This is particularly true in the Post-Apostolic era. What is
Scripture? What does it mean that it is the Word of God? It must be understood
as an extension or more properly the foundation of the foolish proclamation
(kerygma) of preaching. It is the signification of the Spirit-presence. And yet
this presence can only be true, ratified and functional when the Word is
properly acknowledged as the Prophetic Voice of the Spirit. The Scripture is
the extension of the Prophetic/Oracular message and presence in the
Post-Apostolic age. It is through the acknowledgement of the Oracular
Word-Proclamation that the mystery Paul speaks of is revealed. The recognition
of Scripture as the Word of God is to recognise the testimony of the Apostles
and their Christ-granted and Spirit inspired Authority.
Their words were not to be subjected to philosophical
inquiry. They were not data points to be considered within a larger framework
of intellectual endeavour. Their spoken words and teaching are recorded for us
in the Scripture. They are Authoritative. To treat Scripture as something less
is to reject the Apostolicity of the authors of the New Testament.
The only 'examination' praised by Luke was that of the
Bereans who searched the Scriptures to determine the truth of Paul's message.
How the Bereans are despised today. I have been amazed at how
many clerics and academics will roll their eyes when they are mentioned. Why
are they rejected? Because to most ecclesiastics the 'layman' isn't properly
trained. Sola Scriptura is (to them) all well and good if run through the
proper filters and integrated within a larger framework. In their intellectual
and institutional milieu an appeal to 'raw' Scripture becomes something of a
fallacy. To many academics who profess an allegiance to Sola Scriptura there
are a host of 'resolved' issues and concepts that are embodied within
historical theology.
Though it grieves them when it is put this way, like Rome
many Protestants (even Fundamentalists) have a functional set of canon laws and
doctrines. They have a system of belief that is extra-Scriptural but treated as
if it were equal to Scripture. To be fair they think their formulations are
faithful expressions of Scripture and represent the teaching of Scripture in a
systematic, didactic and utilisable form.
Thus to them the Berean spirit is something of an annoyance,
it is to revisit already resolved questions. It is to probe matters that are no longer subject to further examination.
The interpretations have become canon,
in other words, the interpretations are the functional equal of Scripture.
This is neither the Sola Scriptura of the pre-Reformation nor
the early Reformation. The Reformers were unwilling to completely divorce all
thought and doctrine from the context of Christendom but they were to a much
larger degree than subsequent generations. They were at least willing to
entertain all questions in a way Protestant Scholasticism was not.
This is not to suggest that Scripture can't be misread and
misunderstood by average well-meaning Christians. There is indeed a method to
reading to Scripture but the difference (I would argue) is the methodology and
assumptions are within Scripture itself. Scripture supplies its own epistemology
and the very brief Berean episode only emphasises this point.
The Word is God's miraculous and thus epistemologically
defying gift of Prophetic-Oracular
presence to the Church in this age, this time between the times as it were. It
is the means by which the Spirit is present in the Church. It is the Word that
unlocks or bridges (as it were) the Spirit-presence in the Holy Rites (even
mysteries) of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is the Word that brings us into
the heavenly council, the very Communion and Presence of God. In Christ we are
there in His Heavenly Kingdom, in the Great Zion-City, in the very
throne-council chamber and He (through the Spirit) is present among us individually
and corporately. This bridge, this portal, this exodus path through the
chaos-waters and the realm of death, this actualisation, this present
participation in the reality of the Eternal Kingdom is through the Word.
It is this question of Oracular presence and recognition as
such that provides the primary criterion for determining what is the True
Church in this age of counterfeits and lies.
Scripture must not be treated as something to be dissected or
analysed. By the latter I do not mean to suggest that it isn't to be carefully
and diligently studied. By analysis I refer to the tendency and process of
resolving complexity by breaking into elements, to probe the nature of a thing.
Of course the latter exercise is conducted according to standards of analysis
that accord with empirical observation. It is to treat the material in a
mathematical or even formulaic manner and to fail (utterly) to grasp its
absolute profundity and spiritual nature.
To treat Scripture as an expression, outworking, fulfillment
or consequent result of Common Sense Realism is to denigrate Scripture and the
role of the Holy Spirit. It is to treat the Scripture as not unique but universally accessible, ordinary indeed common. It is to treat it without
reference to the Covenant or to the Divine Glory-Presence implied by the
Covenant. It is to denigrate the Spirit's role in Scripture's apprehension and interpretation
as well as the critical place of internal testimony and confirmation.
It is to ignore the apostolic imperative- to reject the
world's wisdom and to be content in being reckoned a fool, a believer in that
which is reckoned by the 'common sense' of the world to be absurd.
Scripture in the hands of an academic or politician is by
definition sacrilege. This is at the heart of the modern Evangelical impetus.
This is but one of their many crimes and errors.
Biblicism at this point ought to differ from Fundamentalism.
That said there is much in the spirit of Fundamentalism that can be
appreciated.
However, it has tied the knot of the noose by which it hangs
itself.
Fundamentalism was born of a sociological context from which
it has never been able to divorce itself. Early forms of Fundamentalism were
able to follow-through and consistently apply a more Biblical view of history
that recognised the nations as part of a temporary order and ultimately in the
service of the Beast. Mostly Dispensational they had a rather impoverished view
of the Church and yet during the period from the 1910s-1940s there was a strong
testimony with regard to the spiritual nature of the Church and its pilgrim
place in the world. Several factions within the movement were able to divorce
themselves from Protestant-America/Chosen People meta-narratives that so
dominate the Christian Right today. Many of the early Fundamentalists were
against nationalism and war and despite many problems with their thought are to
be commended at least on some level.
And yet World War II changed the equation. And if that wasn't
enough the onset of the Cold War and the feared menace of Communism quashed
what remained of their New Testament sensibilities.
Too rooted in Americanism, its metanarratives, and culture to
be content with separatism, Fundamentalism began the process of turning into
world-relevant and accommodating Evangelicalism. Though many opposed this shift
(led by figures such as Billy Graham), by the 1980s they had succumbed to the
impulse. Only a handful still opposed Graham and the newly ascendant Falwell
faction.
Evangelicalism reinfused bourgeois values and sensibilities
within Fundamentalism. Long content to be somewhat on the fringe of American
society, Fundamentalists once again sought a degree of respect and security
within the mainstream of American life, participation in its processes and a
claim to its heritage. This continues to play out in terms of values with
regard to money. There has been a profound shift in attitude just over the past
thirty years. Fundamentalism continues to survive but is in a state of sharp
decline. Even today, the 'feel' and culture of Fundamentalist churches are no
longer what they were a generation ago. That's a subjective generalisation to
be sure but a claim few would challenge, even within those circles.
For the Evangelical wing, this change in values also affected
the course of theological development. Again seeking respect from the academy
and a place at the table, the doctrine of Scripture was continually tweaked and
modified. We shouldn't be surprised to see the outworkings of this in our own
day. At this point the doctrines that once stood for Fundamentalism and
Evangelicalism have been watered down and are beginning to disappear.
Evangelicalism itself has become a term that no longer has any meaning. If it
does retain any viable definition it is now only within a sociological context.
Born of a desire to change the culture and transform the
world, it is Evangelicalism that has been changed. It invited the world into
the Church. The only transformation is that the Church has become
indistinguishable from the world. The wise and perceptive leaders turned out to
be the great fools and blind guides. They were and are wolves in sheep's
clothing.
Fundamentalism has tried to hang on by bolstering its doctrine
of Scripture. And yet it retains the hermeneutical and epistemological package
that continues to drag it down the same path. You can stand on the King James
Bible but when your epistemology is rooted in naïve realism and empiricism it
will wither and fail. They're sawing off the branch that they're sitting on.
