Last week we had the first installment of my "Mailbag" blog where I take up issues and questions, some real some made up. At the end I invite readers to share their own questions/dilemmas (real or made up). Well today I shall answer the two posted questions, in order to set the record straight. So without further ado here is my newest mailbag answering the newest ponderings on your minds:
Dear Armchair Theologian,
must a Christian Church adhere to the inerrant nature of scripture in order to remain Christian?
The short answer my anonymous rabble rouser is no. The real issue at hand is not words one apply to scripture but how one uses and approaches it. Granted these words/phrases impact how we approach it, but do not make one a Christian; Christ does that. The need to use phrases like inerrant or infallible when speaking of scripture is a rather modern invention as a response to a rather modern problem (biblical criticism). But the answer to the nature of scripture can mean little in reality. It does no good to say that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired, authoritative Word of God and then let it collect dust on a shelf, or daydream during the reading of scripture on Sunday morning. On the flip side, I knew someone who said he did not believe scripture was God's word, something I took offense to, and still count him wrong on that account--but I will say this: not only did he know scripture, but it was quite authoritative to him, and he did not say that to move away from scripture. For someone who held it not to be God's Word he sure treated it with far more devotion than most people who would declare you unChristian if you had such a belief.
But not only is it important to realize that such words can mean little towards how one approaches it, I would also note that the issue of inerrancy also identifies the core problem as what happened when scripture was written, not what it means for us today. As a response to a hermeneutic that directly challenged scripture in terms of history, authorship, and development--the response was to respond with a word that defined approaching scripture in a means that would by definition, keep such methodologies out. But all the while it is still locked in debates about then. As such, the conversation is not about how the voice of scripture still speaks, but about what it already said. And this is why we can approach scripture really well or really poorly, even when we use (or never use) such words as infallible and inerrant; because until the conversation is about this word acting authoritatively on us, we are talking about scripture's "authority" as an idea not as a reality upon us. And the truth is, I have seen many people, who have even denied the infallibility of scripture, be absolutely captivated in it, and more than that, find Christ within it. I understand the concern that creates words like inerrant, because we want to trust this word. But the Spirit can do that, and Christ can be found within it and speak from it by his own authority, not the authority we place upon it. And so our focus ought to be to approach the Word that it may work, because that happens to us when it is proclaimed. As the Apostle says, "Faith comes from what is heard."
People can trust Christ, be transformed, find life, and be led by this word simply because to borrow from God's own book, it is what it is. And it simply is.
So don't slap a stamp on the Bible and think that makes you a Christian, let the Bible slap its word on you, because it is from the mouth of God, the Word, Christ--that makes us Christians. All we have to do is stay out of his way. For over a thousand years the church was making Christians without using the word inerrant. Some may argue that they still believed that, which may make for an interesting discussion. But the point is they could regard it as authoritative, or more specifically, the word was used authoritatively upon them without that word.
BTW, I serve in a church that chooses to use the word "inspired" but not "inerrant" when describing scripture as God's word. While it can open us up to wider uses of scripture I may not always be in favor of, I still believe Christ is there, that he still makes it the church, I am still a member of it. So if my church thinks it can be church without that word, did ya ever really think I was gonna answer a question of whether one must use the word inerrant with yes?
Your fellow Christian,
The Armchair Theologian
Well that was a big (and yet far too short) answer to a question loaded with lots of baggage. But since we only had two questions last week I can still answer the other one.
________________________________________________________
Armchair Theologian,
it was a dark and stormy night when my house was broken into by a pack of gorillas who speak sign language. They broke in so that they could evangelize to me in sign language, but were heavily offended when I suggested that gorillas could not be Christians. Then they beat me to a pulp. So I'm asking you, could those gorillas truly be Christians?
Charlie Hess
Charlie,
could those gorillas be Christian? Well that depends. Did they happen to mention whether or not they adhere to the inerrant nature of scripture?
Since I imagine getting jumped by a gang of proselytizing gorillas involves hospital stays and lots of recovery time, I'm gonna recommend a book for this current debate. I recommend Mark Schweizer's book The Bass Wore Scales. This 5th installment in his series of liturgical mysteries features within it, the debate of whether a gorilla can profess Christ, and whether such Christ professing gorillas need to be baptized. Along with this ever pressing issue, it is incredibly funny. You can find it along with his other awesome mysteries here, I would highly recommend it. In fact, I was rereading his first mystery today. And when finished will likely do a review in my blog, because other people need to have as much fun as I do reading.
Let me finish today's mailbag with some lessons to be learned from your unfortunate experience:
1. it might be in one's best interest to listen when someone evangelizes, the consequences of dismissing such a message could be severe, especially when it comes from a pack of silver-back gorillas.
2. Quote planet of the Apes as often as possible in such a situation, it just makes the retelling far more entertaining.
3. beating people up is bad evangelization. I never once saw any indication that this led you closer to Christ.
4. Finally, don't make the mistake of judging the faith of others. Believe it or not, gorillas are not the only ones whom we say could not...or does not, believe. Too often we think we know the heart. it's not our business to determine who has faith, its only our business to do our best to nurture faith. Such statements are often born out of a pious ignorance and as you have now learned, are completely offensive.
Let Christ be the judge, since he's coming again to do that anyways. In the meantime, recover well with a good book and a lesson learned.
Your fellow primate in Christ,
The Armchair Theologian
If you have a question, story, or dilemma for the Armchair Theologian, no matter how controversial or untrue, you may leave it in the comment section. It just might be your question that makes a future mailbag.
No comments:
Post a Comment