lifeasmission

Recent Comments

• 

  Jonathan Brink said...

  1

  You said, “I wonder who truly has the “higher” view of Scripture – the one who contends for its inerrancy or the one who demonstrates its truthfulness by the way they live?”

  That my friend is awesome.

  06/17/09 3:04 PM | Comment Link

• 

  JR Rozko said...

  2

  Wheew. Thanks Jonathan. I was pretty sure the first comment I was going to get on that question was going to be something along the lines of, “Why does it have to be one or the other? Shouldn’t we contend for the inerrancy of Scripture and seek to live it out?” So, thanks.

  Incidentally, aside from the blog-o-sphere, do I know you from somewhere? Fuller? Allelon? I hope I am not embarrassing myself here, but I feel like we’ve crossed paths and I can’t place it.

  06/17/09 3:17 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Nathan said...

  3

  It’s interesting that you anticipated that folks would wish you had said both a doctrine of scripture AND doing what scripture says, rather than running with one at the expense of the other. I am one who wishes you had avoided this dichotomy. Oddly, your post ends up siding with the “classically liberal” after all.

  06/17/09 4:02 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Jonathan Brink said...

  4

  I was at the Great Emergence and write periodically for Emergent Village. I saw you were there too. Many of my pictures from the conference got spread around.

  06/17/09 4:58 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Nathan said...

  5

  I’m back at a computer so I’ll add another comment.
  You say discussions regarding the inspiration of scripture ceased to be meaningful to you. To this I respond, So what? While you may not be interested in doctrines of the inspiration of Scripture, many of our brothers and sisters in Christ – including the author of 2 Tim – are interested in these conversations. The mere fact that these conversations are not all that meaningful to you doesn’t mean they aren’t in fact important. This sort of comment is only convincing when the reader is already in agreement or if the speaker possesses enormous personal authority.
  You also say “It’s difficult to see this as an incredibly meaningful debate to Jesus.” Albert Schweitzer famously pointed out that scholars who reconstruct the historical Jesus tend to make him in their own image, a perverse mockery of the imago dei if there ever was one. The same thing can be said about vague appeals to how Jesus would have agreed with one. Given the temptation to try to turn Jesus into a puppet for our own agendas perhaps we should avoid appealing to what Jesus would have thought about an argument unless we have explicit exegetical evidence. For example, it’s worth noting that Jesus blasts the Sadducees because of their faulty eschatology which was based on a faulty reading of Scripture (Mt 22:23-33). It would appear that Jesus did not subscribe to the modern theology/ethics split. Moreover, claims that Jesus would not have found a particular conversation “meaningful” are specious because, as the incarnate Logos, Jesus does not need to engage in theological conversations in the same way that we do. But for us, his finite followers, discussing and learning doctrine is one of the ways we love him.
  I think your post got off to a great start in claiming that we ought to fight the tendency to highlight right beliefs or right actions not by simply splitting the difference but by working with a different paradigm. Insofar as you are dismissive of things like the inspiration of scripture, however, I would suggest that you’re not contributing to a different paradigm at all. Rather, you’re succumbing to that odd liberal Protestant reformulation of St. James: “works without faith is pretty much okay.”

  06/17/09 7:07 PM | Comment Link

• 

  JR Rozko said...

  6

  @ Jonathan, that’s probably it. Look forward to the next time our paths cross.

  @Nathan, thanks for your comments and push back my friend, I truly appreciate what you have to say. I will try to clarify and see if that does anything.

  You said, “I am one who wishes you had avoided this dichotomy.”

  I am actually making an attempt to overcome the (modernistic?) dichotomy by ascribing to a different paradigm of belief, one that I believe to be more faithful to a biblical vision of believing. Namely, that biblical believing is that which we actually live out.

  You said, “…your post ends up siding with the “classically liberal” after all.”

  You’d have to explain to be how you understand that to be the case. To the extent that my theology, and more importantly, life, remains radically Christocentric, I think this is an unfair accusation. Or, if my understanding of Jesus’ teaching in the Lukan passage makes me a liberal, then maybe I am cool with it.

