This post is part of a series based on chapters from the new Church of God book by Jerry Hickson, Are You Sure You're Right? (For more information see my review).
If Jerry Hickson was wanting to get our attention through his book, he certainly does so in the very first chapter: "Does the Bible Have a Greater Threat than the Thumper?". In keeping with the overall purpose of the book, revealing the differences between the Church of God and American Evangelicalism, Hickson makes the point that Biblical "Inerrancy is a modern concept foreign to the Bible" (p. 11) and "is a concept that is foreign to Church of God heritage" (p. 12).
That ought to go over well.
Conservative Christians uphold a high view of Scripture, especially in light of the perceived threat of liberalism. The 70's publication of The Battle for the Bible cemented the concept of inerrancy among evangelicals, and was easily adopted by many within the Church of God as well. On the surface, inerrancy seems to make sense if we accept the inspiration and authority of Scripture. On closer examination, however, there are many problems with this position because of the faulty philosophical and theological foundations on which it is based.
In my view, inerrancy is really part of the bigger issues of epistemology and hermeneutics. Dr. Hickson seems to understand this, pointing out correctly that the doctrine of inerrancy is really a product of modern rationalism (pp. 4f). Fundamentalism, and Evangelicalism which developed out of it, have deep roots in the modern worldview, especially as result of their work in defending themselves against liberalism. Since Are You Sure You're Right? is written to a general audience it is difficult to develop this technical discussion without losing most readers. Hickson makes an attempt, but chooses to focus mainly on the symptomatic matter of inerrancy. I'm just not sure everyone will hear him. As I stated in my review, I wish he would have provided more background to the development of the Church of God within broader Christianity prior to entering into this thorny issue.
The problem most people will have is that they perceive the questioning of inerrancy as an attack on biblical inspiration and authority. People will mistakenly argue that Hickson must therefore believe that there are "errors" in Scripture with the logical conclusion that Scripture cannot be trusted. This is not the case, unless you require a logical argument to prove the veracity of Scripture, in which case the divine, inspirational nature of Scripture is downplayed and made subservient to the idol of human reason. Hickson makes this bold statement: "We deny the authority of the Bible if we believe inerrancy is the proof of its authority" (p. 3).
Without question, the Church of God has typically maintained a high view of Scripture. But, as Hickson points out, early Church of God leaders never really got into the liberal-fundamentalist debates of the early 20th century. Our movement has always held a more dynamic view towards truth, mainly because of our emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. This has tremendous implications for how we understand both inspiration and interpretation, and differs markedly from the more rational preoccupation of evangelicals. The latter place a much higher emphasis on the importance of faith as the intellectual assent to certain doctrines. The holiness perspective tends to rise above this cold rationalism, placing the focus on the life-changing work of the Spirit as the test of faith, rejecting the notion of air-tight creeds and doctrinal statements. Of course, over the years, because of the creeping influence of Evangelicalism within the Church of God, these distinctions have become confused.
As I have previously stated, this chapter will likely be highly controversial within our circles. I hope, however, that people will take the time to read this chapter carefully and enter into constructive dialogue. It is a matter worth exploring, especially in light of our holiness orientation.
5 comments:
"Our movement has always held a more dynamic view towards truth, mainly because of our emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit."
It doesn't seem like that's where we're at to me. I think we've bought into rationalism too much. We're looking for knowlegde and forget that Jesus was talking about know him in John 14, not correct belief or knowlegde. I think this is great thing for us to discuss. There is a lot of us vs them out there. It's safer if you have someone to watch your back. So I think many of us have krept closer to evengelicalism and fundamentalism then we would have been 100 years ago. So it should be ok for some of us to say we're post-evengelcal now shouldn't it? :) [Some people that could be called "emergent", would describe themselves as that.] Keep it comin' Lloyd!
Lloyd-
This is a great resource... I have enjoyed reading your reflections and thoughts.
One question, a bit off topic- As we seek to listen carefully to where God is leading for the future ("movement"/"D-word"/"emergent"), how do we also balance our heritage of unity across racial and ethnic lines. It has been one of our distinctives, and yet seems to be missing from a lot of conversations about what we should be about.
Much of what is discussed here is not as often a part of ChOG communities that are predominantly caucasian. And, to be fair, much of what they are talking about is not as present in caucasian or suburban churches (not that those are automatically the same).
Love your work! Thank you for blessing the "blog-o-sphere" in this way!
Chuck,
Your question is a good one. Jerry Hickson does address it to a certain extent in his book, so hopefully we can build on this discussion when I post on that chapter.
In keeping with the overall purpose of the book, revealing the differences between the Church of God and American Evangelicalism, Hickson makes the point that Biblical [Inerrancy]..."is a concept that is foreign to Church of God heritage" (p. 12).
My question to Jerry is, "Jerry are you sure you are right?" Knowing Jerry, I am sure he thinks he's right. However, a review of CHOG history easily shows Jerry is wrong. According to Merle Strege in his book I Saw the Church, inerrancy was part of the CHOG (including its professors at Anderson University and Seminary). While it arose from the Crossroads Controversy, someone was trying to force all CHOG to hold to this new doctrine, it was affirmed by many.
Also, if Jerry is referring to the overall history of CHOG (prior to the 1970's when Inerrancy was asserted in Evangelicalism) not many of the things we believe are essential now to good, responsible exegesis did the founders and early generations of the CHOG do. For example, historical-grammatical-linguistic-cultural exegesis was foreign to them. In fact, any exegesis was foreign to them. They had to agree with F. G. Smith and his "church-revelatory" exegesis (the only parts of the bible needed for this kind of ministry, apart from the Gospel, would be the books of Daniel and Revelation). If one dissented from Smith's position, as Byrum did on the exegesis issue, they were tried as heretics and forced from the church, as Byrum was.
So you see:
1 - Jerry's lack of critical research and broad comments do not show critical thinking nor even preliminary research,
2 - Basing a refutation on the history of the CHOG is untenable, as we look very different in beliefs, practices, time, and space. New beliefs and practices were added over the years (consistent with how Inerrancy came about).
3 - According to Strege the only reason Inerrancy is not CHOG doctrine was democracy (a human assertion to fact rather than a God-sought decision). At the time of the controversy, research showed most professors did not strictly hold to inerrancy, so it was determined to not make it an official CHOG doctrine based on a poll!
I therefore, strongly disagree with Jerry's statement to these "facts". Inerrancy does in fact fit with what we believe now. However, it is true that it is not a widely-held belief in the CHOG. Which is a beautiful thing. We are free to determine for ourselves what we believe. I am the one that will stand before God and answer for my beliefs. These are wonderful things that exist in the CHOG, our ability to self-govern and self-determine our beliefs. Ultimately, I guess I miss the point Jerry is trying to assert. His statements are not based on the history and practices of the CHOG. So, Jerry asserts things that, in fact, are not right. I hope he does a better job on the rest of the points in the book.
David,
While I agree that Jerry failed to provide a more complete argument for his position, I think you are being too harsh in your judgement of him. I do not think that the explanations you provided invalidate his arguments.
Certainly, there are many in the Church of God who affirm the evangelical position on inerrancy. I would still disagree, however, with you on whether inerrancy fits Church of God theology. While our early theology and hermeneutics pertaining to the matter is weak, I would still argue that inerrancy and its modern philosophical assumptions do not fit within our movement's DNA. I remain convinced that a holiness orientation is based on a radically different foundation than found in evangelicalism, and that a faith based on the necessity of rational arguments is off track. Our general inerrancy position is more than just a matter of being determined by a "poll".
Nevertheless, it is good that we have the freedom to disagree and remain in fellowship.
Post a Comment