Marcus had just shared with me about the work that God was doing in his life, obviously a fresh filling of the Spirit! And he turned to me with this question: “Does one need to be dispensationalist in order to be Grace Brethren?”
In 2008, the Grace Brethren will be celebrating our 300-year birthday! For the past few decades the predominant interpretive system among our pastors has been dispensationalism, but over the last three centuries the Grace Brethren have simply focused on biblical truth, relationship and mission. So in light of history, I shared, “No. We adhere to biblical truth, not an interpretive system.”
Alexander Mack founded the Brethren movement in 1708, not all that far from Marcus' home in Germany. Mack was a pietist, strongly committed to Scripture.
Thanks to his empirical methodology, Sigmund Freud recorded some rather interesting observations about dreams. He said, “Dreaming is evidently mental life during sleep.” “We see that dreams are not disturbers of sleep, as they are abusively called, but guardians of sleep which get rid of disturbances of sleep” (Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, 107, 158).
Salvador Dali "Sleep" 1937
Fascinating stuff. But Freud pushes farther wanting to interpret the dream and so developed an interpretive grid based upon sex. Predicated upon “evolutionary truth” (197), Freud logically deduced that work became “an equivalent and substitute for sexual activity.”He opines, “If the hypothesis I have here sketched out is correct, it would give us a possibility of understanding dream-symbolism… and why in general, weapons and tools always stand for what is male, while materials and things that are worked upon stand for what is female” (206).
A professionally trained female auto mechanic in Kenya (www.un.org)
Okay, now how many of us would agree with Freud’s starting point and the resulting interpretive system? We would all agree that dreams are real, but even psychiatrists differ on what dreams mean based upon varying interpretive systems. Similarly, truth exists, but our understanding of that truth will differ based upon the interpretive system used.
Brent Sandy, in his insightful book, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic, quotes John Stott saying, “The hallmark of authentic Evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny, and, if necessary, reform.” Brent goes on to say, “Sadly,… many people have inadvertently domesticated God.” Our interpretive systems can also domesticate His Word.
Brent points out that the raw truth of the Bible must have primacy over and evaluate even our interpretive systems. In a reference to C. S. Lewis’ Aslan, Dr. Sandy asserts (207), “The intent of the prophets is to let the lion roar”!
"Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good." Mr. Beaver to Lucy
As local churches move from modernity to postmodernity, young leaders must be encouraged to interact with the unadulterated Word of God. “Sola scriptura” (Scrpiture only) and “ad fontes” (back to the source documents) are the need of the moment.
SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CHURCH MORPHING?
To be continued…
* epistemology basically deals with the question, how do I know what I know.
13 comments:
Dear Paul,
These are some well thought through things you have written here. Thanks for your insight and the effort you have put into this. I am looking forward to reading your next installment.
I have some questions that I have been pondering regarding this subject. What role does the Holy Spirit play in this? The question seems to have an obvious answer initially...well of course the Holy Spirit has everything to do with our understanding and interpreting Scripture. But I mean the question at another level. What role does the Holy Spirit play through the history of the interpretation of Scripture?
If the Holy Spirit has been at work through the centuries working in people's hearts as they interpreted Scripture, then to what extent should we utilize the insight of their interpretation?
The reason I was thinking about this is the very thing you mentioned in this blog..."between truth and understanding lies one's interpretative system (everyone has one)." If the Holy Spirit was at work in our forefathers (for lack of a better term) and continues to be at work in us, then how can we know that our interpretative system is any better or worse than that of those who have gone before? It seems that we need to be careful, if our interpretation of Scripture is quite far from that of our forefather's. But how can we know which interpretation was more or less Spirit led, if the interpretations seem at odds?
I have been thinking through these things for a while now and have been looking for further insight to these questions. I would appreciate any thoughts which you or others may have regarding these questions. Thanks again for your hard work on these articles. Rebekah and I are praying for you as you continue to lead the ET. We appreciate your leadership.
