Over at Jesus Creed, Josh Graves recently posted on four common views on how to read the Bible. It’s an excellent post, and you should follow the link to read it in its entirety.
He finds four common views:
VIEW #1: FUNDAMENTALIST or BASIC (The Bible is read as a rule-book for living a godly life before a watching judge.)
God is a judge with holy (sometimes angry) and wrathful disposition towards sinful humanity. Jesus saved humanity. Though he loves us, God’s anger burns towards humanity because of continual evil and wicked ways.
Notice how this parallels the atonement theories earlier considered here. And, of course, there are plenty of passages that speak of God’s wrath — but not of God’s wrath toward the saved. The problem with this approach is that it forgets that Jesus saves completely — rather than just barely if at all.
The Holy Bible was given via dictation theory or celestial possession. The Holy Spirit literally dictated every single detail. The autographs (original sections of the Bible) and copies are perfect, infallible and inerrant. Every word in Scripture is historically, theologically accurate. The Bible is accessible for any person to understand in a rational and logical approach. It’s not enough to say the Bible in “inspired and authoritative” . . . one must also believe the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and perfect. The Bible is God’s direct instruction manual to all people for all time for how to live before God.
Josh perceptively notes how our view of inspiration also connects with our hermeneutic (as well as our theory of atonement). Since God is seen foremost as a God of wrath, he is also a God of legalities. Obey the law and God is happy. Violate the law and God is angry. It’s only fair that an angry God tell us what his rules are!
And therefore the Bible is a book of rules and laws — a constitution or blueprint — and every detail of the pattern matters. And therefore there can be no room for doubt about a single detail of the text.
VIEW #2: EVANGELICAL (The Bible is read as a collection of timeless principles for morality and conversion in a dark and corrupt world.) God is a judge and father with a major dilemma that only Jesus can resolve.
“Evangelical” is a difficult-to-define term, but it means something like “traditional Baptist” and like thinkers. Billy Graham is the ultimate evangelical. Evangelicals have a strong emphasis on personal evangelism, and they help keep Bible bookstores afloat buying plaques to hang over doors with encouraging scriptures about “eagles wings.” The goodness of God and his desire to help individual Christians is emphasized. The theology tends to be very individually focused — “personal relationship with Jesus” and “invite Jesus into your heart” are common phrases.
And it’s not that these are wrong but overly focused on initial salvation, with teaching regarding after-salvation being mainly about personal evangelism and moral living. And no one disagrees with these.
The Bible is the Word of God for the people of God. It contains the timeless truths of God’s heart that need to be communicated and shared with all people. While the copies of the Biblical manuscripts might possess some tension/uncertainty, the autographs (originals) are perfect, infallible, and inerrant. The primary role of the Bible is to save people from their sin and hell, providing the road map for any person to spend eternity with God. God’s primary way of communicating to humanity is through the sacred scriptures. It’s the most important tool we have for understanding God. Some in this camp will greatly stress the power of the Spirit to use the timeless truths of the Bible to provide a practical guide for everyday decisions.
Again, evangelical religion tends to be very focused on initial salvation. Hence, the Bible is seen as God’s revelation about how to become saved.
Interestingly, while the progressive Churches of Christ have rejected the legalism of View 1, most are uncomfortable in the evangelical world. We’ve tried it out a little bit. Well, some of it. And it was better, but it wasn’t that much better.
As a result, I see a strong tendency toward a Third View —
VIEW #3: THIRD WAY (The Bible is read an unfolding drama inviting all people to participate in the work of God in the world.)
God is the creative father who seeks to pull all women and men out of darkness into living the Kingdom of God now in preparation for the fullness of the new heavens and the new earth.
If this sounds familiar, you’re right. We’ve now entered the world of N. T. Wright and Scot McKnight, among many others. Notice that Views 1 and 2 aren’t so much contradicted as brought into a much larger, more comprehensive context that includes the fullness of the narrative of the entirety of scripture. And this transforms Views 1 and 2.
This requires a fuller understanding of the atonement (per the previous series) as well as a more comprehensive approach to the place of the Bible and how it is to be read.
Because the church came before the New Testament, this group is inclined to call the Bible the word of God and reserve the phrase the “Word of God” for only Jesus (word does not = Word). Rather, the Bible reveals the Word. The Bible is the word of God in that it is trust-worthy, powerful, and effective in leading people to a living encounter with the power and mystery of Jesus in the world. It is the sacred drama of God, in which we are mere B actors, and Jesus is the main character. While God is revealed in a myriad of ways (creation, art, music, friendship), scripture is unique in that it derives its authority from the witness of catholic orthodox stream of disciples and the local church. The power of the Spirit is at work taking ink on a page, and bringing us closer to the Jesus who holds all creation together. The Bible is the mirror that shows us who God is and who we are. It is not to be worshiped or made an idol as it did not create us, sustain us, die for us, etc. It’s simply the tool God uses in conjunction with all of the other revelations to bring us closer to God’s intent for the world: faithful discipleship, resistance to the powers of this present age (communal). Christ’[s] presence in the world is both powerful and mysterious and the Bible is a key tool God uses in that endeavor of discovery. This group resists using infallible and inerrant because a) they are not words that show up in Scripture and b) are tied to stale debates between faith and science. This group takes seriously the role of the Bible as it relates to inspiration and authority but refuses to divorce these two words from the main purpose of the Bible, further revelation of the person of Jesus.
It’s not that the Third Way approach finds error in the Bible, but rather that the Bible is misused in Views 1 and 2. View 1 reduces the Bible to a rulebook, rather like the Code of Alabama, except even more legalistic and less well organized. View 2 pulls a plan of salvation — Five Steps or Sinner’s Prayer — out of the text, as well as various moral teachings and uplifting proverbs, but struggles to find a place for the church other than as an evangelism and worshiping organization.
