Expressing the Doctrine of the Word
by Walter Sundberg, Jr., Ph.D*
I have been asked to respond as a pastor in the church to four questions:
What constitutes the "Word of God?"
How does the Word of God establish its authority over us?
What are the contributions and limitations of the historical-critical method with respect to this doctrine?
In view of cultural and linguistic changes, how can the doctrine of the Word best be expressed today?
These are all important and complicated questions. I would like to say something about each of them. But how to begin to get at them? Perhaps the best way is to start with the question I find most intriguing. It is the second: "How does the Word of God establish its authority over us?" That is to say, how does the Word of God reach us? How does it persuade us? How does it make us its obedient children?
How indeed! If our experience as the People of God teaches us anything, it is that the Word of God exercises its authority over us only with great difficulty. There are many reasons for this such as, for example, the fact that we are sinners who spend much of our lives in separation from God's holy will. But there are also reasons of much less weight. It is one of these reasons which I want to lift up for your attention. It is commonly at work in the church today, especially among the leadership of the church: pastors, teachers, and church officials. It is not a reason which is easy to explain or even to grasp in clear terms. Let me try to get at it by telling a story.
A couple of summers ago, I attended a conference of pastors at which one of the luminaries of the church took time in what must have been a very busy schedule to make a brief appearance. He spoke for about 20 minutes on the topic, "The State of the Church Today." As he himself acknowledged, he was not well prepared. But that was fine. What we heard was not a carefully honed speech, but candid remarks reflecting what was really on his mind.
This official was worried about the so-called Moral Majority and its influence. He disagreed with its political agenda and its method of operation. He feared the influence of its chief media personalities. He thought that the movement creates a false image of the church in American culture because it makes the Gospel appear a mean-spirited force in society. After a few minutes, it became quite clear to me that this official was obsessed by his topic. He argued in effect that the state of the church was being determined by the Moral Majority.
The discussion became particularly interesting when the official turned to the question of the use of the Bible. He asserted that the Moral Majority employs Scripture legalistically. Ittakes verses out of context and applies them directly and simplistically to matters of social policy. In his view this was typical of a fundamentalistic approach.
The official was then asked by a pastor about the proper way to understand and obey Scripture. "Not the way of this movement!" was the reply. He went on to add that the church must be careful not to rely on an "abstract" concept of the authority of the Word of God, and also that such terms as "infallible" and "inspired" can easily be misunderstood.
I recount this little scene in some detail because I think it is germane to our topic and also because it is so typical. Dear reader, you were not at this conference. But I bet you have been at one just like it!
What happened and happens all the time is this: the question of the authority of the Word of God arises in the context of a discussion of how not to approach it. The negative example criticized is usually a conservative position and not a liberal or radical one. To this conservative example is attached the old orthodox doctrine of inspiration. This is often made guilty by association. The discussion of the matter concludes (at best) with halting advice such as: "Handle with care!" or "Watch out!"Little more is said.
The problem is that the central matter of biblical authority is treated unconstructively. It seems nowadays that we know better in the church what we do not believe than what we do believe about this influence upon the Lutheran soul in the United States. This movement's influence has been vastly overrated and largely stems from the fact that people and the media talk about it so much. I think further that the Moral Majority and groups like them should be given their due. Whether or not one may agree with (heir program, they nevertheless appear, at least to me, to be engaged in the struggle of trying to understand explicitly the relation of God's Word to current issues of daily life.
Such struggle, I would submit, is part of the heritage of the old orthodox doctrine of inspiration. In the Preface to the first edition of his Epistle to the Romans, Karl Barth put the matter in perspective. Speaking of the relation of historical -critical method and the orthodox doctrine:
"The historical-critical method of Biblical investigation has its rightful place: it is concerned with the preparation of the intelligence – and this can never be superfluous. But were I driven to choose between it and the venerable doctrine of Inspiration, I should without hesitation adopt the latter, which is a broader, deeper, more important justification.
The doctrine of Inspiration is concerned with the labor of apprehending, without which no technical equipment, however complete, is of any use whatever."
