or: this is my Martin Luther moment.
More questions than answers, but, even if I say so myself, people might find this one interesting.
Learning Church (Mersea) – The future of the Church of England
An exploration of what may happen to the Church of England as a result of the split in the Anglican Communion.
This will be the ‘central post’ for resources on my Learning Church sequence on evangelicalism. For now, just the mp3 recordings, but there will be notes put up here as well.
1. The nature of an outsider’s perspective (text part one, “My Testimony”)(text part two, “The Authority of Scripture”)
2. The origin and nature of evangelicalism
3. Shibboleth #1: The Bible says
4. Shibboleth #2: Penal Substitution
5. Shibboleth #3: The meaning of ‘born again’
6. Creationism and crisis
7. Some thoughts on our future
Gabcast! Learning Church (Mersea) – Creationism and global warming
Critique of creationist theology and its impact on the struggle against global warming, with particular reference to the Southern Baptist conference resolution of June 2007.
A woman’s grace is humility; her sin is self-hatred.
A man’s grace is nobility; his sin is pride.
In other words, we need each other.
Just been led to think about this by reading this mind-bogglingly awful drivel.
Learning Church (Mersea) #12 – Shibboleth #3: unless you are born again
Discussion of boundary markers in the Christian church
This is mainly a discussion of the New Perspective on Paul, drawing in a few implications for the way we set up new boundary markers between Christians.
I have to confess that I picked up this book with a distinct agenda. I saw Joel Osteen as preaching “the prosperity gospel” – largely influenced by Ben Witherington – and I wanted to have a good example to use in one of my imminent Learning Church sessions. However, I liked the book much more than I was expecting to.
I should say right up front that there isn’t a great deal of explicit Christianity in the book. There’s hardly a mention of Jesus at all, certainly no discussion of the great doctrines of the faith. It’s the sort of book I might give to a seeker right at the very beginning of the journey. For what Osteen is arguing for has a fair bit of merit to it as one component of the faith. It would need to be placed alongside a lot of other material, mostly that to do with sin, and that to do with suffering, but then as that sort of material is probably over-represented in Christian literature – especially in some circles – Osteen is performing a useful corrective service. It is certainly true to say that Scripture teaches some form of “prosperity gospel” – it’s the ‘plain meaning’ of Deuteronomy 28-30 for example, and much better supported in the Scripture as a whole than (to take a random example 😉 the doctrine of penal substitution. As I understand it he wouldn’t describe himself as a theologian, nor would he say he was preaching the whole message of the gospel in this sort of book – it’s just that this is the message he has been given to share. Fair enough.
The problem comes – and this is what one Learning Church session will focus on – when we go through the sort of crisis that is now just beginning. I wonder if the 1930’s style depression that’s about to hit the United States will lead to people becoming angry with him. If they did it would be a little unfair, though I would ask the question – does a pastor have the responsibility to preach the whole gospel? I would say yes, but I don’t know enough about the balance of teaching at Lakewood to comment.
I personally have taken a lot of value from the book. It gave me encouragement when I needed some, in some very specific areas. The story of the traffic warden sharing his enthusiasm with the queuing drivers will stay with me. And there’s a quote from him coming up…
Learning Church (Mersea) #11 – Penal Substitution – Shibboleth #2
A discussion of the doctrine of penal substitution; Mersea Learning Church
I’ve moderated my views a little since the summer – in other words, I’ve calmed down!! I think the fundamental question I would ask is: do you have to accept PS to be a Christian? I would say no – but the authors of PFOT clearly say yes. I think that’s a problem. For them, that is.
By the way, if you click on the link that takes you to the gabcast site you can download the mp3 file directly, so you don’t need to be attached to a computer to listen to it.
A response to Tim’s lengthy comment. My responses in italics.
First, I think it’s misleading to deal with inerrancy under the heading of sola scriptura. The two beliefs do not necessarily go together.
Fair point – I’ve restored the original title.
Certainly at the time of the Reformation (which, according to your title, is what you’re dealing with – which makes it a bit confusing when you go on to tell us that you’re dealing with ‘Modern Protestantism’) belief in inerrancy was common across the doctrinal divides, and many people who believed in inerrancy did not believe in sola scriptura.
I don’t think this is true. Allert makes the point that there was no specific doctrine of Scripture until the second half of the sixteenth century. Inerrancy as a concept, especially as it functions in something like the Chicago Statement, is a distinctly post-Reformation phenomenon. It needs to be distinguished from authority in particular.
Second, and still under the heading of inerrancy, quite frankly I think you’re setting up a straw man. Many people who say they believe in inerrancy (J.I. Packer, for instance) are well aware of the discrepancies you mention , and say quite clearly that they believe in inerrancy ‘according to the standards of the time’, which do not necessarily coincide with modern scientific exactitude. I know several fundamentalists (in fact, I’ve been rather lucky with my fundamentalists – they’ve mostly been fine people), and not one of them believes that ‘either Scripture is true in every conceivable sense OR God does not exist’.
