Assume
The going assumption in Facebook world, and the blogs promoted there, is that both the authority of the scripture and the methods for determining its authoritative meaning can be assumed. So disagreements about meaning must come about because one side (the “other” side) has deployed badly constructed arguments. If only they would be reasonable!
But you know what that say about ass u me. Sometimes our public debate sounds more like braying.
Because we fail to take into account is that all authority in public discourse is granted by and within the socio-cultural context. In short all authority is determined by political processes, even if those processes are lost in the passage of time, obscured by inattention, or hidden in order to disguise the mechanisms of power. And in the UMC we have at least two different socio-cultural context sharing the same institutional space, and thus confusion.
I realize that many of us don’t want to taint God’s word with an association with politics, but there is a bright side. When we’ve identified the political processes by which scripture is authorized we will have also found the places in which God’s Spirit is at work. Who knows, church politics may turn out to be our road to Emmaus.
To look more closely let’s examine one well defined socio-cultural context within the UMC, that of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. It is useful for our purposes because it makes well defined statements about the authority of scripture. We don’t need to assume anything, and shouldn’t.
"Given the current challenges directed to the unique place of the Bible in the church, we affirm that the core of the Christian faith is revealed in Scripture as “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3; NRSV). We look to the Bible therefore as our authority and trustworthy guide, which “is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16; NRSV). Illuminated by tradition, reason, and experience, the revelation of Scripture is the church’s primary and final authority on all matters of faith and practice.” https://wesleyancovenant.org/wca-statements-and-beliefs/#purposes
The first line of this statement pretty explicitly reveals its contemporary political context and its nature as a political statement. It is defending the unique place of the Bible in the church. The next statement tells us what the WCA expects to find in the Bible, carefully relating a scripture passage to the orthodox agenda laid out by the late Thomas Oden in his pursuit of articulating “that which was believed, everywhere, always.” In short we now know the larger political agenda and political allies called on in the defense of the scripture.
The second sentence underscores the self-authorizing nature of the WCA understanding of scripture. This is an important political move in a church context where members are more likely to affirm the authority of scripture than to either read it or follow its mandates. Indeed it is critical in the United States, where recent Gallup polls show that 71% of Americans believe the Bible is God-inspired. (http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx) Whatever its opponents may say, the WCA is in the mainstream of American Christian thought on the Bible.
And the final sentence, with its reference to the other three legs of the much admired (in Methodist circles) Wesleyan quadrilateral serves the dual purpose of banishing accusations of literalism (a fatal political mistake if the Gallup polls are correct) and establishing distinctly Methodist credentials. No accusation of being “unreasonable” or literalist, or un-Methodist can be leveled at the WCA here. We have (at least in outline) a rational hermeneutic to go along with a theological assertion of authority. That this was a political move can be seen by the fact that earlier statements by the WCA referred to the scripture as inerrant, but that word, a bane to even moderately conservative Methodists, is now gone.
The real keys to the politics of scriptural authority here are the assertion that scripture is self-authorizing and authorizes a paleo-orthodox Christianity. The illumination of reason and experience cannot be read as inviting an external critique of either Biblical authority or interpretation from a post-enlightenment perspective. Those who adopt and work within the WCA understanding of the authority of the Bible can be assured that their minds, to quote the widow of Stravinsky, "are closed around good things.”
I have some sympathy for this view, as indicated in the previous blog. But there is at least one voice from within the church that is also shut out.
For a rather different political approach to scripture we can turn to Adam Hamilton, leader of a coalition that regards itself as “centrist” in UMC politics. He identifies “three buckets” into which scripture falls as a basis for “Making Sense of the Bible.” Unlike the WCA, Adams appeals not to a scripturally self-authorized view of scripture, but rather a kind of common sense distinction between passages of scripture based on whether they express God’s timeless heart, character, and will, or God’s will in a specific place and time, or an imperfect understanding of God’s heart, character, and will. http://www.adamhamilton.org/blog/homosexuality-the-bible-and-the-united-methodist-church/#.Wn0vbGaZOL4
The political appeal of this approach is fairly clear. Americans may believe that the Bible is the word of God, but few believe it is the words of God. Moreover Americans believe in progress, and are conscious that societies change and our understanding of what it means to be human changes. Maintaining the convoluted reasoning necessary to align the Bible with the most basic of contemporary moral sensibilities (the equality of women for example) is far harder than accepting that much of the Bible is a product of its time and no longer necessarily commands our obedience. And recognizing that human authorship has the potential to miscommunicate God’s nature seems more rational to modern Americans than defending an ancient worldview in a modern context.