Sincerely,
Scott Becker
Hey Scott,
Excellent question, "What role does the Holy Spirit play through the history of the interpretation of Scripture?"
We must never forget, in this age of experts and in the midst of the commentary glut, that the Holy Spirit is our teacher (1 Jn. 2:26-27) and that the Word of God is living and active (Hb. 4:12). Neither of these truths leaves room for static theology.
I absolutely agree with you that we should "utilize the insight of their interpretation." So, in a near future entry I will make a point of discussing the "hermeneutical spiral" and the need to learn one from another as well as from the saints of the past.
Thanks for this spot on question that is germane for emergent, emerging and inherited church theologians alike.
Thanks too for your prayers and encouragement. They mean a lot to me! paul
Hi Paul . . .
I agree with the intent of this and your last post - we should distinguish between "emergent" and "emerging", and between biblical truth and our interpretive constructions of biblical truth. Very good. I am quite concerned about the use of the word "dispensational" in a totally undefined manner, then smearing all "dispensationalism" as being a system that is superimposed over the Bible as an interpretive grid. I feel my dispensationalism, the essence of which is the distinction (as well as unity) between God's program through Israel and His program through the Church, flows out of clear biblical teaching and is not a superimposed system. Thus, I think there is a kind of dispensationalism (McLainian) that is necessary to be Grace Brethren (while recognizing that its abuses are not).
I'm not sure that I ever thought I would see Alexander Mack and Sigmund Freud posed side by side!
Keith
Hi Keith,
Overall I am attempting to introduce much needed nuance into the dialogue. So my apologies for undefined use of dispensationalism; there was absolutely no smear intended. But to make my point, I did not need to define the term because I am simply referring to interpretive systems in general and used dispensationalism as an example since it came in a discussion that had consequences for mission here in Europe with Marcus, someone who is arguably as Grace Brethren as any of us having grown up in the Leonberg, Germany GBC. I could have used covenantalism or some other interpretive tool as an example. Covenantalists would say things similar to your statement, that covenantalism “flows out of clear biblical teaching and is not a superimposed system.” We must nonetheless distinguish between the raw biblical data and our convictions derived from that data. I view the dispensational system, however one defines it, as a conviction on a plane inferior to that of scriptural truth.
One must then decide, is dispensationalism truly a conviction that must be espoused in order to be Grace Brethren? This highlights the need for an important discussion for which, to my knowledge, the Grace Brethren have no forum. Do we have a common hermeneutic? Who decides what that is in a “fellowship of autonomous churches”? This is where the hermeneutical spiral comes in. I have long promoted the advantages of an international gathering of Grace Brethren people from different countries (95% of the Grace Brethren live outside of the U.S. so it is inappropriate for American pastors to define a Grace Brethren ethos for the rest of the world), with the different gifts represented, not just the “teachers and evangelists,” the gifts that have so dominated the American evangelical church of the 20th century, but the apostles, prophets and shepherds as well. Together they could possibly describe a 21st century, international Grace Brethren ethos. More about the hermeneutical spiral in another entry.
The problem is that because there is no way to discuss shared hermeneutics, there is a reigning plausibility structure that is presupposed and thus tacitly imposed. This causes people to walk on eggshells fearing the disputes and divisions of the past. My observation is that the generation of the ‘80s focused on doctrine while the younger generation now focuses on relationship and mission. Who is right? Of course we need all three: doctrine, relationship and mission. If there is no “synthesis” (biblical truth + biblical relationship + biblical mission) in the theology (thesis) vs. relationship + mission (antithesis) debate, the emerging and inherited expressions of local church will run on parallel or even divergent tracks. A problem is, many (myself included) are reticent to see leaders embroiled in yet another polemical debate that derails us from our God-given mission, to make disciples and plant churches.
Ah, if only we could prayerfully discuss the biblical data in order to, rather than determine who is “in” or “out” resulting in weakness and paralysis (as happened in the ‘80s), propel us outward on mission and in so doing deepen our relationships and understanding of God (theology)! I believe these would be strong indicators that we are on a Spirit-guided, biblically faithful path.
