Bible Word God

Gospel Publishing House Springfield, Missouri 02-0683
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION; NIV. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. 2003 by Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Missouri 658021894. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any meanselectronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwisewithout prior written permission of the copyright owner, except brief quotations used in connection with reviews in magazines or newspapers. ISBN 0-88243-787-9 Chapter 6 is from God, Revelation, and Authority, Volume 4, by Carl F. H. Henry, copyright 1999, pages 211-219. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois 60187, www.crosswaybooks.org.
Table of Contents
Contributors / 4 Preface / 5 Introduction / 11 1. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture John W. Wyckoff / 17 2. Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal, Postmodern World Wave E. Nunnally, Jr. / 53 3. Inerrancy and Interpretation Edgar R. Lee / 95 4. Preaching the Bible as the Word of God Randy Hurst / 126 5. The Word: The Foundation of All Preaching Charles T. Crabtree / 151 6. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy / 169
Contributors
James K. Bridges, General Treasurer, The General Council of the Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri Charles T. Crabtree, Assistant General Superintendent, The General Council of the Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri Randy Hurst, Assemblies of God World Missions, Media, Fund-Raising, Commission on Evangelism Edgar R. Lee, S.T.D., Senior Professor of Spiritual Formation and Pastoral Theology, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary Wave E. Nunnally, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Studies, Evangel University John W. Wyckoff, Ph.D., Professor of Bible and Theology, Southwestern University
Preface
A unique setting for ministering to the needs of those called to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ was created in March 2002. The vision of General Superintendent Thomas E. Trask was to encourage and enhance the ministry of God-called men and women, credentialed primarily with the Assemblies of God, yet open to other ministers who might wish to benefit from it as well. With the full support of the Executive Presbytery, the first Pentecostal Preachers Week was launched in Springfield, Missouri. So successful was this initial conference that it has been placed on the General Council calendar as an annual event. The purpose of Pentecostal Preachers Week is to serve as a Pentecostal Keswick convention for our Fellowship, with priority being given to anointed biblical preaching and teaching by Spirit-filled men and women of God whose lives and ministries have been steeped in the exposition of the Scriptures. The 2002 conference met this criteria in a most remarkable manner, sending the attendees home with a commitment to the Word of God similar to that of John Wesley when he
THE BIBLETHE WORD OF GOD
cried, Let me be homo unius libria man of one Book! Like Wesley, though we may know many books, there is one Book that we must know above all others, the Biblethe Word of God! Pentecostal Preachers Week for 2003 has an added feature that will strengthen the teaching aspect of the conference. The addition of a panel of seasoned brethren will discuss the topic The Bible as the Word of God. In 1926 Donald Gee wrote: Very few realize the incalculable havoc wrought by the so-called Higher Criticism. We are just beginning to reap the harvest in every spherereligious, moral, and political. The great denominations of Christendom are spiritually powerless because their pulpits and training schools have thoroughly inculcated a more or less modified unbelief in Gods Word. The supreme authority of the Bible is well nigh destroyed among all classes of people, including church members and ministers. Gee stated further: Once the Bibles unique authority as a divine revelation from God to man is denied, we have absolutely no alternative but the ever-changing theories of human philosophy with all their hopeless uncertaintythe absolute necessity of belief in the inspiration of the Bible is more and more apparent.[W]e must have some final authority by which we can discern between truth and error. Belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible liberates among men that tremendous power hidden within the Word that makes it one of the greatest forces in the universe. The Scriptures are alive with the very power of Godand are surely unavailable to the man who does not believe in their divine inspiration. More than three-quarters of a century have elapsed since these prophetic words were written, and higher
PREFACE
criticisms assault on the Scriptures continues undiminished, leaving the Pentecostal movement and the Evangelical movement primary contenders for biblical faith. It is imperative that the Fellowship of the Assemblies of God come to grips with the severity of this attack on the Word of God. We must review our historic position and study the issues facing the church in the twenty-first century. We must not allow this tide of skepticism and unbelief to reach the shores of our Church and subtly infiltrate our ranks. We must protect and preserve our pulpits and schools from this ungodly invasion. The panel selected by the Board of Administration to address this crucial topic are Dr. Warren Bullock, Dean, School of Ministry, Northwest College Dr. Charles T. Crabtree, Assistant General Superintendent, General Council of the Assemblies of God Reverend Randy Hurst, Assemblies of God World Missions, Media, Fund-Raising, Commission on Evangelism Dr. Edgar R. Lee, Chairman, General Council Commission on Doctrinal Purity Dr. Wave E. Nunnally, Jr., Professor of Biblical Studies, Evangel University Dr. John W. Wyckoff, Professor of Bible and Theology, Southwestern Assemblies of God University Dr. James K. Bridges, General Treasurer, General Council of the Assemblies of God, panel chairman Reverend John Lindell, Pastor, James River Assembly, panel moderator Several of the panelists have been asked to prepare a paper on an assigned subject within the scope of the project (and on behalf of them may I acknowledge all those who helped in that preparation). We believe that