  I am glad you talk about inspiration in your 2nd comment. I did not mean to communicate that I am not interested in the doctrine of inspiration. In fact, part of what I am doing here is probably teasing out what I think a biblically faithful doctrine of inspiration is. Namely, one that looks to transformed lives (thoroughly equipped for every good work) rather than theories of inerrancy and infallibility as a locus of importance.

  I am totally with you on appealing to exegetical evidence when it comes to trying to get a handle on Jesus. The only trouble there is that you’re still dealing with a range of subjectivity that makes a truly objective image of Jesus elusive at best. When I said the bit about not being able to imagine Jesus being all that concerned about debates over inerrancy and infallibility, I had in mind precisely the type of confrontation you mentioned. The issue isn’t over whether or not Scripture is inerrant or infallible, but what it means and what its implications are. This discussion is quite precious to me as I think it was to Jesus.

  You ended with, “…you’re succumbing to that odd liberal Protestant reformulation of St. James: ‘works without faith is pretty much okay.’

  This is neither my intention or my desire. If it is how you have taken what I was trying to say, I suppose the fault is mine for failure to communicate effectively. While faith without works is dead, works, which do not produce faithful witness to the person and work of Jesus, have little or nothing to do with true Christian faith.

  I should conclude by adding an addendum to my question on who has the higher view of Scripture, those who contend for its inerrancy or those who demonstrate its truthfulness in the way they live. Just as the former are making a wholesale claim, it’s either all inerrant or none of it is, so too the latter group does not get a pass. They are accountable to embody the whole truth of Scripture, not merely those parts which they resonate with or find convenient. I hope this too sets me apart from classic liberals.

  I hope that’s helpful.

  06/17/09 11:05 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Nathan said...

  7

  Thanks for the gracious response JrrJr.

  While your stated desire is to move beyond the actions vs. belief impasse, I am suggesting that  – insofar as you are suggesting that the various understandings of inspiration (inerrancy etc.) are unnecessary – you are simply choosing the liberal side of the fence. You say you’d like to transcend the impasse by opting for a “biblical vision…one that looks to transformed lives (thoroughly equipped for every good work) rather than theories of inerrancy and infallibility as a locus of importance.” It’s one thing to make transformed lives the locus of importance, it’s quite another to say that a transformed life is a doctrine of inspiration. Focusing on transformed lives may, as you say, demonstrate how seriously one takes the bible, but it doesn’t say anything about how – or even whether – the bible is inspired by God. Thus while you say you want to retain a doctrine of inspiration, one that you say is more biblical, I am suggesting that what you have put forward is not a doctrine of inspiration at all. I admire your attempt to work past the belief/deeds dichotomy, but I would suggest that to do this successfully we must avoid the tendency to collapse belief into action. Why not follow St. James who maintains the distinction between faith and deeds but says that faith will get you nowhere without works? This is very different from saying that works = faith, which is what I take you to be saying.
   
  You said “I am totally with you on appealing to exegetical evidence when it comes to trying to get a handle on Jesus. The only trouble there is that you’re still dealing with a range of subjectivity that makes a truly objective image of Jesus elusive at best.”
  The goal in citing Scripture to back up claims about Jesus isn’t objectivity, because objectivity is beyond our grasp. My intent in suggesting that we should avoid saying Jesus would agree with us unless we have exegetical evidence is much more modest than a vain pursuit of objectivity; it is rather a check on our pride, a way of giving ourselves and others the opportunity to see whether we are truly saying something Jesus would say. I don’t want us to be objective about Jesus (which is impossible). I just want us to provide some bit of evidence if you’re going to claim that our Lord would agree with you against many other Christians.
   