These words are as true for us today as they were for Karl Barth in 1918 – perhaps even more so. One of the crucial and also genuine ways that God's Word establishes its authority over the church is when the church undertakes in all seriousness "the labor of apprehending". The church needs to struggle to understand what God's Word commands. This means that the Bible must be read and studied constantly – and in expectation of finding the truth. We need to bum the midnight oil. Thus it simply will not do if a pastor or any member confines the reading of Scripture to the Sunday lectionary texts. It will not do if biblical languages are not used or nurtured. It will not do if God's Word in Scripture and in the pulpit is measured against opinions held, rather than being the basis of opinion.
The old doctrine has certain problematic tendencies. First, it tends to atomize the Scriptures, treating each verse as equidistant from God. This viewpoint can be very authoritative – dictatorially so! – but it also loses sight of the thread of argument in Scripture.
Second, the doctrine spends too much energy defending an opinion about how the Bible came to be written. The point is not how but what does the Bible have to say.
Third, the doctrine overemphasizes the connection of the Word of God to a written document. It is certainly written. We Lutherans affirm that the Word of God is the whole Bible, the 66 written books of the Old and New Testaments. The written Scripture insures the accuracy and fidelity of the church to the Gospel. It protects His people of God from false teaching and tells them the rich and varied story of God's work of salvation. The Bible is the record of divine revelation. It is the final authority for all preaching and teaching. No doctrine or tradition of the church overrules it or adds to it. Hence the meaning of the Reformation slogan, sola scriptura, scripture alone.
But – and this is a very important but – it is also much more. The Bible itself teaches that the Word of God is, above all, Jesus Christ Himself, who was "in the beginning....with God", and indeed, "was God" (John 1:1).
Also again in biblical leaching, the Word of God is the message about Jesus Christ, his life, death and resurrection. This is (he subject of the New Testament and to which the Old Testament bears witness as it recounts God's work of salvation among the people of Israel. The Word of God thus means the same as the "gospel" – the good news of Jesus Christ which is proclaimed by believers {see I Peter 1:24-25 and Phil. 1:12-14, where the two terms are used synonymously). It is of the essence of the Word of God in this sense to be spoken. It must be preached and heard, taught mid learned, prayed and sung. It is not to be confined to the letter of written documents or the wooden repetition of memorized verses.
In the view of Luther, this spoken character is true of the Word of God as we find it in the New Testament Jesus and the apostles were above all, Luther reminds us, public proclaimers. Certainly they drew upon the written Scriptures – which we know as the Old Testament. But they did so in living speech:
In the New Testament, preaching must be done orally and publicly, with the living voice, to produce in speech and hearing what prior to this lay hidden in the letter and secret vision . . . That is why Christ did not write his doctrine himself, as Moses did his, but transmitted it orally, and also commanded that it should be orally continued, giving no command that it should be written. Luther then goes ahead and extracts me following lesson for us from this important fact:
"So it is not at all in keeping with the New Testament to write books on Christian doctrine. Rather in all places there should be fine, goodly, learned, spiritual, diligent preachers without books, who extracts the living word from the old Scripture and unceasingly inculcate it into the people, just as the apostles did. For before they wrote, they first of' all preached to the people by word of mouth and converted them, and this was their real apostolic and New Testament work." (Luther Works, 52: 2O5ff.)
This sense of the Word of God, coming out of the meaning of Scripture itself, protects Lutherans from the danger of a frozen biblicism. God s Word is a light which must shine anew. It must be proclaimed in every generation with a living voice. In this way does the Word of God establish its authority over us.
*Dr. Sundberg is a member of the faculty of the ELCA's Luther-Northwestern Seminary, St. Paul, MN.
The Split-Mind Syndrome
by Gordon A Selbo*
In political campaigns – painfully observed in the recent national elections – candidates at every level accused each other of duplicity, that is. of taking both sides of an issue. Call it the "split-mind syndrome". It's a commonly accepted political practice. Never mind that it is dishonest. It does at times win votes.
