The church and politics
There’s much discussion today about the relationship between church and state. David Lipscomb’s Civil Government was a major influence on the thought of the Churches of Christ until Foy Wallace very nearly erased all lines between Christianity and civil politics.
I don’t entirely agree with Lipscomb’s views, but I agree that the church must re-learn how to stand outside the political process and judge both parties and our nation by God’s standards.
For too long, we’ve allowed our churches to become branch offices of the Republican Party, making us blind to its flaws. We need to reconsider environmental, racial, poverty, and immigration issues in light of the scriptures, not the New York Times or Fox News editorial positions. We should know what the Torah, Isaiah, and Jesus say on these topics far better than the views of President Obama or Rush Limbaugh. And we don’t.
I urge the Advocate to revisit the work of its founder and reflect seriously on these issues and the church’s proper relationship to the nation.
Strawmen and labels
The progressives in the Churches of Christ are routinely accused of theological Situation Ethics, Post-modernism, the New Hermeneutics, opposition to inerrancy, and on and on. In reality, progressive thought has nothing to do with these things.
None of us is looking for the praise of “the denominations.” None of us wants to replace worship with mere entertainment.
We aren’t “liberal” — if the word is used to refer to people who don’t feel bound to honor the scriptures.
It’s easy to dismiss someone else’s views by imposing an unfair label on him, but such labeling avoids the argument rather than responding to the argument actually being made.
Publish your back issues electronically
Put the Advocate‘s back issues online at your website for free in a searchable format. Keep recent issues off line, so you don’t cut into your subscriber base, but put the rest on the Internet for easy searching and research — going all the way back to the founding of the Advocate. It would drive huge numbers to your website and be of great help to researchers and Bible students.
Make it easy for people read the old articles. After all, the Gospel Advocate is a huge piece of Restoration Movement history. Why keep these resources in a vault?
The back issue idea is a really good one. That would drive a ton of traffic to the GA website, that is, if they were to post them there and not host it somewhere else. That would be the trick is to make sure they are actually posted under the GA’s own url and not a third party’s.
Jay;
A few scattered notes to let you know I am following your open letter in multiple parts.
Politics
You write on the question of the church and politics. While we are planning some articles to address public policy matters, the Gospel Advocate is not a political journal. You write: “For too long, we’ve allowed our churches to become branch offices of the Republican Party, making us blind to its flaws.” Really. I believe you may be projecting your personal biases on the brotherhood as a whole. Until very recently the churches of Christ were evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Even now, Monroe County, Ohio (the only county north of the Mason-Dixon Line with more than 10% of its population as members of the church of Christ)is one of the most solidly Democrat counties in the state.
Straw Men and Labels”
Jay, I find your comments regarding “straw men and labels” laughable considering the broad brush you use with which to paint conservatives in the church.
You write: “The progressives in the Churches of Christ are routinely accused of theological Situation Ethics, Post-modernism, the New Hermeneutics, opposition to inerrancy, and on and on. In reality, progressive thought has nothing to do with these things.” Really. come now Jay. You, yourself, have written lamenting that Abilene Christian University has published works by its faculty members which deny inerrancy. (As I recall, you didn’t say you thought their disbelief in inerrancy was wrong, but you didn’t like that they put this issue on the table where Conservatives could find fault.)
You write: “We aren’t “liberal” – if the word is used to refer to people who don’t feel bound to honor the scriptures.” The term “liberal” is not one we need to fight over. It all depends on how you define the term. My friend Jimmy Jividen makes a point to exhort the church to be liberal in love and grace. As the term is used commonly in religious writings, however, “Liberal” is used to mean those who reject the doctrine of inerrancy as opposed to those who believe that the word of God is without error. Many Progressives among churches of Christ, and most (if not all) Progressive academicians fit this definition of “Liberal.”
Your broad brush with which you smugly ridicule conservatives, is equally adept at applying whitewash to progressives. “None of us is looking for the praise of ‘the denominations.’ None of us wants to replace worship with mere entertainment.” Really, Jay, “none.” Have I ever used such a broad brush as to say that “every” progressive believes this or that or the other? When have I ever categorically claimed that “none of us” who is considered conservative has embraced a particular error. Your smug assertion that your party (whoever the “of us” includes)is free from these errors sounds very legalistic to me.
The Digital Age
You request: “publish your back issues electronically.” We are trying to make sense of the digital age, and the Gospel Advocate is far behind the curve. We know it, but we have not yet found a way through it. We are a small publishing house that produces two journals, Bible class curriculum, as well as books. The same small production staff is split in managing all of these efforts. The decision was made to move fist on providing books digitally. We could technically do that with less difficulty than the journals. As we feel our way through this process, hopefully, in the not to distant future, we will have GA archived online.
Best Always,
GA Tidwell
That went well…
I really would like to know which translation we use to determine or study “doctrine”?
I have about every one. When in doubt I guess learn Koine Greek. or Hebrew.
We just try and live and do as Jesus would do. Even with the spirit life is a struggle against Satan.
