I want to pass along a rather insightful set of ideas that I've heard a professor of mine speak about a couple of times now. It has helped me to understand and appreciate my own thirst for knowledge in a different light:
Aristotle wrote, "It is the nature of man to know." Christian doctrine affirms this human quest for knowledge and truth, which requires the use of our uniquely human faculty known as "reason." How does Christian doctrine affirm the quest for knowledge and truth? By the Doctrine of Creation. The Nicene Creed confesses, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." Our God is, we believe and confess, the Creator of all things--including anything that is worth knowing, anything that is true, all knowledge and wisdom. Moreover, we believe that "the Word (Logos) became flesh." Not only that, "through him [the Word of God, Christ] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Therefore, all that exists in the cosmos--including knowledge itself--is a creation of our God, through Christ, the Word. There is an implicit affirmation here of the human quest for knowledge. We do not bridle our quest to know and to know that which is true, because--as it has been put simply throughout the ages of Christian thought--"all truth is God's truth."
However, if we become overly confident in our knowledge and in our understanding of the truth, we deny the Doctrine of Sin. We not only confess that God is Creator, but we also confess that humanity has been corrupted by the effects of sin. Consequently, even our ability to know--our use of "reason"--is corrupted, deficient. In Christ, we have certainly seen a great Light, but our very ability to see has been corrupted and cannot be fully restored in this world. So we are left with this disadvantage: although we can affirm our quest for knowledge and truth because these things are the creations of our Lord, we also affirm that our grasp of knowledge and truth are, at best, partial. "For now, we see in a mirror dimly...."
So why is this important to note? Well, let me try to explain why it is important to me....
Sometimes I hear from the mouths of prominent Christian leaders comments about "intellectuals," "PhDs" and "university people" (even about college students in general) which are very degrading. I even recently received an email forwarded onto me by a family member, in which a man with a radio Bible ministry was specifically criticizing Nazarene universities as hotbeds of "heresy" in the denomination, and also made specifically derogatory comments about "those with PhDs" simply because of their degrees. But as we have seen, this sort of anti-intellectualism is itself anti-Christian. To criticize people solely because they have pursued knowledge is to deny the Doctrine of Creation.
What is more, it is often from very similar mouths that I hear talk about "objective truth." While I believe, in faith, that some things are absolutely true--i.e. God's Son is Jesus Christ; He has risen from the dead; the Church is His body in the world--I do not believe anything is "objectively true." When someone proposes that something is objectively true, they are saying that this truth can be demonstrated to any rational person and be proved to be a true proposition. Yet this is a denial of the Doctrine of Sin, because we have forgotten that our ability to reason has itself been corrupted. Therefore, if we believe anything to be "objectively true" or "rationally demonstrable" we deny our own sinfulness. Should this keep us from making statements and confessions of faith? Not at all! We ought to desire to make sense of our world because it is the good creation of our Heavenly Father. However, we should be humble enough to realize that while our search for truth is a noble one, it is also one that--in this life--will only ever be partially successful.
Thanks to all who continue to read and grapple with the ideas I myself am wrestling with. May God touch us as he touched Jacob, leaving us forever changed.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The "Emerging Church": What is it?
So there is a lot of talk these days about the so-called "emerging church." Sometimes this term is used interchangeably with other terms like the "postmodern movement," or the "postmodern church," or "Emergent Church" (which is actually somewhat different), or just simply "liberals." Most of the time, these other terms are employed polemically--meaning people use them to argue why we should not like the "emerging church." I want to simply introduce this topic of the emerging church to the blog, and hopefully clear up some of the misunderstandings.
First of all, attempting to define the "emerging church" is like attempting to answer the question, "What color is the rainbow?" Probably the first and most important thing to note is that the "emerging church" is not a monolith--it does not have one face. The "emerging church" spans many denominations, theological traditions, political affiliations, worship styles, etc. So if anyone says something to you like, "We don't/do embrace the emerging church because the emerging church is __________," ask them which part of the "emerging church" they're talking about. Even the simple question, "Who is a part of the 'emerging church'?" will be answered differently depending on who you ask. Also, make note that words like "postmodern" and "liberal" are oftentimes just as slippery terms as "emerging church"--they mean very different things depending on who is using them. We need to do better with the way we use these sorts of terms. Vast misunderstandings--which often lead to arguments, dissension, and even downright hatred--are formed when we begin to use terminology like this in sermons, lectures, and casual conversation without realizing what we're saying.