Thank you Keith for your input and for anything you can do along these or other lines to take us into a future where to be Grace Brethren means focusing on biblical truth, relationship and mission espoused in dynamic (not polemical) tension.
Looking up, paul
Thanks for the lengthy reply, Paul, and overall I agree. Certainly we must be defined by all three - biblical truth, biblical relationship, and biblical mission (or as I put it in my moderator's address a few years ago - Jesus: His Word, His Church, His Mission).
But, out of the three must not truth be the "highest" as it should govern relationships and mission? And, if, for example, it can be shown that the NT teaches the imminent return of Christ in the air for His Church, and that the early Church, pre-1708 pietist Brethren, and especially the Grace Brethren, have believed and taught this, does this not constitute a hermeneutical identity for us?
I am keenly interested in the kind of global Grace Brethren discussion you are proposing. I proposed this in my book, Childlike Faith. But I fear it poses a danger if it dismantles our history, including especially our doctrinal history. It could become quite reductionist.
I completely agree that the tone must be inclusive rather than trying to determine who is "in" or "out". But my experience, of course primarily in the US, is that those who hold to some convictions on these things are always the ones who end up "out". I realize this is the opposite of the 70s and 80s, but I find it to be true.
So, I want to move forward with you on this, but I do have great concern that in the interest of relationships we will regress in our understanding and defense of truth. In the dynamic of truth, relationship, and mission (I totally agree it should not be polemical), one will "emerge" as dominant over the others, at least for a time. The fact that the word "biblical" comes in front of all three begs the question, "Isn't truth to be the dominant one?".
I hope the Charis encounter may be a great step forward in furthering this kind of discussion. And I hope, as you say, that we can do this with Bibles open to "prayerfully discuss the biblical data".
Thanks again for your thinking. I look forward to your future posts.
In His Grace, Keith
Great stuff here. What is encouraging that in our fellowship of churches we now sense the freedom to talk about these issues. There was a time when that was dangerous.
perhaps we're overcomplicating this a tad. could it be that our hermenuetic is more caught and modeled than it is studied and taught?
i understand that we can get into a "chicken-or-the-egg" sort of debate....should the study of Scripture, or the discussion of how we study Scripture come first...i've been on this merry go round many times (much of the time, i was the one making it spin.)
however, (and i do not mean this as a critique, for i often do the same thing) examine your post as an example. it ends with: “Sola scriptura” (Scrpiture only) and “ad fontes” (back to the source documents) are the need of the moment, yet the post itself covers dispensationalism, brethren history, sigmund freud, interpretations of dreams, brent sandy's book and c.s. lewis...but it doesn't contain a verse (or even allusion) of Scripture.
again, i do not mean this as an attack...for this often happens on my blog as well. but perhaps the way we should take a brother forward who asks, "do you have to be dispensational to be grace brethren?" would be to simply open up the Book and show him the passages that support a dispensational perspective and allow him liberty where the text may not support a "dispensational grid" some men may have made up.
it is with a bit of trepidation that i offer this comment...for i do not know you. but at the same time, i offer the comment with the hope we can get to know each other a bit better...even if over the "blogosphere."
Keith, Larry and Danny,
Thanks for the good input. As Larry said, I am glad we are able to discuss things irenically. This is what I mean by living biblically in our relationships: e.g. “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” (Eph.4:2-3)
Unfortunately I have not yet read your book Keith, but will try to do so before April. Until then, you mentioned, “In the dynamic of truth, relationship, and mission…, one will ‘emerge’ as dominant over the others, at least for a time… ‘Isn't truth to be the dominant one?’" Here is how I see it. God is truth (Jn.14:6) and His Word is truth (Jn.17:17). The “one another” exhortations (relationships) and “make disciples” (mission) are part and parcel of that truth. If we violate those truths it is as serious as if we have had a breach of “doctrine.” But officially the FGBC, by and large, focuses on doctrinal propositions (in churches becoming members of the FGBC, licensure / ordination of elders…) which communicates that other aspects of the truth are of secondary importance or even optional. I firmly believe that infractions of relational and missional truth grieve the Spirit of truth (Jn.16:13).
