703 - A Resolution of Scripture

Download paper_703.pdf

Rejected

Comments

[Dennis L. Wayman]

I have a real concern that we not create a biblical scholarship checklist for what our scholars/elders must understand regardless of the facts surrounding the issues. In reference to this paper, 703, I have this concern in two different directions.

1. First, this is by no means an exhaustive list of all the things about which biblical and seminary scholars of good heart and mind disagree. To use these specific ones is unfair and misleading. What happens if a scholar of good heart and mind studies Isaiah and concludes that the evidence is clear and there were two distinct authors, does that mean they do not love our Lord Jesus Christ? Or that they do not hold the authority of Scripture as these and the other writings communicate the truth about God, Jesus, salvation, sanctification and eternal life? Will we remove such a scholar/elder because of an honestly held view of biblical authorship?

And to turn it around, suppose we have a scholar who studies and can agree with these 7 things but holds that the book of 2nd Peter is not written by Peter? Since that one is not on this list are they "certified" as an approved scholar/elder while the above person who holds that the second part of Isaiah is not written by Isaiah is not?

2. Second, and perhaps more to the point of the type of Christians we are as Wesleyan/Evangelicals, do we prescribe the conclusions to our scholars on matters of professional and critical interest? The great creeds of the church have established an historic orthodoxy around which all Christian faith rests. That it is not based on a specific view of biblical scholarship is obvious. That Jesus is the center of our faith and of our lives is true both of scripture and scholarship. But in matters of critical interest of our biblical scholars, is this the type of shackle-hold we want to place on their minds? Don’t we trust the Spirit of truth to make Himself evident when people of good heart and mind explore together the issues of lower and higher criticism?

I’ve often said to my biblical scholar friends that I’m glad my scholarship is in pastoral counseling – because no one looks in from outside the discipline and questions my conclusions about Jung, or Freud, or Bowen or Erickson. There is not a litmus test for my suitability as a Free Methodist Elder or a Free Methodist pastoral counselor based on where my heart and mind land. Yet that is not the case for those who dedicate their lives to Biblical scholarship. Often those of other disciplines and of lay understanding decide before ever doing the study what the facts and realities are in the creation/writing of this amazing Word of God. The scriptures are a complex collection of canonical books whose authorship, inclusion and reproduction present a myriad of issues about which our best minds must grapple. If they do not do so on our behalf, then we become a collection of shallow believers who are afraid to allow ourselves to ask the hard questions and look for the honest and factual answers. That such answers may be debated is part of the process and such debates and honestly held opinions must be protected if we are to be a church of God and not a church of institutionally enforced conformity. That these issues are important no one would argue, but treating them as important requires a freedom this paper does not allow.

Denny

[Mary Singleton]

Question: Can a layperson intersperse a few questions here? 1) What is the significance of whether or not the 2nd part of Isaiah was written by Isaiah or if the 2nd book of Peter was written by Peter? 2) Will the information of whether these two men wrote the Bible information change what is written in the Bible or will it change the effect of what was said or what the Lord intended? Are we planning to redo the Bible according to who we think edited which part? We must instead remember that Revelations 22:18-19 told us that "to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book or if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city which are written in this book." Why can we not just accept and learn what is written and live by it, rather than trying to dissect it?

[Casey Taylor]

I commend the author(s) of this resolution for reminding Free Methodists of the importance of Scripture to our life and practice. In my most charitable reading of this resolution, there is an attempt to be faithful to Scripture and to encourage fellow Christians to do likewise.

But, like Denny Wayman, I have strong reservations about Resolution 703 and those similar to it (705, 706). I strongly discourage our General Conference from approving Resolution 703 for a variety of reasons.

First, as important as Scripture is to our Christian life together, we must always hold the living Christ – God the Word – as primary to our written scriptures. The apostles encountered God in the flesh, not a book. As Ephesians 3:20 says, Christ is the chief cornerstone of God’s household, not the Bible, important though it may be. Without the Holy Spirit bringing this text to life within the Body which is made alive by the same Spirit, then the Bible is, in the words of Paul the Apostle, “dead letters.”

This is not to say that Scripture is unimportant. Scripture is indeed our chief resource not merely for beliefs but for our practice. Scripture is crucial to my own devotional life. But Scripture is itself a dead thing unless the Holy Spirit enlightens the reader and gives life to the reader. Openness to the Holy Spirit’s leadership in reading and interpreting Scripture is, I believe, the crucial distinction between our Christian reading of the Bible and a secular Religion Department’s study of the Bible as “just another book.” John Wesley stated in his sermon The Means of Grace, “We know that there is no inherent power…in the letter of Scripture read, the sound thereof heard.” Any means of grace – even our most holy book of Scripture – is powerless, he argued, “if separate from the Spirit of God.”

