Theology As Sport? I Hope Not

[For those of you interested in Christian theology, particularly the struggle over theological authority, then this post may interest you. It is a long post, and what looks like the end of the essay might not be the end at all. Also, the comments that follow are really quite interesting. For everyone else, you may skip over to something less overtly religious.]

Recently I have spent some time perusing the Christian theology blog, Pyromaniacs. I fell upon it after following the link found at the website of one of Contratimes' frequent visitors. It is a feisty and well-written blog, thoroughly theological.

Last week I read at Pyromaniacs an essay called, God, Evil and The Cross. I read it in earnest, noting that it addressed similar issues to what I discussed in my recent series, The Problem Of Knowing Good and Evil. I commented on the essay, which was written by Mr. Dan Phillips, but as far as I can tell, Mr. Phillips never replied. However, another Pyromaniacs writer did respond (Pyromaniacs is team-written), a Mr. James Spurgeon. In his response to my comments, he asked me this:

What I detect is that your view of God is not entirely informed by Scripture. Am I wrong?

There is nothing threatening or mean in Mr. Spurgeon's question; in fact, there was even something light-hearted about it. So I offered him this reply (directed to a few others, as well):

My dear friends in Christ,

In response to brother Spurgeon's observations re: my last comment, I will try to be terse in this reply. But I will only try.

Let me share my story. I graduated with a double major in Philosophy and Biblical Studies/Theology from a well-known evangelical college. I minored (essentially) in history. Subsequently I began the application process to several seminaries (Harvard, Princeton, Yale) but never finished; I visited Oxford (I thought I'd be an evangelical Episcopal priest, now a nearly extinct species. Yikes!) to look at a program there; I was finally accepted at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, but deferred enrollment. After 20 years, I remain deferred.

You see, something happened along the way. One of my professors, a very well-known evangelical, converted to Catholicism. And then I heard a question while contemplating the news of that conversion during my prayers: Did Jesus Christ Himself tell you that you must not be a Roman Catholic? I have been trying to answer that question since 1984.

And how I've answered the question, in part, and how I am "informed" by Scripture (Mr. Spurgeon's question), begins this way: I do not believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead because I read it in the Bible.

Now, I hope this is an utterly plain proclamation here. Moreover, I hope the same is true for everyone reading this. We do not believe in Jesus' resurrection because we have read about it in a book, irrespective of how perfect the book might be. Do we?

Let us stipulate without wavering that the Bible is not only inerrant and infallible in matters of faith, but it is also the sole arbiter, the sole guide, of our glorious Faith. The problem with this assertion, however, if there is a problem, is to be found in the word "sole."

You see, if the Bible is the sole guide to faith, then it would seem that the only place for news about Jesus' all-important resurrection is within the Bible itself; that the sole arbiter of this momentous event is Scripture. But to make this assertion is to create a singular problem. For if the Bible is the sole arbiter, and the sole guide, to crucial matters of faith, then we are stuck with a story something like this: Sts. John, Peter and Matthew, when they first saw the empty tomb and the Risen Lord, chose not to believe the testimony of their senses until they first ran back to their desks, wrote down their testimony and then, reading their own words said, "Ah! Now I can believe that He is risen, indeed." What I am saying is that Jesus rose from the dead irrespective of and even independent of the Scriptures, and the disciples did not defer to a sole written arbiter to assure them, infallibly and inerrantly, of what they were witnesses to. And generations of Christians after them followed the exact same example without recourse to Scripture: The Church testifies to His Kingdom, the Church bears witness to His gospel, the Church declares what is authentic and what is not. Why? Because the Church is witness. And that witness includes me. I, too, have known the Risen Lord. I, too, have heard His voice, even in the "deep heart's core."

So what I am getting at is that the Church precedes the Scripture and not the other way around. Of course, I know you have heard this sort of debate before. But it is worth debating over and over again. When St. Paul tells the believers at Thessalonika to "Test everything," he is not telling them, as several evangelical pastors I've known have taught, to "test everything" against Scripture, because there was no Scripture† for the early church to use to conduct such tests. The Church tested everything against the repository of truth which was and is the Church itself.