Danny, your comments are very much appreciated; thanks for weighing in. And my close friends will agree with you, I do know how to complicate life! Yes, we need to sit down with the bible open; we need to pray together; we need to stay in touch one with another around the world. Because, while this discussion may seem like semantics and evoke the response, “Why bother?” the point is that we must talk or one loses understanding of the other person (especially now that Grace Brethren people are in 25 countries around the world), simply imposing upon the other’s words meaning that is foreign to their intent. Though I do not share the fear of losing our heritage and identify, I do concur with most all the other comments that has been made. While I prefer to call myself an “economist” (descriptively, not prescriptively, dispensational), I wholeheartedly share your approach to “open up the Book and show him the passages that support a dispensational perspective and allow him liberty where the text may not support a ‘dispensational grid’ some men may have made up.”
Thanks all for the great example of “sharpening one another”! paul
Great Paul.
You and I are actually in agreement on the truth, relationship, mission dynamic - we both understand it all as truth. That is what I mean by truth being the "highest" whereas you phrase it in an integrative manner, which is not different from my point.
I understand why you feel that it is the "official" FGBC posture to focus on doctrinal propositions. There certainly has been an unhealthy, small-minded approach to this (who's "in" & who's "out") over the years. But I would say in more recent years, at least in the US, the pendulum has swung so far the other way that there is virtually no room to discuss propositional truth nor biblical absolutes. So I'm not sure that your perception is the reality; at least it is not the same as my perception. I am concerned that our fellowship is disintegrating into the doing of projects and the singing of songs together, but little interest in propositional truth.
I hope I am not just being alarmist. I think it would be great if you could get the opinion of other prophetic analysts of the times related to our fellowship (i.e. Tom Julien, Jim Custer) and see if their opinions agree with mine or not.
Keith, Please understand I am interacting on the subject as it pertains to Grace Brethren churches and mission in Europe because what the FGBC is and does affects us greatly. I agree with you that our perspectives are complimentary, yours is from up close, mine from a distance. This sort of interaction is very helpful to me because I only have official structures upon which I can base opinions, you have more qualitative data. So thanks very much for your observations! Paul
Thanks Paul. This has been very constructive.
Hi Paul,
I’m a bit late joining the discussion but I wanted to thank you for being willing to bite this potentially bitter bullet. You are a courageous man and I pray the Lord’s blessing and protection on you. You are theologically honest. Imposing a particular interpretative infrastructure on Scripture is human because we like to have a hold on truth. It enables us to define where others stand in relation to us i.e. for or against us; and it reassures us by giving us a reference point for our belief system. But our life experience shows us that none of us has control over our life and walking by faith means that we have to put our trust in God. The great thing about God is that He is big enough to defend His truth and His truth will prevail. I agree with you that we need to be humble, because God after all is not a man and He doesn’t think, or act, like us. Imposing an interpretative infrastructure on Scripture is for me a defensive measure, as well as unfortunately, being a divisive measure. (Not to mind the “slight” risk, because of it being a human initiative, that we may be wrong!) I have convictions but I am more careful now of how much I will allow my convictions to dictate my behaviour or attitude in my relationships with other Christians. After the Sola Christus, Sola Scriptura, Sola Graça affirmations I aim to aspire to promoting the relationship, particularly if we are on the same wavelength with regard to getting the gospel out to people and making disciples.
Paul, keep walking the tightrope and continue trusting the Holy Spirit to give you balance.
Peadar
Hello Peadar!
Thank you for the encouragement. Your words reminded me of something a fellow classmate in seminary shared with me (I shudder to think about what I might have said to elicit this caveat!) "Preach the Word, live your convictions, and don't confuse the two."
So I remind myself that the Bible is divine revelation; theology is human explanation. And that the Spirit's desire is application of Jesus teaching from a heart of love.
Thanks for jumping into the discussion! Paul
Post a Comment