Friday, April 27, 2012

The Sword of the Spirit / The Word of God


1.We believe, teach, and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged, as it is written in Ps. 119:105, “Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” And St. Paul says in Gal. 1:8, “Even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”[1]

3…In this way the distinction between the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments and all other writings is maintained, and which as the only touchstone all doctrines should and must be understood and judged as good or evil, right or wrong.

Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Rule and Norm,  Part I.  Articles 1, 3



[1] The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. 1959 (T. G. Tappert, Ed.) (464). Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press.

This is another one of those posts which one would think would be self-evident.  So I feel like apologizing, but I'm not going to, because in our culture today it is not self evident. 
What is the role of The Holy Bible in our Faith?  If you ask any ELCA Lutheran pastor if he or she teaches in accordance with the Bible, he or she will answer, "Yes, of course."  But it is axiomatic that the Bible must be interpreted.  The lense through which we read the Bible is call a Hermeneutic. Most ELCA theologians and pastors, including myself, do not apply a hermeneutic of literalism.  Not everything in the Bible was intended to be taken literally.  Given that, to take everything literally is actually not a faithful application of Scripture.  But the danger is obvious.  What in the Bible should be taken literally and what ought not to be?
A related issue is the question of "infallibility" and "inerrancy."  The professors at Lutheran School of Theology presented an excellent case for taking the position that infallibility and inerrancy asks the wrong question. When I first began seminary in August of 1994, we were assigned an article by the late Dr. Joseph Sittler.  It was an excellent argument for the place of Scripture in faith.  I do not recall a better one.  (And I used to get paid to make and analyze arguments.)  He argued that making the issue "infallibility" or "inerrancy"  (These are virtually synonymous, meaning totally without error of any kind.) not only asks the wrong question, but presents a danger to faith.  By basing faith upon these concepts, if it is demonstrated to someone that there is an error (even if the demonstration is incorrect) the faith of the person is at risk.  Dr. Sittler proposed an excellent definition of the place of the Bible in our faith.
The Bible is the incomparable testimony of the nature, the work and the will of God. 
(Emphasis added.  I did not place the statement in quotes because I have been unable to verify the exact words from the article.  The Archivist of Dr. Sittler's works at LSTC is graciously researching to find the exact reference to confirm the quote.  If any word is in error, I will gladly make the correction in a future post as this is a very important definition of the place of Scripture for Faith.)
I emphasize the word "incomparable" because this is the word upon which all turns.  Y'all know what that means.  Nothing compares.  Nothing rules over scripture.  Nothing is its judge.  Not psychology or sociology, not science (or pseudo-science), not any form of criticism - nothing.  (I get that we do not worship The Bible; we worship the God of the Bible.  And Jesus Himself IS The Word of God.  But the reference here at in the oath of ordination refers to The Bible.)
When I entered seminary our two children were in LCMS School.  As a lawyer we could pay the tuition and did.  As a pastor we could not.  A friend of my daughter called her to tell her about the new church they were attending. If you were a member, then there was no tuition.  So with the consent of my pastor and the consent of the LCMS senior pastor, my wife and children became Missouri Synod the four years I was in seminary.  The senior pastor was well known in LCMS circles and eventually went on to a professorship at Concordia, Fort Wayne.  We talked.  He asked me one time about historical criticism.  This was the main issue that divided the LCMS at Concordia, St. Louis, resulting in the formation of The Seminary of Jesus Christ in Exile (Seminex).  My response was this (having been recently taught the historical method).  (Many of my professors at LSTC were the ones who had left in protest.)  The historical method is a tool.  Like any tool it can be used, or it can be abused.  A hammer can pound a nail or a skull.  A screwdriver and push a screw or pierce a heart.  When the historical method is used to help us understand and apply Scripture to our lives, it is a tool being used for its intended purpose.  When it is used to "tell us" which verses in the Bible we are free to ignore, it is being abused.
If I had a dollar for every time I shared The Bible on a particular issue and had the retort given, "We don't proof text", well...you know.  In the Church there is a dangerous tendency to find "reasons" (translate excuses) to not apply The Bible in what Luther called "its plain meaning" or plain sense.  There are many reasons for this, I think.  Our culture has things it does not want to believe.  So there is a temptation to interpret those very things away when they appear in Scripture. 
I also love the quote attributed to Mark Twain.  When asked if it bothered him that so many things in The Bible are so hard to understand, he responded, "Actually, to tell the truth, I am much more troubled by the parts that are very clear."
This unwillingness to apply the plain sense impacts all of the questions that I have addressed below.  The deficiency, as I have argued it, in almost every case comes from being unwilling or unable to apply The Word of God in its plain sense. 
Of course Jesus is God (whatever Dr. Dominic Crossan, Dr. Marcus Borg, and Dr. Bart Ehrman may argue otherwise to their disciples).
Of course the New Testament includes the concept of atonement.
Of course I believe in angels and demons.
Of course I cannot teach that everyone goes to heaven (even if in God's sovereignty and love and grace it turns out that all will).  God in Christ has told us what Good News to preach. 
When teaching on The Bible in my beloved Latvia, I came up with 5 principles for reading and applying The Word of God that I have found helpful. I have used them in presenting The Alpha Course as well.  I list them here without the refences and discussion. If you are interested I am happy to provide the examples used to demonstrate the points.  They are:
1. Everything in The Bible is true, but not everything is in The Bible.
2. We need to use our God-given reason when reading The Bible.
3. We need to read The Bible in its context (historical and literary).
4. Not everything in The Bible is for us; and not everything in The Bible is forever. 
5. Not everything in The Bible was meant to be taken literally.
I close by reposting the oath that I took, that all ELCA pastors (and I assume other Lutheran pastors).
It's not a word game.  It's not a battle over opinions.
The Bible is the incomparable testimony of the nature, the work and the will of God. 
Amen.
The church in which you are to be ordained
confesses that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God and are the norm of its faith and life.
We accept, teach, and confess the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian Creeds.
We also acknowledge the Lutheran Confessions
as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures.
Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures
and these creeds and confessions?
Each ordinand responds: I will, and I ask God to help me.