And while I am not a big "natural revelation" guy, I am quite convinced that natural revelation is rather thorough: St. Paul tells us that the visible world reveals not only the invisible characteristics of God, it reveals sin and fallenness, and that sinners deserve death.

What I am ultimately saying is that Christians have more than just Scripture to guide them. Yes, they do have nature, but they also have the whole corpus of truth shaped within the Body of Christ: literature, prayers, lessons, carols, sacraments, encyclicals, rebukes, apologies, catechisms, and so on. After all, if Scripture is the sole guide for the Church in all matters of faith, where does Scripture tell us that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John belong in Scripture? Surely the matter of what is canonical and what is not is a critical matter of faith; how then is the Bible silent about it if it is indeed the sole arbiter of faith? Or should we not find solace in the rather glorious announcement found in the repository which is OUR Church: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John belong in the Canon not only because they were witnesses, but because we KNOW them to be right, good, and pure (of course, the scary thing here for Protestants is that this sort of thing shifts authority from God-inspired written words to a dynamic, breathing, ancient and God-inspired Church).

This in no way is a suggestion that Scripture is errant. This is just a suggestion that the Church is not peripheral to biblical authority. It is central to it; biblical authority is contingent upon the direct authority as witness inherent in the Church. When Jesus says that His sheep will know His voice, He is declaring that the Church has the authority to recognize whether He is present or not.

I hope this explains the problem I have experienced in my life as a follower of our glorious Lord and Savior.

Bill Gnade

†It is important to note that there was probably not one single first generation believer that saw, read or held all of the New Testament Canon. It is also important to note that even if Paul meant that believers were to test everything against the OT Canon, it was not like Torah scrolls were just lying around on people's nightstands (with gilt edges and leather covers). In fact, many if not most synagogues did not have a complete Hebrew Canon. Besides, Paul's exhortation was to Thessalonian Gentiles: it's not like they were carrying miniature Torahs around for nightly "Sword Drills," nor is it likely that they had much access to the ark in the nearby temple. Perhaps a few rich Gentiles had a few Torah scrolls, but that is being optimistic. The best thing we can say here is that when Paul meant "Test everything," he meant a lot more than just using Scripture to "test." Grace.

I thought that might be the last of it, but I was wrong.

Today, while visiting Pyromaniacs, I found a new essay by Mr. Phillips called "How we 'do' Christianity, and the reverse." I urge Contratimes readers (if interested) to read Mr. Phillips' essay. It is rather telling. You see, apparently my comments --

I do not believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead because I read it in the Bible

Now, I hope this is an utterly plain proclamation here. Moreover, I hope the same is true for everyone reading this. We do not believe in Jesus' resurrection because we have read about it in a book, irrespective of how perfect the book might be. Do we?

-- perturbed Mr. Phillips. Now, let it be noted that Mr. Phillips does not name me, though a quick perusal of the comments offered about his last essay would reveal my name rather plainly. But what I want you all to see is how Mr. Phillips represents my position, and how he characterizes me. It is stunning. I urge you. Please read his essay and then come back here. My reply, which I posted at Pyromaniacs, follows.

Here is my reply:

Dear Mr. Phillips,

Alas, I am late to a party built around (sort of) my own words.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am that you should essentially craft a straw man out of what I said. Apparently it does not bother you to ignore the totality of my point; nor does it bother you to suggest, shamelessly, that I may be something of a saint doing theology badly. My devotion is utterly objective, and it is in this objective fact: That Jesus Christ is Lord, risen from the dead, irrespective of the fact that such news is also written in the Scriptures. I have not besmirched the Scriptures here; I have honored the witness of the Apostles -- the testimony of the Church as Witness -- which preceded scripture by decades. The people of the early church were converted without recourse to a single New Testament verse; they were converted by the power of objective facts reported by objective witnesses who were not first writing things down. That this goes to the heart of "Sola Scriptura" is evident, utterly and completely. Scripture alone? Impossible.

