A Much Needed Word: Bibliolatry
John on November 20, 2007 at 12:30 am
I missed this when it appeared a few days ago. Sounds like J.P. Moreland really shook things up at ETS:
“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ,” he said. “And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.”
The problem, he said, is “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.”
Suppose an archaeologist discovered a portion of the ancient city of Jerusalem that was specifically described in the Old Testament, Moreland said:
Could the archaeologist have discovered the site without the use of the Old Testament? Once discovered, could the archaeologist learn things about the site that went beyond what was in the Old Testament? Clearly the answer is yes to both questions. Why? Because the site actually exists in the real world. It does not exist in the Bible. It is only described in the Bible and the biblical description in partial.
And here’s one that’s bound to inflame some people:
“The sparse landscape of evangelical political thought stands in stark contrast to the overflowing garden both of evangelical biblical scholarship and Catholic reflection on reason, general revelation, and cultural and political engagement,” he said. “We evangelicals could learn a lesson or two from our Catholic friends.”
Lastly, Dr. Moreland had some equally shocking things to say about how we got into this sorry state in the first place:
Rather than developing a robust epistemology in response to secularism, he said, evangelicals reacted and retreated. Now evangelical theologians aren’t allowed to come to any new conclusions about the truths in Scripture, and they’re not allowed to find truths outside of Scripture. As a result, he said, they’re engaged in “private language games and increasingly detailed minutia” and “we’re not seeing work on broad cultural themes.”
A sharp commenter sums it up this way “Moreland is challenging SOLO Scriptura, not SOLA Scriptura.” Exactly so. This is what Roy Clouser calls the “encyclopedic fallacy.” I like Moreland’s term bibliolatry better. It’s simpler and has a nice ring (of truth). Good for you, Dr. Moreland.
Of course the most obvious place to apply such a view would be to science and empiricism. Somehow I don’t think Dr. Moreland is coming out in favor of the theory of evolution, even though that is far and away the most significant area of friction. Still, after reading this, I’m actually interested in reading his new book.
Category: Religion & Faith |
Part of me thinks ‘amen to that, brother’, because I recognise a great deal of truth in what he says, but another part of me thinks ‘nobody on the other side of the debate is ever going to change their minds on this issue’.
Most Christians (myself included) get very entrenched in their positions about what is the right way to go about being a Christian. In my experience, the only person who can change someone’s perspective on that is somebody with whom they have always been in agreement, and even then thet will usually be a step change, not an about turn.
Still, as you say, John, good for you, Dr Moreland.
November 20, 2007 @ 4:52 amAll may be interested to know that JP has posted his response to the CT blog on the Kingdom Triangle blog: Moreover, the link also provides access to the full-text of Moreland’s ETS paper. Moreland’s http://www.kingdomtriangle.com also provides opportunity to sample his book Kingdom Triangle, along with audio of him speaking and being interviewed about the book.
November 20, 2007 @ 7:54 amEverything must work out from the Scriptures. His reference to evangelicals learning from our Catholic friends is again very dangerous. Instead of addressing the sola scriptura crowd’s ignoring much of the practical verses they say they espouse, this writer is headed down a very dangerous and mercurial path. If the Scriptures do not teach it then he assumes spiritual truth can be gleaned by HUMAN EXPERIENTIAL OBSERVATION. With that equation absolute authority would lie with the subjective human opinion.
The Bible is the tree upon all other ornaments must hang.
November 21, 2007 @ 7:29 amBut, Henry, if God created everything, then surely everything is spiritual? Everything we can learn about anything is a spiritual truth – the fact that pure water boils at 100 degrees celsius at sea level becomes spiritual when you consider how very integral to God’s whole creation are heat and water.
November 21, 2007 @ 7:34 amThat is an elongation of the word “spiritual” in the generally accepted sense. Measuring how fast a turtle walks is not in the Bible but I do not consider that spiritual. What is spiritual is the entire canopy of redemptive truth.
A rock is not spiritual even though the cause and effect points to Creator in the generic sense. Spiritual refers to the truth that reveals who we are, who God is, and the panaramic redemptive plan of God to us. All the rest is observable by the human retina but has very little revelation in it without the foundation of Scripture.
The purpose of creation is mostly a mystery, only what has been revealed to us through written revelation can be trusted even though man has sometimes poisoned it with subjective interpretation. But when subjective observation of the material universe is relied upon for revelation then the subjectivity is basically inherant in the entire process.
November 21, 2007 @ 9:33 am