Bible study guide as an application of Fee and Stuart's book. Whitmer's plan could be used as a basis for helping others develop a clearer sense of the Bible's cumulative story and provide a simple tracking tool for helping readers account for which biblical texts they have studied and discussed together and which they have not. Another guide which could contribute toward reaching these goals would be Richard Alan Fuhr and Andreas

J. Köstenberger, Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and

Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology (2016). Third, as I seek to help them grasp each individual book's function, I would also seek to help them grasp that book's contribution to the Bible's cumulative story. Fourth, I would seek to help them apply each book's message to daily challenges so that they more effectively hear the Lord and obey his voice.

Remembering and Forgetting

In this project's Contemporary Foundation, I attempted to apply principles from recent research in the nature of human remembering and forgetting to develop the discussion within each of the seven study sessions. My goal was to help us understand the impact which our remembering and forgetting makes on the processes of our being formed.

Functioning as “Dominant Narrators”

On the family level, since God intended Israelite parents and grandparents to function as “dominant narrators” passing along “unshared memories” to their

154 next generations so that these stories of what God had accomplished on their behalf and for the world would not fade from their memories (Deuteronomy 6:4-9;

11:18-23; 1 Chronicles 16:7-20), then one way we could apply these principles would be to equip parents and grandparents in at least four areas (with specific application to family contexts): knowing the story of which we are a part, understanding the impact our conversations make on our remembering and forgetting, engaging effectively in conversations, and in effective storytelling.

At the congregational level, since God also intended Israelite priests to function in similar ways, teaching and representing God to the people to influence how they recall God's actions and how they think about their individual and collective identity, he still intends church and ministry leaders to function as

“dominant narrators.” Another way, then, which we could apply these principles is to equip church and ministry leaders in these same four disciplines but with specific application to serving in congregational and small group contexts.

At both levels, the leading goals of these training programs would be, first, to help members of both group types to develop, from Scripture, as wide and clear a vision of God and his mission as possible (Wright 2010, 163-178). The recent memory and forgetting research recounted in Chapter 3 demonstrates that when “dominant narrators” either purposefully or habitually omit material related to the stories they tell, over time that omission impacts how they remember those stories and how others hear those stories. Based on research and theological reflection concerning the long-term impact of congregations giving people less than all that Scripture is capable of providing them, the second goal of this

155 program would be to fully nourish and equip believers to handle trials, temptations and other challenges by reinforcing the task of helping others know all of God's grand story of which we are a part (Hiestand and Wilson 2015, 53-64,

65-78). In this context, learning how and when we function as dominant narrators becomes an exercise in practical theology serving the greater goal of obeying the

Lord's voice.

Investing in each other

As noted in Chapter 3 of this document under the Project Connection subset of “What factors impact the spread of shared memories across a network?” I noted that the research discussed in that section has implications for the way pastors and other ministry leaders plan to foster climates encouraging conversations about God’s mighty acts, and for encouraging members to invest in each other. In addition to the benefits commonly associated with investing in each other, the research noted in this section provides an additional motive.

Investing in each other to establish multifaceted connections across a congregation’s network founds a framework for stories of God’s mighty acts to reverberate more effectively through this network, rekindling our shared memories and encouraging our collective obedience to his voice.

Since we already know natural benefits for investing in each other, and know them when we experience them, we may not need to teach them.

However, I have not witnessed a congregation proactively teaching its members that an additional reason why congregational leaders encourage life groups and fellowship opportunities is that by establishing richer connections between our

156 fellow believers we create the infrastructure for more successfully sharing God- stories which rekindle needed memories of his wonder, that encourage us to obey his voice. Such a teaching program would be a natural complement to the four-stage program mentioned in the previous section: knowing the story of which we are a part, understanding the impact our conversations make on our remembering and forgetting, engaging effectively in conversations, and in effective storytelling. “Why do we invest in each other?” could then become the fifth stage complementing the previous four. In this context, investing in each other becomes an exercise in practical theology serving the greater goal of obeying the Lord's voice.

Fostering more effective listening

If our finitude limits us to only remembering selectively and incompletely, when we hear a speaker recall a biblical account of something God has done, her/his partial and selective recall can impact our memory of this event, if we listen uncritically. If speakers repeat this cycle (recounting these events selectively and partially) they risk forgetting related (but potentially significant) material and encouraging their listeners (who may still be developing the ability to listen critically) to gradually shape how they view what God has done by this partial recall of the story. In these cases, we and our members become more vulnerable to forgetting material we need to be further formed in God's image and to obey his voice (Coman and Hirst 2015, 717-722; Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst 2007,

727-733).

These tendencies of both finite speakers and listeners prompt at least two

157 questions. First, “In spite of our own finite memories and communication abilities, how do we teach our members to become more critical listeners of us in the mold of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-12)?” First, stage one of the five stage training plan sketched above lays the foundation for equipping people to listen better to what biblical authors intended to convey through/about God. The desired byproduct of this process is that the more we come to know God's ways through becoming better readers of his stories, the more we recognize his working and learn to discern his voice in our time. Second, while purposefully investing in each other to establish more extensive networks through which God-stories can reverberate throughout the congregation, equipping our members to listen more effectively to each other would further enrich our efforts to invest in each other and could foster more effective listening to the God-stories fellow believers tell us. Some resources which could be used in this training plan stage include: Michael

Nichols, The Lost Art of Listening, Second Edition: How Learning to Listen Can

Improve Relationships (2009); Adam McHugh, The Listening Life: Embracing

Attentiveness in a World of Distraction (2015), and Keith R. Anderson, A

Spirituality of Listening: Living What We Hear (2016).

Second, the tendencies of finite speakers and listeners prompts an additional question, “If pastors and church leaders increase members’ risk of forgetting parts of what God has done by not recalling biblical material related to those acts, and if they select preaching texts by their perception of members' need and by personal preference, leaving significant portions of Scripture unaddressed in the pulpit, then how can they reduce the impact their selectivity

158 has on developing in their members’ memories incomplete understandings of

Scripture’s collective testimony about God?” The answer leads us back to the first stage of the equipping plan discussed above: knowing the story of which we are a part. In this case, pastors and leaders can reduce this impact by complementing their pulpit messages with additional formational ministries which help members experience and internalize the rest of Scripture's witness.

Tracking which ministries have led members to experience which portions of Scripture can be managed by tools such as Planning Center’s Services module. Pastors might also create their own simple tracking tools using spreadsheet applications such as Excel or Open/Libre Office Calc. Depending on the tools congregations use to develop their websites, church website builders can use some tools to develop a sub-section of the church’s site for storing in the site’s database any formational ministry’s attribute associated with records of those events. Church site builders could then build a view which provides leaders the ability to sort these records by date, theme, keywords, biblical passages, or other desired attributes which have been defined in their data entry forms. If built into the congregation’s website, then leaders could decide whether or not to ask site builders to display for members progress charts depicting what portions of

Scripture they have recalled or discussed together. The message leaders convey through visible progress visualizations could be “We want you to see that we are holding ourselves accountable to help you experience ‘the whole council of

God.’” Helping members develop listening skills, then, becomes an exercise in practical theology serving the greater goal of obeying the Lord's voice.

159

Two of the leading findings of memory and forgetting research accentuated in this paper's Contemporary Foundation section are, first, that God instituted into

Israelite society multiple multi-sensory methods for recalling and recounting the mighty acts he performed on their behalf, so that they and their descendants would remember and take courage to obey his voice. Thus, we who have entered God's people through God's and Messiah, Jesus' collaborative redemption plan have the same calling to recall and recount not only these same stories, but the additional stories of what God accomplished through Jesus

Christ. Forgetting or distorting these stories can gradually, if not adjusted, lead to spiritual ruin when people forget all or parts of these stories. Second, the conversations we have with each other wield the power to both rekindle-sustain our memories as well as to distort our memories (leading to forgetting) of potentially key story elements, even of significant actions which God accomplished. Thus, building on the foundation established by the training plan outlined in this Application section, helping members develop two additional skills may more effectively equip them to obey the Lord's voice. These two skillsets are how we effectively engage in conversations and how we effectively tell stories.

Engaging Effectively in Conversations

If our conversations have the power to strengthen shared memories as well as to encourage forgetting of related details which, in our finitude, we omit in our recounting, then how can we engage in conversations more effectively to reduce the risk of forgetting? One potential area of future research would be to consult conversation experts to better understand how we can become more skilled

160 conversationalists. After identifying a core skillset common to exceptional conversationalists, we could then train groups of congregational members to develop these skills with full knowledge that at least one way to apply them is by engaging in God conversations. In fact, the training could involve role playing in which participants discuss actual God stories as exercises in developing conversational skills. Some potential resources to help develop these skills include Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler, Crucial

Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High (2012), Douglas Stone,

Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What

Matters Most (2010). Developing conversational skills, then, becomes an exercise in practical theology serving the greater goal of obeying the Lord's voice.

Effective Storytelling

Since God has built storytelling into the foundational processes of forming his people to obey his voice, then our ability to tell God's stories well, in effective conversations, will provide the power to strengthen our shared memories of what he has accomplished. Toward this end, one potential area of future research would be to consult storytelling experts to better understand how we can become more skilled storytellers and apply these skills to God stories. After identifying a core skillset common to exceptional story tellers, we could then train groups of congregational members to develop these skills with full knowledge that at least one way to apply these skills is by telling God stories. In fact, the training could involve role playing in which participants discuss actual God stories as exercises

161 in developing story telling skills. Some potential resources to help develop these skills include David Fleer and Dave Bland, Reclaiming the Imagination: The

Exodus as Paradigmatic Narrative for Preaching (2009), John Walsh, The Art of

Storytelling: Easy Steps to Presenting an Unforgettable Story (2014). John W.

Wright, Telling God's Story: Narrative Preaching for Christian Formation (2007),

Norbert Haukenfrers, Fire, Water, and Wind: God’s Transformational Narrative:

Learning from Narrative Psychology, Neuroscience, and Storytelling about

Identity Formation (2016), and Jeff Barker, The Storytelling Church: Adventures in Reclaiming the Role of Story in Worship (2011). In this context, developing storytelling skills becomes an exercise in practical theology serving the greater goal of obeying the Lord's voice. Further Study This project has sparked my awareness of multiple potential areas of future research, which could realistically unfold a lifetime’s worth of work. In this section, though, I have attempted to draw attention to specific areas of research prompted by the bridging of this project’s four foundations: biblical, theological, historical, and contemporary, as well as the experience of implementing this project itself.

Reconstructing Exodus’ Setting and Characters

As the Biblical Foundation section of this paper indicates, theologians, biblical scholars, linguists, literary critics, archaeologists and historians all must initially interpret the biblical text. Interpreting it well begins with aligning one’s goals with the nature and shape of that text (Sternberg 1987, 25-42). Stories, as

162 literary discourse, require three elements: plot (actions/events), characters (who act or experience), and setting--the space/time arena in which characters act

(Ryken 1984, 35). Since characters cannot act outside of space/time, they cannot exist without a story’s setting (Ryken 2015, 27-38). Narrative writers and storytellers communicate, then, not about but through characters, plot, and setting (Ryken 2015, 11-16). Interpreting how a narrative portrays its own setting through its narrative shape, then, is vital foundational step to understanding the ways its writer(s) intended to impact his/their audience through it.

Further, the Exodus writer established the story’s setting by using location deixis to link characters with specific locations, and particularly established proximity between Jethro’s home, the mountain of God, Rephidim, “the rock at

Horeb,” Mount Sinai, and the land of Midian. Further, he linked the characters and events presented in Exodus 2:15b-4:23 with those presented in Exodus

17:1-18:27 to portray the setting of both episodes as the land of Midian. The setting of Exodus 2:15b-4:23 and Exodus 17:1-18-27, as depicted by the shape of Exodus’ story, governs the direction of the Israelites’ journey depicted in

Exodus 12:33-18:27 as a journey from Egypt to the land of Midian. Retelling this story faithfully (in light of its characters, plot, and setting) should account for how this story celebrates God sovereignly delivering his people while transcending space (earthly kingdom boundaries—Ur, Haran, Canaan, Egypt, and Midian) and time (fulfilling his promises across generations). In light of Exodus’ narrative shape, retelling this story faithfully, rather than deemphasizing the time Moses lived in the land of Midian (Hoffmeier 2005, The Wilderness Itineraries-Exodus

163

3:1), should prompt us to ask at least, “Why does Exodus’ narrative shape stress

Moses’ and God's activity in the land of Midian?”