You throw down a gauntlet: Can anyone say anything about Christ without recourse to Scripture or doctrine? Perhaps I can: perhaps I can cite Josephus? But you leave yourself a wondrous out by separating "doctrine" from "the Bible," and, in so doing, leave the door wide open for me to solidify my point. Doctrine is something that the Church systematizes and teaches; and, while our very own Bible tells us that Jesus did and said far more things than all the books of the world could contain, we know THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH WAS INITIALLY FORMED WITHOUT RECOURSE TO A NEW TESTAMENT. And what was that doctrine? It was: He has risen, just as He said He would, and thus He is truly our Lord. Plus, we know that doctrine is those truths culled from Scripture. Doctrine is not the Scriptures themselves. Otherwise, "doctrine" and "the Scriptures" would be identical.

What of the Bible, really? Are you saying that truth about God is only contained in the Bible? Nonsense. Even the Bible PROVES that to be false. Doubt me?

Read this from Acts 17:24ff:

24The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

What do we find here: we find the very canonization of pagan poetry, that in pagan poets we find God's Word, truth about the God of the Universe, the Father of our Savior. Who were those poets? They were probably Epimenides, Aratus, and possibly the Stoic Cleanthes. Plus, it seems John was comfortable finding truth in Stoic thought in the preamble to his gospel. Of course, he is entitled to so redact, because his authority as a witness qualifies him to find truth in Stoic philosophy, and to show where that truth falls short or is augmented.

Would it be wrong to say this: That the Bible is not the Word of God; it is the Word of The Church? Is not Jesus the Word of God? What of these conundrums:

When King David writes in Psalm 119:11 that,

I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you…

David is not saying that those very sentences are the words he hides in his heart, is he? And when he says in Ps. 119:105 that "Your word is a lamp to my feet…", David is not talking about the word he just wrote in verse 105, right? In fact, David is referring to some other word, right, something other than the word he is writing? Otherwise he is storing in his heart his own words.

Similarly, when the writer of Hebrews 4:12 describes the word of God this way --

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart…

-- the writer is not referring to that sentence, is he? How does that sentence divide "the soul and spirit, joints and marrow"? How does that sentence judge the "thoughts and attitudes of the heart"? It doesn't do any of those things, and is thus referring to something other than itself, namely the Word of God of which the word of the Church proclaims.

Lastly, if Luther, who abhorred vast chunks of the New Testament, "killed it", as you say, why would Clark and Henry have to kill it too?

I think that you should be more careful attacking a brother's theology as you have mine. Reducing me to a person who "feels" and "thinks" in some sort of subjectivist's bathtub is one of the worst things you could have intimated about me. That you were kind enough to keep my name out of it -- which is good since you've built your case around a fragment of what I said -- gives me no small comfort. This is no game; and it is not about winning some sort of on-line honors. This is about the Gospel, where it is, what it sounds like, and who is proclaiming it.

And as I've said elsewhere, and I'll say it again, "We are not known as Christians by our orthodoxy, but by our love. Orthodoxy without love is dead. In fact, orthodoxy without love is not orthodoxy."

You may have been orthodox in dealing with my heresy, but it was not loving, not one whit. You may disagree. But at least know this: I will die for Christ, His Church, His Word, and His Creed. That may be a lot of subjectivism to you, but I'll live with that.

Peace and mirth, always, to you.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Gnade
Contratimes

Now, I share this not to cast aspersions at anyone. I share this here because I want to reiterate what it is I am doing: I am trying to model grace in all I do. I fail every instant, but I wish I did not. But what I will not do is permit myself to misrepresent someone's argument and then stand on high, denouncing its deficiencies. Straw men are easy to blow down. What is not easy is to address the heart of an interlocutor's argument. It is easy to dismiss from a position of presumed superiority; it is hard to debate from a position of humility. And yet humility is at the heart of a good debate, for only the humble hear what the other is saying, and only the humble actually want to learn.

What I have written above, about the Bible, King David, and the New Testament, may be novel ideas for some of you. I have written such things elsewhere, in a manuscript I've been working on regarding difficult matters threatening the Church. I apologize if they seem heretical. My intent is to be orthodox, of course, but sometimes we have to go through weird stuff to get to the normal vistas we enjoy. There are distortions around, and I am trying to bring clarity to what has been bent out of shape.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.