So, I will not attempt to give a once-for-all definition of the "emerging church" precisely because I know that this would not be possible. (Be critical thinkers regarding those who say it is.) However, I think it is possible to attempt to identify certain themes which run throughout many--but not all, nor all the same--parts of the "emerging church" movement. Once again, these themes do not represent all churches that could be considered a part of this movement, nor would each church in this movement have to have elements of each of these themes. It is a very diverse movement, but here are what I believe are some themes that we might be able to begin the conversation identifying as common within many strains of the "emerging church" movement:
(1) Dissatisfaction with and criticism of 20th-century American Evangelicalism: Many "emerging churches" in the U.S. have arisen as a result of simple dissatisfaction with the status quo of modern, American, evangelical churches. The criticisms are often that this sector of the church has been too politically slanted, or that it has become too obsessed with "personal/individual faith," or too consumed with a specific version of the "saved--vs.--unsaved" question, or that it has lost touch with the historical faith of the Church and substituted an "American Christianity" for it.
(2) Anti-institutionalization / anti-denominationalism. Denominations are seen as a construct of modernity (i.e., they only occur after the Reformation, during the Modern Era [usually dated at 1500--2000]). Denominations are often seen as only divisive; however, many "emerging churches" recognize that the even non-denominational congregations become a sort of denomination, and they attempt to reconcile this fact with their faith and mission.
(3) A belief (they might say "recognition") that the wider culture in the West has moved past modernity into "post-modernity," while the church in the West seems to have dug its heels into modernity. This is an important point to Brian McLaren, one of the founders of Emergent Village--which is a title for a distinct coalition of churches within the "emerging church" movement. (Check them out at http://www.emergentvillage.org/) The point here is that "postmodernity" is not so much a good or evil worldview or perspective as much as it is a description of where Western culture is at today--in a world that looks much differently, and looks at itself much differently, than it did 500 or even 50 years ago. More importantly, the point is that the church in the West is failing to speak to this postmodern culture, because it is stuck, not in a Christian or biblical worldview, but in a primarily modern worldview--and the problem, as it is argued, is that the church in the West can't tell the different between the modern and the biblical/Christian worldview.
(4) A cry for social justice on a global level, and a partnering with anyone of any creed who shares this conviction. This is not a particularly new development--many are familiar with the Social Gospel of the 60s--but this "social gospel" has grown to maturity in many "emerging churches" where the emphasis is not so much on evangelizing to the world as it is on serving the world. Thus, these churches are also very ready to partner with organizations of other faiths or secular organizations to do, what it considers, "the work of the kingdom."
(5) A renewed interest in the ancient and medieval traditions, rites, liturgy, theologians that have been neglected by almost all Protestant churches of the past 200 years. An author like Robert Webber would be a good resource for surveying this thinking. There is a real hunger amongst many in the "emerging church" movement to sort of "get back to real basics"--not just back to 1950s Protestant, "Leave it to Beaver" America, but to get back to early (1st-4th c.) and medieval (5th-12th c.?) church practices--like the remembrance of saints, or a revival of ancient Eastern liturgical practices.
(6) A very missional-mindedness that (to me) sounds very Wesleyan, honestly. Many of these churches stress the missional nature of the church (see Rob Bell's home church's website at http://www.marshill.org/). The church is not an institution, but a community with a mission--now as to how that "mission" is defined... once again it's a diverse movement.
(7) An emphasis on the ancient, Hebrew origins of the Bible--they (and I also) would very much dislike the "American Patriot's Bible" which I mentioned in my first blog. Also check out anything written/produced by Rob Bell on this. He is really the main guy I am thinking about when I say this, but he is extremely influential in this so-called "emerging church" movement.