Occasionally it backfires, but the hypocrisy of it all has led to a cynicism on the part of much of the American public. We live with it as an accepted element of the game of politics. Too bad. The institution of government suffers, especially in a democracy where trust and good will are so vital.
"Consistency, thou art a jewel," says the old adage. We readily acknowledged validity whether in the realm of public life, education, or personal behavior. Simple reason demands consistency.
So what da we do or say when the church succumbs to the lure of self-contradiction, to a split-mind syndrome? The Sierra Pacific Synod is now officially on record in support of mutually exclusive positions on the subject of homosexual conduct. This is a serious charge. We must support it, though the point is obvious.
Last February 1992, the Sierra Pacific Synod Council approved a "Statement on Pastoral Guidance and Discretion" allowing and authorizing the pastoral blessing of same-sex relationships. They are to be "monogamous" and "covenantal" and of course, the clergy are to "pray and deliberate" before giving the church's blessing.
This is the same church (Bishop and Synod Council) which brought charges against the ordination of practicing homosexuals in the celebrated hearings two years previous. The charges were upheld by the Discipline Committee.
Apart from the arguments pro and con regarding homosexual conduct, and the fact that this is the first ELCA Synod to adopt such a policy, the Synod Council is guilty of an obvious contradiction of itself. Though a minority of its membership objected and some protests were made in letters to the Council from appalled congregations, the Council has maintained and reaffirmed its position and the guidelines are now in effect. The membership of the Synod was denied any right to repudiate ownership of the Council's unanticipated action. An opportunity to vote their approval or disapproval was never brought to the Synod Assembly floor, despite the effort of one troubled congregation and its delegates to have the matter aired.
It is understood that the 1990 discipline proceedings were based on "irregular ordinations" which violated ELCA policy. Presumably we are to assume now that two standards of conduct are in effect – one for clergy and another for laity. Do we refuse to ordain practicing homosexuals and yet authorize our pastors to grant the church's blessing to others in same-sex relationships? Talk about inconsistency! This is logically untenable. It evidences the split-mind syndrome. And it is biblically indefensible.
Desperately needed here is a call to an understanding of the underlying reasons why homosexual practice is not a legitimate option for clergy or lay people within ELCA principles. Prior to the 1990 hearings. Bishop Lyle Miller of the Sierra Pacific Synod wrote some words which bear repeating and emphasis:
"There is more than church order and procedural process involved. The issue is even greater than that of call and ordination. The basic issue in all of this is theological and biblical. The basic issue is the church's understanding of creation and sexuality."
In a later public statement he went on to say: "We affirm that the proper arena for sexual expression is within the bonds of marriage."
If the fundamental and moral reason of the church (ELCA, Bishop, Council) in refusing to ordain practicing homosexuals is valid, surely such reason applies also to the blessing of same-sex relationships by that same church. To take both sides of the issue requires more than a bit of mental gymnastics.
Synod Council, with all due respect, you can't have it both ways. You can be sure there are those who, on the basis of your guideline, will now press energetically for the blessing and approval of clergy homosexual activities. "If it's good enough for the laity; the clergy surely aren't to be discriminated against, are they?"
P.S.: Getting back to politicians, if governmental duplicity gives rise to either apathy or cynicism, perhaps even outrage, can the same thing happen in the church? There are indications in that direction.
* Selbo, a retired Lutheran pastor, has had a distinguished career as a missionary, parish pastor, Luther College campus pastor, and President of Augustana Academy.
Some Families Are Alive and Well
by Matthew Kaufman*
We all know the bad news about the state of the American Family. Divorce, adultery, unmarried couples cohabiting, single-parent households, and teenage promiscuity are all around us. Worse, our cultural leaders encourage these trends. Government-funded agencies, including schools, hand out condoms, MTV videos seek to outdo each other in raunchiness, and even television sitcom families increasingly reflect the warped vision of The Simpsons and Married . . . with Children.
Little wonder, then, that Christians often feel surrounded, and wonder whether there is any way to raise a family true to (heir faith. Concern is justified, but despair is not. For there is good news too – some families are alive and well. The Christian family is alive and well!
