What am I promoting? Here is what I am promoting: a Christian revolution. A change of the status quo. A revolution in which we are pitted against everyone who has turned away from God and His propositional revelation to men - even against the user of god words. This is a revolution in which we may again hope to see good results, not only in individuals going to heaven, but in Christ who is lord becoming Lord of our culture - to give us, even in this fallen world, something of both truth and beauty.
To be a revolution Christians must take three factors into account - the difference between being a cobelligerent and an ally, the preaching and practice of Truth even at a great cost to our Christian groups, and the observation of community within those Christian groups that stand under Scripture - then we will have the possible stirring of a fresh revolution.
We must be cobelligerents, not allies. We are not to be unified with people who do not teach Truth. We must not align ourselves with any camp that is not based on Scripture. We are an ally of no such camp. The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is different; it rests on the absolutes given to us in Scripture.
Secondly, we must take Truth seriously. We have theological seminaries that call themselves Christian yet no longer hold to the Scriptures! Many try to tone down the Truth, the Truth which God Himself has given to us. It is the greatest injustice to man! We must obey God rather than man. We must preach the Word in and out of season, and this is not a season for Truth! We must practice Truth even when it is costly! We must show a generation that believes the concept of Truth is unthinkable that we do take Truth seriously.
Thirdly, our Christian groups must be real communities. Communties which are built on ther individual Christian, and not on the function. With an orthodoxy of doctrine there must be an equal orthodoxy of community. Others must see beauty in our lives and in our human relationships. Unless people see in our churches not only the preaching and practice of Truth, but also the practice of love and beauty, they will not and should not listen.
Be a radical biblicalist instead of a neo-biblicalist, as so many are.
To articulate the distinction between radical biblicism and neo-biblicism is not easy. I shall attempt to clarify the distinction by discussing seven important points of contrast:
(1) The radical biblicist does not trust his own convictions when they are not clearly and confidently derived from the teaching of the Bible. He knows that his judgments about what is true or good are vulnerable to being skewed by his innate sinfulness. Consequently, his convictions can be tainted by his own sin and the sinful culture around him. Hence, the radical biblicist does not trust his convictions. If they are not directly derived from the Bible, they are not reliable.
This same mistrust is not a compelling factor in the neo-biblicist's thought. He basically trusts his convictions--independent and underived though they may be. If they are not explicitly derived from the Bible, he expects the Bible to confirm them eventually--if not by explicit teaching, then by underlying assumptions implicit in the Bible.
(2) The radical biblicist is never fully content with the present level of his understanding. He is always keenly aware that his current beliefs may need correction. The neo-biblicist, on the other hand, is basically content with his faith. He understands and believes what Christians ought to believe. He must strive to live his life consistently in the light of his beliefs, but what to believe is a finished work for him.
(3) Both approaches can agree that the biblical teachings are informed by and embody a uniquely true worldview. Ideally, an accurate grasp of the biblical text's meaning would result in a grasp of this TRUTH, this one uniquely true understanding of reality. But is the grasp of this TRUTH attainable? The neo-biblicist is skeptical: this TRUTH--though it exists--is fundamentally unattainable; no human being could ever grasp it in this lifetime. More importantly, it is a mistake to set for oneself the idealistic goal of grasping this TRUTH.
The radical biblicist, on the other hand, is idealistic. He embraces the ideal of biblical TRUTH. He aims all of his study at achieving a full understanding of the biblical text and, thereby, a full understanding of the TRUTH of God Himself.
The radical biblicist's idealism in this regard is not inconsistent with his self-mistrust described in point one above. His mistrust follows from his awareness of his inherent sinfulness. His idealism follows from his confidence in the Bible--not only in its authority and infallibility, but also in its accessibility and knowability.* He does not trust beliefs that have not been derived from biblical instruction, but he does trust those that have been. He is confident that, due to the work of God's Spirit and in spite of his sinfulness, the Bible's truth is ultimately accessible to him. And when he comes to understand the Bible, he can be confident that he knows the TRUTH. The neo-biblicist does not share this confidence.
(4) These two different approaches employ different criteria for judging an interpretation valid. The radical biblicist judges an interpretation valid only if it understands the biblical text to say exactly what its human author meant it to say. Similarly, a worldview is validly biblical only if it conforms exactly to that worldview the biblical authors held. The neo-biblicist employs a different, more permissive criterion. For him, an interpretation can be considered valid if it is logically possible and more or less plausible. (What constitutes a "plausible" interpretation is constantly changing. It is determined by unspoken rules created and enforced by the Christian community to which one belongs.)