(8) An attempt to transcend the "liberal vs. conservative" divide. While most of the evangelicals who would be critical of the "emerging church" often dismiss the entire movement as "liberal", the emerging church movement, for the most part, seems to hate both the terms "liberal" and "conservative." They often try not to find "common ground" between the two labeled sides, but to simply go entirely beyond the arguments posed by the two sides. (For instance, in his A New Kind of Christian series, Brian McLaren speaks several times about other religions and salvation. Whereas "liberals" often want to argue for a more open salvation, and "conservatives" often want to argue for confessors' salvation only, McLaren proposes that perhaps the appropriate stance is to say, "What business of it is mine to decide who gets into heaven?".)
Well, this is obviously not an exhaustive list, but it will hopefully give you a better idea of what we're talking about when the very ambiguous term "emerging church" is being used. Really, I think the best idea is to converse about individuals and individual churches within the "emerging church" instead of trying to tackle the entirety of the "emerging church." The reason for this is that anytime someone attempts to argue any point about the "emerging church," an exception (and often, many exceptions) can be found to disprove their argument.
So, be careful little ears what you hear--because many want to say "The 'emerging church' is good/bad because of __________." A sentence like this is mostly nonsense, and its speaker is probably just parroting something they heard anyway. But I am finished with this lengthy blog, and the dialogue is open...!
First of all, attempting to define the "emerging church" is like attempting to answer the question, "What color is the rainbow?" Probably the first and most important thing to note is that the "emerging church" is not a monolith--it does not have one face. The "emerging church" spans many denominations, theological traditions, political affiliations, worship styles, etc. So if anyone says something to you like, "We don't/do embrace the emerging church because the emerging church is __________," ask them which part of the "emerging church" they're talking about. Even the simple question, "Who is a part of the 'emerging church'?" will be answered differently depending on who you ask. Also, make note that words like "postmodern" and "liberal" are oftentimes just as slippery terms as "emerging church"--they mean very different things depending on who is using them. We need to do better with the way we use these sorts of terms. Vast misunderstandings--which often lead to arguments, dissension, and even downright hatred--are formed when we begin to use terminology like this in sermons, lectures, and casual conversation without realizing what we're saying.
So, I will not attempt to give a once-for-all definition of the "emerging church" precisely because I know that this would not be possible. (Be critical thinkers regarding those who say it is.) However, I think it is possible to attempt to identify certain themes which run throughout many--but not all, nor all the same--parts of the "emerging church" movement. Once again, these themes do not represent all churches that could be considered a part of this movement, nor would each church in this movement have to have elements of each of these themes. It is a very diverse movement, but here are what I believe are some themes that we might be able to begin the conversation identifying as common within many strains of the "emerging church" movement:
(1) Dissatisfaction with and criticism of 20th-century American Evangelicalism: Many "emerging churches" in the U.S. have arisen as a result of simple dissatisfaction with the status quo of modern, American, evangelical churches. The criticisms are often that this sector of the church has been too politically slanted, or that it has become too obsessed with "personal/individual faith," or too consumed with a specific version of the "saved--vs.--unsaved" question, or that it has lost touch with the historical faith of the Church and substituted an "American Christianity" for it.
(2) Anti-institutionalization / anti-denominationalism. Denominations are seen as a construct of modernity (i.e., they only occur after the Reformation, during the Modern Era [usually dated at 1500--2000]). Denominations are often seen as only divisive; however, many "emerging churches" recognize that the even non-denominational congregations become a sort of denomination, and they attempt to reconcile this fact with their faith and mission.
(3) A belief (they might say "recognition") that the wider culture in the West has moved past modernity into "post-modernity," while the church in the West seems to have dug its heels into modernity. This is an important point to Brian McLaren, one of the founders of Emergent Village--which is a title for a distinct coalition of churches within the "emerging church" movement. (Check them out at http://www.emergentvillage.org/) The point here is that "postmodernity" is not so much a good or evil worldview or perspective as much as it is a description of where Western culture is at today--in a world that looks much differently, and looks at itself much differently, than it did 500 or even 50 years ago. More importantly, the point is that the church in the West is failing to speak to this postmodern culture, because it is stuck, not in a Christian or biblical worldview, but in a primarily modern worldview--and the problem, as it is argued, is that the church in the West can't tell the different between the modern and the biblical/Christian worldview.