I am not cheerleading, but stating a matter of empirical fact. Numerous research studies are finding that strong spiritual families show a remarkable ability to overcome the culture around them.
For example, the chances that a teenage girl will be sexually active are two and a half limes lower, if she lives with two parents than if she lives in a one-parent household.1 Nor is it just girls who learn continence from intact families. Teenage boys who live with both parents are approximately half as likely to father a child as those who live with a single parent.2
Studies also confirm that avoiding a promiscuous lifestyle is linked to a strong religious commitment. In a study by the RAND Corporation it was found that girls who are "very religious" are two and a half to three times less likely lo bear a child out of wedlock than those who are "not at all religious".3
Christian families also tend to be much more resistant to drug abuse. One major study revealed, in the words of pro-family scholar Allan Carlson, that: "Low risk families held an unquestioned belief in God, regularly attended church, were father-led and authoritative, had more children, and had mothers who gave first priority to their home and family. 'High risk' families, in contrast, had mothers who were employed and gave priority to meeting their 'human potential', had fathers who were 'overly intellectual and took on mothers' functions,'and were skeptical about God and rarely attended church. Simply put, intact, religious, traditional families successfully used 'protective measures to ensure that external influences will not affect family unity' and gave their children enough 'intestinal fortitude' to fight temptation."4
By virtually every measure – educational achievement, crime rates, alcohol usage, emotional well-being, and even physical health – a growing body of research shows that those who fare best, both children and adults, live in intact families marked by their commitment to God.
Significantly, these findings have held true across all income levels and ethnic lines. This has come as a surprise to many sociologists accustomed to attributing social problems to poverty, discrimination, racial factors, and other fashionable explanations. But the family is not just another "social structure", a human invention. The family is ordained by God, and what He builds is made of stronger stuff than the works of man.
As Christian families have proved their durability, surveys arc showing a growing number of Americans are attaching greater importance to these traditional values. Some 56 percent of voters name their greatest goal in life as a closer relationship with God. And in a recent Gallup poll, 93 percent of Americans describe a good family life as "very important" to them – up from 82percent in 1981. The trend is even stronger among young people: among respondents aged 18 to 29, again 93 percent say they highly value family life, up from 78 percent a decade earlier.*
What these surveys reflect is something short of the rebirth of Christian civilization. People's professed beliefs do not always govern their actions. Ninety three percent say family life is important, but America's epidemic of divorce or non-marital sex is, sadly, not confined to a mere seven percent of the populace. Moreover, when some 44 percent name any goal as more important than their relationship with God, clearly much work remains to be done.
Nevertheless, there is good reason to be encouraged. After all, for many years now we have been fed a steady diet of secularist philosophies. God and family have been denigrated in favor of "personal fulfillment" and "self-discovery". These ideas have had their appeal, but an increasing number of Americans have realized their emptiness, and are now finding their way back to more substantial values.
Train a child in the way he should go. Scripture tells us, and when he is grown he will not turn from it. (Proverbs 22:6).
To be sure, me Christian family is not invincible, but the Lord on whom it is based, is.. Whatever the stale of the world, families who draw on the strength of Jesus Christ will never find Him wanting.
* Kaufman is editor of Life Bulletin, the newsletter of Lutherans for Life of Illinois. Reprinted by permission from Living, Summer, 1992.
"The Intact Family vs. the Contraceptive Mind Set,"in New Research, a supplement to the Rockford Institute newsletter, The Family in America. 12/1988
"Fathers Too Soon", in New Research. 5/88
"Not a Prayer", in New Research. 10/88
"Family Life Determines Drug Abuse" in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 10/14/89
"The Retro Campaign," U.S. News and World Report. 12/9/91
From the Editor
"Split-mind Syndrome" In this issue, allows Pastor Selbo to furnish us with another frightening example of the propensity of ELCA leaders to hold mutually contradictory positions in dieir heads, apparently without any traumatic affects j and to do il all with a straight and pious mien.
