Statement D (from the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline): “Scripture is the primary source and guideline for doctrine. The Bible is the deposit of a unique testimony to God’s self-disclosures. . . . As we open our minds and hearts to the Word of God through the words of persons inspired by the Holy Spirit, faith is born and encouraged, our understanding deepens and develops, and both the core of faith and the range of our theological opinions are expanded and enriched. As the constitutive witness to God’s self-revelation, Scripture is rightly read and understood within the believing community and its interpretation is informed by the traditions of the community.”

This statement would appear to represent a fairly major shift from the other three (see last two posts). And the import of this one strikes me variously, depending on the day and what jumps out at me. What do you see in it? Would you be comfortable expressing support of it? (These questions beg others: why must creeds be developed, and why must anything besides scripture rise to the position of thing to be accepted? I wonder why any group would codify a philosophy on interpretation of scripture and ask its adherents to accept the code, superimposed on scripture.)

I wonder aloud:

1. I’m not sure I believe that “Scripture is the primary source and guideline for doctrine.” I think Scripture is the only source and guideline for doctrine. That it is here identified as primary implies that there are other sources to be brought alongside.
2. While “unique testimony” is, literally, something true about scripture, I’m not sure that the common use of the word “unique” is strong enough. If it means “singular” and “one-of-a-kind,” then I can go with this statement. If on the other hand “unique” means nothing more than “special,” it becomes a weak statement.
3. The long statement that begins with “As we open our minds and hearts” sounds very mainline-churchy to me. I hear language that is very nice, in order to encourage basically nice people to accept the nice feelings produced by reading nice scripture. This seems like a nice sermonette to remind all the nice congregants about how nice church can be. It’s not a statement or philosophy about the inspiration of scripture.
4. The last statement brings up a more major concern for me than any of the above. While it sounds communal and, well, nice, I have a problem with the notion of intepretation’s being a function of the traditions of the believing community. While on one hand this would appear to guarantee that there are no lone rangers, interpreting oddly, it also gives a legitimacy to tradition and orthodoxy that I am not comfortable with. Simply because a viewpoint has developed does not mean that that viewpoint is on target. Witness the many opinions and positions of the various denominations that have departed from scriptural truth! Are we to accept that so many popes’ opinions and those of, say, Brigham Young and Jim Jones and such are to be trusted simply because they were developed within a so-called believing community?

This concludes a brief look at four selected statements about the inspiration of scripture.  But it does not conclude the expression of my interest in scripture!  I intend to move into other areas for a while, but soon, more on scripture.  Next, I will offer a brief look at an important document that its 200 years old this year, and soon, I want to take up a few thoughts about politics, government, the military, and the Christian.

Statement B (from the doctoral position of the Wesleyan Theological Society): “We believe in the plenary-dynamic and unique inspiration of the Bible as the divine Word of God, the only infallible, sufficient, and authoritative rule of faith and practice.”

Hmmm … now there’s an interesting modification I hadn’t heard before. What exactly is “plenary-dynamic”? we might well ask. If in this modifier the Wesleyan Theological Society were attempting to account for the linguistic issues involved in conveying God’s messages from ethnic group to group, from century to century, from now-dead language to dynamic, living, breathing ones . . . well, more power to them!  Other than that, I’m left to guess….

Statement C (current statement of the Fuller Theological Seminary): “Scripture is an essential and trustworthy record of… [the]… divine disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. They are to be interpreted according to their context and purpose and in reverent obedience to Lord who speaks through them in living power.”

There seem to be two substantive modifications here, as compared with the first Fuller statement (yesterday’s post). First, the phrasing “an essential and trustworthy record of the divine disclosure.” The indefinite article “an” may give away a sense of floating a bit from the safety of the original statement. But the rest of that strikes me with resonance. I think it does us good to realize that God’s Word was and is, primarily, heard in the person of Jesus the Messiah.

Secondarily, His revelation to humankind was through apostolic witness; that witness was recorded, in part, in the New Covenant scriptures. It is helpful, in my estimation, to consider the scriptures not as the divine disclosure themselves, but as a “record of the divine disclosure” that is both essential and trustworthy. Some might not care much for the distinction I point up here, but for me, it is significant.

