Luke's Response To Pete
(OR a moderate’s response to a fundamentalists assertion that the claim of inerrancy is foundational to living a faithful life)
Last week at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina the messengers voted overwhelmingly to amend their bylaws to augment the criteria for a church to be in good standing. This amendment proposed a church to be in good standing if it sends money and does not endorse homosexuality (or anyone else who does). Now I can understand how one might feel like the bylaws were lax. I mean potentially a Unitarian congregation could be a member of the state convention (not that I think this would ever happen). But why, might one ask, would those who want to “tighten up” the criteria for churches in friendly cooperation look to the issue of homosexuality. Yesterday I was at the library at Southeastern. I struck up a conversation with a student in the copy room. He asserted that the question of homosexuality went to the heart of the struggle in the contemporary church in America i.e. the issue of inerrancy.
There are a number reasons why I disagree. First, I do not think inerrancy is the underlying cause of confusion with regards to the question of homosexuality. Those who assert the need to create space in the church for homosexual unions do so from an interpretation of the scriptures. I do not agree with their interpretation, but I do not think it accurate to simply dismiss them as people who do not believe the Bible. They are interpreting texts in light of other texts and this is something orthodox theologians always have done.
But second, I do not think it is accurate to see the question of inerrancy as the battle ground question for the faith. Pete asked how could one trust anything they know about Jesus if the Bible is not inerrant? God would potentially be a liar. Because God is not a liar. We can trust that in God’s perfect economy the word of God is without error. While I have no interest in asserting the “errancy” of scripture, I think the position Pete asserted is deeply flawed. It is not a truthful witness to the gospel.
Let me begin by asserting a few of the convictions that I hold as a person who seeks to be faithful to my Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that God is Triune. I believe that God is the creator of heavens and earth of all that is seen and unseen. I believe the Father sent his only begotten Son to restore a fallen world. I believe God the Son was born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem. I believe that he was named Jesus. I believe that he died under Pontius Pilate. I believe that on the third day he rose from the dead. I believe that he is coming again to judge the world. I believe that his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins. I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe that God the Father sent God the Holy Spirit upon the church at Pentecost. I believe the Spirit leads people to their need for God and their need for redemption as well as guides them in their restoration. I believe in the church the gathering of people who are united in the recognition of their need for God who are constituted by the practices of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as continuing witnesses to the reconciling work of God in the world.
Now this basic summary is not meant to be a complete statement of all that I believe. But it certainly touches on what for me is most important. Jesus is God. He died on the cross. One comes to God through faith in Christ which one comes to have through the Holy Spirit. As one who believes these things one should gather with other believers and practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I believe that Bible leads us to this faith. The entire purpose of the revelation of God is to lead us to know God. And this is where I have a problem with inerrancy. The emphasis is shifted away from the content of faith to the agency of revelation. The agency becomes the issue of concern. This is often coupled with mendacious aspersions to the orthodoxy of people who disagree with the inerrantist’s view of agency. Now this does not mean that I think there is no place for the inerrantist’s view in the discussion. I simply think that the content of the faith does not depend on agency. The inerrantist might be right but the inerrantist might be wrong. What is not wrong is that God is Triune. Now let me respond to one objection that I can anticipate (there may be more that I do not anticipate…no doubt). Namely how can you say anything about God as Triune if you do not accept the inerrancy of scripture? The syllogism tends to follow a well worn path. If you do not believe in inerrancy then anything you read might be untrue. You cannot then have confidence in scripture or the confidence you have comes from your own picking and choosing what you want to believe from the scriptures. My response to such an argument runs like this. There were people at the empty tomb that did not believe Jesus was God the Roman soldiers as an example. There is no amount of certainty to the faith. If one lived on a desert island and found a Gideon’s Bible (because what other kind of Bible are you likely to find on a desert island), you would likely not come to understand the orthodox faith (I do believe in angels and the possibility that one could be taught the correct understanding even on a desert island but lets keep this for another discussion). The purpose of the illustration is simply to identify that we come to understand the scriptures through the handing on of the faith. One can turn to Luke 24:13ff, on the road to Emmaus we find disciples who know the scriptures, who know the ministry of Jesus, who know of the resurrection, who nonetheless still did not understand the word of God. It is the community of God’s people that shares and proclaims this message. This does not mean that the church can never be wrong. Nor does it mean the scripture can be whatever the church (read here leaders) want it to be. The Bible is what it is. The truth it proclaims is the truth it proclaims. It is the means by which the record of God’s revelation have been preserved for the people of God. It leads one to fellowship with the Triune God. The attention given to the issue of inerrancy focuses attention away from the content of faith to the agency of God’s self revelation. What is more the discussion with regards to agency in our context i.e. Southern Baptist life has been marked by misinformation and deceit with aspersions about people’s character and the content of the faith they proclaim. For these reasons I think the issue of inerrancy should not be the focus of our life as Baptists.