Just as we often cannot see the composition of a building's
foundation we can infer something of its nature by the type of superstructure.
The superstructure betrays the nature of the hidden foundation.
Fundamentalism's superstructure purports to be built on Scriptural foundations
but its 'Common Sense' empiricist theories of epistemology and justification
belie the claim.
Fundamentalism properly speaking is only about a century old.
We could stretch the definition and perhaps come up with 150 years. It's not
isolated and is certainly related to earlier forms of thought. And yet it
represents a distinct epoch in the history of the Church. It has proven to be
an instructive interlude that will soon pass. Many intellectuals will consider
Biblicism to be of this stripe, cut from same cloth if not the very same thing.
Some Evangelicals who claim the Biblicist label are in
reality proponents of Fundamentalist Common Sense and will consequently soon
perish. The younger generation isn't buying it. These well-meaning folks
represent a kind of Biblicism but like the Fundamentalist variety, it is a Sub-Biblicism
understood through a rationalist lens. Seeking cultural relevance only
amplifies the effects of the poison. In seeking to save their youth they often
sow the seeds for their defection.
Others who claim to be Biblicists and Scripturalists are in
fact not. There are many Charismatics, Evangelicals and even some
Confessionalists who pay lip-service to the notion but in almost no way
actually reflect a view of Scripture as the ultimate authority. While Lutheran
and Reformed Confessionalists usually reject the Biblicist epithet they do
claim to be adherents of Sola Scriptura. There have even been some rather
wanting attempts to draw a distinction and create a Sola Scriptura rooted in
philosophy and wed to tradition while decrying Biblicism as naïve, archaic,
unhistorical and even dishonest. Many of the same critiques levied against
Fundamentalism are applicable to these faux-Scripturalists and many more
besides. Their understanding of Scripture Alone represents a marked difference
with Biblicism.
It is beyond the scope of this series to probe historical
pre-Reformation understandings of Sola Scriptura in addition to why and how
they differed from the Reformation and especially Post-Reformation variety. But
there was a difference. Some will view the Pre-Reformation variant as primitive
and obsolete. Others will criticise its approach to Scripture as being of a legalist
or even a Neo-Nomian persuasion.
Scriptural Biblicism differs from Fundamentalism. Despite the
differences and the seemingly wide chasm I maintain there is still a healthy
intuition and reverence for Scripture that gives me hope. Those of the Fundamentalist
inclination while standing on a rickety foundation and having embraced many
doctrines that are alien to Scripture, can still be reached. And in many ways I
find a greater resonance and camaraderie with them than I do with those of
Confessional and certainly Evangelical allegiance.
A case for Biblicism can still be made and must be made.
Beginning with a Christ-rooted doctrine of revelation, a Biblical
epistemological-hermeneutic can be developed consisting of subordinated logic,
submissive correspondence and an abandonment of holistic-comprehensive
knowledge and coherence criteria. Christocentric and Redemptive-Historical,
this approach while in human terms is circular and even self-contained, it
shifts the nature of what knowledge is and how to prioritise it. Technical
comprehensive knowledge is subordinated and the believer learns to focus more
in terms of telos and meaning.
Knowledge is rooted in faithful apprehension and perception.
Stripped of worldly pride and expectation of respect, let
alone Dominionist aspirations and pretensions, the quest for knowledge becomes
an exercise in doxological profundity, hope and expectation. It is both a
burden and joy as we wait to be clothed upon, to fully realise what it means to
have the mind of Christ and to know the mystery which eye hath not seen, ear
heard, nor have entered into the heart of man.
But to do so, to begin to explore the meaning, nature and
Authority of Scripture, we must turn away from impoverished and caricatured
forms of Sub-Biblicism. We must turn away from the riddles of Fundamentalism,
Confessionalism and their Scholastic foundations and rediscover the Oracular
nature of the Text and by implication the nature of Saving Faith.
fin