One of the
chief concerns with Presbyterian Church (USA) is the growing disregard for
biblical authority. You may recall that the first tenet of FPC's list of essential tenets, “The Bible is the infallible and authoritative self-revelation of
God.” To call the Bible authoritative does not simply mean it is a very
important and valuable book and should be an important consideration in our
Christian life, as some understand that statement. While the Bible is very
important and valuable, the issue of biblical authority is more specific than
that.
When we say
the Bible is authoritative, we mean that Bible, as the infallible Word of God,
stands above all other authorities. There is no authority for faith and life
that is above it and there are no competitors to it. All other authorities are
subordinate. Reason, science, personal experience, and various philosophies
have some authority in their spheres of influence. If there is a conflict between
Scripture and these subordinate authorities, the matter must be reconciled in
such a way that the central truths of Scripture are still upheld.
In contrast,
there is a burgeoning movement to view the Bible as one authority among many
equal peers. This means that when a matter of faith and life is under discussion
the Bible is considered, but so are personal experience, science, sociology and
other “authorities”. The “truth” is determined by which sources agree with a
person’s view of life. I’ve heard this view expressed by one Presbyterian
pastor who said that the Bible is important, but it is only a beginning point
for discussion about the big issues of life. Another pastor expressed a similar
perspective saying that the Bible is a collection of documents from an ancient
culture that no longer exists, and therefore should not be relied upon as a rulebook
for modern ethics. While I would agree that the Bible is not just a rulebook,
you cannot help but sense the diminished position the Bible holds in that
pastor’s understanding of biblical authority. Then, of course, it is hard to
ignore the language change for church officers in our new Book of Order.
Whereas the standard for church officers previously required that we live in
“obedience to Scripture”, the new version removes such a requirement and only
asks the ordaining body to be “guided by Scripture” in evaluating a candidate.
An effort was made at the last General Assembly to change “guided by Scripture”
to “under the authority of Scripture”. Indicative of the changing culture, the
effort was handedly defeated.
A common response from the denominational leadership is to assert that all
Presbyterians uphold biblical authority; we simply have different
interpretations of Scripture regarding ethical issues. The problem from their
perspective is different interpretations, not biblical authority. I would disagree
with that notion. The two cannot be separated. Here is the strategy of those
who want to diminish the Bible’s authority on topics such as the definition of
marriage: Interpret the Bible in such a way that you deconstruct its contents
in order to render Scripture meaningless. They conclude, for example, that the
Bible really says nothing definitive about God’s design of marriage. They say
the Bible is “poly-vocal” on the topic. This is nothing but sophistry,
intending to obstruct the clear message of the Bible.
It is difficult to assert that such interpretive tactics reflective a high
view of the Bible’s authority. Such tactics do not uphold a respect for the
historic affirmation of the Reformation, “Sola Scriptura”, or Scripture alone. In
contrast, our confessions clearly uphold the authority of Scripture. It grieves
me that the denomination has moved in practice far from our official
confessional documents.
Thank you, James. Well put!
ReplyDeleteI've noticed a really handy way that the Bible is rendered impotent. On a given question, such as gay marriage, all of Christian history, exegesis, and practice might be united on one side that opposes same-sex marriage. But that isn't a problem to the Bible deniers. They think only one thing is necessary: an opposing opinion. If they posit just one very weak and easily opposed opinion, then they can say, "But Presbyterians differ on the interpretation of Scripture on this matter, so we need to look beyond the Bible for answers."
It's a handy trick: introduce even the flimsiest counter argument and then claim that the interpretation is conflicted. Therefore, we don't know what the Bible says. It's a cheap, devious trick, but it has been used over and over, and they are getting away with it.