Has anyone read this book yet? If so what did you think?
Has anyone read this book yet? If so what did you think?
"Love without holiness disintegrates into sentimentality. Personal integrity is lost. But holiness without love is not holiness at all. In spite of its label, it displays harshness, judgmentalism, a critical spirit, and all its capacity for discrimination end in nit-picking and divisiveness."-Mildred Bangs Wynkoop
No, but I love the title.
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
Dang it another book to add to my list.
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingSusan Unger - "thanks" for this post
Do you think it will change any minds? Fundamentalism tends to inoculate its followers against all forms of dissent.Originally Posted by Craig Laughlin
So the line of thinking for the average fundamentalist-sympathizer (whether they self-identify or not) is thus:
or the alternate thinkingIf Wesleyans are not fundamentalists, then those of us who value Scripture as Truth need to purge those Wesleyan doubters from our fellowship.
I'm not holding my breath on that last one.If Wesleyans are not fundamentalists, then those of us who value Scripture as Truth need to shake the Wesleyan/Nazarene dust from our feet and go elsewhere.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LewisPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
No I don't think that many minds will be changed but I do think that Weslyian pastors can do a lot more to make clear that we value scriptures.
When I first moved here there was/is a lot of fundamentalist who like to call anyone who didn't see it there way "false teachers" which was more than just a little alarming. Like many fundamentalist they had just enough theological education to be dangerous and thought they knew it all. I decided to push back.
For the first couple of years I said probably once a month - "We believe the Bible is the living word of God, that it was inspired in its writing, inspired in its preservation and that the Holy Spirit inspires it when we read it today. We believe that it is the final authority on all things related to spiritual life and practice. We believe in God's word! Then I would make them stand to honor God's word when we read it in service.
My preaching then took a strong turn toward quietly demonstrating that I knew a lot more about the Bible then these folks that had concerns about me. I starting talking about the Greek and the original context and the historical and cultural perspectives and how that impacted our understanding. I took on from the pulpit many of the Fundamentalist issues as they would come up and gave our perspective which I think is really much stronger. Frankly I made fun of some of their ideas. (like getting all caught up in how many angels were at the resurrection - People, Jesus has been resurrected! - The power of sin and death is broken! - who cares how many angels - can you miss the point more than that?) Four years in, nobody even hints that I don't believe in God's word. In fact I am earning a reputation for being the "bible" preacher in my community because my sermons are so overtly exegetical. Among evangelicals pastors I think I am the only one that has more than a Bible college education.
I can't change the old crowd but I can make them look silly when they attack me. Today if someone were to suggest that I didn't believe in the Bible my people would probably laugh them rather than be concerned.
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-EschenbachPost Thanks / Like - 19 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Craig, if we had the option of hitting thanks more than once, I would have carpal tunnel by now. I could not agree with your entire post more, if I had written it myself, but then it wouldn't be nearly as well written. The clear distinction you make between a truly Wesleyan view of Scripture and fundamentalism is, in my opinion, spot on.
I am also quite certain that there are numerous readers of this board who consider your statement quoted above to be fundamentalist, because you state the Bible is the living word of God. There are many who in the name of Wesley take the quite un-Wesleyan view that the Bible is merely the church's witness to the living word of God. Further, they would argue that it is not the final authority, because any authority it has came from the community of faith (the church) which produced it and which continues to progress in its understanding of God.
Clarity on this matter would go a long way toward marginalizing the alarmist, fundamentalist squall-line who are convinced that there is no valid option between their brand of fundamentalism on the one side and a Bible-discounting liberalism on the other. In my opinion, you have staked out that middle ground where Wesley stood (although he was inerrantist he avoided idle controversies), where I try to stand, and where the Church of the Nazarene has historically stood. Via media, indeed! Thank you.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Great post Craig. You could probably skip reading the book, simply because you sound like you could have written it.