THE BIBLETHE WORD OF GOD
together these papers will provide an adequate overview of the subject at hand. The papers compiled in this volume will serve as the basis for the panelists discussion and the congregational response. An abbreviated form of each paper will be presented verbally by each author followed by a question-and-answer time with the panel. The papers and the order of their presentation are as follows: 1. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, John W. Wyckoff 2. Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal, Postmodern World, Wave E. Nunnally, Jr. 3. Inerrancy and Interpretation, Edgar R. Lee 4. Preaching the Bible as the Word of God, Randy Hurst 5. The Word: The Foundation of All Preaching, Charles T. Crabtree Because of its appropriateness to the theme of the panel, Brother Crabtree has consented to allow us to include in this volume The Word: The Foundation of All Preaching, chapter 3 of his new book entitled Pentecostal Preaching. While he will not be making a verbal presentation during the panels session, any questions concerning the work are welcome during the question-and-answer period. Brother Crabtrees new release is available during this conference at the bookstand in the foyer. Also, included at the conclusion of this volume is the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is the position of most conservative Christians regarding the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Because of our commitment to the Word of God as inspired, inerrant, infallible, and the authoritative rule of faith and conduct, we, too, find agreement with this statement. It
9
will make excellent reference material when studying the subject of inerrancy. Because of the importance of this subject and the material which has been prepared for this event, the Executive Presbytery has made this volume available free to all who register for this years conference. The goal of this panel and its presentations is to challenge each minister to renew a commitment to the authority of the Holy Scripturesto its inerrancy, to its infallibility, and to its divine inspiration. With this foundation, the minister can then build an appropriate hermeneutical and homiletical superstructure. J. K. B.
Introduction
James K. Bridges
Historically, the Assemblies of God has tenaciously held to the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. In its formation meeting in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, the brethren unanimously adopted a Preamble and Resolution of Constitution to guide the fledgling movement for the first two years of its existence. The first whereas of the document declared our allegiance to God, our Heavenly Father, and His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, sent to be our Savior. The second whereas declared our allegiance to the Holy Inspired Scriptures given by God as our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice. In the 1916 General Council, a Statement of Fundamental Truths was adopted to strengthen and clarify the doctrinal position of the Fellowship. With few modifications, this statement continues to serve as the official position of the church to this day. Our founding fathers placed first on the list: The Scriptures Inspired. It presently reads as follows: The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to
11
12
JAMES K. BRIDGES
man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21). Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, most of the protestant denominations in the United States held to the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture. However, the influx of higher criticism, so-called, from Germany infecting the pulpits of the churches and the classrooms of the seminaries, robbed the historic denominations of this truth. Liberalism and modernism, as it is termed, has so captured the churches which have emerged out of the Reformation that only a few, such as the Southern Baptists and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, remain faithful to the doctrine of Inspiration. But the Assemblies of God stands in good company with those who have held to the Scripture as the Word of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles, the authors of the Old and New Testaments, along with the Early Church, are unanimous in their attitude toward the Scriptures: They not only accepted it as the very Word of God, but they submitted to its authority without reservation. For the first eight centuries of the Christian era, the doctrine of Inspiration was unquestioned. Among the church fathers who spoke strongly of the Scriptures as the Word of God are Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Origin, Jerome, and Irenaeus. According to Louis Gaussen, except for Theodore of Mopsuestia (condemned by the Fifth Council at Constantinople in 553), not one authority could be cited throughout all the first eight centuries of Christianity who failed to acknowledge the full inspiration of the Scriptures except for the heretical enemies of the Christian faith.
