Bibliolatry is not a criticism often taken very seriously by Evangelicals. Partly this is because it can be difficult to understand how to distinguish it from a high view of scripture. I think this quote demonstrates what it looks like in practice:
Many who reacted in anger to the Bishop of Durham's remarks about the empty tomb in 1985 were not, I believe, interested in what he had to say about the resurrection as such, but much more with the fact that he was contradicting statements made in the New Testament. That, rather than any doctrinal question, was what worried them. The fact that it was the resurrection about which historical questions were being raised was really a side-issue, for from such a perspective the resurrection is really no more important than any other event recorded in Scripture; it is the factual accuracy of Scripture as such that matters. It is at this point that one begins to see why some people would describe fundamentalism as a heresy – that is, a kind of single-issue fanaticism which destroys the structure of the Christian faith.
(p. 40, John Barton, People of the Book? The authority of the bible in Christianity, London: SPCK)
It's a damning indictment (I think). But are we acting any different in current debates?
here, Dave.
ReplyDeleteI dont know what to think about this. For in a way, isnt the whole bible the touchstone for how we are relating to God? For instance, I was speaking to a professing christian who didnt think she was a rebel, and didnt feel like a sinner. I suggested she should go to hear Jesus words again (Mark 7 for instance), and see how she feels - if she disagrees, she will see what her sin is (defying Jesus) and if she agrees, she will see what sin is (humbled by the gospel).
Now, I dont know if she's a christian or even started, but it struck me then that the way we respond to God's words (including our ongoing & future reaction to them) reveals our heart.
In those Trueman lectures you linked to, one quote has stuck with me, likening John Owen's view of Heresy with Racism - if someone has a doctrinal problem with...the trinity, say, (was the example) - that's not a merely academic thing, but reveals a moral revolt towards God, in such a way that we would say that racist thoughts are not just intellectually immature, but reveal a moral revolting.
My pastor last year was big on this sense that the gospel comprises the whole bible, but of course that raises questions about matters of doctrinal weight & pragmatic unity.
So, apologies for the length, but if ultimately all bad theology is pastorally damaging, (perhaps one pertinent example might be an arminian/reformed view of perserverence or sovereignty...?) what do you do with such things - minor in something like a evangelical doctrinal basis, but that may nevertheless entail pastoral damage?
Maybe not all doctrines are pastorally damaging in the same extent and some should be first concern. I think I should probably just chill out and trust the gospel more.
Great comment as always Chris. I have been having some thoughts about similar things from conversations with non-Christians recently, and will blog about it when I get the time.
ReplyDeletePlease don't hear me as saying that the authority of the bible is a side-issue. As you explain it is very important because it is God's word and not to listen to it is to rebel. Having said that though, Barton identifies a problem and that is the 'single-issue fanaticism' that Evangelicals have toward inerrancy (cf the ETS 'doctrinal statement' or the order of more helpful doctrinal statements within Evangelicalism).
You say: So, apologies for the length, but if ultimately all bad theology is pastorally damaging.... Maybe not all doctrines are pastorally damaging in the same extent and some should be first concern. I think I should probably just chill out and trust the gospel more.
And you are right all bad theology (and practice) no matter how seemingly insignificant is pastorally damaging. But we Christians disagree on the insignificances, and even though they are actually significant (esp. to non-Christians), there are emphasises and priorities within the gospel (described not comprised by the bible), and the biggest emphasis and priority is Christ, his death and resurrection. The Evangelicals described in Barton's quote are denying the authority they supposedly adhere to by altering the emphasises it has.
Finally you are right (again) in saying we should just chill out and trust the gospel (or should we say God) more. However, it is difficult for me sometimes when in my personal life I feel like I am continually picking up the pieces left behind by poor theology, and poor Christian actions. Of course I am probably causing much destruction too.... But God is God, thank God.
Bit of a brief response but I have to go to bed.
Oops I forgot about your question: what do you do with such things - minor in something like a evangelical doctrinal basis, but that may nevertheless entail pastoral damage?
ReplyDeleteI know what I am tempted to say and that is be positive and preach the gospel with the emphasises that it has and the rest while partially incorrect (we are finite and sinful after all) will at least be put into perspective.
That is the approach I take in my life largely, but I can see it is not quite biblical. Much of the bible is dealing in controversy and on seemingly minor things, and it is probably my timidity that prevents me doing likewise. However, the controversy is always brought back to the issue behind it (rebellion, pride, etc), I am thinking of Paul in Corinthians, Jeremiah and more.
Difficult question.
Ahhhh