Here's another split-mind accomplishment, as noted in Time Magazine. October 12th issue: "...as a society we spend billions to keep people from breathing asbestos – the EPA estimates 17 non-occupational asbestos-related deaths a year – but billions more to promote smoking (through tobacco subsidies)." And cigarettes kill a minimum of 450,000 people yearly!
We are pleased to see the many signed letters returned to the FOCL-POINT editorial office, which were provided for our readers in the last issue, They will be forwarded to the ELCA's Commission for Church in Society. The letters protest the document, "Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith" generated by the Commission. Our readers who agree that the document corrupts and virtually disavows the historic faith of the Church in regard to the B ible' s guidance on sexual relationships, can still send their own signed letter to the FOCL-POINT editorial office before Dec. 31st, and it will be forwarded to the Commission to register the rank-and-file repudiation of die document.
An outstanding Bible Conference will be held in connection widi the installation of Ben Johnson, Th.D., as Professor of Bible at Ludieran Bible Institute in California, Anaheim, C A., January 16-18. With real anticipation, FOCL-POINT calls attention to this event which will be staged at Grace Lutheran Church, Huntington Beach, CA. It will feature the evangelical theological luminaries, Dr. George Forell, world-renowned Professor of Religion at Iowa State University; Dr. Frank Scilhamcr, former head of Hamma School of Theology and Provost of Trinity Seminary, and Dr. Gracia Grindal, Lutheran Book of Worship hymnist and professor at Luther-Northwestern Seminary.
Dr. Johnson's inaugural address will highlight the theme of the conference, "The Place of the Bible in the Church of Today". He comes to LBIC, not only with a Harvard doctorate, but also with a record of prestigious churchmanship as the Minnesota pastor of a large and dynamic congregation, as a widely-read author, and as former Dean of Trinity Seminary. Call President Clifton Pederson at LBIC (714) 827-1940 for further information on the program and accommodations.
Sex and Sexuality is the title of a study provided for the Lutheran Church of the Holy Communion, Philadelphia, PA. by its pastor, Dr. Gilbert E Doan Jr. We think our readers will appreciate its message:
"There is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiasles 1:9)." "I will never forget thy precepts; for by them thou hast given me life." (Psalm 119:93)
"Some members of our congregation arc reviewing the draft of a proposed statement on "Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith." This document is a step in the development (now apparently far advanced) of an "official policy statement" of the ELC A.
"The statement as it now stands is a profoundly weak and disappointing one for many reasons – but for one reason far more important than all the others: it virtually ignores the biblical teaching, and that of the millennia-long Judaeo-Christian tradition, that although (how obvious can you get?) one's sexuality affects all one's thoughts, actions, and relationships, sexual intercourse is understood in Scripture and tradition as the physical (some would say "sacramental", although that word is not in the Bible) expression of the mutual, permanent, and exclusive commitment of one woman and one man.
"The Greek word for this is henosis. Any other use of sex adulterates the integrity of the marvelous gift (and clear command) of God as respects the provision He has made for the creation of the individual human life and for the propagation of human society. In fact, even the thought of any other use of sex constitutes the same adulteration (See Matthew 5:27-28).
"This basic biblical perspective is almost totally ignored in the document understudy; it should be its dominant and governing theme. Since it is not, the document is one more example j and there are many others in the wind today j of what the Bible calls 'false prophecy.'
"The paper makes a number of excuses for its abrupt and radical departure from me biblical standard and from centuries of clear teaching by the church: science has developed a lot of new information; a lot of people do not believe the Scriptures or credit the teaching of the church; a lot of people are unhappy with restrictions on what they regard as their sexual freedom.
"All of this can be freely granted. None of it is new, except in detail, which will change in the next fifty years as it did in the last. All of it requires that the church in this day, no less (and no more) than in any other day, continue to re-examine and review its teaching with an eye to making it better understood.
"But none of it requires that the church either abandon or misrepresent either the Bible or the consistent tradition of teaching – in this matter or any other. Human nature (sadly enough!) has not changed so much that God's original intention for human sexuality is no longer relevant or germane. Not by so much as a hair."