To be transparent:  I’m not entirely sure of the above idea; I’m presenting it here for consideration.  A parallel notion I might mention here is that the writers of the documents were inspired, and the scriptures God-breathed in a secondary sense.  In other words, God breathes His essence or spirit into His people — in the case of the authors of scripture, in quite a unique manner and for a unique purpose –  and the documents they produced were intended by Him because He worked through the men.  It’s just a bit different from laying all the weight of the argument on the words of scripture themselves, but I don’t believe it detracts from the authority of scripture.

The other key item in the second Fuller statement seems to be in the appending of the last sentence. Human interpretation has butted in here, and the die-hard ostriches who don’t comprehend the logical necessity of interpreting anything have been given cause for consternation. “What do you mean ‘they are to be interpreted’?! We don’t interpret God’s Word. We just listen and believe what He said!”

On the other hand, I, a non-charismatic, might prefer a different wording than “in living power.”  It’s not that I would deny the living power of God’s collection of books.  It’s that I don’t like what some men and women do to the words when they would rather believe in subjective experience than in textual revelation.  Does that make any sense?

(To be continued . . .)

I’m going to spend the next day or two on theories of the inspiration of scripture. Toward this end, I will offer one official, published statement at a time, adding my comments. These statements are all taken from Susie C. Stanley’s footnotes for her article “‘Bumping’ into Modernity,” in The Primitive Church in the Modern World, ed. Richard T. Hughes, p. 136.

Statement A (the original [not current] statement of faith of for the Fuller Theological Seminary): “The books which form that canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

“Plenarily” is an archaic term that means “fully” or “completely in all respects.” It seems a bit overzealous even to include it, but perhaps there is a historical reason to have done so.

It’s the “free from all error in the whole and in the part” part that gives me pause. To suggest that “the books” are free of error sounds faithful and conservative. But such a statement does not take into account translation, nor does it deal with the canonization process. Which books, and which canon? We sometimes forget that the canon was not a done deal for centuries, and even then, there might be reason to question a couple of inclusions and/or omissions. I have no real concerns over the content of the standard (non-Roman Catholic canon) today.  (I don’t know enough of the content of the apocryphal books to comment about them.)  That we have Esther and Jude and 2 Peter is no big deal one way or the other; I know of no essential doctrine that appears only in one of those books.  James has also been questioned historically, by a notable such as Luther.  His famous phrasing was that it was an “epistle of straw,” and I believe that epithet came from James’s emphasis on doing, conjoined with faith.  This is not a Reformation faith-only ideal, but most movements have a flaw.

The “infallible rule” clause may hark back to the notion of papal infallibility. Inasmuch as it does so, I certainly support the attribution of infallibility to scripture and not to a human. Moreover, it seems well-advised to view the scriptures as the foundation for faith and practice (living).

To be continued. . . .

A story with the following lead paragraphs appeared online here:

At its annual convention in Minneapolis in August, ELCA delegates voted to lift a ban that had prohibited sexually active gay and lesbian pastors from serving as clergy. The new policy, expected to take effect in April, will allow such individuals to lead ELCA churches as long as they can show that they are in committed, lifelong relationships.

Opponents, led by Lutheran CORE, said that decision is in direct contradiction to Scripture.

The CORE “opponents” are correct in their emphasis: intentional, active homosexual relationships should not be found among professing Christians, period. (There is no scriptural precedent for a separate, elevated class of Christians known as clergy, but surely, whatever your conception of “pastors” or “clergy,” there surely should not be a lower standard for them.)

Scripture itself is perhaps not as forthcoming or explicit as we would like it to be on the matter of homosexuality. Nature/ontology, medical science, and reason, though, certainly leave it beyond question that if a person is tempted toward homosexual activity, the situation should be viewed as just that:  someone being tempted toward a behavior that is to be avoided.  The aberrant behavior is sinful, regardless of the ultimate determination on the place of genes in the scenario.

And, although I’m generally not given to repeating platitudes, I’ll say it just one more time — we should be hating all sin and loving all sinners.

My post on “The End of a System” was probably on the edge of palatability for some. Sometimes I write things that I strongly believe, almost hoping no one will read what I write, because I know it will be difficult to swallow. Other times, I’m desperate for people to read. I’m not sure which this was . . . maybe both!