Haha, but seriously I think it's very wise to inoculate the congregation against fundamentalist assault through overtly biblical preaching, as opposed to being caught flatfooted and then spinning one's wheels arguing silly points of minutae.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LewisPost Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'd not heard of the book until this thread. Here's the link to it on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Square-Peg-Wes.../dp/0834127938
I enjoyed Al Truesdale's classes at NTS. I should probably order this book.
Well, not even our Article of Faith claims such a notion, nor the original Anglican Articles of Faith on the Scriptures. I have yet to see a Bible that is alive, but I gladly admit I haven't seen all of them.
I do believe the Bible is the witness to the Living Word of God. Not sure how anyone would deny that? Which makes the Living Word the final authority, the One who said: "You have heard that is was said [...] but I tell you...".
As I see it, the Bible testifies to the One who loves me, it does not love me itself. It testifies to the One who died for me, it did not die for me itself. It testifies to the Spirit who gives life, it does not give life itself, "for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
Now it is equally clear that this testimony has been written down by humans, with the only exception of the stone tablets, that were written by the finger of God (Deut 9:10). And that, moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit, their words are a faithful witness to God's truth (2 Tim 3:16).
I always try to be a Bible preacher too.
If all of this makes me un-Wesleyan, then I plead guilty.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Of course our constitution does call Scripture "our rule of both faith and practice."I do believe the Bible is the witness to the Living Word of God. Not sure how anyone would deny that? Which makes the Living Word the final authority, the One who said: "You have heard that is was said [...] but I tell you...".
I did not mean to rehash a defense of our respective views. I think we understand each other.
Please forgive me in advance for the inadequacy of these widely used and generally accepted labels I am about to use. My point (and thanks) to Craig was that he has staked out what I believe to be the middle ground between your view of Scripture (and the view of most of American mainline protestantism) and a fundamentalist view.
What do you think? I don't think for a second that you would ever call Craig a fundamentalist, but if you were to read his statement without his name on it, you have already established that you would not be in agreement with it. Would you consider it to be a fundamentalist statement, or somewhere between your view and fundamentalism?
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Scott, I don't think it was a fundamentalistic statement. I agree with everything but the one thing about the Bible being the living word. I simply have no concept of how it could be living. That is all. I wonder what Craig means by that phrase, perhaps he can explain it and I would be fine with it.
In fact, I don't even see why Craig's statement is a middle ground. But for just one word,"living", I agree. I could easily post:
"We believe the Bible is the word of God, that it was inspired in its writing, inspired in its preservation and that the Holy Spirit inspires it when we read it today. We believe that it is the final authority on all things related to spiritual life and practice. We believe in God's word! Then I would make them stand to honor God's word when we read it in service. "
I even don't object to the standing. We actually have a youth pastor who likes that, and I only object because it is confusing because 99% of the time, we do not stand at the reading of the Scriptures. But if we did it all the time, fine by me.
I guess I would like to distinguish between the Living and the written word, but I can't imagine that someone would fall from his chair when he hears about that. I've been told that distinction all my life.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I use the word living because I believe a follower of Christ always encounters God's word under the inspirational of the spirit. - That is to say that unlike any other text this text is read with the power of the Spirit. - thus a "safe" text I have read 1000 times can one day, by the power of the Spirit reach out, grab me around the neck and scream - Pay attention! This applies to you!
I also believe the truth contained within the text is far deeper than our ability to understand and it is only by the insight given via the Spirit that we can perceive, understand and apply it to life. That being said I confess that there is great truth contained in the message that I am probably missing all the time but until Spirit makes it known to me I can not grasp it.
Living for me is the confession of inspiration in writing, preservation and reading. In this way scripture is different from all other text.
Didn't realize that the book was written by Al Truesdale - He was probably my favorite prof when I was in seminary. - I tend to be a philosophy guy
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-EschenbachPost Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Hans Deventer, the fundamentalist - now THAT'S a proposition that may require some getting used to!