On that last dichotomy, much is in the tone! I don’t actually expect anyone to believe that – but it is the logical consequence (or, perhaps instead of ‘God does not exist’ it’s ‘I cannot be saved’). Neil has made a similar point about inerrancy, but it seems to me to avoid the substance. If inerrancy is sufficiently compromised and qualified then it ceases to be a meaningful doctrine and may as well be abandoned (three cheers) and we return to the more traditional understanding. I think we need to talk about the authority and purpose of Scripture; language of ‘errancy’ assumes the scientific standards that I think are wholly inappropriate.
Third (and still under the heading of inerrancy), as one who has spent most of his Christian life in the evangelical community, I’ve yet to meet an example of what you call ‘Protestant neurosis’ – ‘individual interpretation, means all the weight on the individual – what if I get it wrong?! Oh doom!’ On the contrary, most of those who believe in the right of private interpretation are quite convinced that it’s their neighbours who are getting it wrong…!
All I can say is that I’ve dealt with different people! Perhaps it’s something about being a non-evangelical, that people who are wanting to come out of a culture are likely to say different things to someone outside of that culture. The same would apply in reverse of course.
(And by the way, the catholic position holds to private interpretation just as strongly – the pope’s private interpretation! Very few people who say that the church is the authoritative interpreter of scripture really mean what Paul means by ‘the Church’ – they mean ‘the hierarchy of the church’).
I think that’s a caricature of the RC position; my view is moving closer to the Pauline with time (partly because I’ve been surprised by how much I disagree with the catholic logic of RW’s letter to the Central Floridians)
‘Church experienced most important and formative growth WITHOUT the “Bible”’ – this is hugely misleading. You give the impression that there was wide disagreement about the NT canon until the 4th century, when in fact as you know there was in fact substantial agreement early on.
That’s why “Bible” is in scare-quotes – I’m trying to distinguish between ‘Scripture’ and ‘The Bible’.
Furthermore, the early church considered the OT (as reinterpreted by Jesus and the apostles) to be authoritative, and also considered itself to be under the authority of the apostolic witness.
The early church had a different OT to the one we now have; and ‘the apostolic witness’ was bound up as much with the community, worship and rule of life as it was with Scripture.
I’d be very interested to see an instance from the first 5 centuries, even before the finalisation of the canon in the 4th century, of a bishop or council considering himself or itself as having the authority to set aside a clear teaching from the documents of what we now call the NT.
Not sure what such an example might be – you seem to be asking for an example of the church doing something that the church didn’t agree with, as it is the rule of orthodoxy which determined the selection of texts (I don’t know if there is one or not) – but Allert discusses a Bishop allowing a church to study the Gospel of Peter, and use it in worship, and only intervened when it became clear that the teaching from it was heretical (docetic). 3rd Century I think.
Similarly, your list of the things that the Bible ‘significantly post-dates’ is true only if you restrict the word ‘Bible’ to mean ‘the final agreement on the canon in the 4th century’. But in fact, as you know, the church submitted to the authority of the vast majority of those writings long before the 4th century. In fact, I would contend that all of the biblical documents were written, and accepted as authoritative by at least a portion of the early church, long before the universal acceptance of any of the things you mention here (with the possible exception of weekly communion).
Well, that would be an interesting discussion to have. Gospel of John, for example, is generally considered an end-of-century text, and you certainly had Bishops by then (whether they were Bishops as we understand them is also an interesting question…) My point is as much about whether it makes sense that a community should uphold as sacred a text which – in certain views – outlaws the embedded practices of that community.
I am of course in complete agreement with your statement that Jesus is the Word of God in the truest sense, and that his authority is paramount over all other claimants (including scripture). But I note that in your own beliefs, when it comes to a specific example of the teaching of Jesus – nonviolence and love for enemies – you are not prepared to give him that authority – you prefer the OT and classical reason!
Well that’s a whole different issue, but at the heart of my perspective is an acceptance that I’m mired in sin, and that sometimes it is more sinful to try and be sinless. It’s a paradox but I don’t see any way out of it as yet.
Finally, I’d be interested to know where you locate classical Anglicanism on this spectrum. Would you not agree that ‘sola scriptura was held by all the Anglican reformers and is the position assumed by the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, while the view that you are advancing was precisely the view that the Anglican reformers were objecting to in Roman Catholicism?
Er… short answer to the latter question is no. Doug Chaplin has been doing some excellent writing on this recently – I’d particularly refer you to this post. I think Anglicanism is the whole spectrum, at least ideally, and that’s certainly what I’d argue for.
Gabcast! Learning Church (Mersea)
A learning Church session: Shibboleth #1: “But the Bible says…”
Click ‘full post’ for my notes.