In response to a sincere comment from a devoted disciple, I want to expand. This is long—perhaps my longest essay on this blog. Rather than separate it into a series, though, I am opting for one, lengthy treatment, and then I intend to leave this topical area alone for a while. (Sabbatical here will be difficult for me, because there are so many regular inputs and stimuli!)

First, on biblical foundations: I want to reiterate that I do respect scholarship in the area of biblical studies. But not all seminaries seem overly interested in sound biblical scholarship . . . so, what we have, it seems to me, is a network of “ordained,” clergified teachers who may or may not be good students of the canonical documents. I have no first-hand experience in a seminary of any sort, but based on reports, I have come to suspect that it is quite possible to get a seminary degree that emphasizes ministry and/or church history and/or church “doctrine” (together, all these may constitute an emphasis in “religion”) without having any training (or interest!) in biblical exegesis. Moreover, various denominational prejudices can often lead to slanted views of this text or that.

For me, a teaching minister — whether paid or not — who doesn’t have a strong foundation in biblical studies is no servant of the church at all. A paid minister without foundation in biblical exegesis and hermeneutics should be ministering in some area other than public teaching and preaching. And again: public teaching and preaching must come precisely from solid training in how to interpret and teach scripture. I hope this helps to allay any fear about my commitment to avoidance of false teaching!

Next, on the clergy as a a distinct layer or class of “extra-spiritual” people, perhaps perceived to have special, intercessionary powers between the “laity” and God. I had quoted the conservative scholar John Yoder, in reference to the 4th century A.D.: “A monarchical sacerdotal class was reintroduced in a community that had begun with the affirmation that Jesus had put an end to the priesthood.” So what can we say about the Middle Ages that followed? While I would not choose to assert that God’s church was dormant, exactly, I would surmise that most Protestant thinkers would agree that the years from Constantine through Luther were, in a sense (warning: non-P.C. term ensues), Dark Ages in terms of scriptural enlightenment. The abuses and corruptions of the papacy were perhaps not universal, but they were common. Just as with Israelite kings, there were a few good guys! My conclusion, though, is that while the 20th and 21st centuries can’t be compared, apples to apples, with the Roman-dominated Dark Ages, the existence of a “sacerdotal class” (Yoder) is certainly to be challenged in any epoch, including ours.

A parallel problem appears, as well: in addition to the elevation of a special class of clergy, an issue may be seen in the lack of attention to the priesthood of all New Covenant believers. One might well argue that if the saints would all accept their roles as priests of God Most High, there would be no hole for a special “clergy” class to fill! As has been pointed out to me, a sound, biblical model of church leadership is servant-involvement within the people’s lives, not separation from the group.

The two main issues outlined above — the possibility of religion without thoroughgoing biblical foundation, and the problems inherent in the clergified priesthood — lead me to observe/opine that the lack of an official clergy is not necessarily what leads to apostasy. It is a lack of biblical foundation … or, to put it as Paul did,

But as for you (Timothy), continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Now, it was a specially inspired person that Timothy learned from; I think it is patently dangerous today to assume that pedigrees obtained from seminaries are equivalent to directly transferred apostolic authority. In other words, academic rigors and traditionally guided ordination ceremonies do not sound Bible teachers make (necessarily). Moreover, I would take special caution when a church’s sign warns that one man is “pastor and founder.” Way too presumptuous and likely to be monarchical!

But to further Paul’s emphasis . . . he continues his exhortation to Timothy with the familiar “All scripture is God-breathed and is profitable. . . .” I take from this apostolic admonition that apparently

• there would be apostasy (please see all of 2 Tim. 3, as well as becoming aware of the definition of the Greek word apostasis–”apart from standing”)
• there was a need to remind Timothy what the foundation must be: 1) what he had heard from Paul the Apostle, and 2) what he had studied in the Old Covenant scriptures.