INTRODUCTION
13
Gregory wrote: Even the smallest lines in Scripture are due to the minute care of the Holy Spirit so that we must pay careful attention to every slightest shade of meaning. Athanasius wrote: They [the Scriptures] were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of Godthese are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. Let no man add to these, neither let him take aught from these. Origin wrote: The sacred Scriptures come from the fullness of the Spirit, so that there is nothing in the prophets, or the law, or the gospel, or the apostles which descends not from the fullness of the Divine Majesty. The great reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and the great confessions of Protestantism such as The French Confession of Faith, 1559; The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England; The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647; the Second Helvetic Confession, 1566; and the Belgic Confession, 1561all attest to the Bible as the Word of God. Luther said, The preacher must preach only the Word of Holy Scripture, for the Bible is the very Scripture of the SpiritIt cannot be otherwise, for the Scriptures are divine; in them God speaks, and they are His Word. To hear or to read the Scriptures is nothing else than to hear God. Added to the reformers are the Huguenots, Puritans, Covenanters, and Evangelicals. Names such as Baxter, Owen, Wesley, Whitefield, and Edwards have loudly proclaimed the truth of divine inspiration. John Wesley wrote: I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong argument to prove the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. 1. It could not be the invention of good men or
14
JAMES K. BRIDGES
angelsfor they neither would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying, Thus saith the Lord, when it was their own invention. 2. It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity. 3. Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration. Other great men, such as Hudson Taylor, William Carey, Charles Finney, D. L. Moody, George Muller, Charles Spurgeon, J. C. Ryle, and currently Billy Graham, have held firmly to the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Spurgeon said: We contend for every word of the Bible and believe in the verbal, literal inspiration of Holy Scripture. Indeed, we believe there can be no other kind of inspiration. If the words are taken from us, the exact meaning is of itself lost. Bishop Ryle pointed out the danger of assuming anything less than full inspiration: We corrupt the Word of God most dangerously when we throw any doubt on the plenary inspiration of any part of the Holy Scriptures. This is not merely corrupting the cup, but the whole fountain. This is not merely corrupting the bucket of living water, but poisoning the whole well. In his early ministry Billy Graham confessed to his doubts about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. He spent time in the high Sierra Nevada mountains in prayer where he came to a firm conviction that the Bible was indeed the authoritative, inspired Word of the living God. After that experience he testified that the Bible became a sword in his hand. As a young seminarian attending an extremely liberal seminary back in the late 1950s, I endured the
INTRODUCTION
15
liberal theology of Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Rudolf Bultmann whose teachings had liberated the church from the Bible. Using King Jehoiakims penknife, they stripped, gutted, and demythologized the Bible until there was very little that could be trusted as true and accurate. I am so glad I have lived to see the Bible survive these massive assaults. The teachings of these theologiansrepresenting the very best of the skeptical, unbelieving mindare encased in dusty old textbooks which have given way to a new generation of humanistic theologians who, like their predecessors having rejected the authority of Scripture, are also at the mercy of everchanging theories of human philosophy. But the Bible, as the Word of God, continues to traverse the world, crossing religious, geographical, language and political barriers, bringing life and hope to Adams fallen race. Some have likened the Bible to the Lord Jesus Christ. As He was both human and divine, so the Bible has both a divine and human side. Some theologians use this analogy to imply that it is the human side of Scripture wherein error can reside. But, the Bible, in its original autographs, is without error. As has been pointed out, just as the Word of God incarnate was without sin, even so, the Word of God inscripturated is without error. The humanity of Jesus is like our own in all things except sin. The humanity of the Bible is like that of every human book except for error. The incarnate Word was without sin in His humanity and the written Word is, like the humanity of our Lord Jesus, without error. As our founding fathers understood, this doctrine is fundamental to all other of our doctrines. As we study the materials in this volume, let us do so with prayer,
16
JAMES K. BRIDGES
requesting the Spirit of Truth to reaffirm in our hearts the attitude which our Lord Jesus Christ exemplified toward the Scriptures. Let us recommit ourselves to the inspiration and authority of the Bible so that we, as the Thessalonian believers, may receive it, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thess. 2:13).
