"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
A new theological doctrine has emerged in our time; a doctrine which has emerged due to the emergence of feminism in evangelicalism. For centuries since the time when the teachings of Jesus and Paul on the feminine had long since been forgotten, ignored or misunderstood, the Church believed that Scripture taught that woman was inferior to man. The advent of Renaissance humanism, the individualism of the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent philosophical, sociological and scientific knowledge that accompanied the Enlightenment changed man’s understanding of both the human individual and human social and sexual natures. Such changes in understanding led to similar changes in how the Church and individual Christians interpreted Scripture (one massive change was the Reformation dictum of sola scriptura and the realization that the meaning of Scripture is not dependant upon the interpretation of Church leaders). Just as the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo changed how man viewed the creation and interpreted the Scriptural teachings about creation, so the arrival of social studies and the sexual revolution reformed the way many Christians (including conservative Christians) looked at male-female relations and the Scriptural teachings on the matter.
Thus moderate to liberal Christianity moved from a complementarian understanding of gender roles to an egalitarian position. Conservative Christianity, however, moved from an hierarchical understanding to the recently vacated complementarian position (as a conservative Christian who holds to egalitarianism, I really like the progress of my fellow conservatives).
The new theological doctrine has emerged in our time has proceeded from conservative complementarianism which has recently discovered that the Scriptures have taught complementarianism all along (silly us).
For conservatives in the modern age, complentarianism allows them to admit the equal worth of women and men while still maintaining separate but equal gender roles in the Church (though I have yet to hear what female role is afforded to women in the Church that men cannot hold). Of course, since moderate and liberal Christianity have come from the complementarian position, they know well the problems inherent in such a position.
The main criticism to which modern complementarians have had to respond is the idea that equal worth and equal substance can co-exist with subordinate positions. The very clever response by complementarians to this argument is the roles within the Godhead. The idea being that Father-Son have equal worth but the son is subordinate to the Father. I think this is a good reply to the criticism by egalitarians.
However, I believe that such an argument has lead to the theory which is quickly becoming doctrine that the roles within the Godhead are in fact not merely an analogy for the complementarian position but the basis!
Such an idea is based upon Genesis 1:27:
“So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
This is also on 1 Cor 11:3:
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”
The traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:27 is that God created Man in His image thus Man in of itself is in the image of God and God created this Man in his image in two varieties: male and female. This traditional interpretation does not advocate that the differentiation in male and female reflects the being of God but that both male and female are created in the image of God.
The new interpretation of Genesis 1:27 argues that God created Man in His image and that the differentiation of male and female is a result of such a differentiation in the Godhead. The basic analogy would be that God as Father-Son is equated with Man as Male-Female. Such an idea apparently leaves out the Holy Spirit in the equation, which is odd because all thought God as Yahweh (presumably the Father) is in Genesis 1, references to the Son are absent (which is to be expected sense such an idea wasn’t even considered until the advent of Christ) but the Spirit of God is present (Gen 1:2) though certainly not recognizable in the Christian understanding.
Though this new interpretation is based on the desire to ground the new conservative view of gender roles in Scripture and in God, any further understanding of what these divine roles involve in relation to Man as Male-Female is completely absent from the discussion, aside from the general view that of subordination. Certainly, sexual characteristics are not considered because God is sexless. Thus, Father-Son can not relate to Male-Female in that the Father has male characteristics and the Son has female characteristics. Indeed, the only corresponding feature between God and Man is the coincidence of subordinate fellowship with a self-equal entity. Anything else is absent from the analogy.
There are a few problems with this interpretation of Genesis 1:27:
1) Such an interpretation is completely absent from the verse and passage of Genesis 1. It’s not there.
2) The idea of subordination is absent in this passage, either with God or within Man as male and female. Not there.
3) I myself would not mind such an interpretation because it strengthens my argument that God is eternally ONE person and not Three. Regardless, Trinitarian ideas are absent from Genesis 1.
4) Going to the other creation story of Genesis, this interpretation of Genesis 1:27 contradicts the J-writers contention that male and female were co-equal helpmeets (Gen 2:22ff.) until the fall of Man (Gen 3:16).
5) Such an interpretation of male and female forms is both completely absent from both the OT and NT and contradicts both the teachings of Jesus and Paul regarding gender relations.
6) Even if this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 were true, it is only relevant to married couples and has no relevancy to issues outside the family such as women pastors and the authority of women in the Church.
1 Cor 11:3 is the other key verse for modern complementarians. Their interpretation of this verse is that Paul is basing male “headship” and gender subordination on Man being created in the image of God and thus the female is subordinate to the male based upon their fundamental being as made in the image of God.
There are a few problems with this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3:
1) The doctrine of “headship” as taught by Paul in Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians is NOT ABOUT LEADERSHIP. I cannot stress this enough. No where does Paul teach that “headship” is about “leadership.” Nowhere does Paul teach that “leadership” has to do with “headship”. This has been a perennial and general assumption without any or cultural Scriptural basis. With Paul “headship” is about sanctification. “Headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family. Read the appropriate Pauline passages concerning headship: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Ephesians 5:21-32 and gender issues. Also, read these passages in light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 and Ephesians 5:26.
Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. HOWEVER, as 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 points out, if the husband is an unbeliever but the wife a believer, the believing wife is the means by which God sanctifies the husband and children. Therefore, although the general rule in terms of headship is the husband, by Gods’ grace, the wife can be “head” if the husband is unbelieving. Reason for yourself: who is the “head” of a family in a single parent household? Who is the “head” of the family if the father dies leaving the mother and two younger children?
2) This passage has nothing to do with the fellowship within the Godhead. Reread the verse.
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.”
Notice that the terms “Father” and “Son” are absent in this passage (cf. 1 Cor 1:3; 9; 8:6; 15:24, 28). Notice what term is used: “Christ”, the Messiah, the “anointed one,” who makes righteous. Again, “headship” is metaphor by which Paul describes the means by which God sanctifies Christ, the Church and the family. Christ is sanctified by God, the Church is sanctified by God through Christ, God sanctifies the family (wife and children) through the husband. Jesus Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit by God. Christians are a part of Christ’s body and we thus share in the gift of the Holy Spirit by being in Christ’s body which is anointed with the Holy Spirit by God. Similarly, in marriage the husband and wife come together to become one flesh (i.e., one person) and (in Christian families) this union sanctifies the children.
[Paul, Luke and John all repeatedly deal with this issue of the results of the corporate Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Sprit in their works.]
3) The idea that the subordination of the male is based upon Man’s correspondence as the image of God is completely absent if not contradicted. Paul himself says in verse 7, “For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Thus Paul is not saying that the “role” of the female is based upon her fellowship with the male in the image of God but because the male is made in the image of God and she is his glory.
4) Even if this interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3 were true, it is only relevant to married couples and has no relevancy to issues outside the family such as women pastors and the authority of women in the Church.
Therefore, while the analogy of Father-Son and Male-Female is a good one insofar as it presents the ideas that subordination of one doesn’t lessen his or her equal value, such an analogy is only an analogy and we should not base our theology of God’s being on such an idea. I say this because too many SBC leaders and seminary students are grasping at any straw they can find to legitimate their views of gender roles in the face of overwhelming Scriptural opposition.
Abandon this line of theorizing; it will only lead to more heresy and the second generation of such thinking will cause far too much theological, ecclesiastical, social and familiar damage.
Just accept Jesus, Paul, Luke, the P-writer and the J-writer at face value and believe in the egalitarian position of gender roles.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
A Quick Thought on the Image of God
There is a presumption among far too many fundamentalist Christians to equate “Man made in the image of God” with the outward and physical characteristics of God, despite the fact that God is spirit and not material. Fundamentalists do so because they want to counter the findings of biological evolution that traces man’s biological ascendancy from brute beast to a thinking mammal (I myself find the ascendancy from brute mammal to mammal that has a personal relationship with God fascinating). Such an idea unfortunately borders upon that of Mormonism (and some other fundamentalist groups) that views God as having a physical body not unlike that of Adam. Nevertheless, if “Man made in the image of God” with were to be thought of in such physical terms, what would God then look like?
Young or old?
Black of white?
Male or female?
Tall or short?
Fat or thin?
Blonde or brunette?
Brown eyes or blue eyes?
Beard or clean shaven?
The classical philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) would by dialectical reasoning attempt to find out what the essence of Man is by reducing him or her down to its most common and universal denominator and then state this ideal as that which is what makes man in the image of God and thus, God. Such a Thomist approach to theology would send Barth into a tirade. I myself (like a good neo-orthodox thinker) would rather find out about Man from God and not God from Man.
But, again, if we did make such test on the condition that God is most like what man is most like … then God would be an Asian woman because there are more Asians than any other race and more women than men. Thus, an Asian woman.
[In case your wondering what it means for Man to be made in God’s image, it refers to Man’s ability to relate on a personal level. Thus, He created Man to be able to relate to God. My own personal theory is that the first animal that was able to relate to God on a personal level was the first human (i.e., Adam). I’ll probably have to wait until the resurrection to get an answer. Oh well.]
Young or old?
Black of white?
Male or female?
