Here is a case where the evangelical church has swallowed the bait of the Enlightenment. The notion that what ought to be authoritative about the Bible is “timeless principles” is an idea that comes straight out of an eighteenth-century rationalism that said, “The Bible is full of these historically contingent things which clearly don’t have any bearing on us today, so we have to somehow get rid of that and get to the heart of the timeless truths.” I want to say, “No, that’s a mistake from the word ‘go.’” The way the Bible guides the church is that it tells us the story of God’s action to redeem the world through particular actions—preeminently the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the formation of a community that confesses Jesus Christ in word and action. What Scripture gives us is not “timeless principles,” but rather patterns of action that are embedded in time and history and particularity.
Technorati Tags: Scripture
4 comments:
Rick,
I found this point to be interesting. Although I'm not sure how the two different methodologies would result in a different orthopraxy. Do you have thoughts on that?
I think I'll be thinking on this for a few days, anyway.
-Tim Reed
Tim - good question. I have several thoughts but the primary relates to how we view the Christian life. While not absolute, the former view tends towards making knowing the Bible the goal while the latter toward making knowing God the goal.
It's the old question of do you view the Bible as the meal or as the menu?
Again the former 'tends' to lead to legalism, cessationism, judgemental attitudes, etc.. The latter 'tends' to lead to continuationalism, mercy and grace, an understanding that the Kingdom is here, etc..
While I don't pretend that these are absolutes and that there cannot be good and bad stemming from either approach, I think the second approach is more in line with God's intent.
The Bible isn't simple a text book to be analyzed chapter and verse, it is the written communication of a loving Creator to help us see His character so that we can know Him more. It records how He has interacted in history and His promise regarding how will continue to interact.
I hope that makes sense.
I think you're absolutely right on with your analysis, but here comes the rub.
If you're right then the things that we find to fight over and divide become extremely unimportant. Take, for example, the Lord's supper. If we take the scriptures as a pattern of behavior (principally) then differing views of the Lord's supper shouldn't keep us from doing it. So a Lutheran, Reformed, and little old me should be able to come to the table together, and have communion each believing different theologies about it.
I'm not saying this is a problem, but that practices would take a front seat to actual belief.
Agree?
Tim - yes I agree. We need to focus more on what we agree on than what we disagree on. It is only from that base that we can begin to think about discussing the disagreement.
There are a few exceptions but most disagreement one reads these days is replete with disdain rather than brotherly love and genuine interest for the betterment of the other.
Post a Comment