You Are The Light
by Norman Lund, Ph.D.*
John Wesley was asked why so many people came lo hear him. "When you're on fire," he said, "people want to see what makes you burn." William Tyndale, the father of the English Bible was burned at the stake in 1536. His last reported words, "OLord, may the King see the light!"
Wherefrom? Jesus said it: "You are the light of the world." (Matthew 5:14) The pronoun he used is second person plural: you-j together. Who were these "YOU"? Matthew tells us that they were those who "followed him" (4:19-20).
Jesus' followers can't always see each other. Often we appear to be alone. We are like Alexamenus whose name appears on an ancient wall uncovered by archeologists. It seems to have been part of a dormitory for page boys in the Roman senate. The anti-Christian graffiti includes a figure drawn on a cross, with the body of a man but the head of a donkey. Below the cross is a boy with one hand raised toward the cross in a gesture of worship. Beneath, these words are scribbled in Greek, "Alexamenus worships his God."
This young follower of Jesus probably felt he was all alone. But he was not jand the light of his testimony still shines! He was a member of that great army who follow Jesus. In a letter to Peter, his barber, Martin Lutherwrote in 1535: "Never think you are kneeling orstanding alone; rather think that the whole of Christendom, all devout Christians, are standing there beside you, and you are standing beside them."
He said. You ARE the light of the world. This must be a mistake. Didn't Jesus mean, you "should be" or "might be" or "could be"? How can he use the present tense? Look aroundjit's pretty dark!
According to Garbler's Educational Research News I .clter. the top five disciplinary problems in public schools in 1940 were talking in class, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls, and getting out of turn. In 1982 the top five were rape, robbery, assault, burglary, arson q.ivin]; World. Spring 1990).
This morning one-third of American children woke upinafatherless home. It is estimated that by the year 2000, one half will live in a single parent home before their 18th birthday.
Suicide is the second leading cause of death among 15-24 year olds. Between 1950 andl980 suicide skyrocketed over 300 percent. One out ofeverysevenadolescentsattemptedsuicidein 1989 (New Dimensions. Feb. 1990).
A 1991 study in Indiana found that 30 percent of 12-year-old girls and 50 percent of 12-year-old boys had had sexual intercourse at least once. There are about one million teenage pregnancies each year, with about 400,000 ending in abortion. Teens who can't get an aspirin from the school nurse can have a legal abortion without their parents' knowledge. Yes, pretty dark!
Richard Halverson, Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, shocked many Christians a few years ago when he wrote an article called, "Why Should God Visit Us...When We're Not Interested?" (Christianity .Today.) He said, "...our prayerlessness is more responsible for failure than are our public servants... the prayers of God's people are more important even than the decisions made in die White House, Congress and the Supreme Court."
Prayerlessness is one of the signs of the end-time and Christ's return (Luke 18:8). Prayer is so vital because it is the practice offaith. Jesus promises. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it" (John 14-13-14).
No wonder Hallesby said, "No one is so poor as the unbeliever for whose salvation no Christian prays every day." Even in the war of abortion this holds true. Former abortionists Carol Everett and Beverly
McMillan report that when there was even one Christian outside their clinics praying, they would feel it inside j without looking. There was a conviction, a "light".
You are the light – present tense, indicative – for better or worse. We are the light of God's love in a dark and dying world, whether we like it or not, whether we're thinking about it ornot, whether we're doing a good job or a bad one. We are the only light the world has!
Jesus promises His followers will shine – unless they hide their light! His rule is,"Show it when tempted to hide it (Matthew5:16); and "Hide it when tempted to show it" (Matthew 6:1).
Where shall we begin? Jesus was asked a similar question oneday. He said, "Start with your neighbor" (Luke 10:29-37). Like Christy, the young missionary teacher in Cutler Gap, TN. in the early 1900s. Her neighbor was Ruby Mae, the poorest, smelliest and most obnoxious tomboy in all the Smokey Mountains. Her hardest step was the first: giving Ruby Mae abath. After than, she began to love her.