(4) A cry for social justice on a global level, and a partnering with anyone of any creed who shares this conviction. This is not a particularly new development--many are familiar with the Social Gospel of the 60s--but this "social gospel" has grown to maturity in many "emerging churches" where the emphasis is not so much on evangelizing to the world as it is on serving the world. Thus, these churches are also very ready to partner with organizations of other faiths or secular organizations to do, what it considers, "the work of the kingdom."
(5) A renewed interest in the ancient and medieval traditions, rites, liturgy, theologians that have been neglected by almost all Protestant churches of the past 200 years. An author like Robert Webber would be a good resource for surveying this thinking. There is a real hunger amongst many in the "emerging church" movement to sort of "get back to real basics"--not just back to 1950s Protestant, "Leave it to Beaver" America, but to get back to early (1st-4th c.) and medieval (5th-12th c.?) church practices--like the remembrance of saints, or a revival of ancient Eastern liturgical practices.
(6) A very missional-mindedness that (to me) sounds very Wesleyan, honestly. Many of these churches stress the missional nature of the church (see Rob Bell's home church's website at http://www.marshill.org/). The church is not an institution, but a community with a mission--now as to how that "mission" is defined... once again it's a diverse movement.
(7) An emphasis on the ancient, Hebrew origins of the Bible--they (and I also) would very much dislike the "American Patriot's Bible" which I mentioned in my first blog. Also check out anything written/produced by Rob Bell on this. He is really the main guy I am thinking about when I say this, but he is extremely influential in this so-called "emerging church" movement.
(8) An attempt to transcend the "liberal vs. conservative" divide. While most of the evangelicals who would be critical of the "emerging church" often dismiss the entire movement as "liberal", the emerging church movement, for the most part, seems to hate both the terms "liberal" and "conservative." They often try not to find "common ground" between the two labeled sides, but to simply go entirely beyond the arguments posed by the two sides. (For instance, in his A New Kind of Christian series, Brian McLaren speaks several times about other religions and salvation. Whereas "liberals" often want to argue for a more open salvation, and "conservatives" often want to argue for confessors' salvation only, McLaren proposes that perhaps the appropriate stance is to say, "What business of it is mine to decide who gets into heaven?".)
Well, this is obviously not an exhaustive list, but it will hopefully give you a better idea of what we're talking about when the very ambiguous term "emerging church" is being used. Really, I think the best idea is to converse about individuals and individual churches within the "emerging church" instead of trying to tackle the entirety of the "emerging church." The reason for this is that anytime someone attempts to argue any point about the "emerging church," an exception (and often, many exceptions) can be found to disprove their argument.
So, be careful little ears what you hear--because many want to say "The 'emerging church' is good/bad because of __________." A sentence like this is mostly nonsense, and its speaker is probably just parroting something they heard anyway. But I am finished with this lengthy blog, and the dialogue is open...!
Friday, August 14, 2009
A response to my good, minister friend, Nick, concerning the infallibility of Scripture...
This post is actually an addendum to a conversation which has continued in the "comments" section of the post entitled "On why I don't care about the infallibility of Scripture..." (which was an intentionally eye-catching title--sorry, I may have given into sensationalism a bit with this title, but it's been my most popular post because of it!). I wanted to offer this comment as a response to Nick's last comment in that "comments" section, but I also want to offer to the rest of the readers and followers of this blog. Please refer to the "comments" of the other post for the background to this conversation.
Nick, I've been chewing on your thoughts a bit more--I have to say I REALLY appreciate your critique of what I wrote, and I want to offer just one further thought. I've basically already said this in my most recent comment on that blog post, but perhaps not as clearly as I could:
I think what probably all of us in this comments section--and hopefully all Christians everywhere--can agree upon is that we need to trust that the Scriptures are INSPIRED by God. This seems to me to clearly be a central claim of the Church since its beginnings, and it seems to be a fairly clear claim of the authors of the texts themselves. However, we have--post-Reformation--attached this notion of "textual infallibility" or perhaps "internal textual consistency" to our understanding of what "inspired" means, and this is where I think there are obvious problems.