The Theological Foundation section of this paper, through the narrative theologies of Hans Frei and Stanley Hauerwas as well as through Jacob

Goodson’s philosophical analysis of both using Thomas Acquinas’ intellectual virtues of humility, patience, and prudence, encourages theologians to humbly allow biblical narratives (both in their micro patterns and macro structure) to take the lead when developing philosophic and systematic theology (Frei 1980, 307-

324) so that interpreters absorb their lives into its world and allow God to form them through their Bible reading (Frei 1993b, 145-152; Goodson 2015, 170-171) rather than seeking to “master the text” by their own interpretations (Vanhoozer

2009, 463-465). Goodson’s approach is consistent with Sternberg’s insistence that theologians, biblical scholars, linguists, literary critics, archaeologists and historians all must initially interpret the biblical text and that interpreting it well begins with aligning one’s goals with the nature and shape of that text (Sternberg

1987, 25-42).

Thomas Aquinas stressed that interpreters, to manifest good character, develop habits that complement Scripture’s literal sense, maintaining the biblical narratives’ integrity by enabling an ordered diversity which does not force interpretations onto Scripture that exclude other potentially true interpretations, preserving the way the words run (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I.1.1.10;

Aquinas, The Power of God, Question 4. Article 1). Jacob Goodson applies

Aquinas’ intellectual patience to interpretive patience, which thinks alongside

164 biblical narratives without necessarily asserting their meaning and remains open to other interpretations while navigating the process that begins when we read and ends not merely when/if we grasp the text in our minds, but when we allow our interpretations to shape our actions (Goodson 2015, 180-181).

Eugene Rogers adds we evaluate this “ordered diversity” of readings outside of hermeneutics within the discipline of ethics, and in the particular task of practical wisdom, or “prudence” (Rogers 1996, 64). Goodson goes further, encouraging interpreters to ask, “How does my relationship with the text affect its literal sense?” and “If I were to properly evaluate my interpretations, what kind of interpreter should I seek to become?” Goodson considers questions like these to constitute more ethical ways of approaching a text’s literal sense through practical wisdom and interpretive prudence (Goodson 2015, 181-183). So, the literal sense’s “ordered diversity” preserves “the way the words run” and mandates prudence as an interpretive virtue (Goodson 2015, 184-185). The contributions of this paper’s Biblical and Theological Foundation sections dovetail together here and point toward directions for further study.

The Historical Foundation section of this paper complements the contributions made by both the Biblical and Theological Foundation sections by demonstrating that the Exodus story’s earliest post-biblical Jewish and Christian interpreters understood the setting and characters depicted in Exodus 2:15b-4:23 and Exodus 17:1-18:27 in a manner consistent with Exodus’ narrative shape, in the way that the words run. Both groups of interpreters perceived that Moses fled

Egypt and settled in the land of Midian, in the northwestern Arabian Peninsula

165

(Arabia Felix), and located the city of Madian(m), Jethro and Zipporah's home, east of the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba at the site of the modern Arabian town of Al-Bad.

They also testify that Moses lived there several years.

As the Biblical Foundation section also demonstrates, when we retell

God’s stories, we do not merely recite verbatim, we interpret them (Meretoja

2018, 1-13). Since narrative writers communicate through a story’s characters, plot, and setting (Ryken 2015, 11-16), if, when we retell this story, we change its character’s attributes, or relocate them to a different setting, our interpreting the story fundamentally changes the means through which it conveys its message and creates its effect, and no longer follows “the way the words run.”

Understanding how biblical writers viewed the exodus’ setting impacts how we tell this story to others. When we tell others the exodus and wilderness stories, what details do we include and omit? What vision of these stories do we implant in our hearer’s memories, and thus perpetuate over time? When we tell them about the stations where the Israelites camped and what God did at each station, by what means and where do we locate those stations? The sketch of

Exodus’ setting revealed by the narrative shape its writer(s) gave it provides a basis for further study of the exodus and wilderness stories through a different lens than the one many of us have received. Scripture’s collective testimony of additional exodus related details, though, provides a vast field for future research.

When scholars reconstruct the Israelites’ path between Egypt and Mount

Sinai they attempt, on one level, to identify thirteen named locations to which

166

Exodus testifies, and to map out their recorded path (Exodus 12:33-19:2). The initial task, then, if we follow the way the words run, is to understand what biblical writers intended to convey by the words they chose. One way to assess how biblical writer(s) understood these locations is to explore how they used terms which they directly associate with these site names.

Etham: A Test Case in Spatial Setting Reconstruction

The Israelites’ campsite at Etham, two stations after beginning their journey at Raamses, provides a useful test case for re-examining spatial reconstruction of specific sites along the Israelites' path from Egypt to Mount

Sinai and, thus, further inform our understanding of Exodus’ setting. The biblical

;בְאֵת ָ֔ ם בִּקְצֵֵ֖ה( הַמִּדְבּ ָֽ ר”writer(s) describe Etham as lying “on the edge of the wilderness

Exodus 13:20). While many scholars recognize “the wilderness” in Exodus 13:20

(and Numbers 33:6) as the Sinai Peninsula, some scholars have understood “on

to indicate that the Israelites had not yet breached the (בִּקְצֵֵ֖ה) ”the edge of

Western border of the Sinai Peninsula. Further, they attempt to understand the meaning of Etham by reconstructing its etymology, suggesting that it contains the name of the Egyptian deity Atum (Hoffmeier 2014, 71-72; Kitchen 2003, 259).

Based on Kitchen’s “isle of Atum” suggestion, Hoffmeier, even though no

Egyptian text has surfaced containing the name Iw-itm, speculates that Etham was located somewhere at the end of the Wadi Tumilat, on the (Western) edge of the Sinai wilderness, near present-day Lake Timsah (Hoffmeier 1997, Succoth to the Sea; 2011, Etham; 2014, 71-72; Kitchen 2003, 259).

167

Can we, though, determine the meaning of an ancient Hebrew expression by relying on a potential Egyptian etymology, particularly when no one has found actual recorded usage of that specific Egyptian expression? Does such an approach to identifying wilderness journey sites help us come alongside Exodus’ narrative and interpret it according to “the way the words run?” If we are ultimately trying to determine the meaning of a Hebrew expression, as Silva has stressed, do words not "acquire" meaning by their usage in specific contexts? If so, do we have a record of this Hebrew term used in specific biblical contexts

(Silva 1994, 137-170)?

(בִּקְצֵֵ֖ה) ”When we examine how HB/OT writers used the term “on the edge we find that, across its 89 occurrences (21 times in the Torah alone), when they

spatially or geographically, they denoted an entity that (when viewed ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג used from the vantage point of the person contemplating it) would be located at the far or opposite end of something—whatever lies between the contemplator and the

locates the cave of Machpelah at ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג ,entity being contemplated. For example the far end of the field owned by Ephron son of Zohar (Genesis 23:9). In this example, the field owned by Ephron is the entity lying between the contemplator

also designates opposite ends of the land of ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג .and the cave at the far end

Egypt, viewed in relation to each other (Genesis 47:20-21). In this example,

Egypt itself is the entity lying between the contemplator and the entity on the far

also denotes opposite ends of the mercy seat of the ark of ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג .side of the land the covenant, when viewed from either end (Exodus 25:19 [14-19]; 37:8 [3-8]).

Thus, the ark of the covenant is the entity lying between the contemplator and

168 the ark's opposite end. On the Wadi Arnon, the boundary of the land of Moab,

signified the point on the far (opposite) end of the boundary line (Numbers ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג

further, marked the opposite end of heaven when viewed from , ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג .(22:36 either side (Deuteronomy 4:32). In this case, all of heaven stands between the

also designated an entity ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג .contemplator and the entity at its opposite end

(nation) lying at the far, opposite end of the earth, viewed from the vantage point of Israel (Deuteronomy 28:49, 64; 30:4). In this case, the earth itself lies between the contemplator and the entity on earth’s opposite side. Thus, when we read, in

the (בִּקְצֵֵ֖ה) ”Exodus 13:20, that the Israelites camped at Etham, “on the edge of wilderness, the natural reading of this passage does not—as Hoffmeier and

Kitchen suggest—point to a site at the end of the Wadi Tumilat, on the western

(or near) edge of the Sinai Peninsula. Rather, given the ways the HB/OT writers

(actually points to a site on the (far ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג ”,actually used this term “on the edge of opposite (Eastern) edge of the “Sinai” Peninsula—with the “Sinai” Peninsula being the thing that lies between the contemplator (the Israelites) and the entity being contemplated (Etham). Following biblical usage, then, in the way the words run, Etham would be located near the southwestern boarder of Edom just west of the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba.

Given that the Lord established Moses’ and the Israelites’ initial travel milestone as returning to the mountain of God (Exodus 3:12) and given that the

Exodus narrative shape situates the site of this promise within the land of Midian

on the edge of”) to“) ן־ ְֵֹ֥ג episode (Exodus 2:15b-4:23), the biblical usage of locate Etham on the (far) opposite (Eastern) edge of the “Sinai” Peninsula, along

169 the route to land of Midian, is consistent with the rest of Exodus’ narrative shape.

As a result of this biblical usage, the location of Etham deserves to be re- examined. Over the years, scholars have relationally located several additional exodus-wilderness sites. In other words, scholars have estimated their location in relation to where they believed Mount Sinai to be located in the Sinai Peninsula.

Since Exodus’ narrative shape, though, locates Mount Sinai in the land of Midian, multiple exodus-wilderness journey sites deserve to be re-examined.

Ethics of Dialogue/Conversation and of Story Telling

As Deuteronomy 4:9-10a stresses, remembering Exodus’ experiences of

God delivering is critical to obeying his voice. Faithfully reading and retelling

Exodus’ story, allowing its built-in communicative attributes to prompt the experience of God its writer(s) intended, is critical to remembering. When we retell God’s stories, though, we do not merely recite verbatim, we interpret them

(Meretoja 2018, 1-13). If, following Aquinas’ and Goodson’s encouragement to interpret humbly, patiently, and prudently allowing both the narrative to lead us and God to form us through our reading, (Frei 1993b, 145-152; Goodson 2015,

170-171) rather than seeking to “master the text” by our own interpretations

(Vanhoozer 2009, 463-465), and following Sternberg’s insistence that interpreting the biblical text well begins with aligning one’s goals with the nature and shape of that text (Sternberg 1987, 25-42), then reading and retelling Exodus’ story in ways that allow its built in communicative attributes to rekindle the experience of

God it was designed to reignite, is critical to obeying His voice. If our reading and/or retelling obscures these attributes, we do a disservice to the story and

170 hinder the impact it was designed to make.

If we recall some of the insights yielded by recent research into how we remember and forget from this paper’s Contemporary Foundation chapter, when we experience an event and later recall or retrieve specific memories about that event so that we can recite it to someone else our finitude limits us in that we can never recall, at any one time, everything we are capable of remembering, but fall victim to “mnemonic silences” (Marsh 2007, 16-20; Stone, Coman, Brown,

Koppel, and Hirst 2012, 39-53). Additionally, when we recall a specific memory, we also automatically retrieve other memories connected to the specific memories we recall. For us to successfully retrieve and focus on the specific memory we desire, we must exclude these related, but competing, memories.

Because we more likely remember what we actively recall and practice (“practice effects”) than we do the information which we neither recall nor practice

(Karpicke and Roediger 2007, 151-162), we are more likely to experience retrieval induced forgetting (RIF) of the information which we neither recall nor practice (Cuc, Koppel, and Hirst 2007, 727-733; Coman, Kolling, Lewis, and Hirst

2012, 257-258). Over time, if we repeat this cycle by recalling the same memories about a specific experience or event, we will eventually experience difficulty recalling those connected, but competing, memories about that specific event. They fall victim to human remembering’s selectivity through retrieval- induced forgetting or RIF (Levy and Anderson 2002, 299-305; Coman, Brown,

Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 136).

If, when we tell a specific story, we recall the same memories or attributes

171 about that story and tell it the same ways every time, and if we keep omitting the same connected but competing memories about that story, then when these exchanges become part of a larger social network, people across that network could experience collective forgetting of significant parts of that story that simply went unmentioned for a prolonged time period. Eventually, this phenomenon can reshape the entire community’s collective memory about that story. In this manner, conversations can transform the isolated memories of individuals into memories accepted by groups, and thus constitute an important medium for creating shared memories (Coman, Brown, Koppel, and Hirst 2009, 138; Coman and Hirst 2015, 5-6).

God's mission. If leaders purposefully or habitually emphasize some parts of the

Bible’s story over others, they may gradually shape a group’s understanding to take in only part of who God is and what his mission entails, and thus, lead them to only consider part of the role he intends them to fulfill within his mission. Over time when congregations repeatedly feed on less than all that Scripture is capable of providing them, they can become theologically and spiritually

172 malnourished and lesser equipped to handle trials, temptations and other challenges all believers face (Hiestand and Wilson 2015, 53-64, 65-78).