Or Elizabeth Holland, a pediatrician in Memphis. She has had to deal with hundreds of cases of severe physical and sexual child abuse. After repeatedly finding pornography behind sexual abuse, she has taken a leading role to outlaw pornography. When faced with apathy and despair among Christians, Dr. Holland exhorts them to wake up to their responsibility,citingIIChronicles7andH7,ekiel 3. "God commands us to do what is possible," she says. "He takes care of die impossible.!"
In the McNeil LehrerNews Hour June 12th, Vice President Quayle was featured for his view that at the root of the Los Angeles riots is the loss of traditional family values. By risking die ridicule of the media elite, he brought the topic offatherlessness into the middle of the public debate. By taking the heat, he was able to shed a lot of light.
Fatherlessness – isn't that really what it's all about? Socially, economically, spiritually? This feeling of being lost in our own world? "Homesick at home," as Chesterton said. One of the most pathetic stories to come out of the Los Angeles riots was that of the young engineering studer and fire safety specialist who ended up on thecover of Newsweek. "I got swept up in it and dicre was nothing you could do about it," said Craig-Monrovia, who voiced no regrets. "I just fell like I don't have a soul," he said. "You felt not human, like your life didn't mean anything".
There is another story which came out of the same riots. The first story describes a fatherless son; this second one reveals a son of the Father. As the riots began, the Rev. Benny Newton, a black minister living nearby, saw the violence erupt on TV. A construction worker, Fidel Lopez, was yanked from his truck, kicked, beaten, stripped and sprayed with paint."
By the time Newton had run to die scene, Lopez was unconscious. Throwing himself over the bleeding body, Newton yelled, "If you kill him, you'll have to kill me, too." The minister said he "cried out in prayer" for five minutes. Lopez started to breathe, and his eyes rolled back. Newton said, "It was miraculous. Ireallyfeell'veseenadeadman come back to life."
Yes, there is plenty of darkness. But the darker the night, the brighter the light. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heavenjyou are the light of the world!"
* Dr. Lund is president of American Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Paul,MN. Reprinted by permission of Evangel, Sept. 1992.
The Historical-Critical Method Needs To Go
by William R. Bragstad, Ph.D*
Thirty years ago, I fell under the spell of a new "science" known as (he historical-critical method. How powerful this method seemed at the lime! What I then thought was (he out-worn biblical convictions of parents and teachers appeared to wither when exposed to this new enlightenment.
But today the new wine of historical criticism has ceased to charm. Its headiness has given way to hangovers.
If a good vine bears good fruit, over time the fruit of this vine is enough to set one's teeth on edge. Among the sour grapes: disillusioned seminarians and parishioners, broken pastoral careers, loss of church membership, local and national budgetary shortfalls, decline in theological belief, moral decadence, theological apostasy and the like. All of which arc engendered by the decline of the authority of Scripture and the use of such disciplines as the historical-critical method.
Specifically me flaws of this methodology include the following:
1. Materialistic Presuppositions. Rudolf Bultmann, modem patron of this methodology, lays out the presuppositions of the historical method in his famous essay, "Is Exegesis Without Presuppositions Possible?" (1957). There he makes it all too clear where this methodology is coming from when he stales, "The historical method includes the presupposition that history is a unity in the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are connected by the succession of cause and effect." He goes on to observe that the historical method would seek to understand, "die whole historical process as a closed unity."
Contrary to the well-meaning notion held by some, that the historical-critical method is a neutral attempt to place past events in their historical context, die method instead holds to a philosophical position which excludes any events occurring in history which find their origin from beyond history.
As such, this methodology is antithetical, if not hostile, to Christianity in general, and to the Incarnation in particular. Given its presuppositions, the finite cannot bear the infinite (finitum non capax infiniti). The divine is banished from history a priori.
And all that follows based on this methodology, whether it be monographs, books, or synodical position papers, is a variation on die same theme – (lie materialistic reading of Scripture. In a word, all things are not possible for God.