(I think this sort of notion of "inspiration" is indicative of a modern, European way of thinking. Let's face it, the basic litmus test for any argument in Western philosophy in general is its internal consistency; whether or not an argument can be shown to be true, if it is internally consistent we Westerners give it a significant amount of credence. This notion seems to me to be closely related to our idea of textual inerrancy.)
So we have been trained in modern Protestant America to equate "inspiration" with "textual consistency and inerrancy." I think this gives some explanation of the origins of both the phenomena of so-called "modern, liberal biblical criticism" and "conservative fundamentalism."
Now, I am not yet exactly sure how to state the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture apart from the notions of textual inerrancy, but this is a thought I'm going to really chew on.
Your thoughts?...anyone?
Nick, I've been chewing on your thoughts a bit more--I have to say I REALLY appreciate your critique of what I wrote, and I want to offer just one further thought. I've basically already said this in my most recent comment on that blog post, but perhaps not as clearly as I could:
I think what probably all of us in this comments section--and hopefully all Christians everywhere--can agree upon is that we need to trust that the Scriptures are INSPIRED by God. This seems to me to clearly be a central claim of the Church since its beginnings, and it seems to be a fairly clear claim of the authors of the texts themselves. However, we have--post-Reformation--attached this notion of "textual infallibility" or perhaps "internal textual consistency" to our understanding of what "inspired" means, and this is where I think there are obvious problems.
(I think this sort of notion of "inspiration" is indicative of a modern, European way of thinking. Let's face it, the basic litmus test for any argument in Western philosophy in general is its internal consistency; whether or not an argument can be shown to be true, if it is internally consistent we Westerners give it a significant amount of credence. This notion seems to me to be closely related to our idea of textual inerrancy.)
So we have been trained in modern Protestant America to equate "inspiration" with "textual consistency and inerrancy." I think this gives some explanation of the origins of both the phenomena of so-called "modern, liberal biblical criticism" and "conservative fundamentalism."
Now, I am not yet exactly sure how to state the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture apart from the notions of textual inerrancy, but this is a thought I'm going to really chew on.
Your thoughts?...anyone?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Who has the authority to say, “The Bible says…”? (Part 3: The communal nature of Scripture)
I began this 3-part blog series (which I interrupted twice…sorry) with a few examples of ways in which the Scriptures have been misinterpreted and misused by professing Christians today. In response to these examples (none of which were made up), I posed this question—one which I have wrestled with often—Who has the authority to say, “The Bible says…”?
It’s a big question—Who holds the authority of biblical interpretation?—and I made an attempt to trace a bit of the history of the Bible in order to shed some light on why I have come to the following conclusion: It is the Church, throughout time and space—the entire collective body of Christ’s followers—who alone has the authority to interpret the meaning of Scripture.
So the question to ask, then, in this final portion of the blog series is, So what?
So what if someone comes to you and tells you that the Greek words translated as “homosexual(s)” in the New Testament did not refer to the relationship shared in ancient Roman culture between two consenting male adults, but rather referred to what we would call “rape” or “child molestation” today? And what if from this exegetical procedure they interpret the Scriptures to not speak against the relationships shared by consenting gay partners?
Well, it seems to me that at this point you could take one of two options:
1) You could try to muster up all the references, arguments, explanations, and PowerPoint presentations on the meaning of the Greek words translated as “homosexual” in the NT, and then try to duke it out between your opponent (who has already placed you on his turf) [this is the popular evangelical route these days, which produces a lot of sales for people who know Greek and stuff like that]; OR…
2) You could simply respond, “that’s not what the Church teaches,” and be done with it.
Of course this person is not going to accept your answer if you opt for the second option, but then again no one was ever brought to any deep truth through exegetical arguments anyway; “it is the kindness of God that leads men to repentance.”
