On my lunch break, I thought I'd give you a glimpse of what I've been reading lately. I'm currently reading Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. It's an honest look at the emerging/emergent church movement and offers some keen insight into the concerns this movement raises. The title of this blog post is a subheading from a section of the book that talks about the emergent church's view of the Bible. In a nutshell, they tend to view the Bible as a means through which God speaks, but not necessarily the inerrant Word of God. In Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian, he uses a character named Neo (very original character name, huh?) to argue for a postmodern understanding of the Bible, one without propositional truth (something that is true or false). Many emergent leaders may themselves hold to a more orthodox view of Scripture, but to pander to their postmodern audience, they like to use vague language and posit questions about its authority and inspiration. To this, DeYoung says:
"I'm not sure what the emerging church believes about the Bible. And this concerns me. Burned-out evangelicals who go emergent and talk squishy about the Bible may still basically treat the Bible as if it were completely true and authoritative. This would be a fortuitous inconsistency. But what happens in the second generation? What happens when an erstwhile church planter with a few Neo books under his belt starts doing church with a radical skepticism about the authority of the Bible and forms a people by musing on about how his community affirms the Bible (in part?), therefore making it "welcome" in their conversation? We can wax eloquent about the beauty of the story and how the Scriptures read us, but unless people are convinced that the Bible is authoritative, true, inspired, and the very words of God, over time they will read it less frequently, know it less fully, and trust it less surely."
I concur.
3 comments:
Kman concurred with the quote, "but unless people are convinced that the Bible is authoritative, true, inspired, and the very words of God, over time they will read it less frequently, know it less fully, and trust it less surely."
Kman,
I am not sure I can completely concur especially when you add the word "innerant" to that list, then again I do lean into the emergent church conversation so that probably isn't surprising.
Inspired? Absolutely divinely inspired.
Authoritative? If you mean that it reflects testimony and revelation that reflects the authority of God, then yes.
True? Short answer is of course true, but what do you mean by that? Does that mean that one can't hold the reasonable position that the creation story is truth told in the form and language of ancient primeval Mesopotamian myth?
"The very words of God"? Do you mean that we have to believe that scripture was given by some kind of supernatural, word for word dictation from God? Is there nothing human about our sacred text? Is there nothing that foreshadows the incarnation in our scripture- God present in humanity?
I would argue that there is something wonderfully human about our scripture without taking away from the divine inspiration of the revelation, in as much as God with us always makes us both more like Him and more like he created us to be- more human.
Why does "God breathed" mean to some people that it has to be inerrant? Man is "God breathed", does this make him inerrant? Was Adam in the scriptures "inerrant" even before "the fall"?
As for the argument that such questions will lead those who follow us to "read it less frequently, know it less fully, and trust it less surely", I don't think this is necessarily the case. It may be the case for those that see scripture as an end unto itself. Frankly, I think many evangelicals fall into this trap. But if you understand that scripture is the testimony of the people of God through out history, (first the children of Abraham and then the disciples of Christ), then reading, studying, and reflecting on scripture is part of what it means to be connected to the living body of Christ.
Scripture did not just drop out of the sky (we are not Mormons who think scripture was delivered by angels on Golden plates). Scripture also did not come to us through one author (we are not Muslim where one "prophet" wrote everything). Our scripture comes from a community, and a community that grew and evolved over history. Jacob's name was changed to Israel because it literally means "wrestling or struggling with God". Our scripture reflects that wrestling as God makes himself present in that community.
Of course as Christians, we believe that the presence of God "with us" was made complete in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. And so the testimony of Christ's first disciples is one thing that connects us to this living community called the church which has been, and will be, the continued incarnational presence of Christ on earth until Christ returns.
Those I know who lean into the emergent church will not grow tired of scripture, nor will their children, because they understand scripture to come from God moving through his people through out history; and as followers of Christ we are now connected to them.