So, I would respond to the query about what happens when we don’t have a system of professional, specially delegated pastors with this, which admittedly will sound glib when taken by itself: Let’s try it, and see if the biblical, spiritual moorings are worse, or better. Let’s see whether there are more, or fewer, false teachings. We have centuries of history of what happens with this clergy system that often leads people astray. And the many denominational offshoots in the past two or three centuries bear witness to the fact that people tend to follow other people and not truth. It’s possible that the clergy system contributes more to the proliferation of errant offshoots than meets the eye. Again, it’s not the special Bible schooling that is the problem – far from it! – it’s the system that grants special privilege and deference to one class of Christians over another. Humans so readily stop “guiding center,” to use a marching band concept, and/or they are too prone to corruption. To have a human personality at the center of a system is not just asking for trouble; it’s guaranteeing it.

In my more cautious, timid moments, I might admit that the aggregate potential for off-the-wall, erroneous teaching could be greater if there were less organizational structure to reign in rogue preachers. Let me try that again. The sum total of false teaching could be even worse if there were no accountability system. I’m just not sure whether that is potentially worse than the false practice that transpires within the current structure.

As I think briefly about the formation of new Christian movements, sects, and, ultimately, denominations, a correlation appears: more often than not, perhaps, a new guy was followed for relatively good reasons that related to reforming things and/or rooting out corruptions. But the fact that there are so many guys to follow should give us all pause before we follow any guy now. If one man, or one system, leads people down a wrong path, and if it’s just another man who seeks to correct that path by saying, “Hey! No! Come this way instead!” then it stands to reason that there’s not necessarily a better reason to follow one than the other. They’re both merely human.  The new one may be more right than the old, or he may not. Following one, or following the other . . . clergyman or non . . . people will likely be led astray. But having no clergy class would in my estimation eliminate other problems.

The historically well-attested notion of reformation warrants mention, but I am not equal to the task. Wycliffe, Tischendorf, Luther, Calvin, Menno, Wesley, Campbell, Stone, and more . . . these are men who, to some extent, were saying things that were necessary to effect reform, in one specific spirito-historical milieu or another. It is clearly sometimes well advised to follow a new strand of Christianity. Had I lived in those centuries, I hope I would have been courageous enough to have been counted on the right side. These men all said valuable things, but not one, as far as I know, was 100% right.

I should probably also mention “ordination” specifically. Not knowing much about it first-hand, and not finding any official ordaining ceremony or the equivalent in the NC scriptures (OK, Acts 13 seems to mention an ordination ceremony for “apostling” a missionary, as it were, but no official tradition seems to have been laid out), though, I don’t think I will say much! Suffice it to say that ordination is largely a human, abiblical development in church polity, and ordination itself would appear to have an unsubstantiated relationship to one’s ability to preach true things from scripture. Formal ordination (as I understand it) is certainly not necessary, scripturally speaking, and there is therefore no scripturally based requirement to be ordained in order to “administer the sacraments.” I hasten to add that having been ordained is different, in my mind, from having had training in biblical studies. The former is an official protocol (think “Roberts Rules of Order” and parliamentary procedure) and is neither here nor there; the latter is essential, if one is to teach.

With all this said (I should really promise not to write about this topic for a month or more — I get too wrapped up in it!), I would now attempt to delineate as follows, separating the problems I see:

1. Paying ministers can be a big problem, but this is not always so. There are loads of good staff ministers out there who are doing great things and who are not abusing power or teaching obviously false things.
2. Having a separate class of clergy is a problem. No two ways about it. The clergy-laity distinction should be abolished. Religious titles that separate one class from another is an abomination. God, help us.
3. Training teachers, preachers, and pastors (remember that, biblically speaking, pastors appear to be a plural phenomenon in most, if not all congregations, which is quite different from the model we see almost everywhere in Christendom today … please see the section on the term pastor in this post) in biblical studies is quite a good thing. The more a public teacher knows about hermeneutics, and the more he is trained in how to exegete and communicate scripture’s truths, the better. It is not necessary to be trained, and one doesn’t have to know Greek or Hebrew to get God’s point, but it can help immeasurably to be taught by one who is somehow trained.

In sum, distinguishing among the above items . . . is it possible to have a pastor who is (3) sound, biblically well trained, and not viewed as (2) “clergy”? Well, there’s the rub. Whether he’s (1) paid isn’t really the issue. It’s biblical to support good work financially. The issues are (2), which constitutes my main protestation, and (3), scriptural soundness — which, if not in place, can lead to all sorts of apostasy, regardless of (1) and (2).