I find great comfort in the simple message of the cross.
Have a great day. We are dodging grass fires in Bastrop, Texas.
Bob
I thought we’d stand united for the Kingdom of God …
Alexander
You write: “The progressives in the Churches of Christ are routinely accused of theological Situation Ethics, Post-modernism, the New Hermeneutics, opposition to inerrancy, and on and on. In reality, progressive thought has nothing to do with these things.” Really. come now Jay. You, yourself, have written lamenting that Abilene Christian University has published works by its faculty members which deny inerrancy. (As I recall, you didn’t say you thought their disbelief in inerrancy was wrong, but you didn’t like that they put this issue on the table where Conservatives could find fault.)
Strange, if that’s true. If gives the whole movement an auro of conspiracy … Something like trying to appear “orthodox” while planning a major paradigm shift behind the scenes.
After participating in this Blog for over a year, I began to understand the agenda a little better (though I stll may be mistaken and do someone wrong). Yet, the “conservatives” in their “defenisve mode” seemd to have went to extremes I would not recommend either. But that#s how debates go: Actions cause reactions and each one goes into extremes the longer the debates last.
Denying the inerryncy of the scripture is a very, VERY serious deparure from the consent among te churches of Christ. Whoever claims to be working for unity should shun even the thought of such!
Alexander
Alex, Welcome to us (dying per Jay) moderates. I also fiind both sides extreme.
Greg —
Perhaps you should offer your definition of inerrancy since you’ve suggested that *many* progressives in the COC accept this. Can I assume that a progressive is anyone to your left?
I hope as a GA editor that you can substantiate that point.
Likewise, I hope that my understanding (assuming it differs from yours) of Eph. 5:19 won’t get me accused of not accepting God’s Word.
Alas, I’m afraid that inerrancy is going to end up being defined as disagreeing with a conservative position on the meaning of some aspect of the Word of God.
I think we all know what is meant.
If we read e.g. of giants in the old times, and some modern theologian finds a way to explain a way what we can’t imagine to be true according to the knowledge of our scientific age, we have to deal with the inerrancy of scripture. The same is true when we talk about demons or the 6-day-creation.
This is not about IM and some debates about CENI, but about the foundation. When Pauls argues forthe submission of women in church and home and some cunning theolgians comes uo with some historical fragments and cultural theories to explain that away what Paul has argued from Genesis, we dies with the inerrancy of scripture. We don’t speak of “silences” here but of denying what is expressly written.
And that’s an issue with at least a number of progressives among the churches of Christ. And sometimes (but quite rarely) – when it suits their theology – some conservatives pick up the same method (e.g. when explaining away the headcovering) …
Alexander
Larry Short —
Your “moderate” friend Alexander drinks from one cup and supports absolute silence of women in the assembly, and expects women to cover their heads. 🙂
Not to argue those points, but I’m just not sure he is going to fit your definition of moderate, either. 🙂
Alexander —
So if I, for instance, believe that discussion of giants could be a literary tool, exaggeration, etc. …then I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant?
Must I believe that all parables are true, or is it acceptable for me to believe they are made-up stories that carry a point?
Surely that isn’t what is meant by inerrancy. I honestly don’t know — I’ve never looked into it. But whether I believe in a literal seven days or not has NOTHING to do with whether I accept the Bible to be God’s Word. I can accept both, easily.
Greg,
Speaking of “church/state” matters, I think you would do well to commit the Advocate to exploring the church/school issue in the context of ACU having obtained a government ruling granting it, contrary to fact and law, “integral agency” status as to the Churches of Christ so that “basketball ministers” and others could have tax free ministerial housing allowances.
More broadly, you would do well to let the Advocate present an objective analysis of the growing discontent with the ministerial housing allowance as reflected in the recently released Grassley Report.
I thought I probably didn’t have much to say concerning the “Gospel Advocate’ since I’ve never read a single issue of it. Many Independent Christian Churches provide copies of the “Christian Standard” and/or the “Lookout” to their Church members and even as a younster in elementary school, I remember reading these two magazines. My CofC congregation doesn’t do that and I don’t know if that’s a no-no in the CofC or what but I’d think that would be something the “Gospel Advocate’ would enjoy.
I have thought about subscribing to the “Gospel Advocate” but being what many would consider “progressive”, I thought if the magazine had a typical CofC slant I might regret it. An online version of the “Gospel Advocate” would be welcome and let people like me see what the publication is like. I know the “Christian Standard” has a online site and that site doesn’t seem to have hurt it from a business perspective. They don’t publish the complete magazine online but rather publish selected items… articles, editorials, ect. In this day and time, surely the magazine exists in electronic form so it’s just a matter of getting a website up and running. Not such a big deal… maybe Jay could be a consultant?