Last week at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina the messengers voted overwhelmingly to amend their bylaws to augment the criteria for a church to be in good standing. This amendment proposed a church to be in good standing if it sends money and does not endorse homosexuality (or anyone else who does). Now I can understand how one might feel like the bylaws were lax. I mean potentially a Unitarian congregation could be a member of the state convention (not that I think this would ever happen). But why, might one ask, would those who want to “tighten up” the criteria for churches in friendly cooperation look to the issue of homosexuality. Yesterday I was at the library at Southeastern. I struck up a conversation with a student in the copy room. He asserted that the question of homosexuality went to the heart of the struggle in the contemporary church in America i.e. the issue of inerrancy.
There are a number reasons why I disagree. First, I do not think inerrancy is the underlying cause of confusion with regards to the question of homosexuality. Those who assert the need to create space in the church for homosexual unions do so from an interpretation of the scriptures. I do not agree with their interpretation, but I do not think it accurate to simply dismiss them as people who do not believe the Bible. They are interpreting texts in light of other texts and this is something orthodox theologians always have done.
But second, I do not think it is accurate to see the question of inerrancy as the battle ground question for the faith. Pete asked how could one trust anything they know about Jesus if the Bible is not inerrant? God would potentially be a liar. Because God is not a liar. We can trust that in God’s perfect economy the word of God is without error. While I have no interest in asserting the “errancy” of scripture, I think the position Pete asserted is deeply flawed. It is not a truthful witness to the gospel.
Let me begin by asserting a few of the convictions that I hold as a person who seeks to be faithful to my Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that God is Triune. I believe that God is the creator of heavens and earth of all that is seen and unseen. I believe the Father sent his only begotten Son to restore a fallen world. I believe God the Son was born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem. I believe that he was named Jesus. I believe that he died under Pontius Pilate. I believe that on the third day he rose from the dead. I believe that he is coming again to judge the world. I believe that his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins. I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe that God the Father sent God the Holy Spirit upon the church at Pentecost. I believe the Spirit leads people to their need for God and their need for redemption as well as guides them in their restoration. I believe in the church the gathering of people who are united in the recognition of their need for God who are constituted by the practices of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as continuing witnesses to the reconciling work of God in the world.
