mangoe@mimsy.uucp (Charley Wingate) (03/09/87)
There are many things in Tom Albrecht's statement on scripture. But we have some fundamental differences, and as a result I would like to set forth a different conservative notion of scripture. Let me start with Tom's three aspects of his conservatism: > First, I believe that the Bible IS the word of God, inerrant in the > original autographs and the only infallible rule of faith and practice > for the church. At this point I will agree with the first point, but with a qualification which relates to the next statement: > This statement distinguishs me from a liberal Christian who often believes > that the Bible merely CONTAINS the word of God. To be perfectly blunt, I don't see any way in which the two statements are different. Which brings me to a pivotal issue: what do you MEAN by the phrase "Word of God"? And even more critically, how do you get meaning from this word? Surprisingly enough, the key to this is the issue of inerrancy. If you take the text at face value, it contains literal falsehoods and contradictions. As I have heard it in practice, the inerrancy of scriptures is a property of a correct interpretation. If this were not so, then it would not be necessary to explain the apparent contradictions in the texts; as it is, however, such explanations are necessary. In my mind, therefore, inerrancy is not a property of the texts; it is an interpretational principle, because one can use other systems of interpretation that either ignore or deny inerrancy. This leads right to the question of which system we choose to use, which relates to the next of Tom's principles: > Second, I believe that the church is an historic entity which has existed > throughout the centuries. As such, it has produced a set of confessions > which are meant to highlight the common beliefs of the church. This would seem to ignore the fact that different denominations have come up with quite different confessions. For instance, let me quote from the current Episcopal Church catechism: Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible? A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures. Notice the prominence of "interpretation". In the Anglican view of things there is authority in both the church and the scriptures, and that truth only arises from reasoned combination of the two. Moreover, it is asserted that this is in fact the way every Christian reads the bible. In this wise Tom's reference to the Westminster Confession fits the pattern; the Confession is, after all, church tradition decided upon by a denominational council, and he chooses to follow this tradition rather than (say) the Episcopal Articles of Religion. The problem as I see it is that now we have introduced at least one known source of error into the process, perhaps two. We know that individuals make errors in interpretation; it seems quite likely that some if not all church councils make such errors. Indeed, there is disagreement over what the "inerrant" texts say. This leads me to a notion of a different kind of conservatism, one which attempts to minimize the injection of principles of interpretation. (By the way, I must object most vigorously to Tom's characterization of his system as "protestant", at least in some sort of all-encompassing sense. Anglicanism is firmly protestant, but, as I pointed out, has major disagreements with the WCF over many important points. For the sake of clarity, could we describe his position as "orthodox presbyterian"? [Only if people realize that this term doesn't include the Presbyterian Church (USA) --clh]) Tom and I see different sources for the continuing schism of protestantism. In particular, "liberal" theology has not yet proven to be a major source of schism; in fact, the most liberal denominations have had the most success in preventing or eliminating schism. It is among the groups holding to what Tom calls a conservative view of scripture that there has been the greatest division. And in my mind the concern over inerrancy is one of the principle causes; when there are multiple inerrant interpretations of the Word, the result can only be intolerance and division. This is not to say that extreme liberalism will not have its day of reckoning; within all of the mainline churches the question of liberal interpretation of the scriptures is becoming a vital issue. In my opinion, the extreme positions ought to lose. The most extreme liberals are just as bold in interpretation (and as intolerant) as the extreme conservatives, not fearing to change the words which are written. In my mind we should approach interpretation with humility and even trepidation, not bold principles of our own devisings. My conservatism, then, is not to make bold claims about my interpretations. All interpretation involves some element of projection onto the scriptures, and in recognizing that fact I cannot endorse either inerrancy or a position which condones bending scripture to fit any theological whim. C. Wingate