We live in, love, and serve the living Christ who is made present to us by the Holy Spirit through all the means of grace, not least of which is Scripture. But Scripture is the word of God for us only because we are in God the Word by the Spirit.

Second, as a wise and devout lay person has commented, what’s the difference whether the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter (to name one example) or whether one of his own disciples wrote it? At the end of the day, it’s still our Scripture. The Church was animated by the Holy Spirit throughout her history, even during the selection of texts for the biblical canon. Christians in the early Church recognized 2 Peter as divinely inspired, not only because of its association with an apostle, but also because they recognized the Holy Spirit edifying people through 2 Peter’s reading and proclamation. Apostolic authorship, while an important issue which we can and should discuss, is not the only issue.

Third, regarding ancient ideas of authorship, ancient people in the Roman Empire had a much broader notion of “legitimate authorship” than we do. Paul could just as easily tell Timothy to write a letter to the Ephesians and sign off on the letter as his own. The letter is still “Paul’s.” Even Timothy’s writing of a letter after Paul was dead was a legitimate practice. I’m afraid that Resolution 703 attempts to force the ancient world to conform to our rather rigid present-day standards.

Fourth, Resolution 703 rather ironically cites the Council of Nicaea from 325 AD as an authoritative guide to our theological thinking. This reference in a resolution so seemingly committed to biblical authority only highlights the questionable relationship of Free Methodists in particular and Methodism in general to “Christian tradition.” Being the good Protestants that we are, we cite Christian tradition when it’s convenient to our argument without providing any sort of context. I wonder: would any Protestant agree with Nicaea’s specific condemnations of “false teachings?” The Canons of the Council of Nicaea address specifics which no Free Methodist would endorse. We don’t have the church structure assumed in the council’s canons. What about Canon 20 which rules that all Christian prayer be done standing? Now I’m not opposed to our use of the Council of Nicaea. In fact, I wish that every Christian church – including all Free Methodist churches – would recite the Nicene Creed every week in worship. But let’s not uncritically cite an ecumenical council unless we’re seriously prepared to engage everything that council has said.

Fifth, Resolution 703 is circular in logic and generally unclear about its use of the word “all” when referring to “all Scripture.” Does this mean that Free Methodists must all be six-day creationists? Many of the early Christians whom John Wesley so highly favored were not. Do we read Joshua 10:13 to mean that the sun literally stood still in its rotation around the earth? The problem: we now know (as the author of Joshua apparently did not) that the sun does not revolve around the earth but vice versa. In other words, Resolution 703 assumes a very fuzzy interpretive guide (hermeneutic) to Scripture. Perhaps the author(s) would do better to present in another forum for dialogue a specific way of biblical interpretation that Free Methodists could lovingly discuss.

Finally, I am disturbed by the implicit desire within Resolution 703 to further push the FMCNA toward a vague “evangelicalism” (a term which everyone uses and no one knows how to define). I readily admit that Free Methodists have been strongly influenced in the 20th century by the evangelical movement in its various incarnations, too much so, in my opinion. Yet I remind my sisters and brothers that Free Methodists are not expressly committed to evangelicalism per se. Rather, as a denomination, we were born by an earnest desire to retain the standards of Methodism. The Methodist renewal movement of John Wesley is not identical to the present-day evangelical movement.

Resolution 703 implicitly pushes the FMCNA toward a literal and irerrant reading of Scripture. We do not hold an inerrant reading of Scripture and for good reason: it’s a terrible way to read Scripture! Nobody – even literalists – read Scripture literally! Inerrancy is not a Methodist approach to Scripture. We embrace the theological thought process of the Wesleyan quadrilateral, a method fundamentally at odds with inerrancy and literalism

[Jerome Van Kuiken]

Under "Be It Further Resolved," the line about the Magi should refer to the story as "midrash," not "madras." Madras is a city in India; midrash is a method of Jewish interpretation. I hope someone will correct this error before it goes to General Conference.

[Curtis Turner]

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=53

The above document is instructive on "Rethinking Evangelism" which I believe that we should do as a church.

"Evangelism and the Church"

"The primary function of the church is not evangelism, but to be a place for the dwelling of God on the earth. This requires that people grow and receive God and occupy their place with God. That would have a natural effect of evangelism. What we want is not just evangelism that makes converts. We want disciples...and if you are intent on making disciples and keep on that track, evangelism will take care of itself.

Of course, understanding that evangelism is a natural function of a healthy Body doesn’t preclude specific efforts. But the role of the community would be a primary factor in this. Many people will be drawn in without any special strategy but simply by the health of the people."

The web address above gives the full text and rationale why we should do this.

[Kevin Austin]

I commend the spirit behind this proposal. The interpretation of Scripture is an important and, at times, challenging task, with so many views and interpretations. The Scriptures are our guide and they are truly the Words of God. However, they are not a 20th Century text book to be interpreted simplistically through our subjective wisdom.

I agree with the spirit behind the proposal, however, I believe that the specifics at the end take us into deep, deep, dangerous waters. I agree with the others who have posted comments before mine. This proposal should be rejected.

[Jerome Van Kuiken]

Many of Casey Taylor's remarks are valuable; however, he mistakenly equates inerrancy with literalism. Belief in biblical inerrancy means that what the Bible affirms as literally true is in fact literally true, while what the Bible affirms as figuratively true is in fact figuratively true. For example, Dr. Jack Cottrell, professor at Cincinnati Christian Seminary, takes a literal interpretation of the Gospels' description of the resurrection of Christ and takes a figurative interpretation of the description of the Millennium in the Book of Revelation. Both interpretations are consistent with his belief in biblical inerrancy. Belief in biblical inerrancy does not require a Christian to embrace either Young Earth Creationism or "Left Behind" views of the end times.

[Mark Adams]

I cannot support this resolution. There is nothing in our articles of religion than that point toward a slippery slope in terms of the authority of Scripture. I understand a fear of the results which flow from some of the schools of higher criticism, and some levels of discomfort with exploring conclusions that differ from "evangelical tradition." There are compelling reasons (whether we agree or not) that are based upon linguistic and historical, not particularly theological or philosophical grounds that may lead evangelical, spirit-filled scholars to come different conclusions about the authorship and dating of Scriptural texts. I think it would be a great error to place outside the realm of scholarly debate and within the firm cement of doctrinal position a statement, for example, which affirms the unity of Isaiah. Our present statement is a clearly centered, orthodox and strong statement about the Scriptures.

[Pastor Pam]

I have read through the various resolutions regarding the authority of Scripture and wish they had been worded differently! However... I still believe that some sort of resolution would be helpful. I have family members in a denomination where the understanding of Scripture is splitting the denomination apart - a few hold on to a traditional understanding of the basics of Scripture, but many in the denomination have taken to seeing Scripture as "a guide" which can be disregarded when it says something uncomfortable. How do we ensure that we as FMs don't veer off the path of seeing the Bible as the Word of God?
Pam

[Casey Taylor]

I thank Mr. Van Kuiken for his praise of my remarks and for his clarification, too. In truth, inerrancy and literalism are not the same, though the two are often found in the same company. As one committed to orthodoxy, I am convinced that there are indeed certain portions of the Bible which we must take literally (i.e. the Gospels). I agree with St. Paul - if Christ is not raised, we are (to paraphrase) wasting our time.

Both the few positive remarks about these Scripture resolution and those opposed point in the same direction. Free Methodists need to have more in depth theological dialogue within our denominational body as well as ecumenically (i.e. with the Church universal). More specifically, we need to have a serious dialogue about the interpretation of Scripture - hermeneutics. When other denominations debate issues like homosexuality, sex isn't really what's at stake. The core issue, I believe, is how Christians read Scripture. Resolutions like the one under discussion attempts to prematurely draw lines in the sand thereby shutting down dialogue. We should prevent the same fragmentation other denominations face by initiating these discussions now. It's a good thing to have a committee of thoughtful and faithful people who think through doctrinal issues with and for us, but we should not lazily lean on those folks to prevent all we baptized Christians from our own thought and prayerful discernment.

But again I say: reject these resolutions.

[Tari Faris]

I find that this resolution disturbs me. I understand what Pastor Pam says when she mentioned that other denominations are splitting over the authority of scripture. If this resolution was about the authority of scripture I would stand up and support it one hundred percent. I believe in the authority of scripture and that it is God’s breathed word which he revealed to people to record for the world. However, after studying Isaiah a semester in theologically sound, Free Methodist supported seminary I am not convinced there was only one author of that book. Although not completely convinced either way I feel confident that I don’t have to be. I do not feel that this is a major theological issue. This issue and several other of the issues stated in the resolution I see a minor theological opinions. Isaiah was a message from God to his people. Isaiah was an amazing prophet. If the second half of Isaiah was written by another Isaiah, it does not shake my theological foundation because it is still the word of God from the mouth of God first.