In a manner similar to Eugene Rogers recommendation that we evaluate the “ordered diversity” of our Bible readings outside of hermeneutics within the discipline of ethics, particularly in task of practical wisdom, or “prudence” (Rogers

1996, 64), if we established an interdisciplinary dialogue between Interpretation

Ethics, Listening Ethics, Conversation or Dialogue Ethics, Storytelling Ethics, and

Practical Wisdom could we find tools to further help us overcome our tendencies to miss needed narrative details in our reading, and give us tools to converse more openly, purposefully, and boldly about what God has done, and to tell authentic and as complete as possible versions of His stories in ways that move ourselves and others to more faithfully obey his voice?

Interpretation ethics includes examining both the acts of interpreting and our character as interpreters. Some potentially helpful resources within the discipline of Interpretation Ethics may include Andreas Köstenberger, Excellence:

The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue; Theodore George, The

Responsibility to Understand: Hermeneutical Contours of Ethical Life; Stephen

Plant, Taking Stock of Bonhoeffer: Studies in Biblical Interpretation and Ethics.

Conversation and Dialogue Ethics connect also to Listening Ethics. Some potentially helpful resources within these disciplines may include, Elizabeth

Parks, The Ethics of Listening: Creating Space for Sustainable Dialogue; Lisbeth

Lipari, Listening, Thinking, Being: Toward an Ethics of Attunement; Clifford

Christians and John C. Merrill, Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human

173

Dialogue; Ronald C. Arnett, Leeanne McManus, and Janie Fritz, Communication

Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference.

Some potentially helpful resources within the discipline of Storytelling Ethics include, Jens Larsen, David Boje, and Lena Bruun, True Storytelling: Seven

Principles For An Ethical and Sustainable Change-Management Strategy; Hanna

Meretoja, The Ethics of Storytelling: Narrative Hermeneutics, History, and the

Possible; Hanna Meretoja, For Interpretation; Hanna Meretoja and Colin Davis,

Storytelling and Ethics: Literature, Visual Arts and the Power of Narrative; Hanna

Meretoja, On the Use and Abuse of Narrative for Life Towards an Ethics of

Storytelling. In Life and Narrative: The Risks and Responsibilities of Storying

Experience.

Some potentially helpful resources within the discipline of Practical

Wisdom may include, Daniel Treier, Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward

Theology as Wisdom; Daniel Mark Nelson, The Priority of Prudence: Virtue and

Natural Law in Thomas Aquinas and the Implications for Modern Ethics;

Christopher Kaczor and Thomas Sherman, Thomas Aquinas on the Cardinal

Virtues: A Summa of the Summa on Justice, Courage, Temperance, and

Practical Wisdom; Paul Lewis. Faithful Innovation: The Rule of God and a

Christian Practical Wisdom; Peter Kreeft, Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for

Everyday Moral Decisions.

The Impact of Selective Recall and Sustained Memory and Over Time

One way to examine the impact that the congregational training plan described in this paper’s application section could make on its members would

174 be to conduct an intra-congregational longitudinal study designed to measure its impact over time. The study could select the members of one traditional congregation led by pastors who select preaching texts primarily based on personal preference and perceived congregational need, and who preach primarily topical sermons rather than expository sermons through sustained sequential texts (whole biblical books, etc.). The study could then select a separate congregation, for comparison, whose leaders and members committed to following a plan resembling the comprehensive equipping plan described in this chapter’s Application section. This congregation’s leaders would commit to leading their members through the whole council of God in a purposeful cycle, whether 2 years, 3 years or longer. They would equip them conversational skills for the specific purpose of discussing God’s stories. They would equip them in story telling skills to further enhance their God story telling abilities in conversations with each other and with others. This congregation’s leaders would also deliberately teach the importance of its members investing in each other to develop stronger and multi-faceted connections across its congregation’s network specifically to strengthen the framework for enabling God’s stories to reverberate more effectively through its congregation’s network.

An effort like this may benefit from a volunteer project team consisting of both congregations’ leaders, as well as selected members from each congregation. Additionally, this effort would benefit from a designated project lead, skilled in research assessment development and analysis, who can create and oversee assessing the responses of as many members as possible from

175 both congregations at regular intervals. Since fostering the type of multifaceted change in members of the congregation following this paper’s training plan would take significant time, the project lead may oversee assessments at 1-year, 3- year, 5-year intervals, or longer. Such an effort may require commitment at a denominational level in groups that have these organizational structures. Personal Goals During periods of my life when external circumstances have tested my own trust in God’s ability and willingness to provide for my (and my family’s) daily needs, though he has never actually failed me, too often I have given in to the kind of doubt and fear exhibited by the Israelites in the wilderness and in the lives of unbelievers, but not expected in the lives of believers who know and trust their creator (Matthew 6:25-34; Psalm 46). During these same periods, I have proven more vulnerable to failing to obey his voice in my life. Studying Israel’s wilderness journey supplies both resources and experiences for helping me learn how to trust God with all of my life, to welcome his loving formation, and thus to obey his voice.

Toward this end, I have established the following personal goals:

1. I will more fully obey God’s voice as I discern more clearly how he makes his name renown among the nations.

2. I will discern more clearly how God continues forming me.

3. I will become more aware that when I obey God's voice, I serve his creation.

1. Obeying God’s voice as he makes his name renown

The first personal goal which I established before embarking on the later

176 stages of this project was, “I will more fully obey God’s voice as I discern more clearly how he makes his name renown among the nations.” The Bible's Exodus stories captivated me long before I chose to pursue this project. As they gave me glimpses into God's redemptive acts, I began asking of Exodus and of Scripture as a whole, “What motivated God to act this way?” I began observing God's intent to make known to the Israelites new aspects of his character which previous generations had not known (Exodus 6:1-3), and that, as God began fulfilling his promises, they would specifically come to know him as redeemer and deliverer. Further, as God delivered them and judged the Egyptians, the

Egyptians would come to know that he alone is God, as would the Philistines,

Edom's rulers, Moab's rulers, the Canaanites, the Midianites, and citizens of

Jericho. W. Ross Blackburn's book The God Who Makes Himself Known: The

Missionary Heart of the Book of Exodus helped me connect these observations to the leading challenge which Exodus’ writer(s) determined to resolve through its narrative-- the world's peoples do not know their Creator. Blackburn also helped me connect my observations to Exodus’ leading theological concern--that God make his name known and renown among the nations (Blackburn 2012, 26-28).

Christopher Wright helped me expand my perspective of God's missional intentions to take in the entire Biblical canon (Wright 2006, 71-188) and to think more clearly about the roles God intends his people to serve in his mission as agents whose behavior draws the interests of the world’s people so that they come to know him as the one who makes his name renown (Wright 2006, 189-

391; Wright 2010, 35-262).

177

Personally, the cumulative impact of the experiences has prompted me to pray while trying to envision at least some of God’s actions through which he has made his name renown, asking him to revive and sustain my memories of his mighty works, so that Ia would more fully obey his voice. Prior to these experiences, I cannot remember ever connecting God making his name renown with obeying his voice and praying specifically to more clearly see what God has done to make his name renown so that I can be emboldened to obey his voice.

As I carry forward this project into the future, I will commit to personally and gradually embark on the same personal equipping plan described in this chapter’s Application section. I will study the whole council of God to more clearly view my life within its comprehensive story of which my life is only a part. I will also pay attention to how God’s choice to make his name renown among the nations personally reaches me. Indeed, without it, I could not claim to be his child.

2. Obeying God's voice as he continues forming me.

The second personal goal which I established before embarking on the later stages of this project was, “I will discern more clearly how God continues forming me.” One set of factors, then, that drove me to study Israel’s wilderness journey has been to help me learn more about how to trust God in all areas of my life, to welcome his loving formation, and thus to obey his voice. As I reflect on my experiences with this goal over the last few years, I recognize that too often I resembled the Israelites in the wilderness witnessing God’s power firsthand yet unable to look past their present discomfort to recognize the significance of what

178

He was doing for them and even rejecting his loving formation while disobeying his voice.

W. Ross Blackburn’s book The God Who Makes Himself Known: The

Missionary Heart of the Book of Exodus also helped me discern that the wilderness journey narrative carries forward God’s missionary purpose by depicting the Lord making himself known to Israel so that he might, then, make himself known (to the world) through Israel. Through the wilderness journey, God was in the process of gaining the Israelites’ trust by teaching them that, should they obey His voice, they would find provision, protection, and even life itself. The wilderness reinforced for the Israelites the reality that the Lord was both able and willing to seek and ensure their good (Exodus 15:25b-26; 16:9-12, 19-21;

Deuteronomy 8:2-3; Blackburn 2012, 63-81). Thus, the Lord used the Israelites’ wilderness experience to form them into his people, to imprint on their hearts and minds all the ways he proved himself, so that they would never forget his works and be continually moved to obey his voice (Blackburn 2012, 78-79).

While navigating this study over the last several years, I have come to pray increasingly fervently that God would implant into my memory and into the memories of my family members down through countless generations clear recall of the specific ways he has proven himself, recounted both in Scripture and in experience. I also have begun praying that God would equip me to grasp more clearly the impact which my own remembering and forgetting makes on the processes of my being formed, and the impact my conversations make on both my own remembering and forgetting as well as how those with whom I converse

179 remember and forget. As I carry this project forward into the future, I commit also to continuing to learn more about how our remembering and forgetting on how we each are formed. I commit also to becoming a more skilled conversationalist, both through the lens of dialogue ethics and through the lens of what constitutes quality and effective dialogue. I commit also to growing into a more effective storyteller, both through the lens of storytelling ethics and through the lends of what constitutes effective storytelling, for the specific purpose of telling God’s stories in ways that both honor their original shape and impart their intended impact to those with whom I converse.

3. When I obey God's voice, I serve his creation.

The third personal goal which I established before embarking on the later stages of this project was, “I will become more aware that when I obey God's voice, I serve his creation.” Dr. John Mark Hicks, beginning in the classroom during the late 1980's and later through his writings, taught me to visualize more of the expansive canvas on which God works. He reminded me that God is communion and has always desired communion with his people. Within Scripture we gain glimpses of those, like John/Jesus (John 17), Paul (Ephesians 1:4), and

Peter (1 Peter 1:20) who grasped that, though God ultimately desired communal fellowship, he knew that to achieve it he would need an altar (the cross of Jesus

Christ) through which he could atone for his creatures' sins. Through this altar

(the cross) God achieved his desired goal of permanent communal fellowship with his creatures. Within the eternity of God's vision, he (collaborating with his

Son) determined this plan before he/they ever created the world. Thus, God’s

180 first gracious act toward people was neither the exodus nor the cross; it was creating them in the first place (Hicks 2002, 13-18).

During the years since, I have observed several passages establishing the connection between human behavior and an outcome affecting creation in some way. God himself established this principle as part of his created order, stating it explicitly in Leviticus 20:22-24, 26 (read within the context of Leviticus 18:1-

20:27). Hosea 4:1-3 depicts the same reality when, after the Israelites had long settled in the land, God charged them that, because they had forgotten him, had forgotten to love, had forgotten faithfulness, had resorted to cursing, lying, murder, stealing, and adultery, the land mourned with drought and its creatures

(people, animals, birds and fish) died. Thus, God intends his people to live in such a way that their behavior triggers creation's preservation. When we live otherwise, creation itself suffers.

Building on my commitment to more clearly grasp where my life fits in

God’s comprehensive story, how my own remembering and forgetting impacts how I am formed, how the conversations I experience shapes both me and those with whom I converse and place on me greater responsibility to speak out of my commitment to love the Lord with all of my being and to love those with whom I converse and share God’s stories as I would myself. I commit further to more grasping more clearly how I can personally invest in the lives of fellow believers to contribute positively toward a stable framework through which our God stories can reverberate across the networks of which I am a member.

These foundational commitments all support one final calling God has

181 placed on me, to grow into a more authentic and confident “Dominant Narrator,” who discerns when to speak boldly on God’s behalf and how to speak boldly with love, care, and compassion toward those whom I encounter. Over the last several years, I have prayed more frequently for my life to make the kind of impact God desires. I certainly have not achieved that goal to the fullest potential

God gave me. Some days I just fail completely. But I have also asked God daily to forgive me, to nudge me, to reset my perspective so that I begin again obeying his voice not merely so that I can check off a box, but so that I live as he intended. Concluding Thoughts I began studying Exodus regularly about seven years before enrolling in this Doctor of Ministry program. When I visited Israel in 2006, one of the spontaneous conversations I found myself in occurred while walking roughly one- half mile from our campsite at Ir Ovot to the nearby convenience store at Ein

Hazeva. This gas station represented the closest thing to civilization in the area where we excavated and became a frequent pursuit of our crew members during work breaks. On one particular occasion a couple of fellow travelers caught up with me as I walked through the countryside to the station and began talking about Mount Sinai. One of them referenced a report or documentary she read (or watched) prompting for her the question whether our Bible maps locate Mount

Sinai (and the exodus' setting) where Exodus actually locates it. This uncertainty prompted some angst for her that after all these years this great foundational story may not have been told in the way it deserved. In that moment, she was

182 sharing with me new information I had not previously considered. So, I listened and stored it away for later reference.