  You said “When I said the bit about not being able to imagine Jesus being all that concerned about debates over inerrancy and infallibility, I had in mind precisely the type of confrontation you mentioned [i.e. Jesus vs. the Sadducees on marriage in the resurrection]. The issue isn’t over whether or not Scripture is inerrant or infallible, but what it means and what its implications are.”
  It’s unreasonable to say that if Jesus didn’t discuss inerrancy then we shouldn’t either because A) that wasn’t an issue in first century Judaism as it was later. Who knows what Jesus would have said if Jews of his day had denied that all Scripture is God-breathed? and B) as I said before, as the incarnate Logos, Jesus does not need to engage in theological conversations in the same way that we do. But for us, his finite followers, discussing and learning doctrine is one of the ways we love him. 
  I am aware that Mt 22 is not about inerrancy. I chose this example because Jesus was criticizing the Sadducees for not believing in the resurrection, not for failing in any particular action. Of course the doctrine of the resurrection has ethical implications – all Christian doctrine does! – but that is not the issue in Jesus’ confrontation here. I am suggesting that this pericope is one example (there are many others) of why those who wish to reduce doctrine to action are making a big mistake. Doctrine should help us act like Jesus, but that doesn’t mean acting like Jesus IS doctrine. If the logical necessity of this distinction doesn’t strike you then consider this: it’s important to distinguish between doctrine and actions because oftentimes, as imperfect people, our actions will not live up to our beliefs. Like the audience of the book of James we are exhorted to conform our behavior to our confession. Thus, I would argue that to say we only confess with our actions and never - or only insignificantly – with our mouths is sloppy thinking, unbiblical, and pastorally problematic.
   
   

  06/18/09 8:44 PM | Comment Link

• 

  JR Rozko said...

  8

  “…sloppy thinking, unbiblical, and pastorally problematic.”

  So very Nate.  “What can I say to most easily offend JR?  I know, I’ll insult his ability to think, teach the Bible, and pastor people, the three main things he has given the majority of his adult life to.”  Thankfully, I know how to take you, but come on man, you’re better than that.

  I will try to come at this a different way.  I think that for the most part, conservatives and liberals spend their time debating the wrong aspect of the doctrine of inspiration, status (what do I or we intellectually assent to about this idea).  While conservatives will use words to signify their stance on the objective status of Scripture, liberals will use language to signify their stance on the subjectivity of Scripture.  I am saying this is an altogether misleading and unhelpful debate, one that, incarnate Logos or not (and by the way, I always went under the assumption that the central point of God’s incarnation was identification with us, not differentiation, but anyway…), Jesus had ample opportunity to enter into, but always chose to focus on interpretation and response instead.

  What really matters about our doctrine of Scripture isn’t our stance on its status, but on its performance (what does the doctrine do in the life of a believer or community).

  As I do my best to think about this biblically and pastorally, I would say that our doctrine of Scripture, like any and all doctrines that we hold, ought to be tested against what they do in peoples lives.  If it makes people more like Jesus, it is a good doctrine.  If it doesn’t, it’s not.

  Of course I realize that the questions then lead to, “Well, what does it mean to beome more like Jesus.”  But man, I can’t even begin to tell you how much more fruitful I would find that discussion than any on the mere status of Scripture.

  Does that clear anything up?  Was it already clear and you still find it problematic?  Am I missing more of what you are saying?

  06/19/09 12:24 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Nathan said...

  9

  I’m very sorry to offend you Jr. I didn’t mean to suggest for a moment that can’t think, teach the bible, or pastor people. I’m very sorry to have implied this. I was critiquing what I take to be the gist of your blog post, not you and your pastoral abilities. I saw pastoral abilities in you way back when we were teenagers!
  The full sentence was “I would argue that to say we only confess with our actions and never – or only insignificantly – with our mouths is sloppy thinking, unbiblical, and pastorally problematic.” Sloppy thinking because there is a valid logical distinction to be made between confessions of belief and actions, unbiblical because of the distinction James makes between them (surely James is one of the passages of scripture that deals with this issue most directly), and pastorally problematic because it is helpful for us to strive to live up to our confessions with our actions. This is the summary of my argument against the idea you put forward (but not in any way a statement about your personal abilities – and I don’t doubt your abilities at all).
  On the fact that Jesus didn’t discuss this issue, I’m not sure what you mean when you say he had ample opportunity to discuss it. It simply wasn’t an issue for first century Jews. Neither was environmentalism, the Trinity, socialism or innumerable other things worthy of our attention. For this reason I think we should avoid dismissing an issue on the grounds that Jesus didn’t discuss it. Jesus didn’t live in Everyplace and Everytime, but in first century Palestine. Moreover, we don’t know all that he said, but only what’s in the gospels.
  Regarding Jesus’ difference from us as incarnate Logos you say “and by the way, I always went under the assumption that the central point of God’s incarnation was identification with us, not differentiation, but anyway…”. I agree that that is the central point, but God coming to us and identifying with us does not erase the distinction between us and God. If it did it wouldn’t be God coming to us at all! In Christ we see both God and human. Therefore, just as we shouldn’t go around telling people that when they’ve seen us they’ve seen the Father, or that we’re the fulfillment of the Torah, or that before Abraham was We Were, we should also remember there may be questions that are meaningful for us but not Jesus because, unlike Jesus, we’re not God.
  I don’t think I completely understand what you’re proposing. I’ve suggested that we need to maintain the distinction between confession and action (in direct contradiction to the Rollins quotation). What do you think about that?
  You say: “What really matters about our doctrine of Scripture isn’t our stance on its status, but on its performance (what does the doctrine do in the life of a believer or community). As I do my best to think about this biblically and pastorally, I would say that our doctrine of Scripture, like any and all doctrines that we hold, ought to be tested against what they do in peoples lives.  If it makes people more like Jesus, it is a good doctrine.  If it doesn’t, it’s not.”
  I’m not sure if you mean A) we should pick our doctrine of Scripture by looking at people with different doctrines of Scripture and picking the doctrine that belongs to the people who are the most Christ-like, or B) We don’t need a doctrine of Scripture at all. Instead we should focus on changing lives to the exclusion of conversations about how Scripture is inspired.
  Is it one of these, or something else?
   

