I recently had the opportunity to
have a discussion with a United Methodist minister in the form of missives left
on a comment board of a blog. The nature
of the story we were engaged in this cyber interaction over is something that I
choose not to share because I found it to be secondary to a larger issue that
this Elder in full connection brought to the fore in his editorial. That is the issue of Biblical
“essentialness”. This obviously
intelligent, well-educated man, who seems to be earnest in his assertions, said
something that had me wondering if some in our denomination are in danger of
becoming Gnostics. (Or maybe my fear is
that some already are…)
I will not share his name as I
only want to discuss the merits of his arguments and not level personal attacks
or “call him out”. This is an excerpt
from his initial post… I will admit that it is not the entire comment because,
again, I do not want to focus on anything but the specific issue raised in this statement by Rev. A. (His other stances on other issues are for
separate discussion later.)
“Wesley suggested unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity or love in all things. What, then, is essential? For people of faith God is essential. For Christian people of faith Jesus is also essential. That’s the extent of the list of essentials. Many other things are excellent and even sacred yet not essential. Accordingly, given that people of faith pre-existed scripture and given the Biblical scholarship of recent decades shedding helpful new light on scriptural understanding and interpretation, I believe it safe to conclude that scripture – while a wonderful gift – is clearly not essential and, therefore, we may – in loving faith – allow one another the liberty to hold differing views on [these] matters and the freedom to act in good conscience on those beliefs.”
This simply baffled me. And I asked Rev A if he felt there was any
disconnect experienced in embracing the Wesleyan ethos, while simultaneously
dismissing the core source of its principles as “non-essential”. His reply (or the part relevant to this
conversation) was:
“I continue to cherish scripture as a primary source and as a wonderful gift that remains in ongoing conversation with the other legs of the quadrilateral stool. If this view does not fully comport with Wesley, I’m okay with that and were he alive today I suspect that Wesley might be, as well.”
Would he? In the end, I suppose that what Reverend Wesley
might think “today” is only pertinent in a discussion held in Anglican and
Methodist circles. I readily admit that
John Wesley did indeed seem to be able to sit in conversation with others that
viewed faith from different lenses than he.
But I have to wonder if he would be accepting of the claim that
Scripture, while a wonderful gift, is non-essential as an experience of guiding
presence and a testimony to God.
Beyond the Wesleyan debate, I have
to ask myself a larger and more important question… “If scripture is not
essential, then is it important?” I am
struggling with this concept of something existing in “primary” and “not
essential” states simultaneously. I
understand that it may be that, semantically speaking, I am missing a larger
point, but I don’t think that I am. Rev
A holds both of these beliefs in tension.
I have a Dodge Dart. It is my primary mode of transportation. But if it breaks down, I can drive something
else until it gets fixed. So while
primary, it is not essential for my vehicular transportation needs. I can wrap my head around that. BUT if it is my only vehicle, it is essential because I need it to get to work,
or school, or the doctor, etcetera. In
terms of Christian beliefs (i.e. the mystery of faith, Christ died, Christ is
risen, Christ will come again), there is no other source that asserts these
claims central to Christian faith. It is the vehicle in which we arrive at Christianity… and the only one that can get us there. It is, at once, the best and only written
record of what we generally (inside of orthodoxy) accept to be true... the divine nature, Passion and physical Resurrection of
the Nazarene. Does that not make it both
primary AND essential?
There is no other written source
that testifies to these things. There
are extra-scriptural accounts of Jesus, and the Jesus movement in the first
century, some that give accounts of miraculous action, but none that assert a belief in the physically risen Christ, nor in
Jesus’ divinity. The Quran contains a
narrative of Jesus’ life, beginning with the virgin birth, and ending in a
crucifixion account in which Jesus was not actually killed. There is also a belief that he will come
again; but Quran is explicit in its stance that Jesus, while a prophet of God,
has no divine nature. There are passages and gospels, though not
included in cannon, that witness to the fact of resurrection… but they are not
largely publically available; so what other source do we have, or can we claim
in faith to believe, as people who proclaim the living Lordship of Jesus the Christ? If something is central to the basis of our
belief, is it not by definition essential?