Doug
JMF, one cup, head covering, and silent women are NT practices. I have respect for that. Wether they are binding examples, I’m unsure. Theologically, Alex is moderate but conservative in practice. He beleives in scripture and avoids the modern tendancy to explain away or the conservative tendancy to invent scriptual authory where there is none. He gets his opinions from putting together all scripture on a subject, and has a respect for the reasoning of Campbells and ECF.
Examples are harder than commands. let’s take communion. Jesus said, “do this”. Exactly this is on Passover eve, in an upper room, in Jerusalem with one cup. Most people relax at least some of these. My reasoning would be that the purpose was to remember the sacrifice specifically body and blood, so taking the two implements are required. Since matzo and fruit of the vine are easily available they are used. Going to Jerusalem and Passover eve were changed in NT to weekly Sundays where you were, so maybe cups can be too.
Personally, I go to a little effort to duplicate the Jewish bread and fruit of the vine: grapes. But if in a culture where corn meal not flour was available I would use it. Same for grape substiture, as opposed to not communing. Sound moderate? I welcome other opinions.
Isn’t the opinions of the Gospel Advocate the same as the ones on the site Preachers Files?
Every church of Christ congregation I attended as a young man had the Gospel Advocate on a table for you to pick up on the way out. Carried one home after Obeying the gospel and placing membership.
I don’t think it will change much if at all and the man they would pick to run it must make the ones in charge feel pretty certain of it.
Just a short note on my use of terms.
Jay used the terms “progressive” and “inerrancy.” I did not insert them into this discussion.
As Jay uses the term progressive to describe himself and brethren who are aligned with him, I feel the term may freely be used in this discussion without prejudice. I try to avoid inflammatory labels in dialogue. For example, I do not refer to certain of my brethren as “antis,” but rather as “non-institutional” (a term they prefer).
The doctrine of inerrancy, simply stated, is that the Bible, being the word of God, is without error because God does not lie nor does He make mistakes. You and I may disagree on the interpretation and on the application of Scripture and still be united in affirming that the Bible is completely true.
I am, sadly, unaware of any Progressive academician who currently upholds the doctrine of inerrancy. (If there is such a person, I will rejoice to learn of it.) I do know of many members of progressive congregations, however, who still hold to this doctrine. (I must repeat that Jay, himself, has written with disapproval of Abilene’s open rejection of this doctrine through their publications.)
Finally, if my use of these or of other terms is offensive to you, please accept my apology. I intended them, as Jay intended, merely as tools for dialogue.
GA Tidwell
The problem with the “doctrine of inerrancy” is that it is not a doctrine as such derived from the text. One will not find this doctrine taught in the preserved writings of either testament. It is a cousin of that other so-called doctrine: the nature and establishment of the Biblical canon. We accept the latter as true not because it must be so, but we defer to the unknowable mercies of providence.
Not so however with this “inerrancy.” As such, it is a belief imported into the text; by its very nature, it’s an innovation imposed on the text. It is not a teaching discovered from a fair study of the text; it is a teaching about how to interpret the text imposed upon the text. One does not find this “doctrine” advanced by anyone but believers of long standing and in the context of disagreement over what the text means. Young believers do not tend to come up with this idea on their own; they have to be taught it by older belligerents.
As such, it is little more than the legal doctrine of statutory construction as applied to the text. It is misleading to state that one can believe in the “doctrine of inerrancy” and still “disagree on the interpretation and on the application of Scripture and still be united in affirming that the Bible is completely true.” This is nonsence, because the devoted inerrantist simply does not believe that. Thee are plenty of believers in our fellowship who insist that because “inerrancy” is true doctrine, (fill in the blank) is a liberal, denominationalist, postmoderist, etc. because their intepretation and application of the Bible is different from that of the “inerrantists.”
One can believe that the biblical scriptures are true for the purposes intended by the original authors for the benefit of the original recipients. What matters, then, is the original context and circumstances of the writings. One who would welcome restraint and modesty towards interpreting the text should welcome such a restrained approach. As a practical matter, the “inerrantist” does not, however. He, nearly invariably “he,” tends to run with the notion of “inerrancy” as the Bible is without error in every way in all matters any human being can imagine: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.
So the fights that the inerrantists pick are nearly always not about how to live our lives consistent with the Savior’s commands that we put God first and foremost in our lives and that we likewise put our neighbor as first and foremost as we would put ourselves. Their teachings are not about the primary necessity of putting on Christ. They, instead, pick fights over inferences on inferences: on elder selection, on music, on congregational organization, etc.; they pick fights over baptism, hermeneutics, and cooperation. Not to mention the fights over science that all inerrantists, across the denominations, pick over creationism and the earth and physical sciences.
In short, the inerrantist fight is over control, and, if the so-called “doctrine of inerrancy” is a useful weapon, those adherents will use it for their advantage. I offer up the GraceConversation thread as an exhibit of what happens when these folk encounter others as able as they are but dissenting.
@Bob Brandon -Well, I will chime in here and assert that accepting the inerrancy of the accepted canon does not necessarily lead to the disputes you mentioned. I don’t accept that as being the root of the problem in these instances. I do agree that there are significant control issues involved however…
Jay or Greg I would love to see where it is written that the totality of the bible is inerrant. none of the scripture below even insinuate that is so.