When I returned home, my curiosity about the answers to her question drove me to study Exodus seeking to discern how it told its story. The more I studied, the more I asked some of the same questions that she asked about whether we had been telling these amazing stories in ways that fit the shape given to them by their biblical author(s). Though I cannot remember what source she saw which prompted her questions (I do not even remember her name), I look back on that conversation (which I did not seek) and ponder the impact it has made on my life. It now reminds me of some of the principles I learned while studying recent remembering and forgetting research for Chapter 3 of this document. Particularly, every conversation in which we engage has the potential to prompt both remembering and forgetting. Each conversation carries the potential, when participants recount previously unshared memories to produce a ripple effect which reverberates through a network of connected individuals to make a lasting impact on that group's sense of identity and purpose. I pray that this project makes that kind of impact on future readers.

183

APPENDIX ONE

ASHLAND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

AN IMPACT STUDY INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO OBEYING GOD’S VOICE

AS A PEOPLE COMMISSIONED ON BEHALF OF HIS CREATION

A PROJECT PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ASHLAND

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR

OF MINISTRY

JOHN SHEPPARD

ASHLAND, OHIO

JANUARY 25, 2017

184

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this project is to impact the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice through a small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey, at Grace church, Marysville, OH. The research question is to what extent has a small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey at Grace Church, Marysville, OH impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice?

Overview

The focus of this project will be to determine to what extent has a small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey at Grace Church, Marysville, OH impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice? This research project will launch after the Foundation chapters are written, the lesson plans are completed, and these plans have been reviewed by Grace Church Marysville,

OH leadership—Clancy Cruise, Lead Pastor, and Kelvin Cooke, Pastoral Care and Discipleship Pastor. The lessons will occur in a small group setting either within the Grace Church, Marysville, OH facility or within my home as part of the

Grace Church, Marysville, OH Life Group network.

I will administer a pre-assessment to ascertain the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice. In the process of ascertaining the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice, this pre-assessment will also ascertain the participants’ understanding of what it means to obey God’s voice.

This pre-assessment will also ascertain the degree to which participants understand how God’s actions in Israel’s wilderness journey intend to fuel our obedience to his voice. The pre-assessment will also ascertain the degree to

185 which participants understand how God making his name renown among the nations fuels our obedience to his voice. The pre-assessment will further ascertain the degree to which participants understand how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice. Finally, the pre-assessment will ascertain the degree to which participants understand obeying God’s voice as a decision made on behalf of God’s creation. At the end of the study sessions, I will administer a post-assessment to discern the impact which studying God’s actions in Israel’s wilderness journey has had on the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice.

Foundations

All who have committed their lives to walking with the Lord, no matter how ardent one’s commitment, she/he has navigated that journey, and obeyed his voice imperfectly, and will continue obeying imperfectly. Yet, he biblical narrative of God’s actions on the Israelites’ behalf along their wilderness journey (Exodus

12:1-18:27) locates the pursuit of obeying God’s voice within the broad and deep contexts of God’s purposes for creating his world, God’s purposes for humanity,

God’s reasons for selecting Israel, God’s reasons for delivering them from Egypt,

God’s reasons for leading them through the wilderness, and God’s reasons for calling them to obey his voice. Thus, believers who commit to obeying God’s voice may gain insight into both God’s ways and his encouragement for their journey by studying His actions on Israel’s behalf within their wilderness journey episode. This project will, then, assess the extent to which a small group study of

Israel’s wilderness journey impacted participants’ commitment to obeying God’s

186 voice at Grace Church, Marysville, OH.

In the following foundational sections I will first relate the impact which studying the Israelites’ wilderness journey has made on my own understanding of and commitment to obeying God’s voice. The biblical foundation summarizes the message and function of Exodus 19:1-8 and Exodus 24:1-8 both in light of the role they play in fostering Israel’s obedience to God’s voice in the book of

Exodus, and in light of their interrelationship to each other. The theological foundation locates God’s wilderness journey actions on the Israelites’ behalf within his broader creational mission (Missio Dei) as well as within the identity and role he gave people as his image bearers within his creation (Brown 2011b,

83-86). The historical foundation sheds light on the geography of the Israelites’ wilderness journey by examining the question, “to what degree has the enduring tradition of pilgrimage to Mount Sinai been shaped by ancient literary testimony concerning the location of Mount Sinai?” The contemporary foundation demonstrates how God’s wilderness journey activities on Israel’s behalf, viewed within the Bible’s comprehensive story, counters current definitions of personal identity which make the individual the measure of morality (Vervenne 1996, 21-

30; Blackburn 2012, 84-119; Rosner 2017, 24-29). In the end, this project will prompt participants and me to grapple with the question, “How can the Israelites’ wilderness journey material, within the Bible’s comprehensive story, function to help us more clearly understand God and more consistently obey his voice?”

187

Personal Foundation

In this section, I will discuss my personal experience of committing to obeying God’s voice and how my study of the Israelites’ wilderness journey has aided my pursuit of fuller obedience. For the last eighteen years I earned my living and provided for my family in a role where my compensation was based solely on commissions paid after customers paid their invoices. When I accepted this position, I prayed regularly both for the Lord’s provision and for me to continually remember that my ability to survive and provide depended on his provision. During these years, we have experienced both times of significant physical blessing and times of lean income. During the years of 2002-2008, we experienced significant physical blessing. Then, during the fallout of American economic decline after 2008, we experienced a particularly lean year during we which struggled with the hard realities it produced. Though I prayed regularly for

God’s provision during 2002-2008, the harshness of the years immediately following drove me deeper into prayer and reflection seeking God’s care, provision, and blessing. We live on a 1.5-acre lot, and I remember frequently pacing the length and breadth of our lot in prayer.

In 2006, Sharon (my wife) sent me to Israel for my fortieth birthday, joining a study tour led by two Old Testament professors, an Archaeologist, and their undergraduate students. While in Israel, I became engaged in conversations about historical challenges related to the Israelites’ Exodus and wilderness journey materials and felt personally drawn to investigate these maters when I returned home. Twelve years later, I feel both more connected to these materials

188 than ever before, and equally passionate about the God they reveal, his plans for his world, his desires for people, the incalculable depth and breadth of his love and care—particularly when I view them through the lens of the ripple effect they create throughout the rest of Scripture.

In retrospect, though, like all others who have committed to walking with the Lord, I have certainly navigated my own journey quite imperfectly.

Nonetheless, I continue to commit to obeying God’s voice, and gain both instruction and encouragement for pursuing fuller obedience as I come to understand more fully his actions on Israel’s (and the world’s) behalf within the wilderness journey narrative.

Biblical Foundation

The Biblical Foundation focuses on the Israelites’ wilderness journey viewed through the lens of Exodus 19:1-8, which, in turn, begins a covenant event frame that is later completed by Exodus 24:1-8 to bind together all of

Exodus 19-24. The Lord’s goal in the Exodus events is to make his name resound among the nations (Exodus 6:2; 9:16; 14:1-4, 18; 33:19; 34:5-7;

Blackburn 2012, 15-18). Exodus 19:3-6 (1-8) functions to prompt the Israelites and readers of Exodus to both reflect on God’s actions recounted within Exodus

2:23-19:2, and to prepare for God ratifying his covenant with Israel (on the world’s behalf), a covenant which signifies Israel’s identify and role as a priestly kingdom and holy nation (Exodus 19:1-8; Exodus 24:1-8; Blackburn 2012, 83-

119).

Concerning God’s actions recounted in Exodus 2:23-19:2, after delivering

189 the Israelites from Egypt, the Lord led the Israelites on a three-month journey to the wilderness of Sinai (Exodus 19:1-2). After arriving in the wilderness, the Lord, through Moses, reminded the Israelites that they, had “seen (and thus should remember) what he did to the Egyptians (Exodus 2:23-15:21), and how he bore them (the Israelites) on eagles’ wings and brought them to himself” (Exodus

19:4). This instruction not only underscores the Lord’s actions along the

Israelites’ wilderness journey(s) between Egypt and Mount Sinai (Exodus 12:31-

19:2), but also accentuates God’s behaving toward the Israelites as a mother eagle would behave when delivering her eaglets from harm, and when teaching/training them how to fly (Fretheim 2010, 208-214). God, thus, established that one of his principle reasons for leading the Israelites along this three-month journey was to form, nurture, and train them. He wanted to help the

Israelites (and, through them, help the world) come to know him for who he is— their sovereign, gracious, trustworthy provider (Blackburn 2012, 25-81).

When the Israelites reflected on and remembered how God delivered, led, nurtured, and sustained them, they should find continual motivation to obey his voice and keep his covenant which he established with their ancestor, Abraham

(Exodus 19:5; Genesis 12:1-Exodus 6:9). Should they obey the Lord’s voice, the

Israelites would experience two positive outcomes. First, by leading the Israelites out of Egypt while also destroying their enemies (Exodus 3:7-12; 11:1-15:21)

God already demonstrated that he selected them from out of all the world’s peoples as his “treasured possession” (royal property; Exodus 19:5). If they, then, obey his voice, they would experience the full blessings of his selection.

190

Second, God would make the Israelites a “priestly kingdom” and “holy nation”.

When read together, “priestly kingdom” and “holy nation” support each other

(Fretheim 2010, 208-214). God, by selecting the Israelites as his treasured possession, has already set them apart (This is what “holy” means.), but he has not by isolated them from other peoples. Rather, he would further sanctify them to serve the world’s peoples on his behalf, and bring them to knowledge of who he is and what he has done (Exodus 19:6; Blackburn 2012, 15-18, 25-60; Enns

2000, 389, 398; Durham 1987, xxi-xxiv).

Finally, Exodus 19:3-6 functions in relation to Exodus 24:3-8 to frame the

Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) and the Book of the Covenant (Exodus

20:22-23:33) as a single covenant event, which prepares the Israelites to accept and embrace their identify and role as a priestly kingdom on the world’s behalf

(Exodus 19:1-8; Exodus 24:1-8; Childs 1974, 497-511; Blackburn 2012, 83-119).

Theological Foundation

The theological foundation locates the Israelites’ wilderness journey, theologically, within God’s Nature and Mission (Missio Dei) on behalf of his creation, as well as within the nature of humanity and the role God intended people to play in his creation.

God’s Nature and Mission (Missio Dei)

The book of Exodus repeatedly links God’s actions against Egypt and on

Israel’s behalf to his broader (global) purposes for calling, blessing, and promising Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:7-16; Exodus 1:1-7; 2:23-25). By framing God’s promises to Abraham within his strategy to bless the world’s

191 peoples, Genesis further links God’s calling Abraham to his reasons for creating both the universe and humanity (Genesis 1:26-31; 12:3; 15:12-16; Bauckham

2003a, 27-54). Thus, Exodus depicts the sovereign Creator of this universe delivering the Israelites from Egypt and leading them to Mount Sinai (and later to his promised land), so that both the Israelites and the world’s nations would come to acknowledge and honor him as God—for who he is and not for who he is not (Goheen 2011, 23-74; Seitz 2001, 145-157; Stuart 2006, 34-37). Within the text of Exodus, neither Moses (Exodus 3:2-13), nor perhaps some of the

Israelites (Exodus 3:13-18a), nor Egypt’s pharaoh (Exodus 5:1-2) initially knows the Lord’s identity. In response, the Lord himself repeatedly specified that he acted against Egypt in order to make himself known both to Moses and the

Israelites (Exodus 6:1-9; 7:17-18; 10:1-2; 12:1-27; 13:3-16), and to the Egyptians

(Exodus 7:4-5; 8:8-11; 20-23; 9:13-26; 11:1-9; 14:1-4, 15-18; 32:11-14), and, through it all, to the world (Blackburn 2012, 14-18; Wright 2006, 71-104; Moberly

2008, 41-52).