I’m almost embarrassed to look back and find how much I’ve written in the past year about this kind of thing, but I do believe it is important to root out wispy doctrines and unfounded practices in favor of a biblical model of church. Whether you’re mad by now, or just curious . . . for more, please see this post (in which I moved point-by-point through an appeal letter from a Roman Catholic abbot, picking apart assumptions and doctrines) or this one, in which I asserted things about a few titles in use today.

Dear Father – You Who love every one, desiring all to come ultimately to You, if I have been erroneous in any of the above, please remove the offending lines from the eyes and understanding of anyone who reads. May my words be used to further Your truth and Your reign. May we all know Your will increasingly, and may that be the only thing that matters.

(Continued from yesterday’s post)

Here’s another possible “flow”:  you clue Jesse in that your communion focus this week is horizontal awareness.  That way he will either decide not to read Isaiah 53, since it has a vertical focus, or he might be able to tie the two together, showing consciousness that something else is happening now.  It could go like this:

You sing the lines “No one is a stranger here.  Everyone belongs.  Finding our forgiveness here, we in turn forgive all wrongs. . . .  Come take the bread, come drink the wine, come share the Lord.”

Jesse gets to the mic and begins, “When we take the bread and drink the wine, what is it we are taking in?  What does it mean to share the Lord?  I’d like for us to think soberly today about the suffering of our Lord, so that we can truly commune together, as His body, in realizing the extent of His suffering.”

Jesse reads from Isaiah 53 (preferably without announcing the scripture reference … this is for inspiration and devotion, not for teaching purposes that require rustling pages, breaks in the train of thought, and following along on the printed page).

People in the pews now are more inclined to think spiritually about the meaning of Jesus’ flesh—its reality, its torture, its death—and can now more aptly extend its meaning to the body of gathered saints.

Be careful in trying something like the above, though.  It might just net you even more benefits, like causing someone to think tenderly and with reconciliation in mind about a brother or sister she has wronged.  Just think:  unity can begin within a local church’s assembly, in communion.

Let’s talk about flow in the assembly.  By “flow” I mean the perceived, or at least subconsciously experienced, connectedness of one activity to the next.  I take as a given that meaning and depth are enhanced when there is flow in the assembly activities.

(Aside:  as I wrote these thoughts, I realized how recently I had been impressed with the importance of this topic, based on a very positive Sunday morning experience.  When flow is not attended to as well, we hardly notice, because we subconsciously expect the normal, and we are lulled into a stupor by the habitual.  But when the flow from activity to activity, from song to prayer to song, etc., have been spiritually considered, the effects can be so inspiring!)

It helps the human heart (and, for you who are more Campbellites than Stoneites, the brain) to sense meaningful connections.  Not all of the activities in your assemblies will be worship, nor should they be, but you can help to connect one thing to the next.  It does sometimes take advance thought, especially if your church is among the few who have graduated to a state of not being slave to a “sanctified order” of activities.

Someone . . . how about you? . . . can take the lead in coordinating among all those involved in leading.  Don’t let Jim, who has the closing prayer assigned to him, be uninformed that there will be an immersion that day.  Just think how the activities might fit together, when everyone is “in the know” . . .

The “call to worship” uses Ephesians 1:3 as a springboard, inviting the gathered saints to join their hearts in praising the Source of every spiritual blessing in Christ.

The first two songs praise a) the Father for sending the Son, and b) the Son.

Someone leads a prayer that draws attention to specific spiritual blessings, such as relief from guilt, the freedom to love as God loves, forgiveness, grace, and joy.

The church sings “For all that You’ve done I will thank You . . . for all that You’re going to do. . . .” (with one chorus only).

Two people—the one spiritually closest to the one about to be reborn, and a spiritual shepherd who also knows him well—take microphones and share something of the person’s recent spiritual walk, emphasizing a need or two from the past, and focusing on the implications of the new life about to be birthed.

The immersion is witnessed by all in attendance.

