Can the Bible tell me when I am wrong?

Rightly drawing attention to the strongly biblical case mounted and maintained for apartheid in South Africa by Bible believing Reformed Christians, David Runcorn asks the question, "And how do I know when I am wrong? Evangelical Faith and the Bible." We have already had some discussion on David Runcorn's views on homosexuality and the Bible when the Pilling Report was reported on here (he wrote an appendix to the report). I have no wish to rerun that discussion (which issue figures prominently in the article I link to above). Rather, given some past discussion here on Sola Scriptura, I am keen to take up the general question posed in the title, How do I (who believes in the authority of Scripture) know when I am wrong? And making that question have an edge with particular reference to apartheid for which the support of the Bible was once claimed and now it is difficult to find biblical Christians who still support such social policy.

In one way I think the Bible can tell me I have drawn the wrong conclusion from the Bible: I keep reading the Bible, with more depth and more width than previously, and reconsider. I probably (thinking of apartheid's grip on South Africa in the past) need to read the Bible in such a way that my reading opens a cycle of critical assessment of previously reached conclusions (rather than reading the Bible to confirm previously reached conclusions). Of course, if, try as I might, I cannot dislodge the previously reached conclusion then maybe that conclusion stands. In particular, if I read the Bible with others, so "I" becomes "we" then some grounds for thinking the conclusion is correct exist. This was the case with the church in the days of arguments to and fro about orthodox Christology.

Within South Africa those grounds of "we" readers were once thought to exist by the many readers who shared a similar conclusion about biblical support for apartheid. That then raises the question of the width of the community reading the Bible: in those days the rest of the Bible reading world was not supportive of apartheid. Generally the church has recognised that for a conclusion from reading the Bible as God's authoritative Word to be authoritative for the church, the whole worldwide (i.e. catholic) church needs to share that conclusion. (It is not clear to me that David Runcorn recognises that).

Something Protestants likely under-appreciative about authority in the Roman Catholic church is that the Pope's 'Infallibility' relates to one individual giving voice to the reading of Scripture (and Tradition) of the whole church (rather than one individual giving voice to that individual's reading of Scripture).

Protestants may also under-appreciate the difficulties of organising an agreed worldwide conclusion when reading the Bible if we have cast aside the papacy and resisted the possibility of worldwide councils/synods having power over local churches.

Nevertheless a strength of Protestantism (under-appreciated by Romans?) is that over time some conclusions do become agreed around the world (one example of which is, in the present context, that apartheid is wrong). The convoluted process to get there has the virtue of not being affected by the deaths of particular individuals, nor by corruption of officeholders in the church nor by the winds of fashion and favour.

It also has the virtue that it is going to be a biblical conclusion, anchored in the one source of God's revelation that all Christians are agreed is God's revelation to us.

Can the Bible tell me when I am wrong (even about the Bible)? Yes. Likely, however, I will need to listen to what all readers of the Bible are saying rather than what my reading (or even my tribe/clan/wing of the church reading) is saying to me.

For the right person, this job is yours

Mission Educator, St John’s Theological College.

The Anglican College of St John the Evangelist is wishing to appoint a full-time Mission Educator.  

The role will be broad in scope and application. It will include an holistic approach to local and global mission education, based around the ACC 5 Mission Statement, incorporated in the constitution of our three Tikanga Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.

The Mission Educator reports directly to the Principal/Manukura of the College, but would liaise with Provincial organisations such as the Anglican Missions’ Board, the Church Missionary Society and the Anglican Church Army, however, in essence the role is to provide teaching, training and mentoring, as a member of the faculty of the College, in ways that will assist the Anglican Church to effectively minister in a multi-cultural, multi-religious, post-Christendom era.

In brief: to assist in developing an ‘outward-focussed’, mission-engaged culture within the College; with ripple effects into the Province.

Person specifications beyond a need for tertiary level teaching qualifications and mission experience (in the broadest sense of that term), the appointee will need superior creative communications skills to be able to link at all levels of the Church and across Tikanga, excellent planning and reporting experience along with a willingness to undertake some travel within the Province.  The appointee will be fully engaged in College community life, along with fellow faculty members, to ensure that the seminary nature of the college is developed and enriched.  The successful applicant would hopefully begin during May of 2014.   