And, as a final thought, using
Rev. A’s own metaphor of the quadrilateral as a stool, I find a rather unsettling problem with his
illustration. (Though I might disagree
with the idea that the quadrilateral is either an equilateral or a square.) If Scripture is in conversation with the
other legs of the stool (tradition, reason & experience), then it can be
understood to be a stool with four
legs of equal length. In order to bear
the weight of whatever sits upon it, all four are essential, else there is a
deficit in its ability to balance that weight.
Eventually it will topple.
Whether it is jogged, or simply acted upon by gravity as it encounters
pressure from an unbalanced load, it will not be able to maintain its integrity
as a resting place. Rev A’s own
illustration makes an argument for
the essential nature of Holy Scripture in Christian experience described by the
Wesleyan Quadrilateral. But as this is only
an approach to determining a hermeneutic, and not a theological statement of
belief, I will not push this point any farther.
Had Rev. A made the statement that
Scripture wasn’t the exclusive
experience of the Divine Personality, I would agree with him most
heartily. The Holy Spirit is not limited
to movement only as we read the Scripture.
Nor is Jesus’ presence, as indwelling experience, constrained by the
front and back covers of our Bible. But Holy
Scripture is ABSOLUTELY essential as a witness to, and an expression of, the
incarnate God that we have come to know in faith. Or why bother to call ourselves disciples of
the risen Christ? If a person has come
to the conclusion that they no longer share the belief in Biblical narratives
and its claims as they pertain to the Christ, or that they have grown beyond them, they can in good
conscience realize that, maybe, they no longer need to be bound by the constricting
label of Christian. And I say that with
no animosity or condemnation whatsoever. Though I am large and have a beard, and may have a general resemblance to widely held images Santa, I don't claim the title "Father Christmas". This is not a shunning, just a recognition of identification as being based in more than a surface resemblance to something.
I have purposely not quoted
scripture to this point. This is not
because of a feeling that it isn’t necessary or appropriate, but rather in a
determination to make a reasoned argument to a position that would only dismiss
the effort to quote scripture as being trapped by an inability to practice
reason. Somehow, some among us have come
to believe that a belief in things we have not experienced, or a stance that
the revelations of Divine and human natures contained in Scripture can be
believed as infallible, have lost an ability to be reasonable. People who feel that in spite of human
capacity for imperfection, the God of perfection can still use humans to deliver
a word that is intact (though it may be beyond our ability to comprehend
completely) are therefore labeled as “stuck” in attitudes and beliefs that are
trivial and ignorant. Therein rests another
underlying problem… a question of the existence of mystery and whether we can
accept it. But I suppose that subject
may best be saved for later discussion as well.
I will close with my answer to that query though… Scripture,
like faith, is an unfolding mystery to be experienced… not a problem to be solved.
But I have to confess, I may not
be reasonable enough to make that claim without the Bible telling me so in the
first place…
Your
servant in Christ,
Chris
No comments:
Post a Comment
I'm always glad to hear from people who have taken time to read the posts here... even those who may not agree with me. I have had to make changes in the way I handle comments for this blog. They will all be subject to moderation from here on in. And as this is a personal blog and I have sole responsibility for its upkeep, it may take me a while to clear a post. I only ask 2 things from those who would leave comments.
1.) Please give your name. I have posted under mine, not anonymously or with a user name that would hide my identity. I would hope if someone was going to share an opinion, thought, criticism, or atta boy, that they would do so without fear of being identified so we can have an open dialogue.
2.) Please be respectful in the use of your language. Any cuss words, slurs, or other specifically vitriolic language will result in your comments not being posted. This is simply an attempt to keep a civil and life affirming tone for this space.
Thanks! And remember... Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss things. But small minds talk about people. Let's try to be great together.