Most of all Hamilton invites his readers (and congregation) to think for themselves about scripture rather than submitting to the cadre of specialist historians, theologians, and exegetes necessary to construct a timeless framework of strict Biblical orthodoxy. And thinking for yourself is probably the central value of United Methodist Christian education in the last century, even if being open minded sometimes leads to a pretty stiff breeze blowing through the ears.
If one doubts the political popularity of Hamilton’s approach one need only look to his 18,000 member congregation in the “Buckle of the Bible Belt.” Clearly it has appeal.
Does this all sound a bit tawdry? This seeking of political consensus around different understandings of scripture?
Its no different than the story of the great church councils. They were political events called to serve political purposes. Indeed that was true of the very first in Jerusalem when Peter and the apostles hammered out the issue of circumcision. The church is a human institution, and politics is the name for the Holy Spirit when Christ's Body makes decisions.
Our problem is that we've lost sight of this. We've lost sight of the Spirit in our midst. We've assumed that what is going on the UMC is just politics. And worse that if the Holy Spirit is in our midst she certainly isn't in the midst of our opponents.
Within the UMC there are clearly two different ecclesiologies; two different ways of relating the authority of the Bible to the formation of the church. One reflects a political consensus that the church is formed by and out of scripture. The other reflects a political consensus that, to paraphrase the words of John Kelsey, the Bible is the church’s book.
We've been there before as Christians. Different Christologies - or at least Christologies that looked different in a particular cultural moment. Different understandings of God's grace - or at least understandings that looked different in a particular cultural moment. Different understandings of ordination, sacraments, congregational polity and on and on.
Can the two very different ecclesiologies within the UMC remain together? They can if each has the humility to recognize that it is formed by a specific cultural context and thus is not capable of fully representing a gospel message that transcends cultural differences. Paleo-Christianity and socially relevant Christianity are manifestations of different cultural ideals and theological dialects around which a political consensus eventually gathered and now moves toward political action.
Can we recognize that we are simply different locations on that same road to Emmaus?
Lacking the humility to accept the inculturated nature of every manifestation of church there is little or no chance that either group will submit to a gospel whose boundaries exceed its imagination. Lacking the practical vision to see that political processes are the means of grace there is every temptation to dismiss the political process and go it alone. It is always tempting to assume that political differences represent an irrevocable fork in the road. Still, if we cannot assume, (we know where that goes) we might at least imagine a Body of Christ unbounded by the frail limits of human culture.
But you know what that say about ass u me. Sometimes our public debate sounds more like braying.
Because we fail to take into account is that all authority in public discourse is granted by and within the socio-cultural context. In short all authority is determined by political processes, even if those processes are lost in the passage of time, obscured by inattention, or hidden in order to disguise the mechanisms of power. And in the UMC we have at least two different socio-cultural context sharing the same institutional space, and thus confusion.
I realize that many of us don’t want to taint God’s word with an association with politics, but there is a bright side. When we’ve identified the political processes by which scripture is authorized we will have also found the places in which God’s Spirit is at work. Who knows, church politics may turn out to be our road to Emmaus.
To look more closely let’s examine one well defined socio-cultural context within the UMC, that of the Wesleyan Covenant Association. It is useful for our purposes because it makes well defined statements about the authority of scripture. We don’t need to assume anything, and shouldn’t.
"Given the current challenges directed to the unique place of the Bible in the church, we affirm that the core of the Christian faith is revealed in Scripture as “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3; NRSV). We look to the Bible therefore as our authority and trustworthy guide, which “is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16; NRSV). Illuminated by tradition, reason, and experience, the revelation of Scripture is the church’s primary and final authority on all matters of faith and practice.” https://wesleyancovenant.org/wca-statements-and-beliefs/#purposes
The first line of this statement pretty explicitly reveals its contemporary political context and its nature as a political statement. It is defending the unique place of the Bible in the church. The next statement tells us what the WCA expects to find in the Bible, carefully relating a scripture passage to the orthodox agenda laid out by the late Thomas Oden in his pursuit of articulating “that which was believed, everywhere, always.” In short we now know the larger political agenda and political allies called on in the defense of the scripture.
The second sentence underscores the self-authorizing nature of the WCA understanding of scripture. This is an important political move in a church context where members are more likely to affirm the authority of scripture than to either read it or follow its mandates. Indeed it is critical in the United States, where recent Gallup polls show that 71% of Americans believe the Bible is God-inspired. (http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx) Whatever its opponents may say, the WCA is in the mainstream of American Christian thought on the Bible.