Now this basic summary is not meant to be a complete statement of all that I believe. But it certainly touches on what for me is most important. Jesus is God. He died on the cross. One comes to God through faith in Christ which one comes to have through the Holy Spirit. As one who believes these things one should gather with other believers and practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I believe that Bible leads us to this faith. The entire purpose of the revelation of God is to lead us to know God. And this is where I have a problem with inerrancy. The emphasis is shifted away from the content of faith to the agency of revelation. The agency becomes the issue of concern. This is often coupled with mendacious aspersions to the orthodoxy of people who disagree with the inerrantist’s view of agency. Now this does not mean that I think there is no place for the inerrantist’s view in the discussion. I simply think that the content of the faith does not depend on agency. The inerrantist might be right but the inerrantist might be wrong. What is not wrong is that God is Triune. Now let me respond to one objection that I can anticipate (there may be more that I do not anticipate…no doubt). Namely how can you say anything about God as Triune if you do not accept the inerrancy of scripture? The syllogism tends to follow a well worn path. If you do not believe in inerrancy then anything you read might be untrue. You cannot then have confidence in scripture or the confidence you have comes from your own picking and choosing what you want to believe from the scriptures. My response to such an argument runs like this. There were people at the empty tomb that did not believe Jesus was God the Roman soldiers as an example. There is no amount of certainty to the faith. If one lived on a desert island and found a Gideon’s Bible (because what other kind of Bible are you likely to find on a desert island), you would likely not come to understand the orthodox faith (I do believe in angels and the possibility that one could be taught the correct understanding even on a desert island but lets keep this for another discussion). The purpose of the illustration is simply to identify that we come to understand the scriptures through the handing on of the faith. One can turn to Luke 24:13ff, on the road to Emmaus we find disciples who know the scriptures, who know the ministry of Jesus, who know of the resurrection, who nonetheless still did not understand the word of God. It is the community of God’s people that shares and proclaims this message. This does not mean that the church can never be wrong. Nor does it mean the scripture can be whatever the church (read here leaders) want it to be. The Bible is what it is. The truth it proclaims is the truth it proclaims. It is the means by which the record of God’s revelation have been preserved for the people of God. It leads one to fellowship with the Triune God. The attention given to the issue of inerrancy focuses attention away from the content of faith to the agency of God’s self revelation. What is more the discussion with regards to agency in our context i.e. Southern Baptist life has been marked by misinformation and deceit with aspersions about people’s character and the content of the faith they proclaim. For these reasons I think the issue of inerrancy should not be the focus of our life as Baptists.
posted by Luke at
8:16 AM
5 Comments:
I appreciate much of what you say here, especially about the content of our faith being preeminent. I believe, however, that you have employed a false dichotomy between content and agency. Inerrancy pertains to both. Inerrancy is the doctrine that asserts that the content of our faith is, indeed, true, and this is no small matter.
I fail to see how the examples you gave undermine inerrancy at all. The fact that most people come to their understanding of the faith by means of the church only pushes the question back one step: where did the church learn the faith, and how does the church ensure that its proclamation continues to be accurate? Scripture, of course. And so you really did not answer the objection that an errant Bible shifts the locus of authority from the text to the interpreter, since the interpeter must then decide what is true and what is not. You may, however, have made the beginning of a nice argument for either a Roman Catholic or postliberal ecclesiology.
(By the way, I completely reject your argument about the disciples on the road to Emmaus not understaning the word of God. They were taught the meaning of the Scriptures by Jesus himself, Lk. 24:27; nowhere does the narrative ever give a hint that Jesus expounded to them anything other than what was absolutely true, i.e., inerrant.)
As for the issue of homosexuality, I have two responses:
(1) Many who accept the legitimacy of homosexuality today do not, in fact, make a biblical case for it. There are extreme cases like Bishop Spong, for instance, who thinks the Bible is almost worthless. But there are also more moderate examples of people who claim that Paul was just plain wrong.
(2) Those who do make a claim to accept homosexuality on the basis of biblical interpretation strain the text so far past the breaking point that it is fair to conclude that their interpretive methods actually undermine the authority of Scripture itself. As Doug Wilson once wrote to Brian McLaren (my paraphrase): "If you can't figure out whether homosexuality is sinful, then get out of the ministry." To accept the legitimacy of homosexuality as a genuine interpretation of Scripture is, to me, akin to the Jehovah's Witnesses claims that the Bible teaches that Jesus is not fully God. JW's accept the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, but I'm not at all in favor of accepting them into our state conventions. This is why I said on my own blog that inerrancy alone does not a hermeneutic make. Inerrancy is important, even crucial, but it is not enough by itself.