The Nature and Role of People

The book of Exodus continues Genesis’ view of humanity as God’s image bearers (to whom he has given both great blessing [e.g. Creation, Genesis 1:1-

2:9] and great responsibility [e.g. Obey his voice, Genesis 2:15-17]). Exodus locates God’s mighty actions (Exodus 2:23-15:21) within the context of his covenant with Abraham to bless the world’s nations (Genesis 12:1-3; Bauckham

2003a, 27-54). God, then, delivered Abraham’s descendants so that they could bear his image before and bring blessings to all peoples (Bauckham 2003a, 82-

192

112; Brown 2011b, 83-86). The world’s nations could, then, come to know and honor him as God (Goheen 2011, 23-74; Seitz 2001, 145-157). Exodus 19:1-8, considered “Israel’s mission statement” (Blackburn 2012, 86-87), and “a poetic summary of covenant theology” (Durham 1987, 261), zooms more closely into the role God intended the Israelites’ to play by exhorting them to respond to his deliverance through obeying his voice/keeping his covenant, so that they may function as his priestly kingdom—representing the world’s peoples before the

Lord and representing the Lord to the world’s peoples, Blackburn 2012, 89-95).

Early Christian theologians, like Matthew (3:13-17; 12:15-21; 22:41-45;

28:16-20), John (John 2:13-22; 4:4-42; 13:1-17; 20:19-21; Revelation 1:4-16;

7:15; 20:10), Paul (Romans 12:1-8), and Peter (1 Peter 2:4-9) saw in Jesus

Christ the embodiment of both Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52-53), and the

Davidic Priest-King whose self-offering inaugurated a turning point in world history, an eschatological era of priestly holiness. Though Isaiah’s servant would suffer, he would lead a new Exodus and produce a new covenant and priesthood, who would have access to God and would present him before the nations (Isaiah 54-66; Voss 2016, 51-102).

Historical Foundation

The historical foundation will examine the question, “to what degree has the enduring tradition of pilgrimage to Mount Sinai been shaped by ancient literary testimony concerning the location of Mount Sinai?” If others (e.g. past pilgrims) have designated a certain location to be a sacred place, then they may have left behind testimony locating that site. If one, then, plans a pilgrimage

193 journey to that site, one must first have an idea about where that destination is located. Thus, if we access the historical testimony concerning pilgrimage to

Mount Horeb or Mount Sinai, then we also likely access historical testimony locating Mount Sinai.

Multiple lines of testimony including pre-exilic Israelite sources, Greco-

Roman period Jewish sources (from both inside Egypt and outside Egypt), early

Christian sources through the Byzantine period, as well as classical and early modern Islamic sources, all locate mounts Horeb and Sinai near the city of

Madyan, in the land of Midian, in the northwestern Arabian peninsula, east of the gulf of Eilat/Aqaba (Knauf 1983, 147-162; Kerkeslager 1998, 62-147; Philo On the Life of Moses 1.47, 51-52, 63-66; On the Virtues 34; On the Life of Joseph

15; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, 2.11.1; 2.12.1; 2.257, 264-65; 3.1.7-3.62;

Claudius Ptolemy, Geographia 6.7; Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, 9.29.1-3;

Onomasticon, 652, 768, 949; Origen, Selecta in Genesim 12.120; Musil 1926

109-118, 278-282). Abshire, Gusev, and Stafeyev translated Ptolemy’s ancient coordinates into coordinates readable by modern GIS applications and confirmed that the northwestern Arabian city Ptolemy named Madiama (Μαδια´μα, ancient

Madian) corresponds to the site of the modern city of Al-Bad’ Saudi Arabia

(Abshire, Gusev, and Stafeyev 2016, 1-23).

Kerkeslager examined the historical data for pilgrimage to Mount Sinai and found that the literary evidence spanning from pre-exilic Israelite sources through early modern Islamic sources only reflects pilgrimage to mount Sinai by selected individuals and small groups, not large groups of pilgrims, and not a

194 regular custom. Further, those who did pilgrimage to Mount Sinai traveled specifically to northwestern Arabia (Kerkeslager 1998, 131-147). Thus, we must look beyond the early literary testimony concerning Mount Sinai to understand the enduring tradition of pilgrimage to Mount Sinai (Kerkeslager 1998 67-131).

Though Davies cites Josephus quoting Apion as if they are Josephus’ own thoughts in order to claim Jewish interest in the Sinai peninsula (Davies 1979, 7-

13), and though many current reference works locate Mount Sinai in the Sinai peninsula (Curtis 2007, The Exodus and Wilderness Traditions; Rasumssen

2013 Sinai During the Bronze Age), no pre-Christian physical or extra-biblical literary evidence demonstrates either that Jews were interested in the Sinai peninsula, or that they made pilgrimage to the Sinai peninsula for any reason

(Kerkeslager 1998, 67-131, 140). Rather, before the rise of Christianity, Jewish rabbis were not interested in the Sinai Peninsula, and did not apparently consider it to be a sacred place. Even if Jews had developed an early pilgrimage tradition to the Sinai Peninsula, by the Byzantine period, Christians, not the Jews, came to control the Sinai. The more Christianity flourished in and associated biblical sites with the Sinai Peninsula, the more Jews turned away from it. During the late

Roman and early Byzantine periods, Christian ascetics migrated to the Sinai

Peninsula, particularly around Jebel Musa, read the Bible allegorically— understanding the landscape and sites in their immediate vicinity to bring to life biblical themes, rituals, and liturgy—and disassociated the Bible’s wilderness traditions from Jewish testimony about Mounts Horeb and Sinai (Schwartz 1981,

7-14; 2010, 355-374; Kerkeslager 1998, 67-131, 140).

195

Gradually, these ascetic-monastic communities in the southern Sinai

Peninsula attracted pilgrims to the region, and in some cases, monks guided

Byzantine era pilgrims to sites they had identified as exodus itinerary/wilderness journey sites on the way to what they had determined to be Mount Sinai.

Pilgrimage to the Sinai Peninsula as the site for Mount Sinai as a pilgrimage destination, thus, only emerged during the Byzantine period, and only as a

Christian phenomenon. It was not born out of either the early Jewish testimony concerning the location of Mount Sinai, or early Jewish practice of pilgrimage to

Mount Sinai, or earlier Christian literary testimony concerning Mount Sinai

(Schwartz 1981, 7-14; 2010, 355-374; Kerkeslager 1998, 67-131, 140).

This study, though, will—following ancient Jewish and Christian literary testimony—reconstruct a potential route for the Israelites wilderness journey between Egypt’s eastern Nile delta and northwestern Arabia.

Contemporary Foundation

This project intersects with and reinforces at least two aspects of the

Marysville Grace vision: “Learn it” and “Live it”.

Learn It

At least two opposing forces flowing through currents of our society promote increasing identity angst. First, the mantra “Be true to yourself”—act according to who you think you are—positions authenticity as a moral ideal.

However, appealing to authenticity as a moral ideal can become just a license for engaging in questionable behavior. When we make ourselves the measure of what defines authentic behavior we lose sight of greater virtues that like patience,

196 kindness, and faithfulness that define authenticity in relation to how we respond to others (Rosner 2017, 24-25). Second, compartmentalizing our lives into home, work, church, and leisure can lead to superficial relationships, and make it more difficult than ever for people to clearly answer the question, “Who am I?” (Rosner

2017, 25-29).

When we locate God’s activity along the Israelites’ wilderness journey within his activity spanning the Bible’s comprehensive story we more clearly grasp how God’s wilderness journey actions contribute to his overall efforts to redeem his creation (Wright 2006, 21-28, 71-188, 303-530). Further, when we locate God’s wilderness journey actions within the Bible’s comprehensive story, we more clearly discern our collective role as the people whom God has known, loved, chosen, called, redeemed, formed, and sent into the world to represent him to the world and the world to him (Wright 2010, 265-268; Rosner 2017, 80-

89).

Understanding our individual roles within the people God chose to represent him before the world infuses our individual identities with authenticity that transcends our efforts to merely understand ourselves. Further still, we find needed resources for retraining the way we think about our own identities. The path to reclaiming the identity God has given us runs not through coming to know ourselves, but through becoming known by God. Becoming known by God as his children fulfils our desires to be acknowledged and known by others, and thus can redirect destructively pessimistic attitudes toward life, combat feelings of worthlessness with God given value and significance, provide a strong

197 foundation for comfort during difficult times, general humility, emotional stability, and direction for living (Rosner 2017, 23-24, 90-139, 195-244, 245-246).

Becoming known as God’s children also reminds us that we individually only truly function when we function as part of something much greater than ourselves—

God’s efforts to redeem his creation (Wright 2010, 48-62, 63-81, 163-178, 224-

262).

Live It (Obedience and God’s Creation)

Though the Psalmist declares the wonders, and life-giving powers of understanding and obeying God’s “law”—flowing out of love for his name (Psalm

119:129-136), people across the centuries have frequently resented it and him.

Even those who have committed to walking with the Lord have obeyed him imperfectly. All have at some point, disobeyed his instruction. Over the last 125 years, many have identified dissonance between God’s generosity and his “law”, separating exodus-wilderness deliverance from Sinai covenant. Yet the Psalmist

(sharing the perspective of the OT writers as a whole) rejoices in both (Blackburn

2012, 83-86, 103-105).

The book of Exodus further juxtaposes God’s generosity, reflected in his delivering the Israelites from Egypt (Exodus 12-18), alongside and in relationship to God’s law, in the Sinai covenant narrative (Exodus 19-24) and thus provides a biblical model to help contemporary believers more clearly assess the relationship between God’s generosity/grace and our decisions to obey (Verhey

2013, 1-3). When we view God’s call for Israel’s obedience within the Bible’s comprehensive story of God’s activity, and within the literary structure of the Book

198 of Exodus, we more clearly perceive that both obedience and disobedience directly impact the rest of the world. Obedience reflects the proper response to

God’s deliverance. Disobedience reflects an improper-disproportional response to God’s deliverance.

God called the Israelites to obey so that their lives would properly represent him before the world’s nations, and, in turn, draw the world’s nations to him, so that the nations would come to know God for who he is and who he is not. Israel’s failure to obey meant that the image of God they paraded before the world misrepresented his character. When we disobey God’s voice today, we too, misrepresent the Lord’s character before the world (Blackburn 2012, 86-119).

Our own commitment to obeying the Lord’s voice, thus can be more properly founded by more fully nurturing it through studying God’s wilderness journey actions on Israel’s behalf, his call of Israel, and the role he intended them to play in the world as his image bearers (Birch 2013, 14-19).

Context

Marysville Grace is a member of the Fellowship of Grace Brethren

Churches (FGBC), now called Charis Fellowship (CF), a voluntary association of more than 260 congregations in the United States and Canada. Worldwide, the

Grace Brethren movement includes more than 2,700 congregations serving approximately 750,000 people (Marysville Grace 2017, History and Affiliation).

Each church in the FGBC/CF is governed autonomously while maintaining a commitment to the principles of the Bible as developed through roots in the

Pietist and Anabaptist movements of Germany (Scoles 2008, 11-63).

199

Marysville Grace Brethren Church began, in 2002, as a church plant from the Powell (OH) Grace Brethren Church, when they hired Pastor Clancy Cruise to move his family to Marysville and begin a new congregation. The church held its official launch in September 2003 at Navin Elementary School with faith in

God’s provision and direction. Marysville Grace currently averages close to 1,100 people at its Weekend Worship times and has shared its resources with ministries in Africa, Europe, and North America. In addition to Saturday evening and Sunday services at the Marysville Grace facility, Marysville Grace members meet regularly in 25 different life groups. The participants in this study series would make up a twenty sixth life group.

Marysville Grace's Vision

Learn It: Christians have the responsibility for knowing the Gospel, who

God is and what he has done for us, and the impact that should make on our lives.

Live It: Christian's are called to live out the Gospel in community with each other -both knowing others and allowing ourselves to be known. Our relationships provide the context for applying the love God has given each one of us.

Give It: The Gospel compels us to serve each other, sharing it with the world.

This project would intersect with and reinforce at least the “Learn it” and

“Live it” stages of the Marysville Grace vision. Our own efforts to obey God’s voice can parallel aspects of Israel’s cycle of success and failure to obey God’s

200 voice along their wilderness journey. By studying the extent to which God proved his sovereignty, care, and holiness to the Israelites, we can find encouragement and help for obeying God’s voice more completely in our own journeys.

Definition of Terms

Missio Dei—A Latin term used by recent missiologists and theologians to denote God’s mission to and on behalf of the world. God’s own missional goals provide the broader context for his actions in the Exodus and wilderness journeys

(Voss 2016, 1-26; Blackburn 2012, 15-18).

Historiography—When historians attempt to reconstruct a portion of the past for readers in the present, the can neither recreate the actual the past, nor can they provide an exhaustive account of everything that happened the past.