Applications close on Friday 14 February. 

Further details can be obtained from the Principal/Manukura, Rev Canon Tony Gerritsen; t.gerritsen@stjohnscollege.ac.nz  09 521 2725

Do not read this while drinking your coffee

I cannot be responsible for the result of reading this excellent post, reproduced at Liturgy from the Orthodoxy and Heresy site.

Whether your laughter causes you to splutter coffee over your keyboard, or the coffee you are drinking suddenly induces a feeling of guilt because you are drinking heresy, you are responsible for choosing to click on the link and then for choosing to read.

However, if you do not click and read, you will miss one of the most important doctrinal lessons of your life, taught in memorable form!

Little known Bible fact

Pauls' three missionary journeys were by train, underground and linking ferry ...

With thanks to theologygrams.wordpress.com where the original may be found here.

Conservative Anglicans Lack Consistency Over Nigeria and Uganda?

GLAD UPDATE: In the light of the original post below, I am very glad to now see this statement from ++Stanley of Uganda.

ORIGINAL POST

Here is a thought. Conservative Christians, including conservative Anglicans are united in their admiration of the German church leaders who made the Barmen Declaration in 1934. Courageously they took a stand against the cultural captivity of the German churches who joined in the "German Christian" movement which saw in Nazism some kind of divine embrace of German culture. Out of this opposition to the German Christian movement was spawned the Confessing Church, a kind of schismatic movement in which Christians in Germany sought to distance themselves from those parts of the German churches which were now walking hand in hand with Hitler and his thugs. Among the courageous leaders were Barth, Bonhoeffer and Niemoller. All 20th century heroes of the faith.

Ever since the story of the Confessing Church has become known around the world, it is invoked as a model for gospel engagement with and opposition to the church being taken captive by the surrounding culture. The keynote of the Barmen Declaration is Christ's lordship of the church which has no other master.

Fast forward to the unfolding situation in Nigeria and Uganda in which draconian laws against homosexuals are being considered by their respective legislatures, if not approved (see here and here). Stories are emerging in which Anglican leadership appears unable to distinguish between the cultural situation in each place (which favours the legislation) and a gospel response (which favours or should favour an approach of grace and mercy towards sexual sinners). Then there is the question of conservative Christian support from around the globe for these legislative moves. Some of which support is by way of silence - the silence in which those who ally themselves with the stances towards the Anglican Communion being taken by Nigerian and Ugandan bishops refuse to speak against their friends. Yes, ADU had been silent, so the following question I ask of myself as much as of anyone else.

Where are the Ugandan and Nigerian Barths, Bonhoeffers and Niemollers who are willing to speak out for the lordship of Christ over their churches and against the cultural captivity of their churches to prevailing preferences for draconian legislation?

UPDATE: Just after publishing the above, I see that the Archbishops of England have issued a communique to "all Primates" and to the "Presidents of Nigeria and Uganda" gently reminding the addressees of the importance of care and not condemnation of homosexuals.

THEN we might also read this statement pertaining to India.

Sanity overcomes English bishops

UPDATE: Ian Paul is worth a read on these matters. AND GAFCON replies to the bishops' sanity.

ORIGINAL POST:

Possibly the sanest news item ever published on the matter of Anglican churches and homosexuality has this heading,

Church of England bishops: we agree on one thing - that we can't agree on homosexuality

Within the item are we seeing the introduction of a new Anglican phrase, "good disagreement"?

For myself I am prompted to wonder if (when all is said and done) we are (though we are scarcely aware of it) engaged with a true novelty in the life of the church:

1. a matter on which we disagree so severely that schism always lurks as a possible outcome (and, indeed, has become an outcome in some places) yet not a matter on which any rational, compassionate Christian (in the abstract position of peaceful reflection*) would wish to divide the church for fear that doing so made a scapegoat of a tiny minority;

2. a matter on which the catholicity of our church/Communion is under an unprecedented 'strain' (as we try to reconcile the universality of the church implying inclusivity with the universality of the church implying commitment to common doctrine).