Tall or short?
Fat or thin?
Blonde or brunette?
Brown eyes or blue eyes?
Beard or clean shaven?
The classical philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) would by dialectical reasoning attempt to find out what the essence of Man is by reducing him or her down to its most common and universal denominator and then state this ideal as that which is what makes man in the image of God and thus, God. Such a Thomist approach to theology would send Barth into a tirade. I myself (like a good neo-orthodox thinker) would rather find out about Man from God and not God from Man.
But, again, if we did make such test on the condition that God is most like what man is most like … then God would be an Asian woman because there are more Asians than any other race and more women than men. Thus, an Asian woman.
[In case your wondering what it means for Man to be made in God’s image, it refers to Man’s ability to relate on a personal level. Thus, He created Man to be able to relate to God. My own personal theory is that the first animal that was able to relate to God on a personal level was the first human (i.e., Adam). I’ll probably have to wait until the resurrection to get an answer. Oh well.]
Thursday, October 19, 2006
DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES (1 Cor 14:39)
XXXX takes stance against Pentecostal/charismatic doctrine
So says Paul: “DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES” (1 Cor 14:39)
I recall Justice Sunday I and II. These were events where the leaders of the SBC came together to rally other Southern Baptists against the “tyranny of the Judiciary” where particular leaders in the government are appointing small groups of people to decide on important cultural issues without the blessings of the American people.
1) I do believe that they will no longer hire any professor that affirms the Scriptural practice of “private prayer language” whether that professors practices it or not or whether that professor refrains from promoting it or not. However, I do believe that all the current professors who practice private prayer language will be okay as long as they do not promote them.
“As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of XXXX Seminary.”
I take the above statement as a true policy and my experience with SWBTS suggests that they will not act upon anyone unless that person does publicly make a statement in support of the Biblical practice.
So while I disagree with this policy, I do believe that any current professors’ jobs are threatened … over this issue.
2) I am somewhat concerned about the growing hostility towards the issue of “private prayer language” for the following reasons:
- “Private prayer language” concerns the intimate relationship between God and the believer who is worshipping Him (1 Cor 14:2). No one other than Christ has the right to either dictate or mediate the relationship between God and Man. Such an effrontery not only ignores Protestant Reformation theology, Baptist distinctive theology, but places such dictators in the position of usurping the position of Christ.
- “Private prayer language” is the result of an experiential and emotional worship of God. Essentially, in this personal worship, the individual believer’s spiritual contact with God results in an overflowing of the senses to the degree that the brain’s speech abilities “overflow”. Essentially, it is the Spirit “speaking” emotionally to God in reaction to what God has done (1 Cor 14:2, 14). Now just like in a normal conversation, the individual does not have to speak (either in “tongues” or otherwise). Thus the individual engaged in “private prayer language” does not have to do so. If any charismatic tells you that he cannot help himself and that it is all the Spirit’s doing, then this person is wrong. Neither God nor His Spirit ever violates an individual’s freedom and autonomy; to do so would negate the intimate relationship between the two persons involved. Nevertheless, as Paul clearly teaches, “private prayer language” edifies the individual (1 Cor 14:4). Indeed, “private prayer language” is an edifying experience which is also the result of an edifying experience. To prevent believers from having an edifying experience is both negligence and hubristic. To this effect, the SBC leadership might as well tell everyone to not pray, worship, read Scripture, disciple, minister, repent or do anything else that brings edification to the individual believer.
- Paul specifically encourages other believers to “speak in tongues” (1 Cor 14:5, 39). Indeed, Paul; does state that “prophesy” is a greater gift than “tongues” but this still means that “tongues” is a gift. Indeed, Paul does not teach that “tongues” should not be a part of Christian worship services. In fact, if “speaking in tongues” is accompanied by an interpretation, such a practice is encouraged (1 Cor 14:5). Why? If I experience a blessing from God that is edifying to me, correct? Now if I tell others about that blessing from God, such a blessing edifies the body. Therefore, to forbid or even discourage “private prayer language” is not simply negligence and hubristic but directly contrary to the teachings of Paul in the Scriptures.
- Those who are either practicing or advocating “private prayer language” are doing so in accordance with the specific, clear, literal teachings of Scripture.
- Because these SBC leaders are both in clear violation of the Scriptures and are ignorant in this matter, we who are following the Scripture must ignore these SBC leaders in this specific matter (1 Cor 14:37-38). Really, how clearer can Paul be? “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues” (1 Cor 14:39)
3) And the above is what is so disconcerting. Many in the SBC are continuing to explicitly and directly and openly disobeying Scripture and encouraging others to do so. And this not a matter of different hermeneutics. These SBC leaders are violating their own hermeneutics when they not simply teach against alcohol and “private prayer language” but actually force others to ignore the Scriptures. Say what you will about liberal believers ignoring Scripture; they never force others to do so. With the conservative leaders, they are not satisfied with simply ignoring Scripture they want everyone to agree and do likewise even if they must do so by force. I imagine that they have a guilty conscience and think they will feel better about their actions if everyone is on their page. It’s the typical sort of peer pressure one sees among homosexuals, drug addicts, etc. in our culture: they feel guilty so they try to force everyone to agree with them so they can feel better.
Some have said that “private prayer language” or the contemporary practice of “speaking in tongues” should not be equated with the practice that is recorded in the Scriptures. The idea is that this contemporary is not the same as the NT practice and thus it can be either ignored or eliminated by the Church. However, there is no evidence or indication (Scriptural or otherwise) that these two phenomena are anything but identical.
But if some argue that this practice is not the equivalent of the NT practice, there are three questions that they must answer before they inflict their will upon the relationship between God and Man:
1) What is the true NT practice regarding “speaking in tongues”?
Up till now, the SBC leaders who are so dogmatic about this issue have yet to identify this NT practice or even to make any differentiation between various charismatic practices. There is a blanket statement which condemns all charismatic practices without making admission that one can perform “tongues” as the NT teaches. Of course, such general condemnation apart from Scriptural authority is nothing new. Their treatment of alcohol consumption and women in ministry shows a similar Scriptural ignorance. Though they are quick to condemn that which they consider to be wrong, they are silent on what they affirm. The pessimism in me argues that they are silent because they want to give themselves room to wiggle given the political winds. The optimism in me simply admits they are Scripturally ignorant. Nevertheless, how can they legitimately condemn and eliminate “private prayer language” without any argument other than “trust us”? Possibly they hold to the view that charismatic gifts have ceased but they do not make an argument for this either. Some have said that “speaking in tongues” should be equated with experience at Pentecost in which everyone heard their own language. However if this was so then 1) why would Paul say that no one understands what is being said? 2) why would an interpreter be needed? 3) why would non-believers think everyone is mad because they do not understand? Really, these are two similar but still different phenomena.
2) What is the experience that so many Christians believe to be the NT practice of “speaking in tongues”?
If “private prayer language” is not the NT practice, what then is this phenomenon that so many believers from so many various Christian traditions (Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) are experiencing? Why is it that so many SBC leaders (SBC agency presidents, agency trustees, professors, pastors, etc.) are themselves experiencing it? What is it they are experiencing?
3) How do we identify authentic NT “speaking in tongues”?
If the practice in the NT which people presumably then have erroneously identified as “private prayer language” is something different than what is now being practiced, then how would the true incarnation of this NT practice be identified? How do we differentiate between “true private prayer language” and “false private prayer language”?
I believe that we shall never hear the answers to these questions from the people who desire to interfere with the relationship between God and Man by prohibiting “private prayer language” and the people who agree with them. Why?
1) They do not know the answers. They have no idea what the Scriptures say about this issue. Need proof? Every time they want to make a point about anything they support it by Scripture or tell everyone to not disagree with them because they are only doing what Scripture teaches … except in this case (and also with alcohol). Also, there has not been any real debate upon this issue – rather those who seek to prohibit “private prayer language” have consistently attempted to shut up anyone who questions the legitimacy of their actions and beliefs. A quick not for the future: if a particular party with a point of view about a Biblical issue must force their views upon others and seeks to silence contrary arguments, then that’s a pretty good indication that such a party really doesn’t have a good argument for their POV – and they know it!
2) They do not care what the answers are. This is true. The fact of the matter is that too many of the people who want to prohibit “private prayer language” (and those who agree with them) are doing so not because of what the Scriptures say but because they simply do not like “private prayer language”. Such an idea is bolstered by their similar actions with regards to alcohol consumption.
3) They do not have to answer these questions. These people have the power to force people to do what they will and because they don’t like “private prayer language” (or alcohol) they are using their power to prohibit it regardless of whether such an idea is Scriptural or not. They do not have to follow Scripture. They do not have to convince other people to agree with them. They can completely ignore all contrary arguments and disagreements and force their will upon all. All they have to do is appoint the “right” trustees and then tell these trustees to do X and these trustees will dutifully do X despite what the rest of us think. Is this not the case?
Yes, I recall Justice Sunday I and II. These were events where the leaders of the SBC came together to rally other Southern Baptists against the “tyranny of the Judiciary” where particular leaders in the government are appointing small groups of people to decide on important cultural issues without the blessings of the American people.