The Third Way certainly believes in obedience to God, and certainly wishes to be highly evangelistic and moral, but finds the need for more. A better, deeper atonement theory. A better understanding of how the Bible fits in. A new place for the church beyond singing and receiving moral instruction.
And the Third Way points us in a healthy direction without dispensing with the good in Views 1 and 2.
On the other hand, the Third Way has nothing to do with —
VIEW #4: HUMANIST (The Bible is an inspiring document with varying levels of relevancy for coping with life in the modern world.)
(Here, I’m not using humanist in a decidedly negative fashion) God is whoever you think God to be or were taught God to be. If God exists at all. The “God” pursuit is almost exclusively subjective.
Now, some in the View 1 camp look over at those in the Third Way camp and imagine that they see View 4. This is largely because they’ve not been exposed to View 3, and so it doesn’t fit within their framing narrative. It’s too unfamiliar, and so they fit it into a category they already have — and which is conveniently easily disproved.
And, of course, there are always a handful of people who attend any kind of church who express views well outside of the mainstream of their congregations in a blog or Bible class, and these views get picked up and used to prove the supposedly extreme error of Third Way believers.
It’s not as though Third Way believers haven’t produced a significant literature that can be easily obtained, read, and studied — or that we’re all that hard to find, email, or call.
In short, I see no trend among progressive Churches of Christ toward View 4, and I personally have no patience with such teaching. I also see little tendency toward View 2 (traditional evangelicalism). Contrary to many predictions, I don’t think the Churches of Christ are going to become conventional, indistinct evangelical churches. Some have. Some will. But not most.
Rather, in the long run, I think the progressive Churches are taking some time to consider all their options and find a direction that may not be that well trod. Maybe there’s a better approach that 30 years ago we could only glimpse. Maybe we have the chance to be far truer to the scriptures than we could have imagined when this all started.
After all, the goal is not to leave legalism but to come as close as possible to the heart of God. And surely God is best understood in light of the fullness of the entire Bible.
Evangelical and Evangelicalism are slippery terms. The best definition/explanation I’ve come across was by Donald G. Bloesch in a book review he wrote in Christian Century (Vol. 122, No. 11 May 31, 2005 p.39). “[E]vangelicalism is that moment of revival and reform in Christian history that springs from the gospel itself and seeks to renew the church in the light of the gospel. In historical evangelicalism the Bible is set over tradition; grace is set over merit; faith is set over experience. At the same time faith does not nullify human experience but bears fruit in it. There is no inherent conflict between structure and ecstasy…. Prior to both is God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ.” Because of some of the popular manifestations of Evangelicalism many Christians have totally dismissed it. But Bloesch helps me not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Third Way is beautifully set out by George Eldon Ladd in his classic book The Gospel of the Kingdom. Not everyone will agree with Ladd’s eschatology but, aside from that, it is a wonderful primer on what the heart of Christianity is about. It is probably more readable for the average reader than N.T. Wright. Next to the Bible I would recommend it as the one book all Christians would benefit most from reading.
Pingback: Links to Go (September 15, 2014) | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts
The basic problem with the third view is summarized in this statement: “…scripture is unique in that it derives its authority from the witness of catholic orthodox stream of disciples and the local church.” No, that’s not where Scripture derives its authority from. Its authority derives from the God who inspired it.
Terry, the canon of the New Testament was not finalized until the fourth century. No apostle left us a list of what letters and manuscripts were inspired. The church as a whole discerned which writings were inspired. The church of the first century never had a New Testament such as we have today. As important as the New Testament is, it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that unites Christ’s church through the last two thousand years and not the New Testament.
The catoholice church might have collected the scriptures into one canon, but they didn’t write or author them.
I would consider myself neither evangelical or fundamantal or “third way”, but all of the above, except maybe the humanist one. We spend much of our time trying to define ourselves by a particular school of thought, much like the Pharisees and Sadducees did, but the truth is in the scriptures and can only be defined as Christ and His words and His love and His grace and His mercy and His judgment and His, etc. None of the definitions above define me.
Yes, this is Breakfast Club thinking.
Terry,
I agree that “authority” is the wrong word to use here. All authority is in Jesus. He exercises his authority by various means, one of which is the scriptures. “Authentication” is likely what Josh meant. The point isn’t that the scriptures derive their authority from the visible church, but that Christendom has, by long-established consensus, declared these ancients texts as “scripture,” a decision that reflects the ongoing work of the Spirit within the church. The church recognizes the work of the Spirit in the texts and declares them inspired — and on this, we have a powerful, meaningful consensus.
Sorry, Jay, but don’t you feel just a little bit uncomfortable with the agent provocateur style of Josh Graves in his opening paragraph on the Third Way? The Apostle Paul makes it clear that man as a type is the ‘firstborn’ of humanity [1 Timothy 2: 13], and needs to be considered first in matters relating to order in The Kingdom of God [1 Corinthians 11: 8-10]. If nothing else, I know that Paul has it right [2 Peter 3: 15-16], even though the world to which Josh appeals might think different. Do you really want this to be your signature dish for the future of the Progressive Churches of Christ?
Graves’ “Third Way” is more Christocentric than Bibliocentric. While, as Jay reminds us, we hold a powerful consensus on the inspiration and validity of the Bible, it is not the center of our lives, either as individuals or as a body of believers. Recognizing once again that it is Jesus who is the Word of God, this helps place the Bible in a more accurate place. We find our life inJesus, we are informed by scripture, and we are led by the Holy Spirit.
Charles wrote,
Exactly.