Do we need a very English cup of tea?

*I include the words in parentheses because I happily acknowledge that where schism has occurred, particularly in North America, many factors apply other than simple disagreement over homosexuality, including factors of stress driven by some dominating episcopal leadership difficult to understand in Anglican places more used to (shall we say) an English-style of episcopacy.

Only one John can be correct!

A searching challenge to my last post was made in this comment which I reproduce in full:

"Dear Peter

Disagreements on this site exemplify the problem with your reduction to Scripture as the supreme, final authority on matters of faith and practice. Such reduction is little more than wishful thinking – how you might like to organise things if you were God.

Christians using the Bible as their final authority are in disagreement about everything except that the Bible is the supreme, final authority on matters of faith and practice! They disagree on basics like who to baptise and how, who leads communion and what it means, what in the Bible is historical and what is metaphorical, and how to apply teachings concretely in areas of money, sex, politics, economics, war,… In short, there is no thing where Christians agree on what the Bible teaches. Far from being a positive argument, yours is the strongest argument against the Protestant approach (Shawn’s attempt to make all others into his own image notwithstanding). 

You have just powerfully demonstrated the inadequacy of Protestantism. And worse, if your equation can be read in both directions, you have just powerfully demonstrated the inadequacy of your God.

Yours

John"

Excellent responses have been made by MichaelA. Here I have my own go ...

I am going to set aside this statement, "there is no thing where Christians agree on what the Bible teaches." which strikes me as a heat of the comment assertion which is obviously false. There is plenty Christians agree on which is taught in the Bible.

The serious charge within the comment is whether 'my' view which by implication is a or even the 'Protestant' view is nonsense: "such reduction is little more than wishful thinking"; worse "how you might like to organise things if you were God"; worst "you have just powerfully demonstrated the inadequacy of your God".

Further, with "everything" substituted with the phrase "many things", the following is a quite fair description of Protestant reality: "Christians using the Bible as their final authority are in disagreement about [many things] except that the Bible is the supreme, final authority on matters of faith and practice!"

My response

Wishful thinking?

Is it wishful thinking to take John 1:18 as a cue for thinking about Scripture? I suggest the debate over John 1:18 is whether it is a true statement or not; then, if it is a true statement, what are the implications of the statement.

As best I can tell, Christians are agreed that John 1:18 is a true statement. My question is then to ask whether Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox) have then pursued the implication of the statement for our understanding of the texts we have agreed are Scripture.

Indeed, that question is the great Protestant question to other Christians, but particularly to the Roman Catholic church with its claims of two revelations from God, 'Scripture' and 'Tradition' (noting an observation made to the post below in a comment by Alison). Turning John's question in a Roman direction, Is there a basis, an authority from God for making the Roman claim about Tradition as a separate revelation? Is this also 'wishful thinking' on the part of Roman theology?

At best the basis for such claim itself lies in Scripture, with its words about Petrine authority and apostolic authority, about the Holy Spirit's role in teaching the church. A Protestant point about Scripture as supreme, final authority is that even when Christians disavow such a claim, it is hidden within the theology of the disavowers!

Importantly, for my argument in the post below, and overlooked (it seems to me) by commenter John is that John 1:18 implies the final authority of Scripture on matters of faith and practice as those matters of faith and practice respond to Jesus Christ as the full revelation of God. Far from 'wishful thinking' I am simply trying to follow the logical implications of John 1:18.

If my logic is wrong, it is wrong. But the matter (as I have posted it) has nothing to do with wishful thinking. Other 'Protestant' arguments about Scripture may involve wishful thinking. Mine involves logic. Is my logic wrong?

Nevertheless, commenter John makes a good point (in my words): suppose the logic of Peter's argument re John 1:18 and scripture is accepted, it has not led to mutually agreed submission to the authority of Scripture, just to debates and divisions over the meaning of Scripture, so what is God up to by proceeding in the way he apparently has?

Inadequacy of God?

At first sight this seems like quite a compelling objection, particularly if we omit discussion of alternatives. Here is why I do not find it compelling.

1. My focus, on Scripture as the revelation of God in and through Jesus Christ, ties Scripture to Jesus Christ. If we think of Jesus as an outcome of the 'organisation' of God then how did that work out when Jesus lived and taught on earth?