So says Paul: “DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES” (1 Cor 14:39)
I recall Justice Sunday I and II. These were events where the leaders of the SBC came together to rally other Southern Baptists against the “tyranny of the Judiciary” where particular leaders in the government are appointing small groups of people to decide on important cultural issues without the blessings of the American people.
1) I do believe that they will no longer hire any professor that affirms the Scriptural practice of “private prayer language” whether that professors practices it or not or whether that professor refrains from promoting it or not. However, I do believe that all the current professors who practice private prayer language will be okay as long as they do not promote them.
“As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of XXXX Seminary.”
I take the above statement as a true policy and my experience with SWBTS suggests that they will not act upon anyone unless that person does publicly make a statement in support of the Biblical practice.
So while I disagree with this policy, I do believe that any current professors’ jobs are threatened … over this issue.
2) I am somewhat concerned about the growing hostility towards the issue of “private prayer language” for the following reasons:
- “Private prayer language” concerns the intimate relationship between God and the believer who is worshipping Him (1 Cor 14:2). No one other than Christ has the right to either dictate or mediate the relationship between God and Man. Such an effrontery not only ignores Protestant Reformation theology, Baptist distinctive theology, but places such dictators in the position of usurping the position of Christ.
- “Private prayer language” is the result of an experiential and emotional worship of God. Essentially, in this personal worship, the individual believer’s spiritual contact with God results in an overflowing of the senses to the degree that the brain’s speech abilities “overflow”. Essentially, it is the Spirit “speaking” emotionally to God in reaction to what God has done (1 Cor 14:2, 14). Now just like in a normal conversation, the individual does not have to speak (either in “tongues” or otherwise). Thus the individual engaged in “private prayer language” does not have to do so. If any charismatic tells you that he cannot help himself and that it is all the Spirit’s doing, then this person is wrong. Neither God nor His Spirit ever violates an individual’s freedom and autonomy; to do so would negate the intimate relationship between the two persons involved. Nevertheless, as Paul clearly teaches, “private prayer language” edifies the individual (1 Cor 14:4). Indeed, “private prayer language” is an edifying experience which is also the result of an edifying experience. To prevent believers from having an edifying experience is both negligence and hubristic. To this effect, the SBC leadership might as well tell everyone to not pray, worship, read Scripture, disciple, minister, repent or do anything else that brings edification to the individual believer.
- Paul specifically encourages other believers to “speak in tongues” (1 Cor 14:5, 39). Indeed, Paul; does state that “prophesy” is a greater gift than “tongues” but this still means that “tongues” is a gift. Indeed, Paul does not teach that “tongues” should not be a part of Christian worship services. In fact, if “speaking in tongues” is accompanied by an interpretation, such a practice is encouraged (1 Cor 14:5). Why? If I experience a blessing from God that is edifying to me, correct? Now if I tell others about that blessing from God, such a blessing edifies the body. Therefore, to forbid or even discourage “private prayer language” is not simply negligence and hubristic but directly contrary to the teachings of Paul in the Scriptures.
- Those who are either practicing or advocating “private prayer language” are doing so in accordance with the specific, clear, literal teachings of Scripture.
- Because these SBC leaders are both in clear violation of the Scriptures and are ignorant in this matter, we who are following the Scripture must ignore these SBC leaders in this specific matter (1 Cor 14:37-38). Really, how clearer can Paul be? “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues” (1 Cor 14:39)
3) And the above is what is so disconcerting. Many in the SBC are continuing to explicitly and directly and openly disobeying Scripture and encouraging others to do so. And this not a matter of different hermeneutics. These SBC leaders are violating their own hermeneutics when they not simply teach against alcohol and “private prayer language” but actually force others to ignore the Scriptures. Say what you will about liberal believers ignoring Scripture; they never force others to do so. With the conservative leaders, they are not satisfied with simply ignoring Scripture they want everyone to agree and do likewise even if they must do so by force. I imagine that they have a guilty conscience and think they will feel better about their actions if everyone is on their page. It’s the typical sort of peer pressure one sees among homosexuals, drug addicts, etc. in our culture: they feel guilty so they try to force everyone to agree with them so they can feel better.
Some have said that “private prayer language” or the contemporary practice of “speaking in tongues” should not be equated with the practice that is recorded in the Scriptures. The idea is that this contemporary is not the same as the NT practice and thus it can be either ignored or eliminated by the Church. However, there is no evidence or indication (Scriptural or otherwise) that these two phenomena are anything but identical.
But if some argue that this practice is not the equivalent of the NT practice, there are three questions that they must answer before they inflict their will upon the relationship between God and Man:
1) What is the true NT practice regarding “speaking in tongues”?
Up till now, the SBC leaders who are so dogmatic about this issue have yet to identify this NT practice or even to make any differentiation between various charismatic practices. There is a blanket statement which condemns all charismatic practices without making admission that one can perform “tongues” as the NT teaches. Of course, such general condemnation apart from Scriptural authority is nothing new. Their treatment of alcohol consumption and women in ministry shows a similar Scriptural ignorance. Though they are quick to condemn that which they consider to be wrong, they are silent on what they affirm. The pessimism in me argues that they are silent because they want to give themselves room to wiggle given the political winds. The optimism in me simply admits they are Scripturally ignorant. Nevertheless, how can they legitimately condemn and eliminate “private prayer language” without any argument other than “trust us”? Possibly they hold to the view that charismatic gifts have ceased but they do not make an argument for this either. Some have said that “speaking in tongues” should be equated with experience at Pentecost in which everyone heard their own language. However if this was so then 1) why would Paul say that no one understands what is being said? 2) why would an interpreter be needed? 3) why would non-believers think everyone is mad because they do not understand? Really, these are two similar but still different phenomena.
2) What is the experience that so many Christians believe to be the NT practice of “speaking in tongues”?
If “private prayer language” is not the NT practice, what then is this phenomenon that so many believers from so many various Christian traditions (Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) are experiencing? Why is it that so many SBC leaders (SBC agency presidents, agency trustees, professors, pastors, etc.) are themselves experiencing it? What is it they are experiencing?
3) How do we identify authentic NT “speaking in tongues”?
If the practice in the NT which people presumably then have erroneously identified as “private prayer language” is something different than what is now being practiced, then how would the true incarnation of this NT practice be identified? How do we differentiate between “true private prayer language” and “false private prayer language”?
I believe that we shall never hear the answers to these questions from the people who desire to interfere with the relationship between God and Man by prohibiting “private prayer language” and the people who agree with them. Why?
1) They do not know the answers. They have no idea what the Scriptures say about this issue. Need proof? Every time they want to make a point about anything they support it by Scripture or tell everyone to not disagree with them because they are only doing what Scripture teaches … except in this case (and also with alcohol). Also, there has not been any real debate upon this issue – rather those who seek to prohibit “private prayer language” have consistently attempted to shut up anyone who questions the legitimacy of their actions and beliefs. A quick not for the future: if a particular party with a point of view about a Biblical issue must force their views upon others and seeks to silence contrary arguments, then that’s a pretty good indication that such a party really doesn’t have a good argument for their POV – and they know it!
2) They do not care what the answers are. This is true. The fact of the matter is that too many of the people who want to prohibit “private prayer language” (and those who agree with them) are doing so not because of what the Scriptures say but because they simply do not like “private prayer language”. Such an idea is bolstered by their similar actions with regards to alcohol consumption.
3) They do not have to answer these questions. These people have the power to force people to do what they will and because they don’t like “private prayer language” (or alcohol) they are using their power to prohibit it regardless of whether such an idea is Scriptural or not. They do not have to follow Scripture. They do not have to convince other people to agree with them. They can completely ignore all contrary arguments and disagreements and force their will upon all. All they have to do is appoint the “right” trustees and then tell these trustees to do X and these trustees will dutifully do X despite what the rest of us think. Is this not the case?
Yes, I recall Justice Sunday I and II. These were events where the leaders of the SBC came together to rally other Southern Baptists against the “tyranny of the Judiciary” where particular leaders in the government are appointing small groups of people to decide on important cultural issues without the blessings of the American people.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
The Problem With The Baptist Faith and Message
What is the purpose of the BFM? Supposedly to confess what the SBC believes about particular Biblical subjects. However, now we are debating about the meaning of the BFM. Soon we will need a new confession to confess what the SBC believes about the BFM.
To know what does the BFM says about this issue (or any issue), it would be best to look at the writings of its authors when they composed it (i.e., E.Y. Mullins, H.H. Hobbs, etc.). Of course, they all don’t agree on what it means. But since the BFM2000 does not alter much of the BFM1963, then we should probably focus on Hobb’s intention. Of course, since Hobbs was a “student” of Mullins and Mullins composed the first BFM, perhaps we should focus first on Mullin’s intention in the BFM1924 and then temper that with the updated BFM1963 by Hobbs. Of course, Mullins is no longer respected in today’s SBC and both the composers of the 2000BFM and other SBC leaders blame Mullins for the “moderate” SBC. And Hobbs is also no longer appreciated because he is held responsible by many SBC leaders and 2000BFM composers for neo-orthodoxy in the SBC and the problems deemed inherent in the BFM1963 which made necessary the composition of the BFM2000.