Psa 119:160 Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous
judgments [endureth] for ever.
Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
( the time frame in which this was spoken, confines it to the old testament)
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(confined to old testament)
Most of scripture is not prophecy. When prophecy becomes fulfilled it becomes history, and as we know by present day example history is how you see it.
No the word of God does not error , but the word of man does. I have been waiting for a long time for someone, anyone to show me where it is written that the New Testament was written by inerrant men.
The only prophecy left to be fulfilled is that of Jesus, when he described his return, the day of judgment, and most Christians don’t believe that is accurately described, they believe they have already been judged.
look at what Elihu said to the “wise men”.
Job 32:8 But [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
Does Elihu mean to say since God gives the spirit of man understanding by inspiration, that all men speak the truth. I don’t think so. (and no he didn’t say there is a spirit in Christian men)
(are we making up our own belief about this book, or can it be proved)
Maybe, just maybe, the idea of inerrancy is a red-herring that allows us to marginalize those with other beliefs without having to deal, directly, with their arguments.
The questions isn’t how alike our theology is, but how different they can be and allow us, as brothers, to still walk together as one.
Maybe a better statement of what it is to be a “progressive” is the acceptance of a vastly more diverse set of beliefs into the church body without necessarily endorsing or affirming those beliefs as orthodox.
The problem (from my “progressive” side) is when we withhold love and acceptance because of disagreements on “trivial matters” – and they are all trivial matters outside of the Lordship and Saviorship of Jesus the Christ.
Said a little differently, I can still chose to embrace a brother in Christ even while believing that his theology is deeply flawed. Then, through a lifetime of conversation (because I chose relationship), Christ has the time, space, and freedom to move both of our hearts closer to His truth.
Peace, yall.
Me thinks it is simply a “straw man argument” that objects to the “doctrine of inerrancy” by saying that the Bible nowhere teaches its own inerrancy. The point seems to be a subtle one.
Those who make this point mean that the Bible nowhere says “all Scripture is inerrant” in the way that it teaches “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (11 Tim. 3:16).
While it is true that no verse says explicitly that Scripture is inerrant (although that is no more of a reason to reject the doctrine of inerrancy than to reject the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis that the word “trinity” is not used in Scripture. The fact is, Biblical inerrancy is implied by or follows from a number of things the Bible does teach explicitly.
Namely, inerrancy follows from what the Bible says about God’s character. Repeatedly, the Scriptures teach that God speaks the truth – that is, He does not (cannot) lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Romans 3:3-4; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). If, then, the Bible is from God and his character is behind it, it must be inerrant.
We also are told that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) The word inspiration of couse literally means “God-breathed” in the Greek. Yet, are we to believe that the Bible claims that the words of Scripture are inspired by God, but are words that are flawed, mixed with error? Huh?? No, rather because Scripture is breathed out by God, it is true and inerrant. (cf. John 17:17; Psalm 119:142; 151; 16; Rev. 21:5; 22:6)
Friends if we are to mold our lives around Jesus and His Words (commands–Mt. 7:24-27; cf. John 12:48), it is important to establish that the Bible is without error.
The doctrine of inerrancy is equally important for the church. The church has no understanding of God or knowledge of His commands without the authority of Scripture, which is a text given by God that is void of error.
I would recommend Tim Challies article on the inerrancy of scripture below for consideration. Hope you read it and find it helpful.
http://www.challies.com/articles/the-inerrancy-of-scripture-part-1
http://www.challies.com/articles/the-inerrancy-of-scripture-part-2
http://www.challies.com/articles/the-inerrancy-of-scripture-part-3
“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” (Proverbs 35:5-6)
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
There are differences in which Bible you choose to read.
Not so many years ago, the King James Version was the only one allowed at a church of Christ building. I still carry mine.
Now, how many are there?
Do they all say the exact same thing in the exact same way?
We were taught and believe still that God inspired those 70 men that decided which books to allow in the KJV or disallowed.. Can we say the same for any of the others?
God is not the author if confusion, but we sure are.
Dissect, dissect, but no one argues the first two commandments. Since all agree with them, that seems a good place to start.
What we should remember is the reformation church of Christ was started to create and bring UNITY to Presbyterians, Baptist etc. and now look at us.
Progressive, Liberal, conservative, legalist, we all have it wrong. The right way is somewhere between and hopefully we’ll find it together.
Robert, said “Every word of God is flawless” (and he is right) in order for us to accept that the same applies to the bible, we have to accept that God spoke every word of the bible. which is easily denied, by scripture itself.
Luke denied it twice, Paul denied it more than twice.
both said God did not tell them what to say. He did not whisper in their ear what to write. I can expound if needed.
Laymond,
The end must be near…I think I agree with you on something. What an interesting observation you make.
Can anyone provide an example of an issue that revolves around the “doctrine of inerrancy” that isn’t in reality an issue of scripture interpretation? (not including a debate about the doctrine itself) What specific issues relate to that doctrine? In other words…
X is true because of the “doctrine of inerrancy” or Y may or may not be true because the “doctrine of inerrancy” is not valid.
Alabama John, on September 7th, 2011 at 3:12 pm Said:
“There are differences in which Bible you choose to read.”
A J, I don’t believe the versions differ that much as to where Luke gathered his information before he began to write. And he verifies it again at the beginning of his other book.
He says nothing about “inspiration” of any supernatural being.
NIV
Luk 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled [fn] among us,
Luk 1:2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Luk 1:3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
ESV
Luk 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Greg (or anyone that has insight),
How does the “doctrine of inerrancy” relate to our Bible translations? As someone who spends a significant amount of time working with translated documents, I know that rarely does a language translate into another without inaccuracies. Even relatively simple documents typically have inaccuracies due to translation, and I only deal with modern languages. I would think that an ancient language translated would have to contain inaccuracies. Does that mean that the doctrine as defined only refers to the documents prior to translation?
Of course, Greg qualified his definition by stating “simply stated” and didn’t address translations. It just seems like the discussion of translation is relevent to the discussion and Greg’s doctrine as defined.
Inerrancy is usually attributed only to the originals that we don’t have. Once something is a copy there is room for error (textual variants). Inerrancy does not apply to the translations or any of the copies that we have. But the principle is that if we had the originals in hand and could understand them for exactly what the author intended them to say that we would find no errors in the text.
Unfortunately we don’t have the originals and we cannot ask the authors exactly what they meant. So interpretation is necessary. In other words, inerrancy is a great idea (properly understood) but it is kind of unattainable in a way. Then again, the copies we have are thought to be extremely close to the originals…so much so that they are virtually the same.
Matt, are you saying, if we had the original of Luke’s first book, it would read differently than it does. Would it read my writings were breathed into my ear, by the holy ghost? because that sure would be different from how it reads at present.
NIV
Luk 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled [fn] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
If we do take Luke at his word he seems to say the gospel he wrote was handed down from people who were present with Jesus, and if it was handed down from mouth to ear, I am sure there was no possible way there could have been a mistake, and that could not possibly be the reason the “Gospels” do not agree completely.
Matt,
Thanks for clarifying. Your description makes sense. Seems like a strange controversy, since it’s based on an idealistic viewpoint that is unattainable. I still don’t understand what specific issues would apply to inerrancy, directly or indirectly. I suppose it might apply if someone was arguing that the primary message was completely untrue (e.g. Jesus didn’t die), but that wouldn’t be true of CoC infighting.
Laymond,
Matt was just responding to my question asking for more complete definition of the doctrine of inerrancy. I don’t believe he was stating his own personal belief(s) on the matter. BTW…why resort to sarcasm? I think your last couple posts have made an interesting and valid point. Made me think anyway…
@ JMF
Well, imagine the following situation:
If I had lived back then I probably had taken up the journey to Rabbah to show this to my son. It had been a splendig object lesson that God is greater than the giants we are afraid of. Now imagine I came to Rabbah and found a bed just of a normal size and coming back to Jerusalem the scribes would tell me, well that was just a “figure of speech”.
The result is obvious: The enemies Joshua met weren’t so strong anyway, and most likely he won the battle on his own – because God’s help may not have been necessary. And maybe – I might conclude – God does not intervene at all, which (in the end) leads to Deism.
So, why would the text encourage us to see for ourselves if it were just a figure of speech?
Why did Paul encourage us to see the witnesses of the resurection in 1Co 15, if – as some really say – the resurrection is just a figure of speech.
You see, in both instances the Bible reports things that are hard to imagine or to believe – but doesn’t the Bible DEMAND faith from us? And doesn’t this include such “absurdities” like that God created ALL out of NOTHING (Heb 11:1-3)? Or that a man heard a voice from God and built a boat that saved only him and his familiy from a global flood? Or was this flood also a “figure of speech”?
Where does this “figure of speech”-hermeneutics start and where does it stop? And where does it lead us to?
Alexander
CyclingDude ” Said made me think” Doug there is not much to think about here, either we believe what Luke said about his writing, or we don’t. I do, since he was there at the time.
If you carefully read Paul’s letters, you will find that his knowledge came from the same source as did Luke’s.
laymond,
Isn’t it usually agreed that Luke wrote Acts?
There are differences in Acts from the first to later on.
Anyone can write a Bible and there will be some that will use it. We have seen that clearly with JW, Mormons, etc.
Even the 70 argued which should be included or not.
Thomas came close, but, no cigar.
That is why the belief of NO MISTAKES is wrong.
So, nit picking is wrong too and arguing over every single word that we are so famous for doing.
Alabama John, on September 8th, 2011 at 8:16 am Said:
laymond,
Isn’t it usually agreed that Luke wrote Acts?
A. John, both Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts seem to address someone called Theophilus, I have never been convinced this is a single person, since “Theophilus”
simply means “friend of God” I believe both books were written for all Christians, or all friends of God. But that said I believe this is evidence that both were written by the same author.
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Act 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
John said “That is why the belief of NO MISTAKES is wrong.”
And I agree with John. I hope I don’t bring more grief upon you by saying that 🙂
laymond,
No grief.
In my lifetime, like Luke, we have known many with names that are not accurate in themselves to men as you refer to his name meaning “friend of God”.. Two well known among Bible scholars are “Sitting Bull” and “Crazy Horse” and many others today I know well.
Acts 1:1-4 makes me think Luke was not a witness but certainly there at that time. I agree.
Was he the only Gentile?
Lot we don’t know for sure.
Thanks for your post.
Alexander,
I believe JMF was making the point that one’s opinion of how and where literary devices are used in scripture does necessarily relate to their belief regarding inerrancy. The two subject matters should probably be considered mutually exclusive, unless someone was attempting to imply that the whole Bible was fiction. I’ve never heard any scholar imply that the Bible was void of figure of speech literary devices (metaphor, allegory, anthropomorphism, symbolism, etc). In fact, many Bible authors (both old and new testaments) made extensive use of such devices. Again, using figure of speech literary techniques has nothing to do with the doctrine of inerrancy (which admittedly I still don’t undersand). The Bible’s purpose is to convey meaning, and using metaphor or allegory, for example, can be a brilliant method to convey meaning.
Regarding your illustration using Deu. 3. As an Israelite, you would have very likely understood whether the story was allegory or not and of course if it was, you would have been teaching your son the meaning behind the story versus going to take a visit. Our fascination with literal translations in an attempt to ascertain factual data to support and define Truth is a product of 18th Enlightenment, the Israelites did not share that ideology and did not consider factual data to be a foundation for Truth. Their literature is rich with symbolism and allegory and they had an understanding of context and culture that we don’t have today. They would not have been confused about allegorical meaning versus specific facts.
Alexander,
I typed and hit enter too fast…I did want to comment that I agree with your comment about faith (second to last paragraph). Obviously, attributing supernatural events to allegory (figure of speech) simply because we might find them hard to believe is incorrect. Allegory and other literary devices are used to convey meaning, not explain extraordinary events. If someone holds faith in a God that created the universe, then I suspect any allegorical perspective they have regarding a supernatural event described in scripture has little to do with their faith. Everything else is “small potatoes”.
Greg wrote,
Good. My point, not made as well I might wish, is that church periodicals often fail to see that there are good and bad ways to be involved in politics. The bad way is to simply parrot the views of one party of the other — to join in the conversation as one of many special interest groups. I find this trend deplorable, although I once drank this Koolaid along with many others.
Rather, it’s important, I think, to recognize that God’s view of the use of power and government is very different from that of both parties. My series from some years ago called “The Political Church” explains my views better. /index-under-construction/theology-general/the-political-church/
And I’m delighted to hear that you all are headed toward posting your back issues online.
All,
It’s important to make some fine distinctions regarding inerrancy.
1. The concept of inerrancy has many definitions, some going on for pages. If someone wishes to contend for or against the concept, they really need to advise the readers as to the particular definition they are using or else we’ll just talk in circles. (This is an entirely theoretical point, however, as I do not allow advocacy against inerrancy on this site.)
2. The point I tried to make, very poorly, I’m sure, is that the progressive doctrinal agenda is not built on a challenge to inerrancy. It’s built on scripture. Even those (very few) progressives who argue against inerrancy don’t build their case against the teachings of the 20th Century Churches of Christ on “errancy.” For example, I’ve never read Edward Fudge or Al Maxey to argue a doctrinal point from the supposed errancy of scripture. Agree with them or not, they argue from scripture.
Now, I don’t always agree with those men or any other leader of progressive thought, but when we disagree, we disagree as to the interpretation of scripture, not whether the scriptures must be obeyed.
Yes, there are a couple of books that came out of ACU that argue against certain views of inerrancy. They have had zero influence on the doctrines taught among progressives. I’ve never seen those arguments cited as authority for a single progressive position. However, they did create in the minds of many conservative certain proof that progressive thought necessarily involves disagreement with inerrancy. Which is unfortunate, because it pushes the conversation in a direction that is not helpful to either side. I’d much, much rather be talking about what the Bible says.
What Adam said. Amen.
All,
I apologize for being slow to join in the conversation. I’ve been busy the last several days doing elder stuff.
Regarding inerrancy, my posted policy is to prohibit arguments pro and con because I don’t want anyone to get the false impression that the progressive/conservative divide is about inerrancy. It just isn’t. I’d be very pleased if the issue never came up again.
I’ve been more lenient than usual because I brought up the subject, but only to make the point that progressive thought is not built on inerrancy. And it isn’t.
Whether or not there are members of congregations of one persuasion or another who reject inerrancy is beside the point — the point being that the doctrine being taught is not built on inerrancy.
Therefore, it would be wrong to allege that the progressive views on baptism, grace, falling away, etc. are built on inerrancy. You can easily read the arguments made by me and others and see that inerrancy is simply not part of the arguments made.
I would finally ask that arguments regarding the merits of the inerrancy doctrine, pro or con, not be made here. It only feeds the false impression that what I teach is somehow built on such a view — and it’s not true.
Inerrancy, Jay, is abouzt the book itself, not about a certain teaching of it. If the book is inerrant, we have to take each and every word absolutely seriously – but if we admit that some passages are
. errneous
. literary figues
. cultural influences/limitations from the ancient world
then it gets quite difficult. Then we have to discern which words of God’s Word still apply to us and which not.
THerefore inerrancy is not a teaching that we connect with specific teachings as baptism, but is the underlying foundation of all teaching we draw from scripture. Once we disagree on this, we will disagree on many other teachings – and this we do, don’t we? It is my impression, however, that the progressive/conservative split is ALSO (not exclusively) about the authority and inerrancy of scripture.
Alexander
PLEASE NOTE: The following is not about Inerrancy, rather, it is about hypocrisy.
I believe it is Jay’s right to ask that this forum be closed to the discussion of the doctrine of inerrancy.
Please note, however, that Jay is prone to rant and rave about how narrow minded and bigoted the Gospel Advocate is for not allowing any and every perspective to be advanced in our pages.
Please also note I always want to discuss Inerrancy as a topic on its own merit.
I never say “You don’t agree with my view on (insert any doctrine), therefore you don’t believe in Inerrancy.”
Jay has built a straw man.
While Jay insists that Inerrancy not be discussed. I equally put forward that in the pages of the Gospel Advocate it will be discussed.
The Progressive movement among churches of Christ has rejected inerrancy. I keep asking if EVEN ONE “Progressive” academician has publicly written in favor of inerrancy. The lack of an answer is an answer. “No not one, no not one.”
As I mentioned in the heading, this is not a post about Inerrancy, but about hypocrisy.
If a person believes that the doctrine of inerrancy is important, shouldn’t the truth that the progressive Churches of Christ have rejected that doctrine be on the table.
Jay says that very few have rejected this doctrine. It is then on him to provide substantiation of the very many who accept it.
Anything less is pure McCarthyism. Just an unsubstantiated claim advanced to win a debate.
GA Tidwell
“I would finally ask that arguments regarding the merits of the inerrancy doctrine, pro or con, not be made here. It only feeds the false impression that what I teach is somehow built on such a view — and it’s not true.”
It makes Jay look bad, so stop it!
This is a blog, not a publishing company funded by subsciption fees. Those who pay subscriber fees have a right to “rant and rave” about the policies of the subscription. A self-funded personal blog is a different story. As administrator and “editor”, Jay contributes a significant amount of his time, his own personal time and funds, to administer the site. I don’t see any self-supported Greg Tidwell or Laymond blogs facilitating thought and conversation. It takes much work and sacrifice to keep a site like this alive and moving, so agree or disagree, I would think our tone of response should convey a bit more appreciation and respect. If Jay wants to prohibit a topic or conversation it’s his prerogative to do so, and anyone associating some sort of “McCarthyism” to his decision is out of line. Frankly, the editior of GA accusing Jay, or anyone else, of “McCarthyism” or using unsubstantiated claims to support a particular viewpoint has to be the apex of irony and hypocrisy. Implying that there will be a discussion within the pages of GA regarding inerrancy (or any other topic that challenges the status quo of CoC conservative ideology) is simply untrue. Lot’s of articles and editorials defending the conservative position, and likely attacking those who hold a different view, but certainly not a discussion. And GA certainly has a right to express whatever views they want according to their stated policies. But, let’s not attempt to imply that it’s a mechanism to facilitate discussion.
Greg,
You asked this question the other day in one of your replies:
“Have I ever used such a broad brush as to say that “every” progressive believes this or that or the other? ”
Apparently, the answer is yes.
“The Progressive movement among churches of Christ has rejected inerrancy.”
Greg,
You wrote,
“I keep asking if EVEN ONE “Progressive” academician has publicly written in favor of inerrancy. The lack of an answer is an answer. “No not one, no not one.”
One problem you have in what you are asking for is people don’t want to label other people progressive. I can think of several professors I have had at Harding that would uphold inerrancy. Are they progressive? Several of them would probably be considered progressive by you and several others wouldn’t. I would only allow them to label themselves that.
My feeling is these guys exist. You just don’t know them. It is quite a stretch to say they don’t exist just because the ten guys reading this blog post aren’t posting names. Also, your terms are that they have to be on published record with this view for them to exist. That is a little silly isn’t it brother?
I also don’t agree with your last phrase…”The Progressive movement among churches of Christ has rejected inerrancy.” Just not true. Again, I don’t think you are intentionally being misleading here. I think you really believe that. But just because you don’t know them doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Sorry Jay for jumping on this topic again…I just wanted to clarify that for Greg since he has brought it up repeatedly and no one addressed it yet.