(Sources for the material in the Introduction may be found in The Works of John Wesley, Volume 11; Wesleys preface to his Sermons on Several Occasions; The Divine Inspiration of the Bible, Louis Gaussen; and The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, Rene Pache.)
1 The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture

John W. Wyckoff
INTRODUCTION
During the first century Apostolic Church and the Early Church periods, the Bible was the final authority for Christian doctrine and practice. Since then, this has not always been the case, at least not in the highest sense of the idea. Often, this principle has been at least compromised in practice, if not seriously qualified by additions or openly repudiated. An alteration of the principle of Scripture as final authority that developed by the time of the Middle Ages proved widely influential. Following the first century, as the Church grew and moved into new situations it endeavored to make the eternal truths of Scripture relevant and applicable by formulating appropriate doctrines and practices. Eventually these grew into a large body of teachings that may be termed church traditions. The endeavor of making the eternal truths of Scripture relevant and applicable was necessary, but eventually church traditions gained authority over Scripture. Although Scripture was still held in
17
18
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
high regard, it was reinterpreted in such a way as to support and reaffirm established church doctrines. In actuality, Scripture was no longer the supreme authority. Near the beginning of the sixteenth century, Martin Luther recognized this as a problem and enunciated the principle of sola scripturaScripture alone. He declared that the Church and its teachings are not the final authority, but rather Scripture is the authority that tells the Church what to teach and practice. In this way, during the Reformation, Protestantism was established upon the earlier principle of Scripture having final authority. Unfortunately, following the sixteenth century, Protestantism did not hold strongly to its ideal of Scripture as the final authority. During this postReformation era (1600-1700), Protestantism became woefully divided into various creedal groups. All too often, so-called biblical exegesis degenerated into nothing more than a handmaiden to varying dogmas.1 Not unlike pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism, Protestant proof-texting had the effect of elevating its own traditions, subordinating the authority of Scripture once again to the Church. Such subordination of Scripture to Church traditions is serious and the problem will be considered more closely later in this paper. But during both preReformation Catholicism and post-Reformation Protestantism, Scripture was at least still held in very high regard. In fact, many who engaged in the practice of proof-texting continued to hold to the ideal of Scriptures final authority. They simply did not realize that their practice was not in keeping with their ideal. Thus, Clark Pinnock contends: Theology in the pre-
THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
19
modern period was always done on the assumption that the Bible was the written Word of God.2 That is, until the end of the seventeenth century, the ideal, if not always the practice, of Scriptures final authority was still intact throughout Christendom. The next century, however, would change all of this. The impact of the eighteenth century Enlightenment upon all areas of life simply cannot be overstated. Immanuel Kant called it mans emergence from immaturity.3 Stunning advances in the natural sciences, with an emphasis upon empiricism, and the philosophical shift toward extreme rationalism profoundly changed all areas of thought. Humankinds so-called maturing moved on to the questioning of all external authorities.4 The Bible and God himself were not off limits. The Enlightenment challenged Scriptural authority in ways far more profound and complex than it had ever been challenged. One could wish that these challenges would never have arisen or that they could be dispelled with simple answers. However, that is not reality. In these modern times the full range of challenges to the final authority of Scripturecompromising practices, altering additions, and open denialsmust be dealt with directly by the Church. Such times call for a reexamination of the Bible as the Word of God. This chapter will first simply state some basics: the grounds for holding Scripture to be the final rule for faith and practice, and why this position is essential. Next, it will briefly review the modern challenges to Scriptures authority that have come out of the Enlightenment. Then, it will move on to deal with some contemporary, practical issues related to the application of this principle.
