Part 3 of 4 on The Reliability of the Old and New Testaments
As we look back over history, and how the church has handled Scripture, we see that followers of Christ face a common issue. That issue is trying to read and understand Scripture amid the forces of each of our days.
In Part 2 we dug a bit into how church theologians have wrestled with the Old and New Testament. These forces clearly have affected the teaching and preaching that most of us have been under.
We ended Part 2 with the statement, “I want to take some time to look more generally at the effect of these models on us, the “untrained” folks sitting under the teaching of the Church.”
The Church and theologians often introduce a model or method to simplify things for us all. In Part 1, I shared the model of the “three-legged stool”.
Consider that when it was introduced people were sandwiched between the long shadow of tradition from the Roman Church, and the emerging force of science in the Age of Reason.
The Anglican’s theologian (Richard Hooker) developed some wonderful teaching that I outlined in Part 1. Yet it was twisted into the infamous “balanced three-legged stool”. He wrote in the late 1500’s.
I want to return to this metaphor of the stool. Not because I am advocating Anglicanism. We Anglicans are in quite the mess these days (and at the root, it is the rejection of the authority of Scripture!). Rather I start here because it provides a stepping off point to reinforce:
How models, created in specific windows of history, often begin with the aim of trying to keep Scripture in the center of the public square.
Yet those very forces that the models are seeking to address—inherently demand Scripture not merely address itself to them, but demand Scripture submit to their authority, bending to their points of view. The result is either the models twist and contort our understanding of Scripture until God’s Word seemingly folds back upon itself, or the forces reveal they were never really interested in being in accord with God’s Word. In the end, either the model or the forces drive Scripture out of the public square by either sidelining it or dismissing it.
Why is this the result? Because something has sought to assume primacy over God and His Word. Imposing a “model” on Scripture is in essence requiring Scripture to be bound by that model. Those promoting the model, or the force, may not see themselves in such a role, yet time-and-again the result is the same.
Some might suggest I am confusing my notion of models with the idea of “world views”. They are similar. However, many different models and forces can exist within one world view, each with its own unique pull at Scripture.
Let’s return to my assertion that in end, the models/methods drive Scripture from the public square. Consider just three.
· Tradition grew out of the desire to answer the myriad of questions we humans have about things spiritual. Many of us are restless unless ALL the questions are answered. Yet the questions we pose are never ending. The answers grew-and-grew in response like a runaway train. Afterall, how many angels can dance on the head of pin?
The answers expanded in size and proportion that overtook Scripture’s voice. Yet Tradition, as if it had a life of its own, did not stop there. When someone dared to point out the obvious reality that it had grown so large as to overstep its authority, those behind the idea of Tradition would give no ground—and in the end sought to drive Scripture, and those who dared to challenge Tradition, from the Public Square.
Tired of the religious arguing and wars between religious authorities, the world turned to reason and science—a completely new authority—to sort out the mess.
· Science began seeking to answer the “how” question—just how did the world work? Soon it moved to wondering about how “all of this beautiful world” came to be, including identifying how life itself came into existence.
The process naturally moved to question the existence of God. Science did not start with this goal. However, like all models/methods, they take on a life of their own. Consider today how those who present themselves as scientist (some, not all) rail against what they label as the “hypothesis of God”—refusing to even allow into scientific debate the idea of a supreme force external to what we can see or observe.
And as audacious as science’s ultimate pursuit—and its authority—has become, it faces another competitor: experience. Experience vies to supplant Reason, answering, not the question of “how?”, but instead the much deeper question of right and wrong.
· Experience is a much more current model. Its authority is upon us. In many ways it is replacing Science as the dominant model not merely in society, but in the church—and even in the scientific community. Today Experience is winning. If I experience something that feels good or true, then it is good and true—regardless of what the Bible says—regardless of what others may experience. The phrase “it is true for me” is the modern-day equivalent of Judges 21:25.
In biblical language, “my experience will determine my righteousness”. Many societal behaviors that the Bible clearly lists as sin, are today elevated as righteous. Consider how the Bible tells us only God is righteous. Today, many inside the Church claim to establish what is righteous apart from the plain Word of God—all based on experience.
· Love is another example of a “today” model/method. It sits under Experiences wide umbrella. Perhaps a better descriptor of “love” is that it is a lens through which every action must be viewed—but what if the “lens of love” is distorted?
Today’s idea of “love” requires a definition of love that is remarkably new. The simplest example I can provide is this statement. “You must agree with me 100%. If you disagree with me, you don’t love me.”
Here is another phrase, “I just want my children to be happy.” We have somehow lost the goal of parenting to raise children who are good, have character, show courage, and more. This quest for happiness detached from any moral moorings, is disastrous.
Consider Jesus’ love. He loved all. He did not agree with all. He did not desire all to be happy as they defined it. No, but he truly loved all, including those who jeered at him as he was first whipped, and then nailed, and finally hung from the Cross. His words of love filled the air, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Today if, as you were disagreeing with say your son or daughter, if you were to say, “Look, I love you, I just disagree.” You should not be surprised if what comes back is a bazooka like response.
There are other methods/lenses: Freedom, Rights, Privilege, etc. Each live under this umbrella of experience and seeks to set itself as the highest bar that must be passed—and that bar is defined by the person making the demand.
Yet I choose Love as my final example because it dares to stand against the God of the Bible who in His Word is described as the definition of Love.
Do you see the muddle we get ourselves into?
God, who is Love, is being jeered at by us as we yell at Him saying, “No, we will tell you what love is!”
Rather than hold fast to the supreme authority of God’s Word, and how God’s Word portrays freedom, rightness, and yes love, we instead try to either use it to justify ourselves, or simply throw it overboard?
I said earlier, but let me say it again, many people do not start thinking that in the end they will literally be opposing God and His Word—they just end up there.
So, what is the way forward? In part four I will suggest a path the is both biblical, honoring to God, and I pray, freeing for us all!