And the final sentence, with its reference to the other three legs of the much admired (in Methodist circles) Wesleyan quadrilateral serves the dual purpose of banishing accusations of literalism (a fatal political mistake if the Gallup polls are correct) and establishing distinctly Methodist credentials. No accusation of being “unreasonable” or literalist, or un-Methodist can be leveled at the WCA here. We have (at least in outline) a rational hermeneutic to go along with a theological assertion of authority. That this was a political move can be seen by the fact that earlier statements by the WCA referred to the scripture as inerrant, but that word, a bane to even moderately conservative Methodists, is now gone.
The real keys to the politics of scriptural authority here are the assertion that scripture is self-authorizing and authorizes a paleo-orthodox Christianity. The illumination of reason and experience cannot be read as inviting an external critique of either Biblical authority or interpretation from a post-enlightenment perspective. Those who adopt and work within the WCA understanding of the authority of the Bible can be assured that their minds, to quote the widow of Stravinsky, "are closed around good things.”
I have some sympathy for this view, as indicated in the previous blog. But there is at least one voice from within the church that is also shut out.
For a rather different political approach to scripture we can turn to Adam Hamilton, leader of a coalition that regards itself as “centrist” in UMC politics. He identifies “three buckets” into which scripture falls as a basis for “Making Sense of the Bible.” Unlike the WCA, Adams appeals not to a scripturally self-authorized view of scripture, but rather a kind of common sense distinction between passages of scripture based on whether they express God’s timeless heart, character, and will, or God’s will in a specific place and time, or an imperfect understanding of God’s heart, character, and will. http://www.adamhamilton.org/blog/homosexuality-the-bible-and-the-united-methodist-church/#.Wn0vbGaZOL4
The political appeal of this approach is fairly clear. Americans may believe that the Bible is the word of God, but few believe it is the words of God. Moreover Americans believe in progress, and are conscious that societies change and our understanding of what it means to be human changes. Maintaining the convoluted reasoning necessary to align the Bible with the most basic of contemporary moral sensibilities (the equality of women for example) is far harder than accepting that much of the Bible is a product of its time and no longer necessarily commands our obedience. And recognizing that human authorship has the potential to miscommunicate God’s nature seems more rational to modern Americans than defending an ancient worldview in a modern context.
Most of all Hamilton invites his readers (and congregation) to think for themselves about scripture rather than submitting to the cadre of specialist historians, theologians, and exegetes necessary to construct a timeless framework of strict Biblical orthodoxy. And thinking for yourself is probably the central value of United Methodist Christian education in the last century, even if being open minded sometimes leads to a pretty stiff breeze blowing through the ears.
If one doubts the political popularity of Hamilton’s approach one need only look to his 18,000 member congregation in the “Buckle of the Bible Belt.” Clearly it has appeal.
Does this all sound a bit tawdry? This seeking of political consensus around different understandings of scripture?
Its no different than the story of the great church councils. They were political events called to serve political purposes. Indeed that was true of the very first in Jerusalem when Peter and the apostles hammered out the issue of circumcision. The church is a human institution, and politics is the name for the Holy Spirit when Christ's Body makes decisions.
Our problem is that we've lost sight of this. We've lost sight of the Spirit in our midst. We've assumed that what is going on the UMC is just politics. And worse that if the Holy Spirit is in our midst she certainly isn't in the midst of our opponents.
Within the UMC there are clearly two different ecclesiologies; two different ways of relating the authority of the Bible to the formation of the church. One reflects a political consensus that the church is formed by and out of scripture. The other reflects a political consensus that, to paraphrase the words of John Kelsey, the Bible is the church’s book.
We've been there before as Christians. Different Christologies - or at least Christologies that looked different in a particular cultural moment. Different understandings of God's grace - or at least understandings that looked different in a particular cultural moment. Different understandings of ordination, sacraments, congregational polity and on and on.
Can the two very different ecclesiologies within the UMC remain together? They can if each has the humility to recognize that it is formed by a specific cultural context and thus is not capable of fully representing a gospel message that transcends cultural differences. Paleo-Christianity and socially relevant Christianity are manifestations of different cultural ideals and theological dialects around which a political consensus eventually gathered and now moves toward political action.
Can we recognize that we are simply different locations on that same road to Emmaus?
Lacking the humility to accept the inculturated nature of every manifestation of church there is little or no chance that either group will submit to a gospel whose boundaries exceed its imagination. Lacking the practical vision to see that political processes are the means of grace there is every temptation to dismiss the political process and go it alone. It is always tempting to assume that political differences represent an irrevocable fork in the road. Still, if we cannot assume, (we know where that goes) we might at least imagine a Body of Christ unbounded by the frail limits of human culture.
This is a good thought. I particularly like thought "a gospel whose boundaries exceed its imagination." I believe that's always been the great hope and the great challenge with the gospel, its beyond our ability to believe.
ReplyDelete