So, you may not agree with the uncertainty that surrounds the idea of things like "innerrancy", but the modern, western, evangelical,popular protestant view of "sola scriptura" is not the only frame worth within Christian orthodoxy that values scripture. Questioning that framework also does not mean that there is an absence of a framework.
Valuing God as he has moved through his church through out history- including the writing of and canonization of our scripture is an appropriate framework that encourages those who come behind us to value scripture as well. It is this wonderful context that makes our scripture relevant to us and our children as followers of Jesus.
I often think that as evangelicals we have made scripture and end unto itself, which is what keeps so many from accepting anything less than absolute, word for word, spoken syllables of God in which humanity only entered the picture to act as a scribe. Of course seeing scripture this way means everything falls apart when you admit anything more human might leak in. But if you understand that Scripture is the testimony of God present with humanity than your paradigm isn't so fragile.
Thanks for your thoughts and hearing mine.
Peace,
James
This is a good word.
I second your concurrence.
James,
I think you are right in critiquing an understanding of Scripture that neglects the "human" side of the equation. The question remains, though, as to what this entails?
1. "The very words of God"? Do you mean that we have to believe that scripture was given by some kind of supernatural, word for word dictation from God?
Not all evangelicals who have a strong view of Scripture hold that the Bible was merely "dictated" to the human authors, rendering them inconsequential scribes in the process. Thinking in Christological categories, we can affirm that the Scriptures are "fully human" and "fully divine," with an understanding that the Spirit works in and through the lives, personalities, and writing styles of the human author. Here, we have a divine revelation written in human words. Though, the humanness of the Bible does not necessarily entail "error," just as Christ's humanity did not entail sin. This result in both of these cases can be seen as the work of the Spirit.
2. Why does "God breathed" mean to some people that it has to be inerrant? Man is "God breathed", does this make him inerrant?
I think I would want to make a distinction here between Creation and Revelation. God creating humans and God speaking to humans are not the same. The Scriptures are an act of communication from the God who has chosen to reveal himself to his creatures. If he doesn't speak, then we don't know him. Affirming that this act of communication is true "without any mixture of error" is something similar to the way the Psalmist speaks of the Law (see, Ps 119). As an act of communication, the Scriptures do more than just relay propositions and truth claims. They contains promises and commands that must be trusted and obeyed; thus the Scriptures are both propositional and personal. The Bible contains more than propositions and truth claims, but the ones it does contain are true and authoritative. This is what some have meant when they speak of an "inerrant" Bible.
3. Does that mean that one can't hold the reasonable position that the creation story is truth told in the form and language of ancient primeval Mesopotamian myth?
If the Scriptures are an act of Communication by God through his Spirit by means of human authors, then it is possible to discern the intention of an author in the text. The meaning of the Genesis creation narratives should be discerned from the text itself. The question is, What does the writer of Genesis intend by the words of his account. The goal is not necessarily to exclude any one interpretive option (Mesopotamian myth as a source), but rather to conform one's interpretation to the contours of an author's intention (as embodied in his text). This should be an ongoing process (which is always open to being reformed by the text).
4. I think you're right when you say that Scripture is not an end in itself. But, I don't think "community" is an end in itself either. The remnant/believing church has always been a community formed around the Scriptures. This community is one that comes to the Bible with a stance of trust (i.e., they confess it is authoritative, sufficient, infallible, "without any mixture of error," etc.). Testimony to this can be seen throughout church history (e.g., Augustine, Luther). The church has always affirmed what many proponents of "inerrancy" affirm, even though previous generations might have called it something different (e.g., "infallible" vs. "inerrant").
The goal of this attention to Scripture, though, is to know God, understand his ways, and recognize how to pattern our lives and our worship accordingly.
All that to say, I think you can experience the community you describe while still holding to a robust view of Scripture.
The authority of Scripture is derivative. The Scriptures have authority because they have God as their subject, object, and origin. The Christian community will always be the one that seeks to know and submit to this God in Christ, as revealed in his written revelation.
Your comments sparked a good converstation. :)
Ched
Post a Comment