A couple of songs—”Buried with Christ” and “Firm Foundation,” for instance—and spontaneous comments remind everyone of new identity in Jesus and of the solid relationships in the Christian family.

The sensitive preacher who had planned a sermon on the life of Joshua, makes mention during the lesson of the similarity of the names of Joshua and Jesus—they both mean “deliverer,” and he also takes time to comment personally on the decision just made for the side of the Lord, i.e., “choose ye this day whom you will serve.”

Following the sermon, an announcement about a birthday in the church is also tied to the new spiritual birth that just occurred.

The closing prayer—again, led by Jim, who knew in advance that the immersion was to occur—takes all this in, revisiting the concept of spiritual blessing, thanking God for the relationship we all have with Him and with each other, asking for guidance for the newly committed life that represents a choice to serve the Lord, praising our Deliverer, and honoring both the spiritual and earthly birthday.

(to be continued)

The old song announces our presence, “standing in the need of prayer.”

Today, on the contrary, Lord God, we invite and recognize Your presence, as we stand in the need not of prayer, which is from us, but of divine atonement, which is from You.

You were so gracious, so benevolent, in having all Your fullness dwell in Your only Son, and through Him to reconcile to Yourself all things, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.  We were alienated from Your holiness and are, in and of ourselves.  We are Your enemies because of our evil behavior and our naturally fleshly mindset.  But You have put our sin far away—“as far as the east is from the west.”  You have reconciled us by making the Messiah to be sin, so that we could be presented holy in Your sight, without blemish and free from accusation

I pause now for each person here to ponder the need for forgiveness, great and small.

We stand in the need of forgiveness, and oh, how You provide it – from the secret sins to the obvious ones.

All praise to You, Mighty and Forgiving God, because in Your great mercy You have given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade.  This is of Your doing, not ours.  We acknowledge our sin, and we revel, gratefully, in Your forgiveness.

Give us grace, all-providing, sufficient God, for us to continue in faith, walking in light, knowing of the spiritual blessings You provide.

It’s true that we stand in need, Father God—in need of what You can and do give through Jesus Christ.  And we will try more to be Your undeserving, thanks-filled people in a way that pleases You.  Amen.

Although we intellectually know, and accept by faith, that God is always near us, at times we may need reminders. Many of us are from backgrounds that have instilled in us a fear of symbols and other visual representations of God. There can be great value, though, in visually artistic items such as banners, majestic nature scenes, and the like, in leading the minds of would-be worshippers toward God spiritually. John Gallen has noted the following:

A symbol is not the pointer to something that is absent.

A symbol is the expression of something that is present.[1]

I like that phrase-turn.  The latter seems more real, more at ease, less desperate.

It seems to me that some exposure to visual stimuli—whether art created by members of your church, judiciously selected movie clips, or commercially produced wall hangings, for example—may be well used to facilitate the motion of the spirit in worship of God.  On the other hand, I’ve seen quite a few juvenile-looking banners, and the overuse of movie clips can suggest “this church is desperate to appear contemporary” more than it moves toward God.

Invoking God’s presence — the invocation.

Speaking good words (from God) — the benediction.

—————————————————————–

I have never been a member of a “high church” church, but I’ve heard my share of invocations and benedictions. Usually, the words are fairly well crafted, and/or are thoughtful.

Three OT passages in the NASB use the word “invoke”:

1. Num. 6:27 is invokes God’s action for blessing.
2. Is. 48:1 calls out Israelites who invoke God but are obstinate.
3. Jer. 44:26 also puts invoking in a negative light.

In no English Bible passage (NASB, NIV, KJV, NCV, or even The Message) is the word “invocation” used. And yet it is a thing, a practice of some Christian “services” (another abiblical creation).

In only one English Bible passage (and that, in The Message, a paraphrase) is the word “benediction” used. It would appear that this use is a capitulation, a nod, to modern practice rather than an account of a historical one. Today’s “benediction” also is a thing, a practice that has been created and infused into Christian experience without much, if any, biblical foundation.

Both these practices seem inherently God-focused, which is good. It’s not that they’re wrong in their intent, or even in their content. But they have taken on lives of their own. Perhaps if they were less ritualized, the intent could be realized more often, by more people.

Receive the benediction! :-)