  06/19/09 7:34 AM | Comment Link

• 

  JR Rozko said...

  10

  Do we need to maintain a distinction between confession and action?

  I think Rollins’ point is a subversive attempt to note the inherent connection (as opposed to difference) between confession and action.  That it’s not a matter of always trying to do justice to two things (confession – believing the right things and action – living the right way), but rediscovering that one thing which, when understood and practiced faithfully, nullifies the dichotomy – where our confessions serve as actions and our actions serve as confessions.

  Back to Jesus.  Of course we must embrace Jesus contextually, but what is the Christian life if not an attempt to grapple with how, by biblical inference and personal relationship, the Jesus who is both held out to us in the New Testament and living and active today desires for us to think and live in our context.  I don’t claim to be able to do this perfectly, but when I say what I did before I am only doing with I think every sincere follower of Jesus ought to do naturally.

  I am saying that from my understanding of and relationship with Jesus, I believe he would turn discussions over and arguments about the status of Scripture on their heads by forcing (no doubt by offering some sort of beautiful parable or asking some brilliant question) people to wrestle instead with the performance of Scripture.

  As for your 2nd question, I don’t quite mean either A or B.  I mean to say the theological justification of a doctrine is to be found in its ability to shape people and communities into Christlikeness.  I don’t care how passionately someone holds to a particiular doctrinal position or how logically they might be able to defend it, if it doesn’t make them more like Jesus, it’s either an altogether bad doctrine, or they are holding it the wrong way (like using the wrong end of a hammer to pound a nail into something).  This is why I am advocating a new paradigm.  I think we got the hammer turned backwards.  Rather than talk about how we can use the wrong end of the hammer better, I want to talk about how to use the right end of the hammer.

  06/19/09 1:32 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Nathan said...

  11

  If there’s a connection between two things, as you rightly say there is between confession and action, then there is a difference. Difference simply means they aren’t the same thing.

  Back to Jesus: I think you are right that we ought to try to imagine how Jesus would have us live today in our context. That’s good. I’m only saying that when doing so we ought to provide some paltry tiny bit of biblical evidence that we’re hearing Jesus’ voice rather than remaking him in our own image.

  You said, “As for your 2nd question, I don’t quite mean either A or B.  I mean to say the theological justification of a doctrine is to be found in its ability to shape people and communities into Christlikeness”
  But this was A) we should pick our doctrine of Scripture by looking at people with different doctrines of Scripture and picking the doctrine that belongs to the people who are the most Christ-like.
  If there’s a significant difference between these I don’t see it.

  It’s also worth considering that the very idea that people ought to be shaped into Christlikeness is itself a doctrine. This is another way of getting at what I think is wrong with your proposal, but perhaps this discussion has run out of steam. c’est la blog.

  06/19/09 6:42 PM | Comment Link

• 

  JR Rozko said...

  12

  Agreed.

  06/20/09 9:48 AM | Comment Link