Rather, each individual historian writes at a certain point in time, from a specific place, while shaped by extensive cultural and personal baggage. No historian reconstructs neutral historical accounts. Yet, historians can reconstruct accounts of the past with varying degrees of objectivity depending on the degree to which they employed sound procedures for gathering and interpreting valid testimony about the people, events, and cultural currents of that past. Historiography encapsulates the multiple disciplines needed by this reconstructive and literary process (Trueman 2010, 13-24; Long 1994, 293-408).

Project Goals

201 small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey at Grace Church, Marysville, OH impacted the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice?

This project will seek to accomplish the following goals.

1. To impact the participants’ understanding of obeying God’s voice.

2. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s actions in

Israel’s wilderness journey fuels our obedience to his voice.

3. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God making his name renown among the nations fuels our obedience to his voice.

4. To impact the participants’ understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice.

5. To impact the participants' commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation.

Design, Procedure, and Assessment

The purpose of this project is to impact the participants’ commitment to obeying God’s voice through a small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey, at Grace church, Marysville, OH. One week before each small group session meets, participants will receive targeted readings within the book of Exodus, as well as readings in biblical texts directly related to Israel’s Exodus and wilderness narratives (e.g. Second Testament passages quoting or directly commenting on

First Testament Exodus and wilderness narrative passages), and discussion questions about the readings to answer before the upcoming small group session. These questions will prompt reflection and small group discussion about historical, geographical, literary, theological, and formative matters related to

202

God’s actions on Israel’s (and the world’s) behalf during Israel’s wilderness journey, as well as Israel’s own struggles to obey God’s voice. During each session, participants will both receive instruction and will be engaged in discussion about the historical, geographical, literary, theological, and formative matters prompted by God’s actions on Israel’s (and the world’s) behalf during

Israel’s wilderness journey, using biblical texts and study aids such as tables, maps, photographs, timelines, and other diagrams.

To measure the degree to which this study impacted its participants, I will administer, before the initial session, a pre-assessment consisting of quantitative, closed ended questions and a post-assessment consisting of the same quantitative, closed ended questions followed by additional qualitative, open ended questions requesting participant feedback. Questions included in both the pre and post assessments will be built on the project’s goals and designed around a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

All assessments will be voluntary and anonymous.

Personal Goals

Scripture repeatedly links Israel’s failure to obey God’s voice to its lack of trust in his ability and willingness to keep his promises to Abraham, and it further links Israel’s lack of trust to their forgetting both his mighty acts of deliverance on their (and the world’s) behalf (Psalm 106), as well as God’s reasons for delivering, in order to equip his people to live faithfully (Hebrews 12:3-13).

During periods of my life when external circumstances have tested my own trust in God’s ability and willingness to provide for my (and my family’s) daily

203 needs, though he has never actually failed me, too often I have given in to the kind of doubt and fear expected in the lives of unbelievers, but not expected in the lives of believers who know and trust their creator (Matthew 6:25-34). During these same doubtful-fearful periods, I have proven more vulnerable to failing to obey his voice in my life. Studying Israel’s wilderness journey—God’s own proving ground for his ability and willingness to provide—supplies both resources and experiences for learning how to trust in God’s provision, to welcome his loving formation, and thus to obey his voice.

Toward this end, I have established the following personal goals:

1. I will more fully obey God’s voice as I discern more clearly how he makes his name renown among the nations.

2. I will discern more clearly how God continues forming me.

3. I will become more aware that when I obey God's voice, I serve his creation.

Field Consultant-Support Team

My field consultant will be Clancy Cruise, M.Div., Founding and Lead

Pastor of Grace Church Marysville, OH. I have chosen Clancy because he has served Grace Church in Marysville for its full lifespan, and has seen it grow from just a few families meeting in homes to 1,100 members meeting in its own facility.

As a result, Clancy is an expert in this project’s delivery context.

204

REFERENCES

Abshire, Corey, Dmitri Gusev, and Sergey Stafeyev. 2016. Enhanced Mathematical Method for Visualizing Ptolemy’s Arabia in Modern GIS Tools. 11th ICA Conference Digital Approaches to Cartographic Heritage 20th MAGIC Conference, 1-23.

Bauckham, Richard. 2003. Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Birch, Bruce C. 2011. Scripture in Ethics: Methodological Issues. In The Old Testament and Ethics: A Book-by-Book Survey, eds. Joel B. Green, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley, 14-27. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Blackburn, W. Ross. 2012. The God Who Makes Himself Known: The Missionary Heart of the Book of Exodus. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Childs, Brevard S. 1995. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Curtis, Adrian. 2007. Oxford Bible Atlas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Davies, Graham I. 1979. The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament. The Society for Old Testament Study, Monograph Series. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Durham, John I. 1987. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Enns, Peter E. 2000. Exodus. Edited by Terry Muck, III Tremper Longman, John H. Walton, Robert Hubbard, and Andrew Dearman. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Fretheim, Terrence E. 2010. Exodus. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Goheen, Michael W. 2011. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Grace, Marysville. “History and Affiliation.” http://marysvillegrace.org/about- us/history-affiliation (accessed November 30, 2017).

Kerkeslager, Allen. 1998. Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early Roman Egypt. In Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, ed. David Frankfurter, 99-149. Leiden: Brill.

205

Knauf, Ernst Axel. 1983. MIdianites and Ishmaelites. In Midian, Moab And Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan And North-West Arabia, eds. John F.A. Sawyer, and David J.A. Clines, 24, 147-162. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press.

Lipari, Lisbeth. 2014. Listening, Thinking, Being: Toward an Ethics of Attunement. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

Long, V. Philips. 1994. The Art of Biblical History. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Moberly, R.W.L. 2008. Exodus. In Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey, eds. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, and Daniel J. Treier, 42-51. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Musil, Alois. 1926. The Northern Ḥeğâz: A Topographical Itinerary. Oriental Explorations and Studies. New York City, NY: American Geographical Society.

Parks, Elizabeth S. 2020. The Ethics of Listening: Creating Space for Sustainable Dialogue. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Rosner, Brian S. 2017. Known By God: A Biblical Theology of Personal Identity. Edited by Jonathan Lunde. Biblical Theology for Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Schwartz, Joshua. 1981. Sinai in Jewish Thought and Tradition. Immanuel 13, 7- 14.

______. 2010. Sinai—Mountain and Desert: The Desert Geography and Theology of the Rabbis and Desert Fathers. In “Follow the Wise”: Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine, eds. Zeev Weiss, Oded irshai, Jodi Magness, and Seth Schwartz, 355-374. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Scoles, Todd. 2008. Restoring the Household: The Quest of the Grace Brethren Church. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books.

Seitz, Christopher R. 2001. The Old Testament, Mission, and Christian Scripture. In Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture, 145-157. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Stuart, Douglas K. 2006. Exodus. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN. B&H Publishing Group.

Trueman, Carl R. 2010. Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

206

Verhey, Allen. 2011. Ethics in Scripture. In The Old Testament and Ethics: A Book-by-Book Survey, eds. Joel B Green, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley, 1- 14. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Vervenne, Marc. 1996. Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus. In Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, ed. Marc Vervenne, 21-60. Leuven-Louvain, BEL: Leuven University Press.

Voss, Hank. 2016. The Priesthood of All Believers and the Missio Dei: A Canonical, Catholic, and Contextual Perspective. Princeton Theological Monograph. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.

Wright, Christopher J.H. 2006. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL. IVP Academic.

______. 2010. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission. Edited by Jonathan Lunde. Biblical Theology for Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

207

APPENDIX TWO

Pre-Test: Obeying God’s Voice in Light of Israel’s Wilderness Journey Marysville Grace, February 23, 2020 Participant #

Please provide the following personal information:

Present Age Less than 40 40-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 Greater than 70

Gender M F Years as a Believer Less than 3 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-25 More than 25

Years in your present Faith Community Less than 3 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-25 More than 25

Education Completed Primary Secondary College Graduate/Professional School

Have you ever read a complete book of the Bible (any one of the 66)? Yes No

Have you ever read (select any that apply)? Genesis Genesis-Deuteronomy Genesis-Joshua Genesis-Malachi The New Testament The Whole Bible

Have you completed a study with others covering (select any that apply)? Genesis Genesis-Deuteronomy Genesis-Joshua Genesis-Malachi The New Testament The Whole Bible

Likert Scale Please circle the number that pertains to your level of agreement concerning each statement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Moderately Slightly Neutral Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

I commit to obeying God’s voice when I realize the impact my behavior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 makes on his world.

I must embrace God’s created order in order to obey his voice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I understand that God training his people to trust him propels me to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 obey his voice.

208

Likert Scale Continued Please circle the number that pertains to your level of agreement concerning each statement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Moderately Slightly Neutral Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

I understand who God is by studying his actions through Israel’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 wilderness journey.

I understand that God values my role within his people’s mission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 when I experience God’s loving formation.

I commit to obeying God’s voice when I recognize that he intends my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 behavior to reflect his character.

I must embrace God’s instruction as the path to life in order to obey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 his voice.

I understand that God making his name renown among the nations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 propels me to obey his voice.

I understand God’s desires for his world by studying his actions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 along Israel’s wilderness journey.

I understand God’s covenant faithfulness when I experience his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 loving formation.

I commit to obeying God’s voice when I grasp the impact my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 behavior makes on my local context.

I must recognize that God has already delivered me in order to obey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 his voice.

I understand God’s sovereignty by studying his actions through 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Israel’s wilderness journey.

I understand the expanse of God’s love when I experience God’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 loving formation.

I understand that God commanding the elements of creation propels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 me to obey his voice.

209

Post-Test: Obeying God’s Voice in Light of Israel’s Wilderness Journey Marysville Grace, June 7, 2020 Participant #

Please provide the following personal information:

Present Age Less than 40 40-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 Greater than 70

Gender M F Years as a Believer Less than 3 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-25 More than 25

Years in your present Faith Community Less than 3 3-5 6-10 11- 15 16-25 More than 25

Education Completed Primary Secondary College. Graduate/Professional School

Have you ever read a complete book of the Bible (any one of the 66)? Yes No

Have you ever read (select any that apply)? Genesis Genesis-Deuteronomy Genesis-Joshua Genesis-Malachi The New Testament The Whole Bible

Have you completed a study with others covering (select any that apply)? Genesis Genesis-Deuteronomy Genesis-Joshua Genesis-Malachi The New Testament The Whole Bible

I commit to obeying God’s voice when I realize the impact my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 behavior makes on his world.

I must embrace God’s created order in order to obey his voice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I understand that God training his people to trust him propels me to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 obey his voice.

210

I understand who God is by studying his actions through Israel’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 wilderness journey.

I understand that God values my role within his people’s mission when 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I experience God’s loving formation.

I commit to obeying God’s voice when I recognize that he intends my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 behavior to reflect his character.

I must embrace God’s instruction as the path to life in order to obey his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 voice.

I understand that God making his name renown among the nations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 propels me to obey his voice.

I understand God’s desires for his world by studying his actions along 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Israel’s wilderness journey.

I understand God’s covenant faithfulness when I experience his loving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 formation.

I commit to obeying God’s voice when I grasp the impact my behavior 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 makes on my local context.

I must recognize that God has already delivered me in order to obey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 his voice.

I understand God’s sovereignty by studying his actions through Israel’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 wilderness journey.

I understand the expanse of God’s love when I experience God’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 loving formation.

I understand that God commanding the elements of creation propels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 me to obey his voice.

211

Qualitative-Open Ended Questions 1. In what ways has this small group study of Israel’s wilderness journey impacted your understanding of obeying God’s voice?

2. In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s actions in Israel’s wilderness journey fuels our obedience to his voice.

3. In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God’s loving formation fuels our obedience to his voice?

4. In what ways has this small group study impacted your understanding of how God fuels our obedience to his voice by making his name renown among the nations?

5. In what ways has this small group study impacted your commitment to obeying God’s voice on behalf of his creation?

212

APPENDIX THREE

Obeying God’s Voice Study-Reflection Questions Session: 1

1. Think about Bible’s cumulative story. If you were to list the key events which make up the Bible’s plot, with which event(s) would you begin your list?

