|
|
|
|
|
In "A Generous Orthodoxy" McLaren quotes from Walter Brueggemann, arguing that any theology that is not mystical/poetic as well as propositional will not rightly address a truth that will forever remain both within our reach and beyond our grasp.. as the heavens are beyond the earth yet come down to us in the incarnation of Jesus.
The new theologies, says McLaren,
"will have the beauty and symmetry and dynamic of a living organism rather than the stiff order of a lifeless, rigid, mechanistic outline. This emerging approach has been described as coherent (hanging together, making sense when its many parts are integrated), contextual (sensitive to its cultural and historic situation), conversational (never attempting to be the last word, and thus silence other voices, but rather inviting ongoing dialogue in the search for truth), and comprehensive (relating to all of life)." (p.152)
In the following chapter McLaren talks about Scripture, opening with the story of a friend who shared his disappointment that Brian had abandoned his high regard for the Bible. A shocked and hurt McLaren later received an apology. Standing where I stand today, I understand that story very well. I too believe that my regard for Scripture is perhaps higher than it has ever been, but it is very much different from the regard I had ten years ago when I was uncomfortable with, but still using, extra-biblical terms like "inerrant, infallible, objective, absolute, and literal." McLaren writes,
"Perhaps the best way to use Scripture is not to concentrate on it at all but rather to focus on our pursuit of mission. Then we will need Scripture to do what it was intended to do. This is exactly where Paul goes in his letter to Timothy..
"When Scripture talks about itself, it doesn't use the language we use... Hardly anyone realizes why these words are important. Hardly anyone knows the stories of Sir Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, the Enlightenment, David Hume and Foundationalism-- which provide the context in which these words are so important. Hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting to the authority of extrabiblical words and concepts to justify one's belief in the Bible's ultimate authority.
Oddly, I've never heard of a denomination or church that asked people to affirm a doctrinal statement like this: The purpose of Scripture is to equip God's people for good works."
This reminds me also of the use Solomon's Porch makes of Scripture. These comments are from Scott McKnight, who is working through Pagitt's book, "Reimagining Spiritual Formation:"
"At Solomon's Porch, Scripture is read in huge chunks, aloud, and this revives an old tradition in the Church where the lectionary was used so that Christians could hear Scripture because most didn't have Scriptures to read at home...
"And here's another part of their use of Scripture: "We focus our efforts on trying to figure out if our lives could be relevant to the story of God, not if the Bible can be relevant to our lives" (123). Again, another provocative but sensible statement. Instead of making Scripture relevant to an existing worldly reality (our lives), which happens to be the very essence of seeker-oriented services, Solomon's Porch asks for its community to become relevant to the Scriptural story that God tells. On this one, again, I find great comfort and a serious challenge. This community wants to live out the story of God as known through Scripture.
"If there ever was a postmodern understanding of Scripture it can be found in this statement, which turns Scripture's authority into an article of faith in the necessity of believing it for it to be truthful: "We believe the Bible because our hopes, ideas, experiences, and community of faith allow and require us to believe" (123). This is faith seeking understanding, which is about as solid as it gets. This is a stance that Scripture cannot be understood properly if it is not received, that is, a word from a God who needs to be loved and listened to in order to be understood. This is a hermeneutic of love and trust in a world saturated with a hermeneutic of suspicion. This is not to say that the community does not honestly challenge what Scripture says, for it does.
"Another angle on Scripture is that the community gathers during the week to hear the Scripture for the Sunday gathering and to share what they are hearing, and then the sermon is rooted in this community's hearing of Scripture. I can't see anything but good in such a thing, as long as attentive study of the text by duly gifted teachers/preachers accompanies this communal reading of Scripture. But, as an old man who used to barge into our home in Nottingham -- his name was Mr. Baxter -- used to say, "Two heads are better than one, even if they're sheepsheads."
"There is also a solid commitment to the Holy Spirit: John 14:25-26 is reflected on weekly (and this means they believe that the Spirit continues to guide). They also believe this attentiveness to the Spirit will keep them in the way of the gospel and prevent them from falling into heresy. When someone offers thoughts that are thought to be out of touch with orthodoxy, and here they are still thinking in terms of pneumatology -- and this is what the orthodoxy movement ultimately believes in, they will gently guide the conversation back to what is "consistent with orthodoxy" (90). Dialogue is important both for hearing one another and for learning from one another."
For further reflection, here are some thoughts gleaned from Dwight Friesen:
"It could be argued that the doctrine of inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement (for instance) is a product of enlightenment, top-down thinking, striving to provide a unique "stand-alone" authoritative position on Scripture. The discussion of inerrancy since at least since the rise of Carl F. H. Henry et al. has concerned a mostly propositional reading of the Biblical text.
"If God, who is in Godself "Truth" - who speaks and acts truth only - has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Godself to humanity through Jesus Christ as Creator, Lord, and reconciler then Holy Scripture one of God's witnesses to humanity. Scripture is God's witness of the God/humanity relationship; or the story of salvation history (as it is often called).
"The dogma of Biblical inerrancy generally finds expression through a tight hermeneutic manifest through propositional, objective truth claims.
"Question: What are some of the things that give a story its power and authority?
"Think of any story: from Star Wars to a Simpson's episode; from a Copeland novel, to the story of your own family . . . what might be some of the elements that give a story power?
"Some possible responses:
"Could it be that a more faithful approach to the authority of Scripture might involve paying closer attention to the details in the retelling of the narrative? The point is not the point, the telling is.
"Think about the way you tell the story of your family. If you speak in board general ways, with propositional phrases which seek to sum up the essence of your family something is lost; your family becomes a caricature. In the objectification of the narrative of one's one family, the family no longer exists to be known as the living family of relationships, rather the family exists as an illustration in abstraction, and limited to a single vantage point.
"It appears that something far more beautiful happens in telling detailed narratives of one's family. The greater the detail in the story, as it is retold the more we enter into the narrative. Part of the shaping power of our stories is their radical particularity. In some ways the more specific the details of the narrative, the more power the story has.
"Though I am not saying we should try to redefine "inerrancy" (both the word and the concept behind the word maybe wrought with problems), I am wondering aloud whether it might be wise for us to look at how we tell and retell the witness of Holy Scripture being mindful of the details of the narrative(s).
"So, maybe, when we encounter a specific Biblical text it would be wise for us listen for the details of the narrative not simply the big idea.
And from James Houston of Regent College...
"The.. religious model is idolatrous.. We can read the text of Scripture that way also, to support our own way of thinking. The mirror -- the Bible -- used in this way is an idol; it is man-made. It is dead and dumb, with a graven -- not living -- message.
"The icon, however, is not a self-projection, but a revelation. It brings us a message from beyond, so we interpret and look at it differently. As Jean-Luc Marion has observed, the icon lets the visible image be "saturated" by the invisible, pointing beyond itself. The Greek words in the scriptural references to idol and icon demonstrate the contrast. Eidolon refers to "what is seen," known indeed by the fact that one has seen it, oida, an idol. But every icon (eikon) takes its norm from what the apostle Paul applies to Christ, the eikon of the invisible God (see Colossians 1:15). Although God remains invisible, his divinity shines through everything Christ said and did. Likewise, the text of Scripture is iconic; it is a witness to transcendence from transcendence. Kevin Vanhoozer sums it up neatly when he says, "To claim that the Bible is a verbal icon thus leads not to bibliolatry, but to the idea of Holy Scripture and to the idea that the text points away from itself." ("Is There a Meaning in this Text?", Zondervan, 1998)
Houston, "The Mentored Life"
|
Cutting Edge / Shoot the Messenger / Vine and Branches / Jesus People USA / Postmodern Mission / Sacred Future / Tribal Generation / Reality / Waves Church / Matthew's House / Praxis / Post Boomer / FutureChurch / MethodX / TheOOZE / ginkworld / ::seven:: / emergent village / Highway Video / emerging church / Sojourners / Ship of Fools / Beyond / Next-Wave / Small Fire / ThePowerSurge / dtour
|
• © 1999-2002 Len Hjalmarson.•
Last Updated on September 25, 2002
