:: in.a.mirror.dimly :: A theology and culture blog with the Bible in one tab and a news feed in the other.

I happened across an article at Reformata.org today blasting the emerging church in a bit of a sensational manner. While I don’t feel a need to rush to the defense of the emerging church, I do want to respond to Reformata’s notion of the authority of scripture.

The author is suspicious of the emerging church’s love for Karl’s Bath’s notion of Biblical authority that adds the voice of the Holy Spirit into the mix, instead of simply saying the words of scripture themselves are inspired by God and authoritative. The article’s author quotes Kevin DeYoung from Why We’re Not Emergent:

According to Grenz and Franke, the text has its own intention, which begins in the author’s intended meaning but is not exhausted by it. We must start with the original meaning of the text, but we are not bound by it. For God has spoken, but He still speaks. The words of Scripture, therefore, are not the norming norm but the Spirit speaking through the Scripture becoming the Word of God. (79)

Here’s the thing, as nice as it would be to have a tidy notion of Biblical authority that limits everything to the written word, is that really how Christians even function? There are verses like this: “I am trusting the Lord to bring you back to believing as I do about these things” Galatians 5:10. In other words, Paul is relying on them not only reading his letter, with apostolic authority behind it, but also on God to apply the truth to their lives.

The trouble with simply giving authority to the Bible as it stands, is it requires interpretation and application. What are the guidelines we should follow? Do we only apply the Bible as our traditions tell us? Or do we rely on reason and a hermeneutical method we trust? The author in Reformata places the question perfectly, even if he misses the inherent problem:

How does one know when/if a particular text has now “become” the Word of God? Answer: The reader will then decide if it does. When we factor the corrupt human nature into the equation we now have a recipe for picking and choosing the parts of the text we like while simply disregarding those we don’t.

If we simply say that all of the Bible is the word of God, then why aren’t there Reformed people applying every single part of it literally to their lives? The reason is they have a hermeneutic, a reasonable way of interpreting scripture that tells them when to apply “the Word of God” as an instructive word from God, and when to simply pass on a passage that may have meant something to someone, but it doesn’t apply to them.

My point is that we’re all in the same boat however we consider the Bible. The difference is that Barth is a bit more forthcoming about the dilemma of application, acknowledging that scripture becomes God’s powerful word in our lives when the Holy Spirit applies it to our lives.

If I was given the choice between a Reformed hermeneutic and the Holy Spirit, I’ll have to side with the Holy Spirit. Though I agree with much in the Reformed camp, I refuse to call listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit relative or subjective. Our hermeneutics can be far more flimsy. If we are told to live by the Spirit and to keep in step with the Spirit, then it isn’t a far cry to believe the Holy Spirit can apply the truth of scripture to our lives, especially if we believe the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Bible in the first place. In that sense, the Holy Spirit has never really been removed from the process.

On one last note, the Reformata article has closed comments, which is kind of a bummer. It hints at the possibility that they’re not willing to hear other points of view. Even if that isn’t the case, and I hope it isn’t, it sends a terrible message to readers.