(5) For the neo-biblicist, a "biblical" doctrine falls within a large, vaguely defined range; specifically, somewhere within the rather permissive boundaries established by the particular Christian tradition to which he belongs. For the radical biblicist, "biblical" does not designate a range of acceptability; it designates a precise pinpoint. Either one has achieved the uniquely true understanding of reality the biblical text embodies, or he has not. If he has not, then his understanding is not biblical to the extent that he has not. Whereas two mutually contradictory doctrines could both logically qualify as "biblical" according to the neo-biblicist's meaning of that term, according to the radical biblicist's use of the term, they could not.
(6) For radical biblicism, the fundamental task is to use reason and commonsense to grasp the meaning of the biblical text that its author intended. For neo-biblicism, the fundamental task is to interpret the Bible "in good faith"; that is, to interpret the Bible in accordance with rules of evidence and principles of reasoning and interpretation acceptable to the relevant Christian community. Whether through such means he grasps what the biblical author actually intended is not ultimately important to the neo-biblicist, for that is an idealistic, unattainable goal. It is enough that he has in good faith employed acceptable means to draw plausible conclusions from his encounter with the biblical text.
(7) A neo-biblicist establishes a doctrine as "biblical" in order to show that he has permission to hold it. A doctrine's being "biblical" does not require one to embrace it; it merely makes it permissible to embrace it if, on some other grounds, one wants to. The neo-biblicist, therefore, must find other grounds upon which to choose one "biblical" doctrine over another "biblical" doctrine when the two are mutually incompatible. Typically, he finds those other grounds in his own independent judgment. (See point one.) The radical biblicist, on the other hand, seeks to determine what doctrines are "biblical" in order to determine what doctrines must be believed. For him, a doctrine's being "biblical" is all the grounds one needs for embracing it. Not only that, being "biblical" also imposes an obligation to embrace the doctrine.
According to neo-biblicism, all we can require of other Christians is that they play by the rules--staying reasonably within the rather permissive boundaries of what qualifies as acceptable theological method. As long as one stays within the requisite parameters, one has considerable freedom to think, to reason, and to believe as he wants. The neo-biblicist's commitment to being "biblical" is easily compatible with a number of different, mutually exclusive conclusions with regard to what the Bible teaches.
Some rather absurd doctrines have been accepted as "biblical" in accordance with this approach. In the mid-1970s I read Sex for Christians by Lewis Smedes, a professor at Fuller Seminary. (It has been re-released under a new title.) Smedes arbitrarily--and rather inanely--defined sexual intimacy as the penetration of a woman's ****** by a man's *****. Accordingly, unless actual penetration is taking place, one is not committing what the Bible calls fornication. According to Smedes, therefore, the Bible does not forbid petting (a dated term for sexual foreplay) between a man and woman who are unmarried. Smedes--apparently desiring to be more circumspect than the Bible--cautioned his Christian readers to practice pre-marital sexual foreplay "responsibly." Their foreplay should not be casual or promiscuous; but done "responsibly," it is morally permissible.
We have waited two decades for some Christian leader--within or without Fuller Seminary--to express outrage at the immoral sexual ethics Smedes advocated. To date, there has not been heard a whisper. From all appearances, Smedes' sexual ethics were presented as "biblical" and widely accepted as such by the modern evangelical church.
How could the church accept a conclusion that pre-marital sexual foreplay is morally appropriate? The answer, I think, lies in neo-biblicism, which is increasingly the perspective of modern biblical Christianity. Smedes obligingly connected his sexual ethics, however loosely, with biblical texts. In accordance with neo-biblicism, then, they are entitled to be accepted as "biblical." Even though Smedes' ethical views are patently false, destructive, and contrary to everything the Bible actually teaches about sexual ethics, neo-biblicism could never disallow them. What matters is that Smedes is a card-carrying member of Bible-believing Christianity. As long as he has the appropriate credentials and plays by the (rather flexible) established rules, we must acknowledge his views as "biblical." We need not agree with them; but we must respect them and allow them a hearing.
As a radical biblicist, I find the neo-biblicist approach absurd. A biblical doctrine is not one that falls within certain acceptable parameters; it is one that conforms exactly to what the biblical authors themselves held to be true. A worldview is not biblical because he who espouses it has somehow connected it to biblical revelation; a worldview is biblical when it describes reality exactly as the biblical authors would describe it. "Biblical" does not define a range of options for us to choose among; it defines a specific and unique set of doctrines. Either our beliefs are right because they conform exactly to what the Bible teaches, or they are unbiblical and wrong.
This is the call: search for Truth.
Ill wager you are a fan of David Jeremiah. Am I right?