Read Ephesians 1:3-14. 2. In this passage Paul identifies at least 6 things which God accomplished on our behalf through Jesus Christ. Can you identify them? a. (v.3) b. (v.4) c. (v.5) d. (v.7) e. (vv.8b-10) f. (vv.11-12) 3. In Ephesians 1:4, 5, 11 Paul uses specific phrases to depict the time frame in which God strategically planned what he would accomplish on behalf of his people, how he would accomplish it, and why he would accomplish it. g. Which phrases did Paul use? i. Ephesians 1:4: ii. Ephesians 1:5: iii. Ephesians 1:11:

4. According to Paul’s description provided by Ephesians 1:3-14 as a whole, what aspects of God’s character drove him to accomplish all of these things on behalf of his people? h. Ephesians 1:5b-6: i. Ephesians 1:9b: j. Ephesians 1:11b: 5. Reflect on the 6 major things God accomplished through Jesus Christ from question 1. k. Where, within the Bible, would Paul have gotten a phrase like the one he uses in Ephesians 1:4? i. In other words, how does Paul develop this view of God when Genesis begins with “in the beginning God created…”? ii. What significance does this have for how we think about the Bible’s creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:25)? 6. In Ephesians 1:7, 14, Paul denotes a specific accomplishment which God achieved through the shedding of Jesus Christ’s blood in his death. God further marked his people, through his spirit, as those people who have benefited from this same God achievement.

213

l. Which God achievement are we talking about? m. What does this achievement mean for God’s people?Read 1 Peter 1:1-2. 1. In 1 Peter 1:2, when Peter uses the expressions “chosen,” “sanctified,” “obedient to” and “sprinkled by blood,” to what OT passage(s) might Peter be alluding?

Read 1 Peter 1:3-21. 2. In 1 Peter 1:3-5, Peter celebrates another of the accomplishments God achieved for his people. a. Which of God’s accomplishments did Peter celebrate (v.3a-b)? b. What strategies or methods did God use to achieve it (v.3b-c)? i. How does Peter inter-relate God’s strategy and accomplishments (vv. 4-5)? 3. In 1 Peter 1:13-17, Peter exhorts his readers, in light of what God has accomplished for them, to take several steps toward leaving behind their former lifestyles (1:18) and living the types of holy lives that fit what God has achieved for them. a. What are some of those action steps Peter intended his readers to take toward living holy lives?

4. In 1 Peter 18-21, Peter unveils another aspect of the God’s great accomplishment (noted above in 1 Peter 1:3-5 and Question 6). a. What else did he accomplish for his people (1 Peter 1:18a)? b. What impact did God intend this accomplishment to make on the lives of his people (1 Peter 1:18a)? c. How did God achieve this (additional) great accomplishment (1 Peter 1:19, 21)? d. When did God initiate his plan to accomplish this for his people (1 Peter 1:20)?

Reflect on both Ephesians 1:3-14 and 1 Peter 1:3-21 5. What attributes of God’s character and behavior do both Paul and Peter depict? 6. How might our noticing these specific attributes impact the way we think about God? Does he or his work seem bigger, more expansive than you realized? 7. In what ways might your expanded view of God impact your pursuit of obeying his voice in your life? 8. Review your answer to Question 1 on page 1 above. Given the perspective Paul and Peter shared about God collaborating with Jesus before creating, would you add additional events to your Bible plot list? 9. Think about your favorite story form (from the Bible, or from literature, or from media--e.g. movies, TV, etc.). For a story to be a story, what 3 elements must be present?

214

REFERENCES

Aarflot, Christine Henriksen. 2018. God (in) Acts: A Narrative Analysis of the Characterization of God through God’s Actions in the Acts of the Apostles. MF Norwegian School of Theology.

Allen, Lad. 2002. The Exodus Revealed: Searching for the Red Sea Crossing.

Amit, Yairah. 2001. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Anderson, Keith R. 2016. A Spirituality of Listening: Living What We Hear. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Anizor, Uche, and Hank Voss. 2016. Representing Christ: A Vision for the Priesthood of All Believers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1958. Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy 33, no. 124: 1- 19.

Arnett, Ronald C., Leeanne Mcmanus, and Janie Fritz. 2018. Communication Ethics Literacy: Dialogue and Difference. 2md ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Assmann, Jan. 1995. Cultural Memory and Cultural Identity. New German Critique 65, no. Spring-Summer: 125-133.

______. 2008. Communicative and Cultural Memory. In Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, eds. Astrid Erll, and Ansgar Nünning, 109-118. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

______. 2013. Communicative and Cultural Memory. In The Theoretical Foundations Of Hungarian ‘Lieux De Mémoire’ Studies, eds. Pál S. Varga, Karl Katschthaler, Donald E. Morse, and Miklós Takács, 1, 36-43. Debrecen, Hungary: Debrecen University Press.

Auerbach, Erich. 1953. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton Classics, 78. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bar-Efrat, Shimon. 2004. Narrative Art in the Bible. Understanding the Bible and Its World, New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

215

Bar, Doron, and Kobi Cohen-Hattab. 2003. A New Kind of Pilgrimage: The Modern Tourist Pilgrim of Nineteenth Century and Early Twentieth- Century Palestine. Middle Eastern Studies 39, no. 2: 131-148.

Barker, Jeff. 2011. The Storytelling Church: Adventures in Reclaiming the Role of Story in Worship. Cleveland, TN: Parson’s Porch Books.

Bauckham, Richard. 2003a. Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

______. 2003b. Reading Scripture as a Coherent Story. In The Art of Reading Scripture, eds. Ellen F. Davis, and Richard B. Hayes, 38-53. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

______. 2015. The Bible in the Contemporary World: Hermeneutical Ventures. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Billings, J. Todd. 2010. The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Blackburn, W. Ross. 2012. The God Who Makes Himself Known: The Missionary Heart of the Book of Exodus. Edited by Donald A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology, 28. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Brown, Adam D., Alin Coman, and William Hirst. 2009. The Role of Narratorship and Expertise in Social Remembering. Social Psychology 40, no. 3: 119- 129.

Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Jeannine K. 2007. Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

______. 2011a. Being and Becoming: The Scriptural Story of Formation. In Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, 65-82. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

______. 2011b. Wholeness and Holiness: Toward Communal Fullness of Life. In Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, 83-98. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Burley-Allen, Madelyn. 2008. Listening: The Forgotten Skill: A Self-Teaching Guide. Wiley Self-Teaching Guides, 144. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

216

Childs, Brevard S. 1974. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Edited by The Old Testament Library. 2. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Christians, Clifford G., and John C. Merrill. 2009. Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human Dialogue. Edited by Clifford G. Christians, and John C. Merrill. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cohick, Lynn H., and Amy Brown Hughes. 2017. Christian Women in the Patristic World: Their Influence, Authority, and Legacy in the Second through Fifth Centuries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Coleman, Simon, and John Elsner. 1994. The Pilgrim’s Progress: Art, Architecture and Ritual Movement at Sinai. World Archaeology 26, no. 1: 73-89.

Collins, John J. 2000. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Edited by Astrid B. Beck, and David Noel Freedman. The Biblical Resource Series, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Coman, Alin. 2015. Collective Memory, Psychology of. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, ed. James D. Wright, 4, 188-193. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Coman, Alin, Adam D. Brown, Jonathan Koppel, and William Hirst. 2009. Collective Memory from a Psychological Perspective. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 22, no. 2: 125-141.

Coman, Alin, Andreas Kolling, Michaele Lewis, and William Hirst. 2012. Mnemonic Convergence: From Empirical Data to Large-Scale Dynamics. In Social Computing, Behavioral - Cultural Modeling and Prediction, eds. Yang S.J., A.M. Greenberg, and M Endsley, 7227, 256-265. Berlin, DE: Springer.

Coman, Alin, David Manier, and William Hirst. 2009. Forgetting the Unforgettable Through Conversation: Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting of September 11 Memories. Psychological Science 20, no. 5: 627-633.

Coman, Alin, and William Hirst. 2015. Social Identity and Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting: The Effects of Group Membership. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, no. 4: 717-722.

217

Coman, Alin, Ida Momennejad, Rae D. Drach, and Andra Geana. 2016. Mnemonic Convergence in Social Networks: The Emergent Properties of Cognition at a Collective Level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, no. 29: 8171-8176.

Coman, Alin, and William Hirst. 2012. Cognition Through a Social Network: The Propagation of Induced Forgetting and Practice Effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology 141, no. 2: 321-336.

Corbin Reuschling, Wyndy. 2011. Being and Becoming: The Trinity and Our Formation. In Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, 109-124. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. 1989. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Cron, Lisa. 2012. Wired for Story: The Writer’s Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Cruse, Alan. 2011. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cuc, Alexandru, Jonathan Koppel, and William Hirst. 2007. Silence Is Not Golden: A Case for Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting. Psychological Science 18, no. 8: 727-733.

Cuc, Alexandru, Yasuhiro Ozuru, David Manier, and William Hirst. 2006. On the Formation Of Collective Memories: The Role Of A Dominant Narrator. Memory & Cognition 34, no. 4: 752-762.

Ćurčić, Slobodan, and Shari Kenfield. “The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai.” http://web.princeton.edu/sites/Archaeology/rp/sinaiexhibit/ (accessed August 22, 2015).

Curtis, Adrian. 2007. Oxford Bible Atlas. Edited by Adrian Curtis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dahl, Carla M. 2011a. Being and Becoming: A Journey Toward Love. In Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, 15-36. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

______. 2011b. Wholeness and Holiness: Selves in Community with God and Others. In Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, 37-52. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

218

Dicks, Matthew. 2018. Storyworthy: Engage, Teach, Persuade, and Change Your Life through the Power of Storytelling. Novato, CA: New World Library.

Dietz, Maribel. 2011. Wandering Monks, Virgins, and Pilgrims: Ascetic Travel in the Mediterranean World, A.D. 300–800. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press;

Durham, John I. 1987. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary, 3. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Ellman, Barat. 2013. Memory and Covenant: The Role of Israel’s and God’s Memory in Sustaining the Deuteronomic and Priestly Covenants. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs. 2007. The Qualitative Content Analysis Process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62, no. 1: 107-115.

Enns, Peter E. 2000. Exodus. Edited by Terry Muck, III Tremper Longman, John H. Walton, Robert Hubbard, and Andrew Dearman. The NIV Application Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. 2009. How to Read the Bible Book by Book: A Guided Tour. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic.

Fitch, David E., and Geoff Holsclaw. 2013. Prodigal Christianity: Ten Signposts into the Missional Frontier. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fleer, David, and Dave Bland. 2009. Reclaiming the Imagination and Recovering a Paradigmatic Memory. In Reclaiming the Imagination: The Exodus as Paradigmatic Narrative for Preaching, eds. David Fleer, and Dave Bland, 1-6. Atlanta, GA: Chalice Press.

Frei, Hans W. “Scripture as Realistic Narrative: Karl Barth as Critic of Historical Criticism.” http://divinity-adhoc.library.yale.edu/HansFreiTranscripts/ (accessed July 9, 2020).

______. “On Interpreting the Christian Story.” The 10th Annual Greenhoe Lectureship. http://divinity-adhoc.library.yale.edu/HansFreiTranscripts/ (accessed July 9, 2020).

______. 1980. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

219

______. 1993a. Theology and the Interpretation of Narrative: Some Hermeneutical Considerations. In Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays, eds. George Hunsinger, and William C. Placher, 94-116. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

______. 1993b. The “Literal Reading” of Biblical Narrative in the Christian Tradition: Does it Stretch or Will it Break? In Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays, eds. George Hunsinger, and William C. Placher, 117- 152. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fretheim, Terence E. 2005. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

______. 2010. Exodus. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 2. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Fuhr, Richard Alan, Jr., and Andreas J. Köstenberger. 2016. Inductive Bible Study: Observation, Interpretation, and Application through the Lenses of History, Literature, and Theology. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic.

George, Theodore. 2020. The Responsibility to Understand: Hermeneutical Contours of Ethical Life. Contemporary Continental Ethics, Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Edinburgh University Press.

Goheen, Michael W. 2011. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Goldberg, Michael. 2001. Jews and Christians: Getting Our Stories Straight, The Exodus and the Passion-Resurrection. Eugene, OR: Wipe and Stock Publishers.

Gonzalez, Justo L. 1984. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Volume 1. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers.

Goodson, Jacob L. 2015. Narrative Theology and the Hermeneutical Virtues: Humility, Patience, Prudence. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Grace, Marysville. “History and Affiliation.” http://marysvillegrace.org/about- us/history-affiliation (accessed November 30, 2017).

Grant, Michael. 1985. The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C.-A.D. 476. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Green, Joel B. 2007. Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

220

Greidanus, Sidney. 1988. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Halbwachs, Maurice. 1992. On Collective Memory. Translated by Lewis A. Coser. Heritage of Sociology Series, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hauerwas, Stanley. 1981. A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

______. 1991. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer In Christian Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

______. 1993. Unleashing the Scripture: Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

______. 1994. Character and the Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

______. 1995. Constancy and Forgiveness: The Novel as a School for Virtue. In Dispatches from the Front: Theological Engagements with the Secular, 31-57. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

______. 2001. The Church as God’s New Language. In Christian Existence Today: Essays on Church, World, and Living in Between, 47-65. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press.