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 LaughingHans Deventer - thanks for this funny post
Thanks for the explanation and I agree with what you are trying to convey with it, Craig. I don't think I would have chosen the word "living" for it, but I normally try to say the very same thing. I would probably have stayed with "inspired" or what I like even better, "God-breathed". The Holy Spirit works through the written texts and yes, in that sense, makes them living words.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Hans - yes if I were involved in a close theological discussion about inspiration of scripture I would probably word a lot of it differently and in more guarded terms but this is what I use to speak to my congregation about the fact the we Nazarenes are absolutely committed to the authority of scripture.
- It might be worth noting, that for those lay people who want to go deeper I periodically teach a class 10-12 week class during the week about the fundamentals of interpreting scripture and we get deep into our understanding of what scripture is and is not. - Amazingly, lots of folks love that stuff and it is my favorite class to teach.
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-EschenbachPost Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Craig, I would love to be able to do this without reinventing the wheel. Do use a text for this class? When do you plan to publish your curriculum? (only half joking. I would buy it.)- It might be worth noting, that for those lay people who want to go deeper I periodically teach a class 10-12 week class during the week about the fundamentals of interpreting scripture and we get deep into our understanding of what scripture is and is not. -
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
PM me your e-mail and I'll send it all to you. I will say - I warned people away from the class telling them that it would be very heavy and was not for those who didn't want to really dig in a deal with language and context issues. - I started with 23 (I was expecting about 5) and ended with 18. However, those 18 really got it and wanted me to teach it again so they can take it again. They still talk about it. I am planning on eventually doing the same kind of thing with doctrine. I'll walk through the Articles of Faith at a deep theological level. For those who are wired right it really connects.
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-EschenbachPost Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think that the words 'inspired' and 'God-breathed' connote dictation at a given point in time, whereas 'living' implies an ongoing engagement between the reader, the text and the Holy Spirit. It's one of the downsides of theological nuance that the delicate tensions and precise definitions are easily lost in translation to those who are less fluent in the language.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
Apparently me and the multiply dictionaries have a different understanding of inspired. So after looking that up I can see where you would have a problem Billy.
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."
Well, that's too bad but "theopneustos" is the word used in the Scriptures themselves. Rather not steer away from that, as a good fundie
God's breath is not the same as God's dictation though. Generally, I think it is better to teach and explain the Biblical concepts, rather than drop them altogether.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
i'd love it too! Sounds VERY interesting! The other I taught a class on Scriptural authority, but that was just one night. I'd love stuff like this!
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
I would take a look at it as well. I don't have fundamentalist issues here yet, but it would be good to be prepared. I do try to get them to read ahead and behind when they don't understand something, rather than trying to figure it out themselves. Some are catching on to that practice.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Sure, one does not just throw away biblical language, I'm just suggesting that some audiences won't 'hear' what we are saying if we use terminology that has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists.Well, that's too bad but "theopneustos" is the word used in the Scriptures themselves. Rather not steer away from that, as a good fundie
God's breath is not the same as God's dictation though. Generally, I think it is better to teach and explain the Biblical concepts, rather than drop them altogether.
Maybe one way to 'recast' the term 'God breathed' is to point out the parallel between that term and how God breathed into Adam to make him come to life. If God breathes (present tense) into scripture; making it come alive to the reader/hearer, then there is a reverence for the scripture that one doesn't get when treating the text like a fetal pig to be dissected, or like a weapon for disemboweling one's religious and political foes.
Just thinking out loud. I'm no expert in reverence after all.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LewisPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
And all the people said, "AMEN!"
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 6 Laughing
Okay - to those that asked I sent out my notes etc. for the class. If you asked and didn't get it PM me again and I will resend. Use it as you like. Hope it is helpful.
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-EschenbachPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Could you PM me as well Craig?
"Love without holiness disintegrates into sentimentality. Personal integrity is lost. But holiness without love is not holiness at all. In spite of its label, it displays harshness, judgmentalism, a critical spirit, and all its capacity for discrimination end in nit-picking and divisiveness."-Mildred Bangs Wynkoop
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
