I met with the Quakers last Sunday. Like all Christians, they focus on some scriptures more than on others. I messaged QuakerSpeak, a group that shares information about the Friends, and asked which scriptures they think Quakers focus on most. They sent me this video.
Understanding this is important not only for theological liberals and conservatives who don't understand each other. It's also important for Humanists who might not understand the differences between Episcopalians and Southern Baptists. Consider the issue of gay marriage. An Episcopalian looking at the issue is likely to say, "knowing what we know today, what is a Jesus-like attitude towards gay marriage?" A Southern Baptist, on the other hand will ask "What does the Bible say about homosexuality?" Both questions are theologically coherent from their respective perspectives.
When I considered their history, I couldn't help but want to add the following verse to the list. How often it comes up among them, I can't say, but it does reflect one of their defining characteristics. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
The following is a quote from George Fox's The Great Mystery. Fox is considered the founder of Quakerism.
And the scriptures, which signify writings, outward writings, with paper and ink, are not, as you say, infallible, nor are they divine, but human, and men get a human knowledge from them; and so writings with paper and ink are not infallible, nor is the scripture the ground of faith, but Christ [is the ground], who was before the scripture was written; this the scripture tells you, and that God is divine; and the scriptures are the words of God, which Christ, the [W]ord, ends, who is the author of the faith. (SOURCE)
How "The Word of God" Shapes Doctrine
The question "What is the Word of God?" is the primary question that divides theological conservatives and theological liberals. One's answer to this question will affect how he or she interprets the Bible. If Jesus is the Word of God, perhaps the Bible needs to be taken seriously only insofar as it sheds like on Him. If however, the Bible is the Word of God, then perhaps it should be taken literally. The two faith claims aren't mutually exclusive, but theological liberals generally reject the idea that the Bible is the Word of God. Similarly, where theological conservatives might refer to the Bible as the revelation, theological liberals usually use this word to refer to Jesus.Understanding this is important not only for theological liberals and conservatives who don't understand each other. It's also important for Humanists who might not understand the differences between Episcopalians and Southern Baptists. Consider the issue of gay marriage. An Episcopalian looking at the issue is likely to say, "knowing what we know today, what is a Jesus-like attitude towards gay marriage?" A Southern Baptist, on the other hand will ask "What does the Bible say about homosexuality?" Both questions are theologically coherent from their respective perspectives.
Jon, speaking as someone whom you'd identify as a theological conservative, I have to say I don't accept your proposed distinction between theological liberals and conservatives as an accurate description of my own views.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I would say: of course Jesus Christ is the Word (as scripture itself teaches!) to whom the words of scripture witness. And yes, scripture is valuable not for its own sake but because it witnesses to Jesus, the Word. Where the real difference lies is in how I *make sense of* these things.
As far as I can see, the best way to make sense of scripture in light of Jesus as the Word is to recognize that, well, all of it carries authority, and this is clear enough to me based on the words of Jesus in scripture. Jesus, it seems obvious to me, is the Word of *Israel's God*, and he comes to interpret (and not override or erase) the Law given by that God, as a culmination of that God's sending of prophets to call his people to repentance for the sake of the whole world, and of that God's constant activity among the people of Israel for the sake of the whole world. So, the Old Testament points to Christ, and we really can't understand the God whose Word Christ is without it, and if we have to declare anything in it as not in some way witnessing to Christ, then we've misunderstood the Christ, the Word.
In the same way, Jesus promised to be with his apostles and with his church. He promised to send his very Spirit to remind them what he taught and to empower them to teach his Gospel. And so they did, and so, therefore, to trust Christ the Word is to trust those he empowered to hand on his message, which means that the Gospels and Epistles are also authoritative--precisely as witnessing to Christ the Word. And we can't (so it seems to me) coherently dismiss *any* of it as of no importance or as in conflict with Christ, not if we take Christ's own promises as true.
I will happily admit that of course to interpret the entirety of scripture as witnessing to the Word of one God in this way presents an enormous intellectual challenge, because of course the different texts that make up the Bible are reflective of different genres, different periods of history, etc., and they relate to one another in complex ways that are not captured or recognized by modern fundamentalism. Still, this is the only way I can make sense of the claim that Jesus Christ is the Word of God.
And of course it should be said that the patristic writers who developed the Logos Christology idea that is suggested in John also (by and large) treated scripture in the way I'm describing.
I wouldn't say that the idea of Jesus being the Word of God belongs to liberal theology, but in American Christianity this is often the case, especially relatively speaking. I know you'd consider yourself theologically conservative. I'm sure most scholars would agree. Would the people in the pews?
DeleteIn the West, generally speaking, the churches that view the Word of God this way are more liberal in most senses than what we call Fundamentalist churches. Consider the Catholic Church as an example.
In some ways, I think canonical theism makes a good conversation partner both for biblical literalists and true theological liberals. I agree with you about that your way of viewing the scriptures is more in line with tradition than either the Fundamentalists or the Liberals.