These questions have stirred my recollections recently. I have been reading a book by Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza, Theologica-Political Treatise. Spinoza is a very interesting writer. He is a Dutch-Jewish mathematical philosopher. In his book, he posits the idea that the Bible in not universal. It is a specific message for a specific group of people. He says that God "spoke" to the authors the same way He speaks to us, through the "Divine light of reason." He believes that prophets possessed a higher level of imagination. He believes that the Bible is beneficial as a moral storybook, but God speaks to each person. I do not agree with the un-universality of the Bible. Yet, I wonder what happened to the "Divine light of reason."
Most Christians I know believe God speaks through Natural Revelation (i.e. nature) and Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible). I do not recall many of them including reason with Natural Revelation. I will. What I fail to understand is what happened to Natural Revelation? Does the Bible supercede what our minds tell us? Do we no longer need to exercise our logical abilities? Is the only way to know God through the text of the Scriptures?
Man is a depraved creature. I have thought at times that man cannot know God except God drew man near to Himself. I have currently less Calvinistic, and believe there is some ability within man. I am content to call this a "free will." Whatever the case, most would agree that when man is justified he is reconcilled. Man was created to love God. God gave man all the necessary skills to love Him. Man was created to exist "within" God. By that I mean man can only thrive when he is in union with God. Sin separates us from God. It brings disunion. It disconnects us from the Sovereign Lord. That is why it was necessary for Christ to engage in the "ministry of reconcilliation," as Paul describes it. Reconcilled man no longer has a problem with understanding and knowing God. He can comune with God. The primary purpose of the Bible is to lead men to God. Once they are saved, they have the ability to seek God through Natural Revelation. However, many Christians I have met demean the "Divine light of reason," and focus solely on the written revelation. Could we thrive in our Christianity without the Bible? We certainly can. We certainly should.
Michael Spencer at Internetmonk writes an compelling essay on how to approach the Scripture. He lists the ways Christians normally approach the Scriptures. One way is to treat the Bible as "a magic book, where God speaks to us in unusual ways." This method leads people to read until a particular verse "speaks" to us, and the "go and do likewise." Another perspective is "by collecting verses." He calls this the "grocery list." We use some computer program to find a list of verses on a specific topic, and then build our doctrine from there. He doesn't hold tightly to either of these approaches. He notes that they can have their benefit, but they are not the best way. He says:
Now here is the crucial thing I have to say in this essay: In understanding the Bible, it is far more important that we understand, as best we can, the message and meaning of entire books, and the story told by those books, rather than just having a personal experience with individual verses. The study of Biblical books and the assessment of their story and message is the basic kind of Bible study that is needed in the church, and in preaching/teaching. This entails the study of smaller units of text, but the larger picture/story is the most valuable picture/narrative for the Christian life. I hope and pray nothing more than that my brothers in the ministry could make this connection: Understanding the Bible is understanding the books of the Bible, and how they relate together into one message.
I have been witness to many "expositions" of Biblical passages. Often they are insightful. Yet, often they are tedious. It is possible to pull a cavalcade of principles out of any verse. But this tends to overlook the primary purpose of the passage. He compares the books of the Bible to the ingredients of a recipe:
Obviously, these books are different, and it is entirely reasonable to say that some books are essential to the message and some are less essential. This is the difference between eggs and flour, and sesame seeds or food coloring. The Bible would survive without Obadiah. It could not survive without the Gospels. Any part of the whole can be seen as presenting some aspect of the final message, but like a play with two acts and 66 scenes, the Bible is meant to be seen in all its scenes. Editing or omitting may or may not damage the play's ability to say its message (like Mel Gibson's edited Hamlet might be critiqued as different from Branaugh's complete "Hamlet.") But what we have is the whole, and the whole is understood primarily by understanding books and the larger narrative of those books.
We need a much broader view of the Bible. It is a complete work. God inspired every word, but that doesn't mean we need to take each word and build a doctrine on it. And it doesn't mean that the Bible is the end of our knowledge of God. George MacDonald, a writer I am beginning to respect, authored a book entitled Unspoken Sermons. In the first volume, he discusses the place of Scripture in "The Higher Faith."
Sad, indeed, would the whole matter be, if the Bible had told us everything God meant us to believe. But herein is the Bible itself greatly wronged. It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, not the Bible, save as leading to him. And why are we told that these treasures are hid in him who is the Revelation of God? Is it that we should despair of finding them and cease to seek them? Are they not hid in him that they may be revealed to us in due time—that is, when we are in need of them? Is not their hiding in him the mediatorial step towards their unfolding in us? Is he not the Truth? the Truth to men? Is he not the High Priest of his brethren, to answer all the troubled questionings that arise in their dim humanity? For it is his heart which Contains of good, wise, just, the perfect shape.
He basic thesis is that the Inspired Word is only part of His revelation. He speaks to each person even today. We need to listen to God's voice as He speaks directly to us. MacDonald anticipates some objections:
But is not this dangerous doctrine? Will not a man be taught thus to believe the things he likes best, even to pray for that which he likes best? And will he not grow arrogant in his confidence? If it be true that the Spirit strives with our spirit; if it be true that God teaches men, we may safely leave those dreaded results to him. If the man is of the Lord's company, he is safer with him than with those who would secure their safety by hanging on the outskirts and daring nothing. If he is not aught of God in that which he hopes for, God will let him know it. He will receive something else than he prays for. If he can pray to God for anything not good, the answer will come in the flames of that consuming fire. These will soon bring him to some of his spiritual senses. But it will be far better for him to be thus sharply tutored, than to go on a snail’s pace in the journey of the spiritual life. And for arrogance, I have seen nothing breed it faster or in more offensive forms than the worship of the letter.
Many would say that God plays an active role in our lives. They restrict, however, His workings to the words of Scripture. Does God have to use Scripture when He speaks to us? Can a person who is reconciled with God and genuinely seeking Him find Him? It would be a fairly malicious prank to leave us as a subordinate to a book. What would we do if the book is taken from us? Do they purloin our Christianity as well? MacDonald makes a very profound point later:
Do you count it a great faith to believe what God has said? It seems to me, I repeat, a little faith, and, if alone, worthy of reproach. To believe what he has not said is faith indeed, and blessed. For that comes of believing in Him. Can you not believe in God himself? Or, confess,do you not find it so hard to believe what he has said, that even that is almost more than you can do? If I ask you why, will not the true answer be, "Because we are not quite sure that he did say it"? If you believed in God you would find it easy to believe the word. You would not even need to inquire whether he had said it: you would know that he meant it.
These are compelling thoughts.
My logic is far from consistent here, and I know I have skitted about randomly. I have not come to any conclusions on this matter--am still in the process of rumination. But these are important issues. They are issues we cannot let fall by the side. I encourage you to read the essay and the sermon. Ask yourself, how does God intend for us to know Him? What would we do were there no Bible?
No comments:
Post a Comment