In this post, I will continue my commentary on the Seoul Lausanne Statement
of September, 2024 by examining its section on Scripture.[1] (See my first post on the Preamble and
Section One.)[2] This second section offers eight points on
Scripture. It intends to develop
Lausanne’s high view of Scripture by focussing on issues of
interpretation.
In the first
paragraph (2.17), just what is meant by Scripture is stated. Its inspiration is affirmed: it is ‘God’s word
written, a divinely inspired, God-breathed collection of writings’. Its canonical extent is noted: 66 books. Its diversity through human authorship and
unity in its testimony are noted.
Second, the
statement advocates reading Scripture with the hermeneutical lens of the Gospel
(2.18). The Gospel is defined as ‘the gospel
of the kingdom of God, the proclamation of Jesus’ incarnation, death,
resurrection, ascension, and return, which is the fulfilment of God’s promise
to bless all peoples through the seed of Abraham’. One might appreciate highlighting the
evangelical (Gospel), kingdom, and Christological emphases, but one must be
warry of using such a statement reductively—as Martin Luther did by finding
Scripture’s centre in justification and then disparaging the epistle of
James. Evangelicals’ ‘biblicism’ affirms
the entire authority of Scripture.
Third, it
claims, ‘God speaks in the Bible for the purpose of generating and governing
the people of God’ (2.19). While two rather
general sentences follow this, I am not sure what it is supposed to mean
specifically. If it is saying that the
Church is only the Church when it is Biblically grounded and that Scripture is
the Church’s rule of faith, well and good.
I might note that the former, liberal archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, held that Scripture was generative in a different sense. For him, Scripture was not to be treated as
God’s revelation to be interpreted by a Church being faithful to its authority. For Williams, Scripture were the Church’s
early writings that generated the ongoing Church’s exploration of its own
faith.
Fourth, the statement calls for exegetical and canonical reading of Scripture (2.20). I would say that this is a welcome emphasis at the time in light of contrary uses of Scripture in popular, pastoral, and academic settings. We live in a time when the role of the ‘teacher’ in churches is diminished and people are encouraged to ‘share’ their thoughts on the Bible in communal Bible studies. Popular speakers touting life advice with slight reference to Scripture have often replaced the expository sermon. In many academic institutions, ministry courses are unassociated with Bible courses, as though they are two different disciplines. So-called ‘Practical Theology’ or ‘Applied Theology’ is increasingly beholden to the social sciences, with Scripture functioning as illustrations of points developed in business (‘leadership studies’), psychology (‘counselling’), cross-cultural studies (‘missions’). Liberation and contextual theologies have gained a foothold in academia for the majority world, such that theology has little to do with either the Bible or historical theology. None of these points are spelled out—or even hinted at—in the statement, so all I can say is that the point is important and needs to be expanded in light of the realities facing the Church today from within and without.
Two further matters that Evangelicals would do well to consider have to do with translations and the curriculum in theological colleges and seminaries. The flippancy with which parishioners and pastors sometimes use Scripture in translation is concerning. After affirming a high view of Scripture as inspired by God, too many pick up paraphrases as though they are Bibles (The Message, e.g.). Someone sits in a Bible study with a 'Parallel Bible' to choose the translation or paraphrase she likes for this or that verse. A pastor says in his sermon, 'I like the way that this translation or paraphrase puts it'. I am concerned about the looseness of some translations as well, including some of the translation work that is ongoing. Sadly, in some Evangelical circles, the New King James Bible has been promoted, but it rests on an outdated use of inferior manuscripts. As a broad movement, Evangelicalism will have to live with some of this diversity, but a high view of Scripture should lead to greater care on these matters. My second point is that seminary education is at times weak in Bible, especially when voices for 'contextual relevance' and pastoral care oust space in the curriculum for Biblical literacy and interpretation. When I was a doctoral student in the 1980s, I worked a few semesters as a professor's assistant at a United Methodist seminary. Out of three years of study for a Master's of Divinity degree, students were required to take only 2 Bible courses--and these were the very boring, academic, 'introduction' courses to the Old and New Testaments. Yet Evangelical seminaries also struggle to teach enough Bible, having to compete with a variety of other required courses in the curriculum. As someone involved in this whole process for years on three continents, I would say that Evangelical seminaries do not turn out graduates who have been adequately taught and shaped by Scripture.
Fifth, the
statement notes that the Spirit inspired Scripture and guides the Church in its
interpretation (2.21). What is said in
this paragraph is a thoroughly orthodox view of the Spirit and of
Scripture. Yet one needs to note that
the Spirit is appealed to by some Pentecostals to find extra-Biblical guidance
in spiritual warfare and by unorthodox Churches to find new or developed
meanings apart from and even against Scripture.
Just what this paragraph intends as a word to the Evangelical world
today, but it is somewhat assuring that it affirms Scripture’s ‘authenticity,
reliability, sufficiency and credibility’.
This should counter faulty appeals to the Spirit for the introduction of
error.
Sixth, the
statement affirms the role of historical theology in interpretation
(2.22). This is extremely
important. Practical Theology and
Contextual Theology proceed as though Church history belongs to some other
field of study. Rather, the problem is
that these theological areas of study have been misshapen
methodologically. They ought, like
missiology, to have a strong historical content (let alone Biblical
content). As the Church grows in the
majority world, there is sometimes a tendency to dismiss historical theology as
a feature of Western theology.
Evangelicals need to reject this and own their own theological
heritage. Also, Evangelicals too often
discuss theology and ethics as though nothing is worth noting between the Bible
and the contemporary Bible study. In a
day when the West is committing cultural suicide and becoming post-Christian,
and in a day when the Church is growing in contexts that value their own
indigenous, post-colonial cultures and development, the need for historical
theology is dire.
Seventh,
however, the statement affirms the value of ‘cultural contexts for the faithful
reading of the Bible’ (2.23). This seems
to be a claim that is meant to affirm cultural diversity and locality. As already noted, this claim resonates in the
West and the majority world at this time.
However, I fail to see a compelling reason to make this claim from
either a Biblical or historical standpoint.
At the very least, those saying such things need to explain themselves
further as heresies have often slipped into the Church through this door. This is perhaps the most disturbing point in
Section Two.
Eighth, the
statement calls for Biblical literacy in the Church, adding that the reading of
Scripture needs the interpretation of the faith through ancient creeds,
confessions, and ecclesiastical traditions (2.24). I might add that Scriptural literacy decreased
in the incoming class of students to seminary in my years as a seminary
professor in America. The Baptist
seminary where I taught in Central Europe decided to discard its Biblical
studies degree. Church meetings in many
countries have decreased from three a week to one, that one service has been
shortened to about one hour, and the sermon itself has shifted away from
exposition. People living busy lives and
seeking evening entertainment find reading Scripture a challenge, let alone
setting aside an evening for a Bible study.
The small groups of large churches replace the educated pastor of
smaller churches with someone who has not received a theological education. All the mainline denominations in the West have
strayed far from Biblical orthodoxy. Biblical
illiteracy is a serious matter.
[1] See online: https://lausanne.org/statement/the-seoul-statement.
[2] https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2024/10/a-review-of-seoul-statement-of-fourth.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment