Maybe I’m wrong, and I’m certainly willing to be corrected, but I’m very unhappy that the ACU Press published The Transforming Word One-Volume Bible Commentary. What were they thinking?
I’ve just read the two reviews in the October issue of the Christian Chronicle, by Cecil May Jr. and Terry Briley … and following further reflection on both reviews: What were they thinking?
And, oh, by the way, I have the same complaint with God’s Holy Fire, also published by ACU Press a few years ago. Really, what on earth were they thinking?
(I have to note that the Transforming Word is not yet in print. But the contrasting reviews say the same things about it. Therefore, I think I’m asking an entirely fair question. But perhaps the final version will differ from the pre-release version for reviewers.)
Okay, now that I’ve vented a little, let me explain where I’m coming from. God’s Holy Fire, published in 2002 as part of the “Heart of the Restoration” series, goes to some lengths to point out certain apparent contradictions in the scriptures. The Transforming Word has several sections discussing the documentary hypothesis, the synoptic “problem,” challenges to the authorship of Isaiah, and archaeological dating issues in the Old Testament, creating doubts about the inerrancy of the scriptures without providing a full discussion or resolution of the questions posed.
Now, I’m neither ignorant or nor naive. I subscribe to the Biblical Archaeological Review. I know all about this stuff. But why on earth does ACU think it’s a good idea to include these kinds of materials in this kind of commentary? I mean, it’s a popular work meant for a broad audience. (Scholars don’t use one-volume commentaries — especially to study issues like the authorship of Isaiah.)
You see, it’s about being strategically smart. It’s taking the time and trouble to figure out what’s really important — to Jesus and to the God’s will for the Churches of Christ. And I’m pretty sure that lessons that question Biblical inerrancy are not very high on God’s list of priorities for the Churches of Christ today.
And, so, here I am trying to build unity and consensus, to teach grace — and now ACU has armed up the legalists with all they need to claim that those of us who understand grace as I do are theologically liberal. All the lies and slanders I’ve endured over the years about being “liberal” will now actually seem true! I’m very nearly forced to disown ACU just so I can have some credibility on issues that matter. And I’m a big ACU fan (except for these lapses in judgment).
I’m unhappy. Think about it. It’s a single-volume commentary on the entire Bible. The editors had to make choices about what to include, because there’s just not enough space to do a thorough commentary. And given a choice between talking about what God says or talking about what university professors worry over, they went the academic route rather than the spiritual route. And as a result, they gave a leg up to all who want to tie the progressive movement within the Churches of Christ to the theological liberalism that led to the Disciples of Christ (Christian Churches) division within the Christian Churches.
And I remember when the Southern Baptists split over just these issues for just these reasons. Some pin-head professors decided that Baptist pastors should worry about the evolution of the Torah rather than the salvation of the world, and the denomination split — and it was ugly and of no service to God whatsoever.
Now, of course these are the sorts of oh-so-fascinating issues that scholars love talking about. But if you’re going to raise the subject, raise it at a time and place where you can deal thoughtfully and thoroughly with it. Don’t just create doubts and move on. As Terry Briley wrote, in defense of the book,
The results of this brief survey reveal that some writers in “The Transforming Word” who engage the views of contemporary biblical scholarship draw conclusions that will raise questions, especially for readers not conversant with this scholarship. Space limitations do not allow writers to explain fully these difficult and delicate issues.
(my emphasis). I mean, why on earth would you raise “difficult and delicate issues” when you know space limitations will prevent a thorough discussion? It reflects the same judgment as a preacher saying at the end of his sermon, “If I had more time, I’d explain why God doesn’t care whether we worship with a piano.” Agree or disagree, it’s just irresponsible. It’s not the right setting or the right time for that discussion.
What on earth is the goal they are trying to accomplish? How are the Churches of Christ better off if people buy this book and it has this discussion in it? Does it help bring the lost to Jesus? Does it help alleviate the suffering of the poor? Does it help grow God’s church? Does it help unite God’s church? Just exactly what benefit are we to realize from this?
You see, this is exactly the kind of mistake that could be avoided if our institutions would give some thought to where God wants the Churches of Christ to be going — and what is the strategy for getting there. Just imagine if our best thinkers and leaders sat in a room over coffee and prayerfully asked: What does God want next for the Churches of Christ? — and I don’t think “lessons on the synoptic problem” would rank very high on the list.
Indeed, if you were to make a list of issues that might distract the Churches of Christ from their God-given mission, I think biblical inerrancy would come pretty near the top. Wrong subject, wrong time, wrong place — really bad idea.
We’re in a spiritual war, fighting for men’s souls, and ACU wants to talk about the authorship of the battle plan, while saying they nonetheless want us to follow the battle plan. Why? What good does this do? How is our work on behalf of Kingdom helped by this book?
What were they thinking?
PS — Kudos to the Chronicle for handling this as they did. They allowed both sides to address a controversial subject, and both sides expressed their views with grace and charity. I truly wish the Chronicle would use a similar platform to talk about something far more important — like how the cross of Jesus unites us.
Ok, this is the problem we face.
Preaching schools seem more interested in turning out "sound" promoters of the CoC denomination. Our universities seem to have forgotten their spiritual purpose and have become more focused on how they can compete in the academic world. The products of their Bible departments seem to be more "professional" clergy than on-fire-for-Jesus servant types.
Somehow we need to get this system back on track and you can't do that by feeding "professionals" back into the system that you want to produce evangelistically focused servants.
So what do we do?
The question "Did God really say that?" has been a primary tool of Satan from the beginning. In the garden of Eden, Satan persuaded Eve to doubt whether God had really commanded them not to eat the fruit of a particular tree. Once Eve entertained that doubt, she became vulnerable to temptation. The fruit looked good, and reportedly brought some pretty heady benefits. Once Satan had her doubting the command, her resistance to temptation was weakened. So she ate.
I don't think ACU Press is Satan. But I do think in this case they've allowed themselves to be taken in by him.
We all need to think more clearly. And we need to be more aware of Satan's schemes.
Todd,
I agree with you as to preaching schools. I think you are partly right as to our colleges. I do think they've lost some of their focus, but I know plenty of Bible professors at ACU or Lipscomb, for example, who are very much on fire and who communicate that well to their students.
I just don't think that we're giving much thought to the direction of our movement. We aren't taking all the lessons elders and preachers study on visioning and planning and applying them at a (for want of a better word) denominational level.
What is biblical inerrancy? Does it mean that the Bible gets all the historical facts in perfect harmony with secular history? Does it mean that all claims to authorship of each book are verified by secular history? Or does it mean that the ideas, doctrines and revelations show and point us to faith in God. Sometimes I think we have come to worship the Bible instead of the God who is trying to reveal himself through it. Just a note the OT speaks of the Hittites and up until 1983 there was no historical record of this civilization then an archeology dig found this huge civilization called the Hittites. Does this mean the God is real because the Bible had something right that secular history had missed? For the modernist it would for the Post modernist it would not.
There is substantial evidence to contradict claimed authorship of several books both OT and NT. Suppose a book was not written by the claimed author, would that automatically negate the arguments or ideas actually written in the book? No they would be true regardless of authorship or historical accuracies! However in the mind of modernism where everything has to have a perfect explicable answer to valid or true it would. In this mind set an erroneous claim to authorship or some historical inaccuracy would negate all the actual ideas because the credibility of the author was lost on these technicalities. This is no longer the paradigm in our postmodern world.
As a very recent graduate of ACU and the Graduate School of Theology I just have to speak up here. Now, it's not like these books are solely focused on these issues. They are brought up in talking about certain texts where there are real issues. What were the authors supposed to do? Not mention the issues? Lie about them? Why can't the people in the pew who want to know the word more in depth (and let's face it, those are the people who are going to be reading this book, people who are a little more serious about study) be aware of the issues? I don't know that the authors necessarily take much of a position but they bring to light the issues, which is what you do all the time on this blog, Jay. How much of what you discuss here is necessary for one's salvation?
I read the Chronicle's reviews of this book and thought they were ok but spent too much time talking about the fact that these issues were raised. It's not like this is all that this book focuses on.
Now, knowing many of the authors personally I know them all to "be on fire" for the gospel and to love God. And ACU, contrary to popular opinion, and to some of the above comments is not teaching us to be professional scholars. Certainly there are some who are meant for this work but most of what is done, specifically in the GST is preparing men and women for a life of ministry and doing so in a responsible way.
I also take offense at the suggestion that ACU Press is under the grip of Satan and his work, as was suggested above. ACU Press is helping put out many books that are of a major help for churches across the country on a variety of important subjects, God's Holy Fire included.
I have said enough, probably more than I should have.
Blessings.
"Preaching schools seem more interested in turning out 'sound' promoters of the CoC denomination. Our universities seem to have forgotten their spiritual purpose and have become more focused on how they can compete in the academic world." (Todd)
And the two are mutually reaffirming. The non-institutional churches especially will say "Aha! Don't you see the evils of institutionalism?" and "Don't you see that seminaries are cemeteries?" And admit it, some of you on here finally realize that they have a point.
The further the colleges digress into agnostic 'scholarship' the more zeal the lay ministers will have in teaching "what the church of Christ has always believed." Its kind of hilarious to see one of the most liberal so called members of the churches of Christ, Jay Guin, lamenting the agnostic turn of the institutional COC's colleges! I actually came here because I saw a blog post that a contemporary worship songwriter affiliated with a denominational church purportedly Arminian in theology, Ray Boltz, just recently came out of the closet. I was half expecting Jay Guin to have an article on it and laud him for his courage and finally come out himself. But instead of that type of disgusting scene, I find him lamenting the agnostic tendencies of the colleges. Perhaps we are seeing Christ finally being formed in him.
Rey, whatever you believe, I think your final comment was rude, sarcastic, judgmental and uncalled-for.
I just came back from a reunion of some of my classmates from SSOP/SIBI. I found that many of us have gone beyond the basics and have made our own studies. Yes, there are some who maintain the traditions of the elders and editors, but others of us are growing in Christ, learning from a variety of sources. Jay has reviewed N.T. Wright whom I found excellent and challenging, but I do not always agree with him. Rather, I tend to just pass over what I disagree with. I was taught especially by Jim McGuiggan to make one's views his own. That has gotten me into trouble at times mostly with traditionalists. I am looking forward to the new commentary from ACU; I won't agree with everything in it, and like a brother said above, understanding an issue does not make it a view that one might hold. ACU/Leadwood have produced some fine material over the last few years and decades and we should be thankful. I appreciate what Jay wrote and his concerns, but whether this book was produced or not, the critics would still be criticizing.
Jay, thanks for the thoughts – I enjoy your blogs.
Kent wrote,
It's my view that in a non-scholarly work — like a one-volume commentary — you write for the intended audience, which is not scholars. It's just not. Scholars use sources that cover such issues in depth.
I own many commentaries. Most discuss issues of authorship and such. They take traditional and very non-traditional views — and I have no complaint because they are thorough and appropriate for the audience.
I also own commentaries that are written at a popular level — some by great scholars, such as N. T. Wright. And they don't get into the questions of authorship even though the authors are experts on the subject. And I think this is appropriate, too.
It used to be that when I started a lesson on, say, Romans, I'd spend some time in the first class discussing the evidence for the Pauline authorship. But I quickly found that the class found such lessons pointless — not because of the class's stupidity, naivete, or ignorance, but because they came to class to learn to be better Christians and better people, and such lessons were of no value to them. Sometimes I learn more from my students than they learn from me.
It's quite alright for anyone to study such material. For example, years ago, I was our church's librarian, and I bought a number of commentary sets that address such issues in detail. I have no interest is hiding these matters from the church. However, I do insist that the materials thoroughly address the questions they raise.
Actually, I try to be pretty thorough in covering the issues. If anything, I tend to say more than many consider necessary because I think it's so important to be comprehensive in my scripture studies — and the more controversial the issue, the more thorough I try to be. Hence, I post series on issues like MDR and the role of women that go on for months and months.
If I've not been comprehensive on something, let me know and I'll remedy the defect.
Not that much, but that's not the argument I made. I asked about how these materials help us attain unity, evangelize, grow the church, and help us relieve the suffering of the poor. I do try to talk about these things quite a lot. These are, of course, merely exemplars of what the church is called to do. I do try to stick to these sorts of things. Even when I write about hermeneutics, I do so with the intent of helping us interpret the scriptures to find grace and unity — and stop our needless fighting.
I'm sure that's true, but the controversy was the entirely predictable consequence of putting such materials in a popular-level commentary.
I don't think I know the authors, but I know many ACU Bible professors, and I'm sure you're right. But I think they've committed a lapse in judgment. As McKnight mentions in his article quoted in my next post, there have been major controversies in many denominations over inerrancy. So far, we've largely been spared this. It's the wrong fight at the wrong time. We have much more important things to be talking about.
I think you're right. I do think our universities in general have a lack of focus that is hurting us — as evidenced, for example, by how expensive it's become to be trained for the ministry. Nonetheless, ACU is generally doing very commendable work and I'm generally a big fan.
Uh, no, that wasn't suggested. What Alan said is, "I don’t think ACU Press is Satan. But I do think in this case they’ve allowed themselves to be taken in by him." That's hardly the same as "in grip of" Satan. But I agree that raising inerrancy in this way at this time has the potential to be a major distraction from God's work — which would surely serve Satan's agenda.
I own a very large number of books that have come from ACU Press. On the whole, ACU Press has been of great service to the Churches of Christ — and to me. I've said complimentary things about them elsewhere and was quite sincere. But even the best of us sometime mess up.
Here's the bottom line. If I'm going to teach a popular level class on a controversial topic — such as instrumental music — I'm going to be sure of at least two things. First, I'm not taking on the topic unless I have the time to do it right. Second, I'm not taking on the topic at all unless it's beneficial to the church at that place at that time. Not all true things are edifying things. And even edifying things don't edify unless they are well covered.
Not at all. The whole point of a blog is to discuss differing opinions. That's why I don't moderate comments. I think it's critical that we honestly express our views and I appreciate your comments very much. They gave me the chance to clarify my own thinking and hopefully to correct some misconceptions.
I definitely see where you are coming from, Jay and I do have a great deal of respect for you and your blog. I wish there were more like it. I guess we just disagree on what should be put forward to the normal person in the pew. I do not have a problem with, in a commentary, exposing the people to arguments that are brought forward in more in-depth works. You think they should withhold that stuff. That's fine. One of the problems I have, though, (and this might be where I am coming from here) is that I feel as though we give our people too much fluff too many times, too much Lucado and not enough Wright. We need to be challenging our people and stretching them because that's how and where growth occurs. Again, we can disagree that this book can bring about growth in some, but hopefully you see and agree where I am coming from.
Thanks again.
Pingback: Inerrancy « One In Jesus.info
You cannot criticize a book until you have actually read it. As one of the editors of this book (thought not credited for it as being only a student, this is not fair to what this book really includes. The Christian Chronicle was told to focus on the divisive issues of authorship of Isaiah, Genesis, Jonah, etc. by Harold Shanks, and that is why they spend most of their review on it. This is only about 10% of the book. Most of it goes through the various sections according to each individual author and focuses on key themes, various technical points, and theological issues. Some go into more scholarly issues more than others depending upon the scholar. Thus some chapters are more conservative and some more liberal. The thinking of the editors is exactly what Kent is talking about. Many people in the pew, like my wife, are college educated, want to be academically challenged, and find questioning of the traditional authorship view and things that recognize question are naive equation of Genesis 1 and other such propositions quite liberating and it actually helps them from giving up on Scripture because the only option they have is the uber conservative position. Also, we tried to be fair to both sides. Finally, the authorship issues and others that are brought up are not just glibly cited. Now there are some authors that do so, but for example, Hamilton's chapter on the Introduction to the Pentateuch actually is most updated and thorough, though succinct, intro I have read, and this is the case with most the chapters he has written. In fact, he rewrote this chapter because the original one was too antagonistic against the conservative position and actually not that up to date. Now you may have a different view of what the regular reader is than the editors do, but I am just letting you know what group they are targeting, why they included what they included, and to ask everyone to please read a book before you criticize it
Might we be careful to draw the line between the church and the academy too boldly. Perhaps there is a place in the church for a "scholarly" conversation and, transversely, perhaps there is a place in the academy for "spiritual" contributions. Good people doing good work for the cause of Christ, the edification of the church, and the glory of God.
Thank You ACU!
I received my copy of the commentary a week ago. I have found it very interesting on a number of levels. First, my chief objection is that I'm really not all that interested in having another double hernia operation–but this book just might do it! I'd much rather have a two-volume edition. (Can one have a two-volume edition of a commentary that marketed itself as a one-volume commentary?!)
The text is crisp and clear to read, and I appreciate that. The "gray boxes" provide extra insights into the subject at hand. All in all, it's an interesting Bible HANDBOOK, though I'm afraid "commentary" is stretching it. Most commentaries also include the biblical text, and because of size restrictions, this volume does not. One must have his or her Bible handy as one reads the paragraphed commentaries.
Now to my chief objection: This text refuses to connect the Old Testament with the New Testament. Therefore, statements made in the New Testament about Old Testament passages are omitted (but should have been seen as the best commentary of all). New Testament insights ito Old Testament matters are omitted in an effort to view Old Testament sections the way the early Hebrews would have viewed them. But if this is a Christian commentary, should New Testament (inspired) insights be omitted?
A chief example did not take long to surface for me. The Genesis 22.1-19 section provides not commentary but unfounded speculation to the extreme. Why did Abraham agree to offer Isaac? is the question at hand. Various speculative reasons are given, even including that Abraham may just not have loved Isaac enough to keep him alive, hoping that Ishmael would inherit! Oh, my!
Of course, the New Testament gives a clear, concise answer to the question, but the commentary makes NOT ONE mention of the passage. Hebrews 11.17-19 clearly states that Abraham had so much faith in God that he knew God would raise Isaac from the dead. That's a reason that Abraham is in the "roll call" of faith in Hebrews. But our "extra knowledge" provided by the Holy Spirit within the New Testament is made void in the commentary in its study of the Hebrew scriptures.
Such an example demonstrates that one should understand the approach of these authors before purchasing the volume.
Again, that is the approach of that author of the article in Genesis. You have to understand that when editing a book you edit and take out to some extent, but you try not to do too much to respect the integrity of the peace the author has written. The editors of this work, I know for a fact, do not agree with this view of Gen 22, but did not want to expurgate everything controversial that Chris has written.
You're criticism about not connecting the NT/OT is a valid one, and perhaps they should have had an appendix about this
Pingback: The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ: An Idea for a Dialogue « One In Jesus.info