However, since each confession was confirmed by majority vote of the SBC messengers to each of the respective “confessional conventions”, then perhaps we should look at how the messengers who voted on the BFM understood the issues when they voted their approval. Of course, then we have to decide which groups of messengers we should focus: SBC messengers in 1924, SBC messengers in 1963 or SBC messengers in 2000?
Whatever the focus of our inquiry on what the BFM says, we are still basing how we practice our faith on the unknown whims of a mostly unknown minority of people on one day in history.
Of course, since the current prologue states that “confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience” then this whole issue is moot.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
To You Who Attempt To Force Others To Adopt Your Traditions: YOU AND YOUR TRADITIONS ARE NOT ABOVE SCRIPTURE OR JESUS CHRIST.
I read this paper. Allow me to be tangentially within my academic freedom. How is it that such people who have the most remedial understanding of Scripture be given the authority to force other people to adopt their milky views? Their opinions and traditions are not the answer. What is the answer? Again, the answer is Jesus and Scripture.
All of their evidence for their abstaining position is based upon tradition. Now if they themselves desire to abstain that is completely their decision and no one at all should criticize them for it.
However, if they themselves say that a believer should not drink or have the effrontery to make rules and regulations that prohibit other believers from properly enjoying God’s gift of, then those prohibitionists should be criticized for the sake of the Gospel.
1) Both Jesus and the Scriptures which testify of Him are completely and unequivocally clear that alcohol consumption is approved by God.
2) Those who seek to force others to abstain from alcohol consumption are:
a. Proclaiming a teaching contrary to both God and Scripture.
b. Promoting the traditions of man above the teachings of God.
c. Allowing culture and society to dictate how they practice the teachings of Scripture and live out the example of Christ.
d. Allowing personal preference and personal experience to dictate how they practice the teachings of Scripture and live out the example of Christ.
In this article the authors admit that the Bible may be subject to varied interpretations concerning alcohol consumption, yet, despite such admitted confusion, they then argue that their view of alcohol prohibition should be adopted by all. Why? They prefer to cite the short span of Southern Baptist tradition while ignoring both Scripture and the other 1900 previous years of Church tradition.
They are supposed to be orthodox Christians of the conservative evangelical style. We are continually given the drum-beat of Scripture! Scripture! Scripture! Every sermon, article and conference that comes along is framed and based upon what the Scripture teaches and why we must follow Scriptural teaching whether or not we agree or like it.
Please tell me: Why is it these same people who fire, excommunicate and criticize anyone who does not agree with their view of inerrancy and Biblical authority are now telling everyone to ignore the Bible on the issue of alcohol? And their arguments are not simply about persuading people to adopt their unscriptural view. No, their arguments are about making regulations and laws to force other people to adopt their unscriptural view.
YOU AND YOUR TRADITIONS ARE NOT ABOVE SCRIPTURE OR JESUS CHRIST.
Let me ask you: How did the Roman Catholic Church respond when Martin Luther argued that their theology of indulgences did not correspond with the teachings of Scripture?
1) The Bible may be subject to varied interpretations concerning indulgences.
2) It is traditional.
3) Who are you to tell the Pope, the RCC and other theologians and scholars much better than yourself what is acceptable to the faith?
How did Luther respond? He ignored them.
What is my advice to other believers? Ignore them.
What will I do? I shall ignore them.
When the baskets are forcing people to not drink, to not have piercings, to not pray to God in tongues, and to just generally not follow the teachings of Scripture, I tell all to ignore the baskets.
They are wrong. They are not correct. They are teaching and acting contrary to Scripture. They have no authority to teach and act in this manner.
I am a believing soul quite competent to read and apply the clear teachings of Scripture. I have always done what I what I want and always shall. What is my justification?
YOU AND YOUR TRADITIONS ARE NOT ABOVE SCRIPTURE OR JESUS CHRIST.
All of their evidence for their abstaining position is based upon tradition. Now if they themselves desire to abstain that is completely their decision and no one at all should criticize them for it.
However, if they themselves say that a believer should not drink or have the effrontery to make rules and regulations that prohibit other believers from properly enjoying God’s gift of, then those prohibitionists should be criticized for the sake of the Gospel.
1) Both Jesus and the Scriptures which testify of Him are completely and unequivocally clear that alcohol consumption is approved by God.
2) Those who seek to force others to abstain from alcohol consumption are:
a. Proclaiming a teaching contrary to both God and Scripture.
b. Promoting the traditions of man above the teachings of God.
c. Allowing culture and society to dictate how they practice the teachings of Scripture and live out the example of Christ.
d. Allowing personal preference and personal experience to dictate how they practice the teachings of Scripture and live out the example of Christ.
In this article the authors admit that the Bible may be subject to varied interpretations concerning alcohol consumption, yet, despite such admitted confusion, they then argue that their view of alcohol prohibition should be adopted by all. Why? They prefer to cite the short span of Southern Baptist tradition while ignoring both Scripture and the other 1900 previous years of Church tradition.
They are supposed to be orthodox Christians of the conservative evangelical style. We are continually given the drum-beat of Scripture! Scripture! Scripture! Every sermon, article and conference that comes along is framed and based upon what the Scripture teaches and why we must follow Scriptural teaching whether or not we agree or like it.
Please tell me: Why is it these same people who fire, excommunicate and criticize anyone who does not agree with their view of inerrancy and Biblical authority are now telling everyone to ignore the Bible on the issue of alcohol? And their arguments are not simply about persuading people to adopt their unscriptural view. No, their arguments are about making regulations and laws to force other people to adopt their unscriptural view.
YOU AND YOUR TRADITIONS ARE NOT ABOVE SCRIPTURE OR JESUS CHRIST.
Let me ask you: How did the Roman Catholic Church respond when Martin Luther argued that their theology of indulgences did not correspond with the teachings of Scripture?
1) The Bible may be subject to varied interpretations concerning indulgences.
2) It is traditional.
3) Who are you to tell the Pope, the RCC and other theologians and scholars much better than yourself what is acceptable to the faith?
How did Luther respond? He ignored them.
What is my advice to other believers? Ignore them.
What will I do? I shall ignore them.
When the baskets are forcing people to not drink, to not have piercings, to not pray to God in tongues, and to just generally not follow the teachings of Scripture, I tell all to ignore the baskets.
They are wrong. They are not correct. They are teaching and acting contrary to Scripture. They have no authority to teach and act in this manner.
I am a believing soul quite competent to read and apply the clear teachings of Scripture. I have always done what I what I want and always shall. What is my justification?
YOU AND YOUR TRADITIONS ARE NOT ABOVE SCRIPTURE OR JESUS CHRIST.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
The Humour of Deutero-Isaiah in Isaiah 56:3-5
Would you like to learn of a great Biblical joke that really presents the humour of both Deutero-Isaiah and God?
Read Isaiah 56:3-5 paying particular attention to the end of v. 3 and the end of v. 5. It’s best to use the NKJV, the NIV, the NRSV, or the NASB. The TNIV completely obscures the joke which is quite funny in any language and culture in which the Scripture is translated.
Read Isaiah 56:3-5 paying particular attention to the end of v. 3 and the end of v. 5. It’s best to use the NKJV, the NIV, the NRSV, or the NASB. The TNIV completely obscures the joke which is quite funny in any language and culture in which the Scripture is translated.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Is An Unbeliever Condemned By Participating In Communion?
A very nice discussion with a fellow believer.
First, dear brother, I really enjoy your blog and appreciate the powerful points you make for the sake of the Church. This issue of unbelievers and the Lord's Supper is personal for me as our house church in a Hindu neighborhood in Chicago deals with this issue often. I appreciate your stand that unbelief is a disqualification for taking the Lord̢۪s Supper and agree wholeheartedly with it. However, there are some in house church settings who do not hold your view and say that since an unbeliever does not really understand, he is not guilty of unbelief, merely ignorance.
I would be shocked if some in house churches didn’t disagree with me. Such an idea of closed communion is extremely old and widespread.
In your hypothetical senario there is no way for the unbeliever to know the bread/wine, torilla/chips, whatever is part of our special commemoration (or sacrament or memorial or wherever you fall on that issue) of the Lord's death. It is sitting on the table as part of the meal and there is no leader saying, "this is the body..." Of course the unbeliever can eat freely - the bread/wine aren't inherently special. They become special for the Church in that time of remembering the Lord's death until He comes.
Yes, that is why it matters not that an unbeliever consumes the communion elements: it is nothing more than bread and “wine”.
Your use of John 6 is interesting and I like the noting of the foreshadowing here. But, John 6 is before Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper and is therefore not a valid case.
Actually John 6 is an extremely valid case. The “historical event” which is recorded in John 6 may have occurred before the formal institution of the Lord’s Supper, the story was recorded by John some 50-60 years after the event took place. All Christians who originally read the Gospel of John would have been quite familiar with communion. The Feeding of the 5000 appears in the other Gospels, but John’s version includes Jesus’ exposition of the “miracle” in which the Eucharistic aspect of the “miracle” is emphasized.
