Evangelicals must repent?

Father Jake continues his review of Gays and the Future of Anglicanism with a chapter with a somewhat provocative theme – that some evangelicals need to repent of representing their own theology (and, in particular their own understanding of the Bible) as the only possible one. The idea that we have nothing to learn from brothers and sisters in Christ merely because they have different opinions is surely not Christian (indeed, if we share their opinions, we won’t be in danger of learning much from them anyway!). He quotes from the book (which seems more and more like an essential read), talking about the events surrounding the election of Gene Robinson (an openly gay man) as a bishop in the Episcopal Church of the USA:

The long period of dialogue in ECUSA leading up to the ratification of Gene Robinson’s election was marked by a “godlike” refusal of the evangelical right to participate. It was a refusal that took various forms. To a great extent, they simply did not attend parish and diocesan events intended to encourage dialogue. When they did attend, they simply repeated their existing position without any effort to show how it might connect with other perspectives. Most damaging of all, they refused to listen to the other people present and merely dismissed everyone and everything with which they disagreed. After the “dialogue,” they went right on identifying their position with that of the bible as if nothing else were possible, as if no one else had ever read scripture or argued for a different reading of the text.
The behavior can only be described as abusive toward the community as a whole, and its effects are still unrolling before us in the threats of schisms by which they propose to replicate in organizational ways a long-standing refusal to treat their fellow Anglicans as faithful Christians…A more critical factor in producing this result i[s] the insistence of one party that only their voice deserves to be heard…If [we are to achieve an “appropriately rich and diverse unity”], the next step will have to be repentance on the part of a great many evangelicals for their arrogance in commandeering scripture as their peculiar property – and on the part of other Anglicans for having tolerated it for too long.

pax et bonum

Article posted at 8:52pm on 15 October 2005
Category: Books, Faith, Struggling

We most definitely can learn from on another. In the end, some will be right and others wrong. The Bible helps us to discern which is which. I have read a few arguments, having come from a democratic, mainline church. I don’t believe in the democracy of Christians anymore. God is my dictator and I trust Him wholly and completely. What His Word says, goes. Literally. I suppose this would make me closed minded in some eyes. This doesn’t describe me at all. It takes a great deal of trust and openess to allow God to have the final answer. I see those who refuse God at His Word as the closed minded who cling to their views above God. Is this not a paradox? Well, in any case, not many get it.

cwv warrior () (URL)
11:34pm on 15 October 2005

cwv:
As we’ve discussed elsewhere, though, interpreting the Bible “literally” can be a trap that makes the Bible simply mirror our own opinions more strongly than any considered interpretation. This is because none of us actually “literally” follows the Bible – otherwise we would be following each of those OT laws. To say that we can disregard some (for any reason) is stepping away from a literal interpretation. Even worse, taking much of it “literally” is to miss the point completely (as in the parables, for example). And, if we are claiming to have a “literal” interpretation, this merely blinds us to the many, many ways in which we actually supersede, disregard, interpret or otherwise fail to follow the “literal” biblical text.

So, as in many other cases, balance is the way to go – it is wrong to insist that everything in the Bible be taken “literally”, because no one really applies that standard consistently (only to the bits they like); equally, it is wrong to say that the meaning of the text is arbitrary, to be applied from the outside. Somehow, we must always try to maintain that this text is God-breathed and something that God speaks through, without ever going so far as to place the Bible in God’s place.

Anyhow, good to see you here, cwv :-)

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
5:23pm on 16 October 2005

John,
Well said. You are my favorite theologian who isn’t a theologian.

The danger, which I’m sure you would agree, of the “don’t place the Bible in God’s place” idea is that it is impossible to refute personal revelation without it. I’m not saying the Bible is God – but it is the only possible objective source (aside from the church fathers, who no one reads anyway). If we accept that “God told me, so it is ok”, then we have chaos.

I know you don’t advocate chaos, but the danger of it is what inspires fundamentalism. It is odd, as I have discovered in my recent reading (and will be posting on), that the reaction of the early church to heresy led to…other heresy.

Hammertime () (URL)
11:22pm on 16 October 2005

I know I don’t come out often enough…very time consuming! Since I found a similar topic over at Chad Hamilton’s Eternal Revolution, i copy and paste my comment(cheat) here: Tonight, I had a bit of a revelation! All this fuss about what’s true, what’s metaphor, what’s poetry…I would rather try to “own” the Torah than throw out the notion of God-breathed literal meaning! If at some point I see this is what God wanted, I will. I have debated with messianic jews on this point. The danger there is in becoming too legalistic on a thing that Paul and Peter hashed out at the start! If they hadn’t and Peter hadn’t had his dream, we would be Torah followers, yes? So, my point: Is it a fear of becoming too legalistic that literal translation is being avoided? There is danger in that for sure. The law is to be obeyed, not worshiped. Putting the poetry, dreams, and obvious allegory aside because they are silly to contemplate in this argument, literal historical meaning can be logically deduced from writing style and cross references. I rely on the wisdom of the ages to help with deciding what’s what but that doesn’t make it elusive. We can know because we are reasonable. The ideas about poetic language being literal are not reasonable, ...but very funny in cartoon form! : D

cwv warrior () (URL)
12:25am on 18 October 2005

“Is it a fear of becoming too legalistic that literal translation is being avoided?“

No, it’s not that. The problem is that the “literal” meaning is too often not the actual meaning. Parables are simply the most obvious case of this, but it applies all through the Bible. Even when the “literal” meaning is a correct meaning, there will almost always be layers of other meanings beyond and behind the “literal” meaning. Which means that focusing on the “literal” meaning will rob us of much of what the Bible is saying, even when it’s partly right. Without those layers and shades of meaning, we can’t even understand the “literal” meaning properly!

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
7:53pm on 18 October 2005