Jay,
My apology for keeping the inerrancy conversation alive knowing it violates a blog policy. I do have a tendency to make statements, when I’m really asking questions. It’s something I need to work on. My intent was to understand what makes up the doctrine of inerrancy. It’s a concept that I couldn’t seem to get my arms around. However, after reading some of your previous material and various other articles, I get your point and understand why you prefer not to have the issue as a blog topic. I don’t see anyone within the CoC (progressive or not) arguing that the message of scripture is not God’s truth. It appears to be a red herring of sorts; with the real topics being interpretation and defense of patternism.
Just a parting shot.
The fact that Gospel Advocate is a subscription based magazine and this is a free blog is beside the point, anyone who does not like the closed editorial policy is free not to subscribe.
I do think it is a bit rich that Jay writes an open letter to me, in which he makes the outrageous claim that inerrancy has nothing to do with the division between progressives and conservatives, and then announces that -really- you just need to accept what Jay says about this inerrancy matter and it is not appropriate to discuss it further.
I guess the open letter was just an opening for Jay to speak and not to listen.
Think of the howls of disapproval from the progressives if I wrote an open letter to Jay Guin in the Gospel Advocate and followed a similar course.
I will be retreating form the amen corner to my normal place on the back pew of Jay’s cyber-congregation.
I will appreciate any feedback any of you have on the upcoming issues of Gospel Advocate.
Wishing you all the best,
GA Tidwell
I can’t help but agree with Greg. Although I have the impression that Jay is on the conservative side of the progressive wing, I have come to a similar conclusion about
. the progressive wing among the churches of Christ
. the liberal wing among the Evangeliacals
. the “Vatican II wing” among the Roman Catholics
The division among Christians today is probably less about denominations but rather about the authority and inerrabcy of the Bible. Once again I#d like to recommend J.I. Packer’s book God has spoken
Alexander
Greg,
I do need to stand corrected. If a blog entry (open letter) is addressed to you or any other specific person, then without doubt, you should have the opportunity to respond in whatever way you feel is appropriate. The point I intended to make, and it was a poor attempt, was his right to limit the discussion, for those actively engaged in conversation, but not directly referenced in Jay’s posts, to those topics he believes are relevant to the purpose of the blog. And keep in mind, that a blog forum is not the right vehicle for many topics of discussion. Some topics require an indepth understanding of multiple views before any constructive discussion is possible. After some light reading, I understand why inerrancy is one of those topics. There are too many variables for discussion, no standard definition, and consequently people are likely to “talk” past each other. Unlike GA, Jay’s blog is an interactive discussion. But, I digress….I stand corrected on any implication that you should have been limited in any way in your response to Jay’s open letter. And there shouldn’t be any “howling” regarding your response, perhaps thoughtful, respectful disagreement, but nothing else. I was guilty of that as well.
Greg,
One more thing, I think you should reconsider spending too much time in the back pew. Jay’s “cyber-congregation”, a term which I’m confident he would hate, is a “mega-church” with approximately 8,000 members (regular attenders), growing at 15-20% a month. And those are relatively old statistics.
Don’t confuse the few comments with the thousands reading the blog as an indicator of the audience size. Both conservative and progressive CoC members land here to read and think. I know people at Fishinger and Kenny that read this blog regularly. I and many others won’t agree with much of your ideology, but who cares? I don’t share many of Jay’s beliefs either. You bring intellect, integrity, and likely some balance and I would look forward to thinking through your thoughts and responses. You know doubt would consider me a “progressive”, but I think I speak for many in saying I don’t label myself at all. In other words, I’m going to think through your responses no differently than others regardless of your conservative lean and they will influence how I think through an issue. My only agenda is finding answers to questions. Also, and I apologize if I sound patronizing, but a bit more interaction here may help balance the significant influence you hold in your new job. Let’s face it…you’re the new bishop of conservative Churchofchristdom. Actively engaging here (and living through the “progressive” replies to your posts) might be a healthy thing. You might find that many agree with much of what you write and the “progressive” side is not so evil after all. Most progressive CoC members that I know grew up in a CoC culture where questions were either not tolerated or answers provided were rote tradition beliefs (no substance provided). As a result, many threw out their ingrained presuppositions and not surprisingly came to some different conclusions. And my point? Most are still searching (as all believers should) and open to thinking through any thoughts or replies that have substance regardless if the source is “conservative” or “progressive”. Who better than you would effectively represent the more conservative approach? Aside from all that, I am confident that many blog “members” are reading to think and not argue a point and would enjoy reading your thoughts. I also understand that you likely don’t have much time to engage, but consider a little more than the back pew.
Back issues online. Yes … all of them.
Anyone on here other than me subscribe to the “Reformation Journal”?
I can’t believe the Gospel Advocate will be anything but what it has been. I pray and hope I’m wrong.
Greg even talking with us instead of voting to withdraw from us, at this time, is a start.