20
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

Inspiration of Scripture Discussion of the principle of Scriptures authority must begin with the premise of divine inspiration. The following is a contemporary, evangelical definition of inspiration: Inspiration was that miraculous process in which the Holy Spirit influenced divinely chosen human authors to produce the infallible and authoritative writings which include only those books commonly recognized to be in the canon of Scripture.5 This definition provides only the elements essential to the idea of inspiration. Given the profundity of this doctrine, further elaboration is in order. All wise elaborations on the inspiration of Scripture, however, will begin by noting that this was a miraculous process. A level of mystery regarding the exactness of this process will always remain. Like any miracle, it can never be fully explained from the human perspective, no matter how much one elaborates upon it. Also, since inspiration of Scripture was a mysterious process, it cannot be proven in the rationalistic sense. Rather, it is ultimately ones affirmation of faith made certain by the convincing work of the Holy Spirit. He proves its reality in the hearts and minds of believers. Evangelicals, however, contend that this view is also supported by reason, which many scholars have adequately set forth. The allotted length of this chapter does not allow it to be restated here.6 Lets just say that for believers the ultimate evidence of Scriptures inspiration and authority is its matchless power. The message of its writings, when properly understood and responded to in faith, produces unparalleled results.
21
That is, Scripture has the ability to uniquely revolutionize the believers life and provide definitive, spiritual guidance. Pinnock rhetorically asks: Why, in the last analysis, do Christian people believe the Bible is Gods Word? His answer: Not because they have all studied up on Christian evidences and apologetics, however useful these may prove to some. Christians believe the Bible because it has been able to do for them exactly what Paul promised it would: introduce them to a saving and transforming knowledge of Christ.7 Inspiration of Scripture was a divine-human cooperative project. On the one hand, the writings of the Bible are not merely human writings, as some contend. Rather, the divine agency of the Holy Spirit mysteriously worked in and through the human writers in such a way that the product is properly termed the Word of God. Consequently, the Bible is the final, infallible, trustworthy authority on all matters pertaining to God. On the other hand, the human authors were not overpowered mantic ecstatics, nor even mere passive amanuenses. The Holy Spirit did not violate their wills nor work aside from their human individualities. Rather, as Carl F. H. Henry notes: The Spirit of God made full use of the human capacities of the human writers so that their writings reflect psychological, biographical, and even sociohistorical differences.8 Their unique styles are apparent throughout the canon. Also, full use of the human capacities means that the contributions of the human writers were not illusionary or meaningless but real and substantive.9 Finally, in relationship to the above definition, the inspiration that pertains to the canonical books of the Bible was ultimately and absolutely unique. One may
22
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
speak of other kinds of inspiration. But the inspiration of Scripture was of a totally supernatural quality such that only these particular writings possess this unique, divinely authoritative character. There are no other writings like these writings. That is to say, the canonical writings of Scripture are uniquely authoritative precisely because they are uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Henry notes: The evangelical view believes that God revealed information beyond the reach of the natural resources of all human beings, including prophets and apostles. Biblical doctrine has an authoritative basis only because of communication of specially revealed truths to chosen messengers.10 Therefore, Scripture is properly recognized to be special revelation. Scriptures Authority in Relationship to Jesus Christ Scripture is only one aspect of special revelation; Jesus Christ is another aspect. Further, evangelicals correctly recognize that the person of Jesus Christ is the ultimate of Gods special revelation to mankind. The following questions, then, should be asked: What is the relationship of the final authority of faith and practice to the ultimate of Gods special revelation? And what are the implications of this relationship? Millard J. Erickson notes: The most complete modality of revelation is the incarnation.11 The writer of Hebrews observes: In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.The Son is the radiance of Gods glory and the exact representation of his being (Hebrews 1:1-3, NIV).12 The apostle John explains that the Word, who was God, became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we