______. 2013. With the Grain of the Universe: The Church’s Witness And Natural Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

______. 2015. The Narrative Turn: Thirty Years Later. In Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Nonviolence, 135-150. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Haukenfrers, Norbert. 2016. Fire, Water, and Wind: God’s Transformational Narrative: Learning from Narrative Psychology, Neuroscience, and Storytelling about Identity Formation. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Heitink, Gerben. 1999. Practical Theology: History, Theory, Action Domains. Studies in Practical Theology, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI.

Hicks, John Mark. 2002. Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper. Orange, CA: Leafwood Publishers.

221

Hiestand, Gerald, and Todd Wilson. 2015. The Pastor Theologian: Resurrecting an Ancient Vision. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Hirst, William, and Gerald Echterhoff. 2008. Creating Shared Memories in Conversation: Toward a Psychology of Collective Memory. Social Research 75, no. 1: 183-216.

______. 2012. Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing and Reshaping of Memories. The Annual Review of Psychology 63, 55-79.

Hoffmeier, James K. 2005. Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hunt, E.D. 1984. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire: AD 312-460. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jackson, Peter, dir. 2001. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Prologue.

Jenkins, Robert Thomas. “Dictionary of Welsh Biography.” http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-OLIV-THO-1725.html (accessed October 27, 2018).

Kaczor, Christopher, and Thomas Sherman SJ. 2020. Thomas Aquinas on the Cardinal Virtues: A Summa of the Summa on Justice, Courage, Temperance, and Practical Wisdom. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.

Kameda, Tatsuya, Yohsuke Ohtsubo, and Masanori Takezawa. 1997. Centrality in Sociocognitive Networks and Social Influence: An Illustration in a Group Decision-Making Context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, no. 2: 296-309.

Karpicke, Jeffrey D., and III Henry L. Roediger. 2007. Repeated Retrieval During Learning is the Key to Long-Term Retention. Journal of Memory and Language 57, 151-162.

Kerkeslager, Allen. 1998. Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early Roman Egypt. In Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, ed. David Frankfurter, 99-149. Leiden: Brill.

______. 2000. Mt. Sinai-in Arabia. Bible Review 16, no. 2: 32-39, 52.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

222

Koppel, Jonathan, Dana Wohl, Robert Meksin, and William Hirst. 2014. The Effect of Listening to Others Remember on Subsequent Memory: The Roles of Expertise and Trust in Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting and Social Contagion. Social Cognition 32, no. 2: 148-180.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Peter T. O’Brien. 2001. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission. New Studies in Biblical Theology, 11. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. 2011. Excellence: The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Richard Patterson. 2011. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology. Invitation to Theological Studies Series, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional.

Kreeft, Peter. 1990. Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for Everyday Moral Decisions. Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books.

Krodel, Gerhard A. 1986. Acts. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament, Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

Larsen, Jens, David M. Boje, and Lena Bruun. 2020. True Storytelling: Seven Principles For An Ethical and Sustainable Change-Management Strategy. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Levy, Benjamin J., and Michael C. Anderson. 2002. Inhibitory Processes and the Control of Memory Retrieval. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, no. 7: 299- 305.

Lewis, Paul A. 2020. Faithful Innovation: The Rule of God and a Christian Practical Wisdom. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc.

Lienhard, Joseph T. 2001. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Edited by Thomas C. Oden. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Book 3. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Limor, Ora. 2001. Reading Sacred Space: Egeria, Paula, and the Christian Holy Land. In De Sion exibit lex et verbum domini de Hierusalem: Essays on Medieval Law, Liturgy and Literature in Honour of Amnon Linder, ed. Yitzhak Hen, 1-16. Turnhout, BE: Brepols Publishers.

223

Louth, Andrew. 2001. Genesis 1-11. Edited by Thomas C. Oden. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, 1. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. 2007. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Marsh, Elizabeth J. 2007. Retelling Is Not the Same as Recalling: Implications for Memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16, no. 1: 16-20.

McClanan, Anne L. 2002. Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses: Image and Empire. Edited by Bonnie Wheeler. The New Middle Ages, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

McHugh, Adam S. 2015. The Listening Life: Embracing Attentiveness in a World of Distraction. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

McLaren, Brian. 2009. Exodus and Today’s World. In Reclaiming the Imagination: The Exodus as Paradigmatic Narrative for Preaching, eds. David Fleer, and Dave Bland, 151-163. Atlanta, GA: Chalice Press.

Melton, J. Gordon. 2007. Saint Cathrine’s Monastery (Egypt). In The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena, 145, 285-286. Canton Township, MI: Visible Ink Press.

Meretoja, Hanna. 2016. For Interpretation. Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies 8, no. 1: 97-117.

Meretoja, Hanna. 2017. On the Use and Abuse of Narrative for Life Towards an Ethics of Storytelling. In Life and Narrative: The Risks and Responsibilities of Storying Experience, eds. Brian Schiff, Elizabeth McKim, and Sylvie Patron, Oxford: United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Meretoja, Hanna. 2018. The Ethics of Storytelling: Narrative Hermeneutics, History, and the Possible. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.

Meretoja, Hanna, and Colin Davis. 2018. Storytelling and Ethics: Literature, Visual Arts and the Power of Narrative. Edited by Hanna Meretoja, and Colin Davis. New York, NY: Routledge.

Meyers, Carol. 2005. Exodus. New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge University Press.

Miller, William R. 2018. Listening Well: The Art of Empathic Understanding. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

224

Morales, L. Michael. 2016. Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of the Book of Exodus. Edited by D. A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology, 37. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Moshier, Stephen O., and James K. Hoffeier. 2015. Which Way Out of Egypt? Physical Geography Related to the Exodus Itinerary. In Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience, eds. Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider, and William H.C. Propp, 101-108. New York, NY: Springer.

Foundation, Mount Sinai. “General Information.” https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/the-pilgrimage/general- information (accessed September 30, 2018).

______. “Mount Sinai Monastery.” http://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/ (accessed September 30, 2018).

______. “Saint Helena.” https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/history/sinai-monasticism (accessed September 30, 2018).

Foundation, Mount Sinai. “The Pilgrimage.” https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/the-pilgrimage (accessed September 30, 2018).

Mulholland, M. Robert Jr. 2001. Shaped by the Word: The Power of Scripture in Spiritual Formation. Nashville, TN: Upper Room.

Nelson, Daniel Mark. 1992. The Priority of Prudence: Virtue and Natural Law in Thomas Aquinas and the Implications for Modern Ethics. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

Nichols, Michael P. 2009. The Lost Art of Listening, Second Edition: How Learning to Listen Can Improve Relationships. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Nicholson, Ernest W. 1982. The Covenant Ritual in Exodus XXIV 3-8. Vetus Testamentum 32, no. 1: 74-86.

Olick, Jeffrey K. 1999. Collective Memory: The Two Cultures. Sociological Theory 17, no. 3: 333-348.

Paliouras, Athanasios. 1985. The Monastary of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Glyka Nera Attikis, GRC: St. Catherine’s Monastery At Sinai.

225

Patterson, Kerry, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler. 2012. Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Placher, William C. “Hans Frei and the Meaning of Biblical Narrative.” https://www.religion-online.org/article/hans-frei-and-the-meaning-of- biblical-narrative/ (accessed June 23, 2020).

Plant, Stephen J. 2014. Taking Stock of Bonhoeffer: Studies in Biblical Interpretation and Ethics. Farnham, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

Powell, Mark Allan. 2007. What Do They Hear?: Bridging the Gap Between Pulpit and Pew. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Propp, William H.C. 1999. Exodus 1-18. Edited by David Noel Freedman. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

______. 2006. Exodus 19-40. Edited by David Noel Freedman. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Provan, Iain W., V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. 2015. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Regnault, Lucien. 1999. The Day-to-Day Life of the Desert Fathers in Fourth- Century Egypt. Translated by Jr. Etienne Poirier. Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s Publications.

Richards, E. Randolph, and Brandon J. O’Brien. 2012. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Roediger, Henry L. III, and Magdalena Abel. 2015. Collective Memory: A New Arena of Cognitive Study. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19, no. 7: 359- 361.

Roediger, Henry L. III, Michelle L. Meade, and Erik T. Bergman. 2001. Social Contagion of Memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8, no. 2: 365-371.

Rogers, Eugene F., Jr. 1996. How the Virtues of an Interpreter Presuppose and Perfect Hermeneutics: The Case of Thomas Aquinas. The Journal of Religion 76, no. 1: 64-81.

______., Jr. 2006. Theology in the Curriculum of a Secular Religious Studies Department. CrossCurrents 56, no. 2: 169-179.

Ryan, Mark. 2011. The Politics of Practical Reason: Why Theological Ethics Must Change Your Life. Edited by D. Stephen Long, and C.C. Pecknold. Theopolitical Visions, Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

226

Ryken, Leland. 1984. How to Read the Bible as Literature…and Get More Out of It. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

______. 2015. How Bible Stories Work: A Guided Study of Biblical Narrative. Reading the Bible As Literature, Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Salkin, Jeffrey K. 2017. The JPS B’nai Mitzvah Torah Commentary. JPS Study Bible Series, Lincoln, NE: Jewish Publication Society; University of Nebraska Press.

Sarna, Nahum M. 1986. Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel. New York, NY: Schocken Books.

______. 1991. Exodus. Edited by Nahum M. Sarna, and Chaim Potok. The JPS Torah Commentary, 2. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society.

Schultz, Richard. 2012. Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Schwartz, Joshua. 1981. Sinai in Jewish Thought and Tradition. Immanuel 13, 7- 14.

Scoles, Todd. 2008. Restoring the Household: The Quest of the Grace Brethren Church. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books.

Sheridan, Mark. 2002. Genesis 12-50. Edited by Thomas C. Oden. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, 2. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Silva, Moisés. 1994. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Revised and Expanded. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Silva, Moisés. 1996. God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics. Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Sivan, Hagith. 1988. Who Was Egeria? Piety and Pilgrimage in the Age of Gratian. The Harvard Theological Review 81, no. 1: 59-72.

Smith, Julie Ann. 2007. “My Lord’s Native Land”: Mapping The Christian Holy Land. Church History 76, no. 1: 1-31.

227

Springs, Jason A. 2010. Toward a Generous Orthodoxy: Prospects for Hans Frei’s Postliberal Theology. AAR Reflection and Theory in the Study of Religion, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Stair, Ralph, and George Reynolds. 2018. Fundamentals of Information Systems. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Stasser, Garold, Dennis D. Stewart, and Gwen M. Wittenbaum. 1995. Expert Roles and Information Exchange During Discussion: The Importance of Knowing Who Knows What. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31, 244-265.

Sternberg, Meir. 1987. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Stone, Charles B., Alin Coman, Adam D. Brown, Jonathan Koppel, and William Hirst. 2012. Toward a Science of Silence: The Consequences of Leaving a Memory Unsaid. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 1: 39-53.

Stone, Douglas, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen. 2010. Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Stuart, Douglas K. 2006. Exodus. The New American Commentary, 2. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Treier, Daniel J. 2006. Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward Theology as Wisdom. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 2009. Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Landmarks in Christian Scholarship, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., and Owen Strachan. 2015. The Pastor as Public Theologian: Reclaiming a Lost Vision. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Walsh, Jerome T. 2001. Style And Structure In Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

______. 2009. Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Walsh, John. 2014. The Art of Storytelling: Easy Steps to Presenting an Unforgettable Story. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Ward, Timothy. 2009. Words Of Life: Scripture As The Living And Active Word Of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

228

Ward, Walter D. 2015. The Mirage of the Saracen: Christians and Nomads in the Sinai Peninsula in Late Antiquity. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Watson, J. “Olivers, Thomas.” http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.00 01/odnb-9780198614128-e-20738 (accessed October 27, 2018).

Wells, Bruce. 2009. Exodus. Edited by John H. Walton. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI.

Wilkinson, John. 1999. Egeria’s Travels. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.

Wright, Christopher J.H. 2004. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

______2006. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

______2010. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission. Edited by Jonathan Lunde. Biblical Theology for Life, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Wright, John W. 2007. Telling God’s Story: Narrative Preaching for Christian Formation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Wright, N. T. 2009. Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Yoder, John Howard. 2005. ‘Patience’ as Method in Moral Reasoning: Is an Ethic of Discipleship ‘Absolute’? In The Wisdom of the Cross: Essays in Honor of John Howard Yoder, eds. Stanley Hauerwas, Chris Huebner, and Mark Thiessen Nation, 24-44. Wipf and Stock Publishers: Eugene, OR.

229