Just a little more....
Just wanted to add a little bit more to yesterday's post. I just read an interview with Al Mohler and Andrew Sullivan. In the interview, Mohler and Sullivan discuss Sullivan's book entitled The Conservative Soul. Toward the end of the interview, Mohler and Sullivan got into an interesting exchange over what it means to be a Christian and how that effects your moral life. Here is the exchange for you enjoyment:
RAM: Well, we should doubt the things that are not certain. We should doubt the things that are not certain. But let me ask you this--just because when you talk about those who identify as fundamentalists, and you know, frankly, I'm not even going to argue over the word. But you say that a fundamentalist is determined by the text. And I just want to be right up front and honest with you. Insofar as it is possible, given my own fallibility, I want to find what I believe in the text of Scripture. And you find that hopelessly wrong-headed, according to this book.
AS: Well, because the Scripture contradicts itself on many occasions, and you have to have some interpretation of it, which means the text itself won't tell you how to live your life. Only Jesus can help you live your life.
RAM: But how is He going to do that outside the text of Scripture? Where do you have access to Jesus?
AS: Well, the text of Scripture is very important, but you have to interpret it, and you have to think about it in terms of your own life, and reconcile your own conscience and moral reasoning with what it is saying. And that's a journey and a process. It's not a moment, you know? And it's the process that I'm talking about, as I think you know.
I think this is the mentality of much of "Christianity" today. Once again, it is the idea that Jesus is our buddy and works in ways that contradict the way he worked in the past because he has become a "twenty-first century man." Sullivan claims that he is a Christian because he believes in the divinity of Christ. There is a major flaw in his thinking here though. If Christ truly is divine (which all orthodox Christians would agree with), then he would not only be absolutely Good, he would also be absolutely unchangeable (immutable). Well, if Christ is what Sullivan and some of the emerging church and liberal theologians say he is, then we have a problem. Because Christ is now working in a way that is contradictory to the way he used to work. So, he is a liar and capricious; therefore, he is neither good nor immutable. If we do as Sullivan suggests and interpret Scripture based on our own lives, then it is no more than a moral, self-help guide with mere suggestions on living. And, the Jesus presented in the Bible is merely the working out of that suggestion. This type of teaching makes Jesus what Schaeffer calls a "contentless banner." His name is a word devoid of meaning and can be used to justify anything. That is why revelation is so important. Without it, actual, certain knowledge is impossible. Everything becomes a guess; therefore, ethics is similarly impossible. How can you do the right thing when the right thing might be something different tomorrow? It is impossible.
RAM: Well, we should doubt the things that are not certain. We should doubt the things that are not certain. But let me ask you this--just because when you talk about those who identify as fundamentalists, and you know, frankly, I'm not even going to argue over the word. But you say that a fundamentalist is determined by the text. And I just want to be right up front and honest with you. Insofar as it is possible, given my own fallibility, I want to find what I believe in the text of Scripture. And you find that hopelessly wrong-headed, according to this book.
AS: Well, because the Scripture contradicts itself on many occasions, and you have to have some interpretation of it, which means the text itself won't tell you how to live your life. Only Jesus can help you live your life.
RAM: But how is He going to do that outside the text of Scripture? Where do you have access to Jesus?
AS: Well, the text of Scripture is very important, but you have to interpret it, and you have to think about it in terms of your own life, and reconcile your own conscience and moral reasoning with what it is saying. And that's a journey and a process. It's not a moment, you know? And it's the process that I'm talking about, as I think you know.
I think this is the mentality of much of "Christianity" today. Once again, it is the idea that Jesus is our buddy and works in ways that contradict the way he worked in the past because he has become a "twenty-first century man." Sullivan claims that he is a Christian because he believes in the divinity of Christ. There is a major flaw in his thinking here though. If Christ truly is divine (which all orthodox Christians would agree with), then he would not only be absolutely Good, he would also be absolutely unchangeable (immutable). Well, if Christ is what Sullivan and some of the emerging church and liberal theologians say he is, then we have a problem. Because Christ is now working in a way that is contradictory to the way he used to work. So, he is a liar and capricious; therefore, he is neither good nor immutable. If we do as Sullivan suggests and interpret Scripture based on our own lives, then it is no more than a moral, self-help guide with mere suggestions on living. And, the Jesus presented in the Bible is merely the working out of that suggestion. This type of teaching makes Jesus what Schaeffer calls a "contentless banner." His name is a word devoid of meaning and can be used to justify anything. That is why revelation is so important. Without it, actual, certain knowledge is impossible. Everything becomes a guess; therefore, ethics is similarly impossible. How can you do the right thing when the right thing might be something different tomorrow? It is impossible.