The time of the year is Passover (Jn 6:4)
“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (Jn 6:27)
“Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” (Jn 6:31)
“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:32-40)
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” (Jn 6:47-58)
Perhaps there is some deep point that I am missing in Acts 27, but all I see there is a blessing and having some bread. Blessing your bread doesn't make it a communion meal in the ecclesiastical sense.
One of the central themes of Luke-Acts is the Jewish attitude towards meal fellowship with Gentiles. This issue was central to early Christianity because of the centrality of Communion and what it meant in terms of the fellowship of believers (both Jew and Gentile) united in Christ. Luke is continually reinforcing the notion that it is okay for observant Jews to fellowship with Gentiles during meals.
A literary device that Luke uses in his work is parallels. Luke depicts Jesus in a particular way in the Gospel of Luke. In Acts, Luke portrays Jesus’ apostles in a manner which parallel that of Jesus (see Peter in Ac 9-12). Paul also portrayed in a manner which likens him to Jesus.
Allow me to give an excerpt from my thesis:
"Just as Jesus makes a last journey to Jerusalem under divine necessity and is not understood by the disciples (Lk 9:51-19:28), so Paul makes a last journey to Jerusalem under divine necessity and is not understood by his friends (Ac 19:21-21:17). Just as Jesus receives a good reception and people praise God for what they have seen (Lk 19:37), so Paul receives a good reception and God is glorified for the things done among the Gentiles (Ac 21:17-20). Just as Jesus goes into the temple with a positive attitude to it (Lk 19:45-48), so Jesus goes into the temple with a positive attitude to it (Ac 21:26). Just as Jesus is seized by a mob (Lk 22:54), so Paul is seized by a mob (Ac 21:30). Just as Jesus experiences four trials (Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod Antipas, Pilate; Lk 22:26; 23:1; 23:8; 23:13, so Paul experiences four trials (Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, Herod Agrippa; Ac 23, 24, 25, 26). Both are charged with sedition (Lk. 23:2; Acts 24:5). Both are sent to Jewish representatives of their own districts (Herod for Galilee in Lk. 23:6-7, and Agrippa for Cilicia in Acts 23:24-25). Both are deemed innocent by Roman government officials (Lk. 23:15, 22; Acts 25:25; 26:31). Just as Pilate states that he will release Jesus (Lk 23:16, 22), so Agrippa says: “This man could have been released” (Ac 26:32). Both Jesus’ and Paul’s ministry ends on the note of the fulfillment of Scripture (Lk 24; Ac 28)."
Therefore, notice the similarities between Jesus’ statement in Luke and Paul’s statement in Acts:
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:19)
“And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken [it], he began to eat.” (Ac 27:35)
This parallel is reinforced in Acts 27 by Luke’s statements that those on the ship are saved by God because of Paul having divine favor. Notice this verse:
“Wherefore I pray you to take [some] meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.” (Ac 27:34)
Thus we have a parallel “Last Supper” in Acts in the context of Luke’s focus on the theme of meal fellowship with Gentiles.
But, the more pressing question for our fellowship among Hindus in Chicago is whether or not to let them participate in the Communion time. Some members of our church insist that the Lord allowed Judas to participate. Indeed He did, but in my view, He let Judas participate as part of Judas' just condemnation, not for his salvation!
Is there any evidence to support that hypothesis?
If we say that Judas was a non-believer and that one should not allow a non-believer to partake of communion, then Jesus would have sinned by allowing Judas to partake, regardless of His reasons for doing so.
Of course, Judas was not “condemned” because of his communion participation but because of his betrayal. Even then, if Judas would have repented after betraying Jesus, he still would have been saved, communion participation or not.
Who wants to rely on the example of Judas to support an action by their unbelieving friend?! In the very context of Judas' participation in the Lord's Supper, Jesus says, "It would have been better for that man if he had never been born!" No please, do not use Judas as justification.
I think Judas is a good example for this issue because of who he is and what he did.
Judas is a perfect example of this passage, which you must deal with on this issue: "Whoever therefore eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord...For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (See whole passage of 1Cor.11:27-32)
Yes, the issue becomes hinges on what Paul means when he uses “unworthy” (anaxios).
You may not be aware of my previous article on the subject: When Communion Is Open And When It Is Closed
Essentially, my conclusion is that the “unworthy” manner on which Paul focuses is divisions within the body: one who partakes of communion while practicing division within the body is participating in an “unworthy” manner (which is why I consider it 180 degrees wrong and even blasphemous to deny another believer fellowship and access to communion).
1) In truth, no one is really “worthy” of communion with God in Christ – that’s the point.
2) An unbeliever is damned whether they participate in communion or not – that’s also the point.
3) There is nothing in this passage even suggests that Paul is referring to unbelievers. Indeed, it is quite evident that Paul is referring to believers because that is his point. A believer (a member of Christ’s body) is behaving like an unbeliever (a non-member of Christ’s body) by causing divisions within the body. It is this hypocritical stance which is Paul’s focus. This would not apply to an unbeliever.
I agree that if someone is hungry and we have bread and wine we ought to share. But, when that bread and wine is serving His purpose as "the bread and cup of the Lord," it ought to be reserved for those who can discern it's worth and those who can discern themselves in light of it.
I am a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic or Lutheran. I understand that the bread and “wine” are symbolic and never literally Jesus’ body and blood. We all buy the elements at the store and they never take on any particular importance in of themselves. Because their importance is only symbolic, such an importance is only reality to the believer who both understands the importance and is actually participating. To say that condemnation is put upon an unbeliever who consumes the elements is nonsense. How many believers do you know thought they were saved, participated in communion, but later were convicted by the Holy Spirit that they were never saved? I know quite a few. Are they damned despite their current belief?
Again, I am not suggesting that communion be generally open to unbelievers. Rather, my argument here is that, given the scenario presented to me by my friend who is pastor of a house church, there are particular situations which would negate the general practice of communion for believers only. And, like a good evangelical, I base my conclusion on Jesus and the Scriptures.
I agree that 1 Cor. 11 is really Paul addressing division. But, we must note that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 11:27-32 with believers in mind.
Ah, you have read my article. That’s what I get for not reading the whole argument before responding.
I say that if Paul saw a moment when even believers should not take part in the Lord's Supper then certainly unbelievers should not. And if he never directly addressed the idea of an unbeliever taking the Lord's Supper then (and I know this is an argument from silence, but the opposition has only an argument from silence as well) I assume the idea of an unbeliever taking the Lord's Supper never entered his mind because it is so ludicrous. I leave it those who would allow an unbeliever to take the Lord's Supper to show me reason from Scripture to allow it: I guarantee that there is none.
Again, see my arguments from John 6, Acts 27, 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 and Matthew 12:1-8.
Some in our church have said, "if we let them participate in the gospel, but taking the Lord's Supper then they will experience the gospel preached.." My answer: why don't be also then baptize them! No, the Lord's Supper is for the Church, not for the world. If we give it to the world then we surrender a beautiful gift from our Lord to us and this would be most offensive to our Holy God.
Well, I don’t make that argument. The conclusion to my argument is based solely upon the given scenario.
Share bread and wine, sure. But, do not share the body and blood of our Lord lest it be profaned.
That’s the point. We are not sharing the body and blood. It’s impossible to share the body and blood of Christ. When an unbeliever consumes communion bread and “wine”, it is simply bread and “wine” and not Christ’s body and blood. I can think of no way and no verse which would argue the possibility of an unbeliever consuming Christ’s body and blood.
I believe that you are in agreement with me. But, I write because I am concerned by hearing Judas used as an example. He was not just eating bread because he was hungry. He was taking part in the rite. And that was part of his condemnation. Far be it from us to lead our unbelieving friends down the path of Judas!
No, I do not think that his participation was a part of his condemnation. His betrayal of Jesus led him to whatever condemnation he experienced. Again, Jesus invited Judas to the Lord’s Supper. Jesus gave Judas the choice sop.
“Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [it]. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon.” (John 13:26)
If we say that allowing an unbeliever to participate in communion is wrong, then what Jesus did was wrong. Furthermore, if we say that such an action brings condemnation to the unbeliever then Jesus was guilty of premeditated murder. Not only did He invite Judas to the supper but gave him a piece to eat. Imagine that some believer brings an unbeliever to church and tricks the unsuspecting unbeliever into consuming the communion elements in order that he could be damned!
I do understand your point and the concerns behind it. It is obvious that it all comes from your love of others and that should be commended. So allow me to alleviate your fears:
1) An unbeliever who participates in communion is not damned by doing so. He or she is damned because they are an unbeliever. An unbeliever who does not participate in communion is still damned. An unbeliever who participates in communion but later becomes a believer is not damned.
2) I have not found any Scriptural evidence which points to the idea that an unbeliever is damned because he participates in communion.
3) Again, Judas was not in any way condemned because of his communion participation but because of his betrayal. I do not see where the Scriptures say that he was condemned for such participation. Again, if he was condemned for such participation this would make Jesus a premeditated murderer.
In a traditional church the pastor can say a little schpeel and be done with it. In house church, when there are 12 people and an unbeliever and we take it in the context of a whole meal, it can be quite a bit more awkward, but I do not see why we would water down an ancient church tradition for the sake of personal comfort.