“But the Bible says…”
Or: why I don’t understand ‘sola scriptura’
“Previously, on 24…”
Need to distinguish green area from what I object to
‘evangelicalism’ includes both
Green area = ‘Scripture’, ‘Scriptural perspective’, ‘Scripturalists’ etc
What I wish to interrogate: “Modern Protestantism”
This is a conversation within evangelicalism
What is Modern Protestantism?
Offshoot of Northern European Christianity
“Modern” – capital M, ie NOT ‘contemporary’
Contains implicit value judgements
Embedded in ‘liberalism’
Fundamentalism as the Siamese twin
Ichabod
Are ‘Modern Protestants’ saved?
Wrong question (consider Gandhi)
Issue is about sound doctrine
Is the view ‘weight bearing’?
Scriptural mysticism
Mysticisms in each area
Zacchaeus was a small man
Read with the expectation of meeting Christ
The incarnate word is not the written word – the written word testifies outside of itself
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5.39-40)
Two interrogations of ‘sola Scriptura’
‘Sola Scriptura’ – you only need the green area
From reason (red) – is it coherent?
Inerrancy
The plain sense of scripture
From tradition (blue) – is it consistent with the faith handed down from the apostles?
What place does the community have in interpretation?
The doctrine of inerrancy
“We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” (Chicago Statement)
Mark 2.26
Ahimelech?
Copying errors?
Matthew 13.31
Cf ‘not one iota’…
Local culture of the time
2 Samuel 8.4
RSV: “David took from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot-soldiers….”
NIV: “David captured a thousand of his chariots, seven thousand charioteers and twenty thousand foot soldiers….”
Why? 1 Chron 18.4: “David captured a thousand of his chariots, seven thousand charioteers and twenty thousand foot soldiers…”
Peter’s denials
John 13.38 vs Mark 14.72
The Road to Damascus
Acts 9.7 vs 22.9 vs 26.14
Et cetera et cetera
What is at stake here?
Is it:
Either Scripture is true in every conceivable sense
OR God does not exist….?!?!?!?!
Or are there other ways to read Scripture?
Protestant neurosis
individual interpretation, means all the weight on the individual
what if I get it wrong?! Oh doom!
Hence the great emotional tension
Leave the microscope behind
Sieving the sea
Accepts Modernist epistemology
Ie what sort of thing knowledge is (propositional, abstracted from community)
AND
What sort of knowledge is seen as valuable
Inevitable consequence is fundamentalism – Scripture as scientific text book
Sola Scriptura?
The “plain sense” of Scripture
Impact of technology and general literacy
Different ways to explain
Hermeneutics
Which interpretation?
Eg New Perspective on Paul
Scripture or 16th century interpretation of Scripture?
What is revelation?
Quranic?
Inspired human witness
Let’s consider the canon
‘All Scripture is god-breathed…’ – refers to OT – and not to our OT
Progressive discrimination
Canon “formed” in 4th Century AD
Church experienced most important and formative growth WITHOUT the “Bible”
“Before there was even Scripture, there was the faith; the early church did not set the limits of the scriptural canon as the paramount task of nascent Christianity. Its first goal was to settle the content of the faith, and it did this using means other than the Bible… the early church would never have restricted the term ‘canon’ to the Bible alone… Each element in the canonical tradition of the church has a part to play in the whole, and the canonization of Scripture took place within this whole.” (Craig Allert)
Example
Matthew (nobody knows…)
Doctrine of the Trinity
How to resist Arianism?
Bible significantly post-dates:
Bishops and the hierarchy
Centrality of weekly communion
Creedal confessions (orthodoxy)
Paedo-baptism
Tradition and community
Scripture is itself a tradition
Faith comes by hearing
Received by a community of faith
Digested by the community of faith
Taught by the community of faith
Consensus fidelium
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”
2 Timothy 3.14
Every tradition has its structure of authority
“But the Bible says…” means “But my community says the Bible says…”
Doesn’t mean magisterium
God-breathed
What IS inspiration? How does the Holy Spirit work?
The spirit gives, or the spirit is?
(ie alongside or within? Cf Prophets)
We need to breath that breath (Adam)
A spirit which inhabits Scripture
We need to inhabit Scripture
You don’t drink a swimming pool – you swim in it
What is the highest value?
What is the Word of God?
(ie where is Jesus?)
Chicago Statement: “We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God”
John Stott: “the really distinctive emphasis is on Christ. I want to shift conviction from a book… to a person. As Jesus himself said, the Scriptures bear witness to me. Their main function is to witness to Christ.”
John’s gospel
“There are some things you cannot bear now…”
Spirit leads into all truth
“…these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (20.31)
My working definition of a fundamentalist is someone who won’t break bread with me. That might sound facetious but I mean it in all seriousness.
I think Learning Church this morning went well. I’ll put up the recording soon.