Father, Son, and Holy Writ

I’m going to comment on this post:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/03/the-father-son-and-the-holy-bible/

The problem with many Evangelicals is that we can come dangerously close to worshiping the Bible. As Evangelical theologian James Sawyer once said in jest, we worship the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Bible.

So, in our best moments, we will condemn anything that smells of idolatry concerning the Scriptures. We know that the Bible is not the fourth member of the Trinity.

I am really saying nothing new or extraordinary here.

I agree with Michael. He’s not saying anything new or extraordinary. Rather, he’s recycling a stock rhetorical smear tactic which liberals use to slander Bible-believing Christians. If you’re a Bible-believing Christian, liberals accuse you of bibliolatry. You bow down to a paper pope.

It’s striking that Michael would resort to that impious, underhanded tactic.

Now, let me cease with the self-deprecation for a moment.

I don’t see any self-deprecation in Michael’s post. Rather, I see him deprecating Bible-believing Christians.

The historic message of the Bible needs to take precedence over the theological nature of the Bible. And here is where I feel we Evangelicals, in our zeal and love for the Bible, taint the Gospel with unnecessary additives. These additives, more often than not, create red herrings where we can end up leaving Jesus out altogether as we defend against thousands of claims of Bible contradictions. Further, I believe that this defense needs to be exclusively concerned with the historicity of the resurrection of Christ (“Resurrection Apologetics”). If Christ is risen from the grave, Christianity is true, no matter how many contradictions one thinks they have found. And if Christ did not rise from the grave, Christianity is false, no matter how harmonious the Bible shows to be. In short, I don’t have to convince anyone of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in order to introduce them to my Savior. I just have to make a case that the historicity of the story of Christ contained in the Bible is reliable enough to warrant their belief.

i) The “additives” that Michael excoriates are Biblical teachings. Teachings that he himself acknowledges to be Biblical. It’s interesting to see him characterize Biblical teachings as “additives.”

ii) An evangelistic message needn’t be centered on the Resurrection, or even mention the Resurrection. Typically, an evangelistic message is centered on the cross. An evangelistic message stresses our sinfulness, and desperate need for a Savior. Of course, we need a Risen Savior. A dead Savior won’t do. But that’s a presupposition of an evangelistic message.

iii) When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus (Jn 3), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus spoke with the woman at the well (Jn 4), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus spoke with the blind man (Jn 9), did he focus on the Resurrection? When Jesus delivered the Break of Life discourse (Jn 6), did he focus on the Resurrection?

iv) It’s one thing to say we should emphasize the Resurrection, quite another to say we should give both believers and unbelievers a list of optional Bible teachings.

Imagine attending a church pastored by St. John or St. Paul where the ushers distribute a brochure of Biblical teachings you can disbelieve and still be a “committed servant of God.”

Can Michael point to any place in the Gospels, Book of Acts, NT Epistles, or Revelation, where we’re told we can disregard various teachings of Scripture?

v) Speaking of which:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught (Lk 1:1-4).

Does Luke say it’s okay if you only believe an “essential” core of his Gospel?

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Jn 20:30-31).

Does John say it’s okay if you only believe an “essential” core of his Gospel?

Michael likes to drape himself in the mantle of the gospel and the Resurrection, which sounds very devout, and makes his critics look legalistic by comparison, but notice the glaring contrast between his approach and NT Christianity.