Nevertheless, the second option is the one I would encourage you to employ. While I know it chafes against everything you’ve been taught as a member of a democratic society, that assumes that each individual voice is equally as pertinent as the next; not to mention everything you’ve been taught as a Protestant, believing that the texts of the Bible can be properly interpreted by any rational human being—nevertheless I would hope that I’ve begun to illustrate how if we take the interpretive authority of the Bible away from the Church we open ourselves up to interpretive chaos and/or irrelevance. A recent commenter on a previous blog post expressed her fear of relativistic readings of Scripture; this is exactly what taking the Bible out of individual exegetes’ hands and putting it back in the hands of the Church guards against.
So how do we practically do this, especially in a society where access to the Bible is nearly limitless and literacy is 95+% (the consequence being that anyone can pick up and read the Bible nearly as often as they’d like)? Here’s what I think the natural conclusion is…
Every time any individual picks up the Bible and says, “I think this is what this means…”, that individual must subject that interpretation to their local church’s understanding of the Scripture. And that local congregation of believers better be sure that they also are subjecting their understanding of the Scriptures to dialogue with the regional, denominational, and global members of the Church. Not only that, but even the global Church today needs to remember the saints of past days—that “great cloud of witnesses” that have gone before us—and submit our understanding of the Scriptures to conversation with their understandings. In the end what we have is the whole Church—throughout time and space—participating in the process of “binding and loosing” the Scriptures, which is what Christ Himself gave us the authority to do.
It is in the midst of this dialogue, this ongoing conversation, this community that we find the meaning of the Scriptures.
So am I asking us evangelicals and other free-thinking, democratically-minded Protestant Americans to go back to the “Dark Ages” and submit to an authoritarian regime of clerics and popes for our understanding of Scripture? No…well…no.
I am asking that we not divorce the Bible from the Church. We must be in conversation with the WHOLE CHURCH in order to understand the Scriptures. It is conversation and consensus within the Church that brought the Bible to its final, canonical form; and it will be conversation and consensus within the Church that will bring us to be able to understand the words of God today. The nature of the Scriptures is that they are communal; separate the Bible from the community of believers, and you cease to understand it fully. Put the Bible back into the center of the dialogue with all believers—throughout time and space—and you will most certainly hear the voice of God speaking through its pages.
Thank you to those who waded through 3 very lengthy posts to track this blog-series. Please continue to participate in the dialogue—let’s be the Church!
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Interlude 2: On why I don’t care about the infallibility of Scripture…
So, what if I told you I believe that there are contradictions in the Bible? Minor contradictions, usually, but contradictions nonetheless. Things like:
--In the Joseph narrative of Gen. 37, Joseph is apparently sold to both the “Ishmaelites” and the “Midianites/Medanites.”
--The account of Saul’s death in 1 Sam. 31 says that Saul killed himself with his own sword; while the recounting of Saul’s death in 2 Sam. 1 says that an Amalekite killed Saul.
--Then there are the various reports in the gospels of who exactly was at the empty tomb that wonderful Sunday morning of Christ’s resurrection.
Now there are obviously ways to construct seemingly logical explanations for all of these contradictions, as well as the numerous other textual problems in the Bible—although some problems are much harder to reconcile than those I’ve mentioned above. (If you have a “study Bible,” they will often provide these sorts of ‘answers’ for you in the commentary/notes sections.) But have you ever stopped to ask yourself, Why do we even try to reconcile these problems? Why is it such a big deal to us that the Bible fit our understanding of “perfect” or “inerrant” or “the Word of God”?
Well, part of it stems from our Protestant nature. Catholics used to want an infallible pope; many Protestants still want an infallible Bible. But Catholics have given up the infallible pope idea, and you have to wonder if the day is not coming soon when the infallibility of Scripture isn’t such a big deal to Protestants anymore.
This is probably part of it, but I guess there’s something lying even deeper within us than our Protestant heritage that longs for a text that can be measured, calculated, and stretched in every way and still meet our expectations of “infallibility”—namely, the desire for certainty. We want a Holy Book without any contradictions, because we want to believe without wrestling with doubt. But this isn’t the Holy Book that God gives us, and faith is not certainty. Certainty is for the next life, where "we will know even as we are known." Faith is for this life.