If a church tradition is contrary to Scripture we should not simply water it down; we should remove it entirely. Nevertheless, such idealism has to be tempered with pragmatism. Sure, I would like for the Church to remove entirely the idea that participation in communion by unbelievers causes condemnation, but that is not going to happen any time soon and I am not so interested in the subject to claim it as a cause. Perhaps such an idea waters down the Gospel message but it has never done so to any significant degree that necessarily demands my attention.
Now closed communion for other believers is another matter entirely. I will take that up as a cause. I refuse to belong to any church that denies communion to other believers who are not being disciplined for sin. To deny another believer communion simply due to their association with another local church or denominational tradition is arrogant blasphemy to me. Such a prohibition runs counter to entire gospel message and purpose of communion itself. It is the unworthy hubris which Paul is directly and specifically attacking in 1 Corinthians 11. That is a hill which I will die on.
Though I might consider option 4 for the sake of not embarrassing a particular unbeliever if a situation with an individual seemed to merit it. Again, thank you for your helpful blog and may the grace of our Lord Jesus be with your spirit, brother.
Thank you so much. God’s Blessings on you and your church.
First, dear brother, I really enjoy your blog and appreciate the powerful points you make for the sake of the Church. This issue of unbelievers and the Lord's Supper is personal for me as our house church in a Hindu neighborhood in Chicago deals with this issue often. I appreciate your stand that unbelief is a disqualification for taking the Lord̢۪s Supper and agree wholeheartedly with it. However, there are some in house church settings who do not hold your view and say that since an unbeliever does not really understand, he is not guilty of unbelief, merely ignorance.
I would be shocked if some in house churches didn’t disagree with me. Such an idea of closed communion is extremely old and widespread.
In your hypothetical senario there is no way for the unbeliever to know the bread/wine, torilla/chips, whatever is part of our special commemoration (or sacrament or memorial or wherever you fall on that issue) of the Lord's death. It is sitting on the table as part of the meal and there is no leader saying, "this is the body..." Of course the unbeliever can eat freely - the bread/wine aren't inherently special. They become special for the Church in that time of remembering the Lord's death until He comes.
Yes, that is why it matters not that an unbeliever consumes the communion elements: it is nothing more than bread and “wine”.
Your use of John 6 is interesting and I like the noting of the foreshadowing here. But, John 6 is before Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper and is therefore not a valid case.
Actually John 6 is an extremely valid case. The “historical event” which is recorded in John 6 may have occurred before the formal institution of the Lord’s Supper, the story was recorded by John some 50-60 years after the event took place. All Christians who originally read the Gospel of John would have been quite familiar with communion. The Feeding of the 5000 appears in the other Gospels, but John’s version includes Jesus’ exposition of the “miracle” in which the Eucharistic aspect of the “miracle” is emphasized.
The time of the year is Passover (Jn 6:4)
“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (Jn 6:27)
“Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” (Jn 6:31)
“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:32-40)
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” (Jn 6:47-58)
Perhaps there is some deep point that I am missing in Acts 27, but all I see there is a blessing and having some bread. Blessing your bread doesn't make it a communion meal in the ecclesiastical sense.
One of the central themes of Luke-Acts is the Jewish attitude towards meal fellowship with Gentiles. This issue was central to early Christianity because of the centrality of Communion and what it meant in terms of the fellowship of believers (both Jew and Gentile) united in Christ. Luke is continually reinforcing the notion that it is okay for observant Jews to fellowship with Gentiles during meals.
A literary device that Luke uses in his work is parallels. Luke depicts Jesus in a particular way in the Gospel of Luke. In Acts, Luke portrays Jesus’ apostles in a manner which parallel that of Jesus (see Peter in Ac 9-12). Paul also portrayed in a manner which likens him to Jesus.
Allow me to give an excerpt from my thesis:
"Just as Jesus makes a last journey to Jerusalem under divine necessity and is not understood by the disciples (Lk 9:51-19:28), so Paul makes a last journey to Jerusalem under divine necessity and is not understood by his friends (Ac 19:21-21:17). Just as Jesus receives a good reception and people praise God for what they have seen (Lk 19:37), so Paul receives a good reception and God is glorified for the things done among the Gentiles (Ac 21:17-20). Just as Jesus goes into the temple with a positive attitude to it (Lk 19:45-48), so Jesus goes into the temple with a positive attitude to it (Ac 21:26). Just as Jesus is seized by a mob (Lk 22:54), so Paul is seized by a mob (Ac 21:30). Just as Jesus experiences four trials (Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod Antipas, Pilate; Lk 22:26; 23:1; 23:8; 23:13, so Paul experiences four trials (Sanhedrin, Felix, Festus, Herod Agrippa; Ac 23, 24, 25, 26). Both are charged with sedition (Lk. 23:2; Acts 24:5). Both are sent to Jewish representatives of their own districts (Herod for Galilee in Lk. 23:6-7, and Agrippa for Cilicia in Acts 23:24-25). Both are deemed innocent by Roman government officials (Lk. 23:15, 22; Acts 25:25; 26:31). Just as Pilate states that he will release Jesus (Lk 23:16, 22), so Agrippa says: “This man could have been released” (Ac 26:32). Both Jesus’ and Paul’s ministry ends on the note of the fulfillment of Scripture (Lk 24; Ac 28)."
Therefore, notice the similarities between Jesus’ statement in Luke and Paul’s statement in Acts:
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:19)
“And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken [it], he began to eat.” (Ac 27:35)
This parallel is reinforced in Acts 27 by Luke’s statements that those on the ship are saved by God because of Paul having divine favor. Notice this verse:
“Wherefore I pray you to take [some] meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.” (Ac 27:34)
Thus we have a parallel “Last Supper” in Acts in the context of Luke’s focus on the theme of meal fellowship with Gentiles.
But, the more pressing question for our fellowship among Hindus in Chicago is whether or not to let them participate in the Communion time. Some members of our church insist that the Lord allowed Judas to participate. Indeed He did, but in my view, He let Judas participate as part of Judas' just condemnation, not for his salvation!
Is there any evidence to support that hypothesis?
If we say that Judas was a non-believer and that one should not allow a non-believer to partake of communion, then Jesus would have sinned by allowing Judas to partake, regardless of His reasons for doing so.
Of course, Judas was not “condemned” because of his communion participation but because of his betrayal. Even then, if Judas would have repented after betraying Jesus, he still would have been saved, communion participation or not.
Who wants to rely on the example of Judas to support an action by their unbelieving friend?! In the very context of Judas' participation in the Lord's Supper, Jesus says, "It would have been better for that man if he had never been born!" No please, do not use Judas as justification.
I think Judas is a good example for this issue because of who he is and what he did.
Judas is a perfect example of this passage, which you must deal with on this issue: "Whoever therefore eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord...For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (See whole passage of 1Cor.11:27-32)
Yes, the issue becomes hinges on what Paul means when he uses “unworthy” (anaxios).
You may not be aware of my previous article on the subject: When Communion Is Open And When It Is Closed
Essentially, my conclusion is that the “unworthy” manner on which Paul focuses is divisions within the body: one who partakes of communion while practicing division within the body is participating in an “unworthy” manner (which is why I consider it 180 degrees wrong and even blasphemous to deny another believer fellowship and access to communion).
1) In truth, no one is really “worthy” of communion with God in Christ – that’s the point.
2) An unbeliever is damned whether they participate in communion or not – that’s also the point.
3) There is nothing in this passage even suggests that Paul is referring to unbelievers. Indeed, it is quite evident that Paul is referring to believers because that is his point. A believer (a member of Christ’s body) is behaving like an unbeliever (a non-member of Christ’s body) by causing divisions within the body. It is this hypocritical stance which is Paul’s focus. This would not apply to an unbeliever.
I agree that if someone is hungry and we have bread and wine we ought to share. But, when that bread and wine is serving His purpose as "the bread and cup of the Lord," it ought to be reserved for those who can discern it's worth and those who can discern themselves in light of it.
I am a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic or Lutheran. I understand that the bread and “wine” are symbolic and never literally Jesus’ body and blood. We all buy the elements at the store and they never take on any particular importance in of themselves. Because their importance is only symbolic, such an importance is only reality to the believer who both understands the importance and is actually participating. To say that condemnation is put upon an unbeliever who consumes the elements is nonsense. How many believers do you know thought they were saved, participated in communion, but later were convicted by the Holy Spirit that they were never saved? I know quite a few. Are they damned despite their current belief?
Again, I am not suggesting that communion be generally open to unbelievers. Rather, my argument here is that, given the scenario presented to me by my friend who is pastor of a house church, there are particular situations which would negate the general practice of communion for believers only. And, like a good evangelical, I base my conclusion on Jesus and the Scriptures.
I agree that 1 Cor. 11 is really Paul addressing division. But, we must note that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 11:27-32 with believers in mind.
Ah, you have read my article. That’s what I get for not reading the whole argument before responding.