Yet it is precisely this methodology, this anti-faith, which is being promoted as "wisdom" by the colleges, seminaries, and publications of our church. Apparently they would turn back the clock to an age of darkness, and have us live, "without hope and without God in the world." (Ephesians 2:12)
2. Unproven Premises. Besides its presuppositions, the historical-critical method enlists a number of premises which have doubtful authenticity.
For example, the method holds to die conviction that much of the Old Testament was not written by Moses, as Church tradition has it, but by alleged "strata" known as J,E,P andD. Likewise it holds to the conviction than an "oral stage" lasted for several decades from Christ's resurrection until the writing of the gospels.
While these may be interesting theories, it should be noted that they are only diat, and have yet to be proved. No one knows exactly who wrote much of the Old Testament, or, for that matter, when the gospels were written. The point is that these premises, as well as many other premises used by the critics as the basis for their speculation, lack factual substance. And to theorize on unproven premises makes for thin wine indeed.
3. Unproven Conclusions. In recent years, the historical-critical method has reached a number of shocking, if not bizarre, conclusions. For example, recent widely-circulated news reports from the infamous "Jesus Seminar" have pronounced die following: Jesus never said (John 14:6), "I am the way and die truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Jesus never intended to start a new religion. Jesus never thought of himself as divine, and would have been appalled by the prospect. And Jesus never believed that he would return to usher in the New Age – to name but a few of these unproven conclusions.
While all this may be interesting, not to mention attention-getting, mere remains a major problem. That is, while many other sciences deal with proven facts, or with what die philosophers term "practical certainty", historical criticism does not.
By definition, criticism deals with rational judgment and opinion, not proven facts. Or to put it another way, critical methodology, whether it be historical criticism, form criticism, literary criticism, rhetorical criticism, redaction criticism, or the like, does not, has not, and never will prove anything. Conversely, if anything is ever proved about the Scriptures, it will not be criticism that does it. "Practical certainly", for criticism, is simply not in the methodological cards.
The historical-critical method and related disciplines are a form of intellectual cotton candy, smoke and mirrors, the emperor's new clothes; they should be relegated to the junk heap of world history along with all the other 'wrecks of time' we sing about in the old hymn. They arc a grandiose materialistic speculation, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,
To sum up: the historical-critical method is a waste of time. So far it has wasted about 200 years. How much more time will it waste? It needs to go.
* Dr. Bragstad is pastor of Messiah Lutheran Church, Hayward, and a board member of the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans. This article is copyrighted by him.
Ambiguous Souls
The Church is not always the purest of places;
there's greyness oft times in our
black and white faces.
What seems "fair" can hurl us
as leaders desert us,
or try to convert us to cultic embraces.
These days in our midst we find pain and resentment,
confusion abounding, retarding contentment.
Ambiguous souls are so often the rule,
that it s hard to discern ill from God's true presentment.
Add now to a lack of resolve and decision
our slowly but surely declining religion.
The Church which once preached
and so purely did teach us,
instead now is gripped by the humanist vision:
Ambiguous Souls
Both clergy and laity hold Sell so dear, beholding their sinfulness absent a tear, Ostensibly offering a Scriptural compliance, they worship instead at the altar of Science-consummate reflections of pride and defiance, their strivings would displace the Christian's Reliance.
It's hard to stand firm in this mindless milieu
that affirms the Unrighteous, abhors what is True,
Where passion's embraced,
Athena debased,
And the Mind Adolescent commands what to do.
But if guardians of holiness tail in their trust, who then shall arise to be prophets to us? If keepers of "God's secret wisdom" retreat, how can the Unrighteous then come to defeat?
To gaze at a child through the last rays of day
while the night hastens in, makes one wonder – and pray
that the Church we bequeath to that innocent lite
may embody its mission yet not shun its strife,
that the people of God would soon rise and be heard,
remaking the Church through His powerful Word.
And with crosses uplifted,
their banners in place,
would forget not the grey that still lurks in each face.
by Alan Waite