posted by Michael D. Estes @ 10:06 AM
5 Comments:
At 11:56 AM,
Anonymous said…
Michael Estes + Ph.D.= The Next Albert Mohler
At 4:24 PM,
Charlie Wallace said…
Particulars seperated from a universal = disaster. Good post.
At 7:17 PM,
Dantzler Smith said…
Well he wasn’t saying that Jesus contradicted himself, he was saying the text does. Jesus didn’t write the Bible, it was written by others about him or people who were alive long before Jesus. True, they are supposed to have been writing the word of God, but with what certainty do we know that everything they wrote was exactly what God wanted? And even if God was dictating it to them, its easy to imagine that a fallible human miswrote or misinterpreted what God was saying.
Sullivan’s point, I think, is that some of the things in the Bible aren’t really relevant today. Prohibiting me to plant crops side by side is antiquated just like the idea that I should kill someone who works on Sunday. So the alternative is to recognize that people aren’t perfect and could therefore never fully espouse what a perfect entity was saying. Thus, we have to try and reconcile the idea of God with reality. One of the commandments is don’t kill, but sometimes wars are necessary. It says the world was created in a week, but science seems to point in another direction. Should we abandon the idea of God or just reconcile it with reality. A guy lives inside a whale, that doesn’t make sense to me as a real thing, but the idea of God can be seen in that tale.
Obviously you disagree with me, but the thing is we all interpret the Bible. Its impossible not too. And Sullivan is saying that it bothers him when people try to politically hijack his party or the government so as to impose their own particular interpretation, which may or may not be the right interpretation.
At 9:25 AM,
Michael D. Estes said…
Dantzler,
Thanks for commenting. I always enjoy your blog. Thanks for reading mine. Have you read Sullivan's book? It sounds facsinating.
Ok, I want to discuss a few things you said.
"Well he wasn’t saying that Jesus contradicted himself, he was saying the text does. Jesus didn’t write the Bible, it was written by others about him or people who were alive long before Jesus. True, they are supposed to have been writing the word of God, but with what certainty do we know that everything they wrote was exactly what God wanted?"
There is a fundamental difference between what you said and what Sullivan said. He said that Jesus is Divine (with a capital 'D'). You imply, although you didn't say it, that Jesus was simply human. Jesus was often called by others and himself the "Word." There was specific intention in calling him that. The authors of Scripture were directly equating Jesus as the author of Scripture. So, not only was Jesus the revealed, living Word in flesh, he was also the Author of the written word in Scripture. Since we've debated the divinity of Christ before, I feel no need to rehash that debate, but since the New Testament writers saw Jesus as both the living Word and the author of Scripture, then Sullivan's claim has a horrific effect on the Divine. Why? Because, according to Sullivan, the Author is contradicting himself in his practice. Thereby, he makes God a liar and capricious.
Finally, your comment about certainty and the Scrpiture is problematic for one, important reason. If we don't know that God's Word is true, then we honestly don't know anything about God with certainty. Sure, we can make educated guesses, but where will those get us? Without the Scripture, I could easily make the assumption that God is evil. Why? Because, I look at the world and see the actions of thousands upon thousands of evil people. I could also make the assumption that God is good. Why? Because, I also see a world full of beautiful things and the human capacity to love. So, what do I have? Either a very confused, impersonal deity or a very confused picture of that deity.
By the way, I'm glad we both agree that there is one, right interpretation of Scripture.
At 9:28 AM,
Michael D. Estes said…
Sorry, I know that Dantzler and I will disagree with which interpretation is right, but at least, we both know that both interpretations can't both be right. Whew, that was confusing but I think it makes the point. Just wanted to clear up the last thing I said.
Post a Comment
<< Home