Now please don’t misunderstand me: I love the Bible. I believe in the power of the Word of God—Holy Scripture—to guide and direct people into new life. I believe that Scripture is “sharper than any two-edged sword….” However, I am very concerned about this push amongst many Evangelicals—especially of the Reformed tradition—to essentially “prove” the Bible to be “true” on scientific or historical grounds, and to provide logical explanations for all the seeming “contradictions” in the Bible. Why am I concerned about something like this?
Because it takes the focus off of Christ, and puts it onto our “evidence” and “arguments” and “logic.” Let me say something I am sure to say over and over again in this blog: Our faith is not in a text; it is in a Person—Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified, dead, buried and rose again to life by the power of God. This is the gospel, “the gospel by which you are saved,” says Paul in 1 Cor. 15. You are not saved by arguments for or against the “inerrancy” or “infallibility” of Scripture. We do not follow a book, we follow a Person. The book is only useful to the Church insofar as it points us to the Person of Christ. Christ Himself makes it very clear in Luke 24 that all of Scripture is about Him. If we take the focus of Scripture off of Jesus—even to make it about how the Bible is supposedly “infallible”—we misuse the Bible.
Let us, as the Church of Christ, use the Bible to point us to Him.
Celebrate today: the Lord is Risen!
--In the Joseph narrative of Gen. 37, Joseph is apparently sold to both the “Ishmaelites” and the “Midianites/Medanites.”
--The account of Saul’s death in 1 Sam. 31 says that Saul killed himself with his own sword; while the recounting of Saul’s death in 2 Sam. 1 says that an Amalekite killed Saul.
--Then there are the various reports in the gospels of who exactly was at the empty tomb that wonderful Sunday morning of Christ’s resurrection.
Now there are obviously ways to construct seemingly logical explanations for all of these contradictions, as well as the numerous other textual problems in the Bible—although some problems are much harder to reconcile than those I’ve mentioned above. (If you have a “study Bible,” they will often provide these sorts of ‘answers’ for you in the commentary/notes sections.) But have you ever stopped to ask yourself, Why do we even try to reconcile these problems? Why is it such a big deal to us that the Bible fit our understanding of “perfect” or “inerrant” or “the Word of God”?
Well, part of it stems from our Protestant nature. Catholics used to want an infallible pope; many Protestants still want an infallible Bible. But Catholics have given up the infallible pope idea, and you have to wonder if the day is not coming soon when the infallibility of Scripture isn’t such a big deal to Protestants anymore.
This is probably part of it, but I guess there’s something lying even deeper within us than our Protestant heritage that longs for a text that can be measured, calculated, and stretched in every way and still meet our expectations of “infallibility”—namely, the desire for certainty. We want a Holy Book without any contradictions, because we want to believe without wrestling with doubt. But this isn’t the Holy Book that God gives us, and faith is not certainty. Certainty is for the next life, where "we will know even as we are known." Faith is for this life.
Now please don’t misunderstand me: I love the Bible. I believe in the power of the Word of God—Holy Scripture—to guide and direct people into new life. I believe that Scripture is “sharper than any two-edged sword….” However, I am very concerned about this push amongst many Evangelicals—especially of the Reformed tradition—to essentially “prove” the Bible to be “true” on scientific or historical grounds, and to provide logical explanations for all the seeming “contradictions” in the Bible. Why am I concerned about something like this?
Because it takes the focus off of Christ, and puts it onto our “evidence” and “arguments” and “logic.” Let me say something I am sure to say over and over again in this blog: Our faith is not in a text; it is in a Person—Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified, dead, buried and rose again to life by the power of God. This is the gospel, “the gospel by which you are saved,” says Paul in 1 Cor. 15. You are not saved by arguments for or against the “inerrancy” or “infallibility” of Scripture. We do not follow a book, we follow a Person. The book is only useful to the Church insofar as it points us to the Person of Christ. Christ Himself makes it very clear in Luke 24 that all of Scripture is about Him. If we take the focus of Scripture off of Jesus—even to make it about how the Bible is supposedly “infallible”—we misuse the Bible.
Let us, as the Church of Christ, use the Bible to point us to Him.
Celebrate today: the Lord is Risen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)