I say that if Paul saw a moment when even believers should not take part in the Lord's Supper then certainly unbelievers should not. And if he never directly addressed the idea of an unbeliever taking the Lord's Supper then (and I know this is an argument from silence, but the opposition has only an argument from silence as well) I assume the idea of an unbeliever taking the Lord's Supper never entered his mind because it is so ludicrous. I leave it those who would allow an unbeliever to take the Lord's Supper to show me reason from Scripture to allow it: I guarantee that there is none.
Again, see my arguments from John 6, Acts 27, 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 and Matthew 12:1-8.
Some in our church have said, "if we let them participate in the gospel, but taking the Lord's Supper then they will experience the gospel preached.." My answer: why don't be also then baptize them! No, the Lord's Supper is for the Church, not for the world. If we give it to the world then we surrender a beautiful gift from our Lord to us and this would be most offensive to our Holy God.
Well, I don’t make that argument. The conclusion to my argument is based solely upon the given scenario.
Share bread and wine, sure. But, do not share the body and blood of our Lord lest it be profaned.
That’s the point. We are not sharing the body and blood. It’s impossible to share the body and blood of Christ. When an unbeliever consumes communion bread and “wine”, it is simply bread and “wine” and not Christ’s body and blood. I can think of no way and no verse which would argue the possibility of an unbeliever consuming Christ’s body and blood.
I believe that you are in agreement with me. But, I write because I am concerned by hearing Judas used as an example. He was not just eating bread because he was hungry. He was taking part in the rite. And that was part of his condemnation. Far be it from us to lead our unbelieving friends down the path of Judas!
No, I do not think that his participation was a part of his condemnation. His betrayal of Jesus led him to whatever condemnation he experienced. Again, Jesus invited Judas to the Lord’s Supper. Jesus gave Judas the choice sop.
“Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [it]. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon.” (John 13:26)
If we say that allowing an unbeliever to participate in communion is wrong, then what Jesus did was wrong. Furthermore, if we say that such an action brings condemnation to the unbeliever then Jesus was guilty of premeditated murder. Not only did He invite Judas to the supper but gave him a piece to eat. Imagine that some believer brings an unbeliever to church and tricks the unsuspecting unbeliever into consuming the communion elements in order that he could be damned!
I do understand your point and the concerns behind it. It is obvious that it all comes from your love of others and that should be commended. So allow me to alleviate your fears:
1) An unbeliever who participates in communion is not damned by doing so. He or she is damned because they are an unbeliever. An unbeliever who does not participate in communion is still damned. An unbeliever who participates in communion but later becomes a believer is not damned.
2) I have not found any Scriptural evidence which points to the idea that an unbeliever is damned because he participates in communion.
3) Again, Judas was not in any way condemned because of his communion participation but because of his betrayal. I do not see where the Scriptures say that he was condemned for such participation. Again, if he was condemned for such participation this would make Jesus a premeditated murderer.
In a traditional church the pastor can say a little schpeel and be done with it. In house church, when there are 12 people and an unbeliever and we take it in the context of a whole meal, it can be quite a bit more awkward, but I do not see why we would water down an ancient church tradition for the sake of personal comfort.
If a church tradition is contrary to Scripture we should not simply water it down; we should remove it entirely. Nevertheless, such idealism has to be tempered with pragmatism. Sure, I would like for the Church to remove entirely the idea that participation in communion by unbelievers causes condemnation, but that is not going to happen any time soon and I am not so interested in the subject to claim it as a cause. Perhaps such an idea waters down the Gospel message but it has never done so to any significant degree that necessarily demands my attention.
Now closed communion for other believers is another matter entirely. I will take that up as a cause. I refuse to belong to any church that denies communion to other believers who are not being disciplined for sin. To deny another believer communion simply due to their association with another local church or denominational tradition is arrogant blasphemy to me. Such a prohibition runs counter to entire gospel message and purpose of communion itself. It is the unworthy hubris which Paul is directly and specifically attacking in 1 Corinthians 11. That is a hill which I will die on.
Though I might consider option 4 for the sake of not embarrassing a particular unbeliever if a situation with an individual seemed to merit it. Again, thank you for your helpful blog and may the grace of our Lord Jesus be with your spirit, brother.
Thank you so much. God’s Blessings on you and your church.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture
I have a number of theological positions which differ from those held by my peers in the evangelical conservative community. And, frankly, I really do not care whether anyone agrees with me on these particular positions or not. Why? 1) These positions are true or untrue whether any other evangelical agrees with me or not. 2) These views really do not affect one’s faith and one can be a faithful believer whether or not they hold to these theological positions, so I feel no great urgency to convince everyone that my theological positions are correct. 3) Such a task is far too difficult for me to do so. Why? a) I’d be struggling against the “tyranny of first beliefs”, which means that people so strongly grasp onto the first beliefs they have that it is almost impossible to have them change such beliefs – particularly when such beliefs are matters of religious faith. b) I’d be struggling against old traditions which are held by the majority of the evangelical crowd. The overwhelming majority of individuals do not like to go against “the crowd” either due to peer pressure or because of anxiety and uncertainty of being wrong. c) Because the tendency of evangelical conservative Christianity is to equate the authenticity of faith with the accuracy of belief, people are afraid to consider other interpretations of the faith for fear that they would be heading towards apostasy (or at least be perceived as being heading towards apostasy). d) There is a particular level of theological inquiry which must be reached in order to begin to think about particular subjects and issues. We all know this is true: one must understand basic fundamentals of algebra before one proceeds to think about Calculus problems. One is not going to be able to consider Calculus problems if they are still struggling with algebra (like myself). I reached this conclusion back in May. I began to realize that the theological and biblical issues which I was pondering were generally beyond the paradigms of my peers. It wasn’t that they were somehow stupid or something. Far from it! My peers were very intelligent but they (or I) had gone towards other avenues of exploration of the Faith. Really, how can I discuss issues of the atonement with Calvinists? How can I discuss man made in the image of God with those who reject evolution? How can I discuss Luke’s creative process of Luke-Acts with those who refuse to accept documentary hypotheses? So I generally ceased to debate many issues with many of my friends and peers because the particular issues which I wished to debate required a particular set of presuppositions that the average evangelical conservative Christian just doesn’t have.
Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in the two great commandments and am extremely devoted to the notion of facilitating love and equality amongst believers. In fact, one of my ministerial goals is to create a greater level of theological tolerance in the Church with particular focus on the evangelical conservative community. While this goal might seem to be an overwhelming task it does benefit from the fact that it does not necessitate that a person must adopt the beliefs to which he is intolerant; it only needs to convince him that another believer can have such a belief. For example, I hold to the Q theory of the Synoptic problem. However, I know of some great scholars and professors who hold to another theory. In fact, my seminary’s NT dean rejects the Q theory. Imagine if I attempted to have him fired because he did not hold to the Q theory! Such nonsense! But similar such things do occur in SBC seminaries. So, in pursuit of this goal, I am going to attempt to make palatable to the evangelical conservative mindset a particular theological and biblical position which leads many accuse other believers of advocating errancy.
Amongst evangelical conservative Christians there is a general confusion of how any believer could believe that a particular story of the Bible is true but then reject the notion that this same particular story is not historical. Such confusion and ignorance usually leads to allegations of liberalism or not holding to inerrancy. Even when one does state their allegiance to conservative orthodoxy and inerrancy, such declarations and confessions of faith and theological principles go unheeded and are ignored in the face of positions that most evangelical conservative Christians believe to be untenable with conservative evangelical orthodoxy and inerrancy. Thus those believers who do not hold to the historical veracity of particular Biblical stories such as the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, the Flood, the Tower of Babel story, the stories of Jonah, Daniel, Esther and Ruth, and the apocalyptic events of the Revelation of John are pegged as liberals, one step away from apostasy.
Usually moderate believers who hold this view of a particular passage will try to explain this position by presenting the example of the parable whose meaning is true regardless of its historical validity. Unfortunately, this example often fails because too many evangelical conservative Christians believe all of the parables of the Bible are historically valid. Indeed, most evangelical conservative Christians believe that only a story that is an historical event can be true. Thus the parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the Prodigal Son have absolutely no veracity if they are not completely true or lack historicity. The truth and meaning of a story is said to be based upon concrete events instead of general principles which the story points (a very modernistic idea which has been heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking).
So, instead of pointing to the example of the parable, allow me to point to two examples from Scripture which might help evangelical conservative Christians understand the thinking and faith of those believers who do indeed hold to the truth of a story without having to insist on its historicity. Two examples:
1) The Example of What “Jesus Said”
Throughout Scripture the authors of the Gospels will state (in their original manuscripts) that “Jesus said” and then quote Jesus’ words in the Greek.
Now, as we all know, Jesus did not actually make that statement … in the Greek. The statement made by Jesus was made in Aramaic, not in Greek. However, the Scriptures state that “Jesus said” something in Greek.
Yet, we read: “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
Of course, we must then arrive at the conclusion that the inerrancy of Scripture takes into account that the Gospel writers are translating, paraphrasing, interpreting and rearranging the “historical” words of Jesus into the language, culture and situation in which the Gospel authors are writing. This would explain why the Synoptic Gospels frequently vary on the statements that Jesus made. This would also explain why Jesus in the Gospel of John speaks with the very words, syntax and thoughts of the author of the three epistles of John and not like the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels.