Not too well! What he said was misunderstood (even by his disciples), opposed (by religious leaders he considered should have known better) and capable of diversity in the remembering (four gospels).

That is, if Scripture and the divisions which ensue among its readers imply that in Scripture God has offered a flawed way of speaking to the church of God and that this reflects badly on God, is the situation any the worse for the plan of God to speak to us through Jesus of Nazareth?

2. The comment made by John could (in my reading) be the comment of an atheist (i.e. highlighting general weaknesses in the Christian case for God, "Look! How inadequate your God is, because ...") or it could be the comment of a fellow Christian with an alternative commitment to authority in the church (e.g. as a Roman Catholic or as an Eastern Orthodox) and thus the comment focuses on an apparently Protestant set of weaknesses: "Look! How inadequate the Protestant view of God is ... (with some implied superiority of another or other view(s) of God)". Here I am going to assume the latter and not the former. That is, I am going to ask in response: are alternative views of Scripture and the God of Scripture better than a Protestant 'full, supreme authority' view, measured by the criterion of division?

(Since writing the above paragraph I have realised a very long answer is possible, indeed necessary, so, causa brevitatis, the next few sentences are an outline not an essay).

1. Other approaches to authority in respect of belief have not saved the church from division: Rome and Constantinople split in 1054.

2. Other approaches to authority/belief can obscure hidden division: e.g. many Roman Catholics simply do not follow Rome's teaching on contraception. No division as in 'schism' has occurred; but the practice of daily life is divided from the abstraction of Humanae Vitae. A virtue of Protestantism is that schisms reveal actuality of belief and practice rather than obscuring it.

3. Other approaches to authority/belief can cover over corruption in leadership: for several hundred years Rome has had non-corrupt Popes (good!) but that should not obscure the historical fact that commitment to papacy as a model of authority to ensure good leadership has not guaranteed sound leadership. The Reformation was triggered by a deep theological corruption which tied the selling of indulgences to the costs of building a splendid church in Rome. If we head East we note that the great virtues of Eastern Orthodoxy concerning unchanging doctrine, guarded by bishops and patriarchs has not saved Orthodox churches from arrogant, high-handed episcopal leadership.

4. More importantly for the approach I am taking, vesting the authority of Scripture in the authority of Christ, the question before us is less about whose or which authority and much more about where is the true source of revelation from God for the church today. On this matter all roads lead back to Scripture. For the claim, for example, that Tradition is a second source of revelation, the backing or basis of it lies within Scripture and its testimony to the authority Christ gave the apostles re binding and loosing. The debate between the two Christian streams which place most weight on Tradition, Rome and Constantinople, is most sharply divided over the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the end, this is a debate about what Scripture says and not what Tradition says.

But in which church or set of churches lies the greatest freedom to explore what truth is? Here the risk factor of Protestant division needs to be weighed alongside the freedom of Christians to think publicly about difficult matters. Again, we can easily forget as we admire Rome's doctrinal unity (and, by the way, I do admire it) that Rome has flip-flopped through the centuries on important matters of truth. One day Galileo is consigned to doctrinal outer darkness, the next he is hailed as a true scientist. Almost in living memory Rome proscribed against 'critical biblical scholarship' (at the beginning of the 20th century) and a few decades later reversed the interdict. Key theologians at Vatican 2 just a few years previously had had their teaching licences suspended.

Disagreement among Christians?

There is a lot of disagreement among Protestant Christians, including those invoking the authority of Scripture: agreed, accepted, acknowledged. But there is also a lot of agreement. The experience of many Protestants working together in gospel mission is that what we agree on (Jesus is Lord and Saviour, God is gracious, believers together constitute the body of Christ, etc) outweighs what we disagree on. Together we (say) study at a non-denominational theological college, acclaim the works of international scholars (or dispute them from shared presuppositions), cherish saints and heroes of the faith, and, most importantly, say the Nicene Creed together.

Only one John, commenter or gospel writer, can be correct. What do you think?

Tuesday a.m.: am publishing what is written to date ... may revise as time allows.