*******
Christians have no higher duty than to interact with the Word of God. It is
"living and active" and our guide to faith and practice. Thus, any paradigm of
Scripture which limits or skews the Word must be abandoned. We should
continually be reformed in regard to our interpretative mode, or we could
become stuck in a system that leads to erroneous conclusions.
One view of Scripture, which is actually a recent historical phenomenon, is
what I will call the "limited" view. This view is associated with modern
fundamentalism, and seeks to limit the Bible to rational, propositional
revelation. The roots of this view go back to the Enlightenment, when a shift
in philosophical approach swept the world. It is ironic that so many
Christians, who are rightly critical of many Enlightenment aspects, should
adhere to an Enlightenment rigidity regarding the truth of Scripture. It is
the Enlightenment, and not Biblical, view of truth that is actually championed
by the limited view:
"The crux of the problem in contemporary evangelicalism concerning the
inerrancy of the Bible revolves around different understandings of truth. The
conflict is not so much theological as philosophical. Because a large segment
of conservative Protestantism has unwittingly accepted Enlightenment reduction
of truth to the rationally empirical or evidential, the possibility of forging
some consensus on this question is made all the more difficult. What is clear
is that the cultural understanding of truth has eclipsed the biblical
understanding among many earnest Christians." (Bloesch, "Holy Scripture," IVP,
1994, pp. 296-97)
Clark Pinnock agrees: "Whereas we are eager to distinguish the factual from
the nonfactual, it cannot be said that the biblical writers always were, and
we worry about the imprecision they permit in their work. We are even tempted
to improve their work by making definite things they left indefinite. The
price we pay is a large number of biblical difficulties that subsist *not so
much in the text as in our own enculturated minds.*" (Pinnock, "The Scripture
Principle," Harper & Row, 1984 p. 118).
What is further ironic is that this modern limitation on Scripture is in stark
contrast to the Reformers. Luther argued *against* a faith "which grasps and
admits the validity only of that which is empirical." (Id. at 298). Calvin is
to the same effect, especially in his teaching of the inner witness of the
Holy Spirit.
What is at stake is ultimate authority. Writes Bloesch: "Biblical Christians
can affirm the inerrancy of Scripture so long as it is not confused with total
factual and scientific accuracy....Such a position *actually serves to
undermine biblical authority* by making it contingent on scientific
corroboration." (Id.)
In order to avoid undermining the Bible, we must come to it as it is, and
recognize what message is intended. "Our desire for rational, propositional
truth must be placed beneath the necessity to let the text say what it wants
to." (Pinnock, p. 186).
What happens when the limiting view of Scripture is clung to? Bernard Ramm
says charges of obscurantism (the denial of the validity of modern learning)
are inevitable, and, "I have learned that obscurantism is a losing strategy in
the modern world." (Ramm, "After Fundamentalism," Harper & Row, 1983, p. 27).
For those who wish to develop an effective apologetic for the modern world,
obscurantism must be avoided at all costs.
One example of obscurantism is failing to come to terms with new
understandings of the genres in the Bible. The early chapters of Genesis, for
example, were never intended to lay out exact timelines or literal,
journalistic truth. Virtually all modern theologians, outside the
fundamentalist circle, recognize this. (One good sign, though, is that the
limited view of Scripture is fast fading, even in conservative circles. I
teach writing at a very conservative Christian college, and see a new openness
to the Scripture principle).
In short, Scripture was not meant to be approached in the Enlightenment
fashion. It was meant, first as foremost, as a covenant document. Old
Testament means "Old Covenant," and likewise "New Testament" means "New
Covenant." This is key to approaching the Bible as a whole (see Mont Smith,
"What the Bible Says About Covenant," College Press).
And the central theme of this covenant document is Christ. This is "The
Scripture Principle" (Pinnock) and it must inform and dominate our
interpretation or the central focus is LOST. Lost in details that aren't
really there, in a search for an empirical base that was never a foundation.
We must recover the "Christ-centered approach that the Bible itself takes.
There is something terribly wrong when we argue about the Bible more and enjoy
it less. God gave us his Word to make us wise, to instruct our minds, to
revive our spirits, to guide our feet in his ways. We stand together with all
those who are of this disposition. This is what the Bible itself claims, and
this is what really matters." (Pinnock, pg. 224).
I close, as Pinnock does, with a prayer for the second Sunday of Advent:
Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scripture to be written for our
learning, grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and
inwardly digest them, that by patience, and comfort of thy holy word, we may
embrace, and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou
hast given us in our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
Jim