By
Aaron, at 10:31 AM
Dear Aaron,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. And in due consideration I have decided to respond with another post to allow a more full interaction with some of the important points you raise.
blessings,
Luke
By
Anonymous, at 5:43 AM
You wrote: If one lived on a desert island and found a Gideon’s Bible ... you would likely not come to understand the orthodox faith ...
I beg to differ with you on this point. In fact, there are literally hundreds of examples where people living totally without any church or religious influence have found or somehow received a Gideon Bible or Testament, have believed the Word of God, read and studied it, and have established churches where there were none before.
When making contact with "traditional churches", they had come to know and understand pretty much all the same basics of faith that most evangelical churches have cannonized over the years. In fact, their understanding of Christ and his teachings is almost exactly like Calvary Chapel affiliated churches believe -- the Bible is true, the final authority in all things, and is to be used as our Guide Book for Life.
This is NOT because of the influence of a Baptist, Methodist, Wesleyan, Lutheran, or even CC church or people. It's because the Word of God is true when it tells us that the Holy Spirit will teach us in ALL things.
As so-called Christians, we give lip-service to saying God's Word is the ultimate authority while many times totally underestimating it's power to change lives. We think that there's something we must add to God's Word -- through our own insight, or a church's doctrines -- so that people will understand. This is not only a great deception, but heresy.
The Bible, God's Word, is the ultimate true and dependable authority for all things in our lives, period. No human-established, denominational church will ever add to that, only take away. Believers are The Church which the Bible refers to. Once true believers begin to understand that and depend totally on God's Word and the Holy Spirit to reveal to them His Truth, 100% of church problems disappear.
One other thing ... and I may be labeled a heretic for this ... I'm an extremely strong supporter of missions efforts. But most mission efforts I see churches and denominations engaging in are expensive and ineffective. I'm not belittling the love, concern and sacrifice of the missionaries -- but they've been steered incorrectly by their denominations. One major denomination publishes this statistic: While the cost of individual mission personnel varies greatly from one country to another, the average worldwide cost is in the range of $50,000 per person per year. Doing some calculations, the Gideons -- with their total volunteer missionary force -- that same money could purchase almost 36,000 Testaments with Psalms, Proverbs AND get them into waiting hands. Very few missionaries could do that. A young man I know who is studying to work with the persecuted church around the world says that each such scripture in many third world countries results in an average of 4-5 people coming to know Christ as Savior. What a great opportunity.
I just used Gideons as an example, as you mentioned them first. Other groups are also effective at sharing God's Word, but I honestly don't know of any other total volunteer group that pays their own way, and only asks for money to purchase more Bibles.
God bless you for your diligence in exploring God's Holy Word!
By
Anonymous, at 8:38 AM
you either hold that the Bible is God's Holy Word and His Whole Revelation in all matters of life toward Salvation and Sin or you dice it up like Julian Fries through the mechanism of Human Reasoning, making it of no effect.
By
Anonymous, at 12:59 PM
Dear Puritan and Bob,
Thanks for both of your comments. Puritan, I have once again restated some of the concerns I am trying to express in my most recent post. Put simply I do not agree with your characterization. We come to faith through God's word. We come to exist through God's word no question, but I think your either or comment is a bit simplistic. And as most things simplistic potentially misleading. I hope my second post addresses in more depth what I am asserting. But again thanks for the comment.
Bob, I appreciate your comments as well. I do appreciate the work of the Gideons. I hope that my playful comment was not taken as a jab at their work. I have heard and do believe that one can be greatly influenced by simply reading the Bible. But even that requires help doesn't it. I mean the Gideon's have to have the Bible Translated. There is no one who grows up speaking Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek? What's more even having a translation one can easily get lost in say....Leviticus or the 80% of the Bible that doesn't make it into the common lectionary. The great commsission calls believer sto the work of proclaiming and teaching the faith. As Aaron noted the Jehovah's Witness believe the Bible is inerrant, and yet the reject the divinity of the Son. Thank you for your comments and encouragement.
blessings,
Luke
By
Luke, at 1:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home