Just finished reading Calvin on the
credibility (trustworthiness) of Scripture (chapter 8 of book one of
the Institutes). Calvin begins with this statement (emphasis
mine): "In vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by
argument, or supported by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by
any other helps, if unaccompanied by an assurance higher and
stronger than human judgment can give. Till this better foundation
has been laid, the authority of Scripture remains in suspense."
What Calvin is saying here is something
that outrages modern scholars: the truth of the Word of God is not
something known by human investigation: it can only be known by
regeneration (i.e., getting saved), followed by the illuminating
activity of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Word can not be
known by unaided rationality. This gets to the heart of the
argument between theologically conservative scholars and
theologically liberal scholars.
The points I am about to make have more
to do with scholars, academics, and pastors than it does the average
person in the pew. There are many true Christians who wrestle with
the question of biblical Creationism, but they do so because they are
unaware that theological belief resembles more a web than it does a
rope. Most average Christians are unaware of the contradictions they
create for themselves elsewhere in Scripture when they do not believe
the literal account of creation. Scholars and pastors, on the other
hand, are fully culpable. This essay applies to those of us who
presume to teach the Bible to others.
Conservatives and liberals have terms
that we sling at one another: fideism and rationalism.
Liberals accuse conservatives of fideism: taking positions based on
faith alone, flying in the face of evidence. Building our belief in
young-earth creationism from our convictions regarding the
inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is to modern liberal critics a
flight of anti-intellectual fancy in which faith silences, squelches,
and suppresses modern science. It’s fideistic.
On the other hand, conservatives accuse
liberal critics of rationalism: of refusing to believe anything that
can not be supported by the consistent use of human rationality as
informed by empirical evidence.
In one sense we are talking past one
another. We conservative, Bible-believing Christians do not engage in
irrationalism in order to practice our faith. We use rational thought
to process what the Bible tells us. Systematic theology is the one of
the fruits of a tightly reasoned faith. Biblical theology also is a
rational (but not rationalistic) endeavor. The distinction between us
is that when we conservatives bump up against something that seems to
go against modern evidences, we anchor our belief on the Bible and
best-practices of interpretation. We will gladly fly in the face of
modern thought if we believe the biblical text compels us to do so,
and we don’t give a flying fig about what the evangelical,
academic, or cultural world thinks of us. We do this with confidence
because of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit as to the truth
of His Word.
Consequently whether one speaks of the
paradoxes and other difficulties involved in the Trinity, human
responsibility versus divine sovereignty, the existence of evil, the
creation of the cosmos, miracles, or bodily resurrection, we will
surrender to the text, even though we may be incapable of explaining
it at some points. For this we are called fideists. Okay, guilty—and
faithful.
While the charge of rationalism that we
conservatives bring against liberal Christians and liberal critics is
mostly true, it is not completely true. Liberal Christians reject out
of hand most meaningful notions of creation, and accept almost all
the provisions of evolutionism, claiming that God does what He does
by natural processes. They reject Creation and a literal
interpretation of Genesis 1-11 not on the grounds of exegesis but on
the grounds that they do not fit the conclusions of modern science.
Having been persuaded by science, they return to the text and
eisegete it: they “read into” a perfectly understandable account
of creation all sorts of interesting “figurative” language. Never
mind that the vast bulk of the history of orthodox Christianity never
saw the text that way. There are a few exceptions, of course, but
they are in the clear minority. There’s nothing new in the playbook
of unbelief: just recycled arguments.
I mentioned that Christian liberals are
not necessarily thorough-going rationalists: they are rather,
inconsistent rationalists. The dead giveaway is their view on the
resurrection. While modern science completely pooh-poohs the notion
of a real, bodily resurrection, liberal Christians—for a
while—insist on believing it. Thus are they inconsistent with
themselves: they deny the creation account because of the verdict of
modern science; they believe in the resurrection against the verdict
of modern science.
At this point the careful reader might
think, “Okay, Cobb, what’s the diff? You conservatives are
inconsistent, the libs are inconsistent—so what? At least they land
correctly on the big point—the resurrection—as a matter of faith.
Is this not proof of the reality of their faith?” Yes, it possibly
is proof of precisely that. I certainly hope it is, for their sake.
But I am concerned that it might be a demonstration, rather, of a
sentimental attachment to vestigial orthodox Christianity than a
genuine, vigorous faith. The reason I believe this also points out
the distinction between our inconsistency and theirs: it’s the
matter of the ultimate source of authority. The conservative believer
takes the Bible as his source of authority: end of story. That’s
why we dispute evolution, abortion, homosexuality, modern morality,
etc. We do so because the text compels us to. On the other hand, for
the liberal, it appears that science has become their highest source
of authority. If so—and many of the signs point this way—the
Christian faith of the liberal is merely a waypoint on an evolving
journey to somewhere else.
You see this all over the blogs: “I
used to be a fundamentalist, and then I realized it was a cult of
narrow-minded, hateful, abusive people. I was liberated when I
finally realized that evolution makes creation impossible, and that
you don’t have to believe that silly stuff to be a Christian . . .
” Unfortunately, they do have a point. There are a lot of horrible
examples of fundamentalists, such as Fred Phelps and Jack Hyles and
many, many others—people who seem to believe that the Bible
licenses hate, condemnation, dictatorial control, etc.
But the misuse of the Bible does not
argue for its invalidity any more than the liberal misuse of 1 John
4:8 (“God is love”) argues for the invalidity of that text. Where
will that former fundamentalist be in another five years, or ten?
That’s the real question. I believe the truth of the matter is that
many Christian liberals don’t have a settled position. They are,
rather, on a trajectory of unbelief. The unbelief at the core
of their being comes to slow flower: among the first things to be
jettisoned is a meaningful notion of the inspiration of Scripture.
Oh, they claim to believe it—they just continuously restrict its
meaning until it no longer governs their exegesis and remains little
more than a meaningless bullet point on their statement of faith.
Keep an eye on them. While on their
trajectory of unbelief it is inevitable that they will cross a number
of other markers. At some point the resurrection will be redefined
(“it’s a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily resurrection”),
as will the nature of God (they will return to something like a modal
view of the Trinity, and possibly to a benign, Christianized
pantheism). It will take years. Their sentimental attachments to the
form and pageantry and mystery of worship will keep them in a church
of one nature or another. But there will be neither redemptive truth
nor redemptive power in their belief.
John Shelby Spong is a perfect
example of this trajectory of unbelief. Spong is the famous Episcopal
bishop who argued that Christianity must change or die, and that we
can no longer conceive of God as a truly personal being. He has
jettisoned all of the major aspects of Christianity and is little
more than a thorough-going humanist who has retained the word “god”
in his personal lexicon.
Book one, chapter eight of Calvin’s
Institutes, closes with these sentences (emphasis mine): "But
it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is
the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith."
Apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, the Bible
remains a closed book. Amen.