2) The Example of the Poetry of Job
The book of Job is a very interesting book and extremely complex. Its final form was written sometime after the Babylonian Exile, probably close to the Maccabean period. Whether this story has any historical veracity is quite unimportant to me. I really do not care any more than I care about the historical veracity of any of the other poetic and literary books. However, I am interested in how this story (if it is indeed historical) has been theologically arranged to become the Scripture that it is. This interest is based on how the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) arranged their historical material as Gospels (mostly I have been looking at the Maccabean books, which are also “theologically” arranged “histories”).
Thus, I do make the case that the book of Job is literature and has been theologically and literarily composed. It must be affirmed that Job and his 3 (or 4) friends did not say all that the book of Job attributes to them. Why? Simple: if Jonah has lost all that he has, is sitting naked with boils over his body, and his friends are wailing at his side, then how can we believe that they spontaneously began to have a theological discussion completely in poetic verse? Really? Poetry?
The Scriptures are literary constructs, composed by people inspired by the Holy Spirit to write various forms of literature about God and His relationship with Man.
What God desired to communicate through Scripture He did so using the medium of literature and the various aspects which accompany literature. God could have communicated through art but literature was the better choice. But literature differs from reality in the same way that film differs from books. A film communicates visually and musically in ways which books could never do. Conversely, film contains inherent limitations in which books excel. The best example is with the Lord of the Rings. Here is a book that was transferred to film. In order to do so, the filmmakers had to rearrange the literary material in order to make the book’s material acceptable to the film genre. In a similar way, the Scripture writers (through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) composed their books in ways which altered the reality of an event to best communicate its meaning. Thus, the historical, Aramaic statements of Jesus were translated into Greek. Thus, the events of Job are written out in long, theological and poetic monologues. Any other method would have been inappropriate to the intended purpose. Thus, millions and billions of years of creation are collapsed within the poetic framework of a few days.
Therefore, when a believer states that he doubts the historical veracity of a particular Scriptural story he is not necessarily stating that he doubts the meaning and truth of the story. He may simply think that the story has been literarily composed to meet the conditions necessary to effectively communicate the truth.
The doctrine of Inerrancy must be an emphasis on inerrancy of meaning and not inerrancy of form (it certainly should not be a matter of inerrancy of interpretation). To do otherwise is to dismiss a particular genre of literature as being beneath the literary dignity of Scripture (in terms of considering “inerrancy of interpretation”, that however one interprets Scripture to mean is what Scripture means, is reader-response hubris on the highest level). Such an effrontery is unbecoming evangelical Christianity.
I hope this little monograph has done some good in furthering the fellowship and love amongst believers in the Church. I hope I have given to the evangelical conservative community some legitimate and understandable reasons for why some other believers do hold and can hold to the truth of the Scriptural teachings while not having to accept the historical veracity of a Scriptural story. Again, you do not have to believe such a position is true but that it is okay for a believer to have it and that is it okay to fellowship and serve with such believers. And to let those other believers serve.
Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in the two great commandments and am extremely devoted to the notion of facilitating love and equality amongst believers. In fact, one of my ministerial goals is to create a greater level of theological tolerance in the Church with particular focus on the evangelical conservative community. While this goal might seem to be an overwhelming task it does benefit from the fact that it does not necessitate that a person must adopt the beliefs to which he is intolerant; it only needs to convince him that another believer can have such a belief. For example, I hold to the Q theory of the Synoptic problem. However, I know of some great scholars and professors who hold to another theory. In fact, my seminary’s NT dean rejects the Q theory. Imagine if I attempted to have him fired because he did not hold to the Q theory! Such nonsense! But similar such things do occur in SBC seminaries. So, in pursuit of this goal, I am going to attempt to make palatable to the evangelical conservative mindset a particular theological and biblical position which leads many accuse other believers of advocating errancy.
Amongst evangelical conservative Christians there is a general confusion of how any believer could believe that a particular story of the Bible is true but then reject the notion that this same particular story is not historical. Such confusion and ignorance usually leads to allegations of liberalism or not holding to inerrancy. Even when one does state their allegiance to conservative orthodoxy and inerrancy, such declarations and confessions of faith and theological principles go unheeded and are ignored in the face of positions that most evangelical conservative Christians believe to be untenable with conservative evangelical orthodoxy and inerrancy. Thus those believers who do not hold to the historical veracity of particular Biblical stories such as the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, the Flood, the Tower of Babel story, the stories of Jonah, Daniel, Esther and Ruth, and the apocalyptic events of the Revelation of John are pegged as liberals, one step away from apostasy.
Usually moderate believers who hold this view of a particular passage will try to explain this position by presenting the example of the parable whose meaning is true regardless of its historical validity. Unfortunately, this example often fails because too many evangelical conservative Christians believe all of the parables of the Bible are historically valid. Indeed, most evangelical conservative Christians believe that only a story that is an historical event can be true. Thus the parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the Prodigal Son have absolutely no veracity if they are not completely true or lack historicity. The truth and meaning of a story is said to be based upon concrete events instead of general principles which the story points (a very modernistic idea which has been heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking).
So, instead of pointing to the example of the parable, allow me to point to two examples from Scripture which might help evangelical conservative Christians understand the thinking and faith of those believers who do indeed hold to the truth of a story without having to insist on its historicity. Two examples:
1) The Example of What “Jesus Said”
Throughout Scripture the authors of the Gospels will state (in their original manuscripts) that “Jesus said” and then quote Jesus’ words in the Greek.
Now, as we all know, Jesus did not actually make that statement … in the Greek. The statement made by Jesus was made in Aramaic, not in Greek. However, the Scriptures state that “Jesus said” something in Greek.
Yet, we read: “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
Of course, we must then arrive at the conclusion that the inerrancy of Scripture takes into account that the Gospel writers are translating, paraphrasing, interpreting and rearranging the “historical” words of Jesus into the language, culture and situation in which the Gospel authors are writing. This would explain why the Synoptic Gospels frequently vary on the statements that Jesus made. This would also explain why Jesus in the Gospel of John speaks with the very words, syntax and thoughts of the author of the three epistles of John and not like the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels.
2) The Example of the Poetry of Job
The book of Job is a very interesting book and extremely complex. Its final form was written sometime after the Babylonian Exile, probably close to the Maccabean period. Whether this story has any historical veracity is quite unimportant to me. I really do not care any more than I care about the historical veracity of any of the other poetic and literary books. However, I am interested in how this story (if it is indeed historical) has been theologically arranged to become the Scripture that it is. This interest is based on how the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) arranged their historical material as Gospels (mostly I have been looking at the Maccabean books, which are also “theologically” arranged “histories”).
Thus, I do make the case that the book of Job is literature and has been theologically and literarily composed. It must be affirmed that Job and his 3 (or 4) friends did not say all that the book of Job attributes to them. Why? Simple: if Jonah has lost all that he has, is sitting naked with boils over his body, and his friends are wailing at his side, then how can we believe that they spontaneously began to have a theological discussion completely in poetic verse? Really? Poetry?
The Scriptures are literary constructs, composed by people inspired by the Holy Spirit to write various forms of literature about God and His relationship with Man.
What God desired to communicate through Scripture He did so using the medium of literature and the various aspects which accompany literature. God could have communicated through art but literature was the better choice. But literature differs from reality in the same way that film differs from books. A film communicates visually and musically in ways which books could never do. Conversely, film contains inherent limitations in which books excel. The best example is with the Lord of the Rings. Here is a book that was transferred to film. In order to do so, the filmmakers had to rearrange the literary material in order to make the book’s material acceptable to the film genre. In a similar way, the Scripture writers (through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) composed their books in ways which altered the reality of an event to best communicate its meaning. Thus, the historical, Aramaic statements of Jesus were translated into Greek. Thus, the events of Job are written out in long, theological and poetic monologues. Any other method would have been inappropriate to the intended purpose. Thus, millions and billions of years of creation are collapsed within the poetic framework of a few days.
Therefore, when a believer states that he doubts the historical veracity of a particular Scriptural story he is not necessarily stating that he doubts the meaning and truth of the story. He may simply think that the story has been literarily composed to meet the conditions necessary to effectively communicate the truth.
The doctrine of Inerrancy must be an emphasis on inerrancy of meaning and not inerrancy of form (it certainly should not be a matter of inerrancy of interpretation). To do otherwise is to dismiss a particular genre of literature as being beneath the literary dignity of Scripture (in terms of considering “inerrancy of interpretation”, that however one interprets Scripture to mean is what Scripture means, is reader-response hubris on the highest level). Such an effrontery is unbecoming evangelical Christianity.
I hope this little monograph has done some good in furthering the fellowship and love amongst believers in the Church. I hope I have given to the evangelical conservative community some legitimate and understandable reasons for why some other believers do hold and can hold to the truth of the Scriptural teachings while not having to accept the historical veracity of a Scriptural story. Again, you do not have to believe such a position is true but that it is okay for a believer to have it and that is it okay to fellowship and serve with such believers. And to let those other believers serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)