23
beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1,14). Likewise, the apostle Paul states: He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God.For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (Colossians 1:15 and 2:9). Evangelicals contend that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time, as noted above, we affirm Jesus Christ to be the ultimate of Gods revelation. That is, on the one hand, what is provided in Scripture by inspiration of the Holy Spirit is Gods Word to us. Also, as special revelation it is complete and fully adequate in providing all that is necessary to human redemption. On the other hand, Gods ultimate revelation of himself could not be contained in any number of books.13 He is infinite! Therefore, Donald Bloeschs observation must be acknowledged: The word of the prophets and apostles in the Bible corresponds to . . . the truth embodied in Jesus Christ, but it is not identical with it.14 If Jesus Christ is the ultimate of Gods special revelation, can Scripture be the final rule for faith and practice? Evangelicals see this as an epistemological question. Therefore, they contend that the two ideas are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory, but complementary. Jesus Christ is the ultimate of Gods special revelation, but this should not cloud the epistemic significance of Scripture as the word of God, Henry declares. He adds that for man in his fallen state, Scripture is the decisive and normative source of all doctrine about God.15 Pinnock concurs: Inspired Scripture constitutes a term in the rich pattern of revelation given to humanity in Jesus Christ. It is a capstone andit conveys in a reliable manner the freight and burden of revelation secured in an appropriate form by
24
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
Gods own action.In no way does this fact affect the sheer centrality of Jesus Christ in revelation.16 Bloesch explains it this way: The biblical witness is binding because the prophets and apostles were ear- and eyewitnesses to what God did for us in the sacred history culminating in Jesus Christ. Moreover, these persons were guided by the Holy Spiritand their writings now function as the vehicle of the Holy Spirit.17 The Importance of Scriptural Authority Christianity would be completely true even if there were no such thing as an inspired, written record of its development and content. That is, transcendent God providing redemption for fallen humanity by sending His Son to die for them does not seem to be logically dependent upon the existence of a written account. All of the developments leading up to the Christ event could have happened without any written record of them. Jesus teachings and activities and all that happened to Him could have occurred whether a written report or interpretation was provided. Likewise, following Christs ascension, the Church could have developed even if no written description had been made of it. However, it is difficult to imagine what the present state of Christianity would be, or even if it would exist today, had there been no written account of Gods redemptive activities. The fact is that the Bible is such an account. At special times, God singled out certain prophets and apostles to record and write about His redemptive activities. This account provides not only a truly accurate, and therefore official, record of Gods redemptive activities, it is also the official interpretation of those activities.18 The necessity of the Scripture principle [i.e., as final author-
25
ity] is, Pinnock admits, practical rather than absolute, but a practical necessity of the greatest importance.19 That God intends for Scripture to serve in a special role of authority is, then, an idea that is inherent in the concept of divine inspiration itself. As Henry says: Precisely because of its written form as inspired Scripture, the Bible is the permanent standard and norm by which all the churchs doctrine is to be validated.20 Without Scripture the Church would have no objective standard for knowing and understanding God and His redemptive plan. At stake, Henry declares, is the far-reaching controversy over the real nature of man and his destiny. Because, for man in his fallen state, Scripture is the decisive and normative source of all doctrine about God.21 Inspired Scripturethe official account of Gods redemptive activities and the official interpretation of themis the only objectively sound epistemological foundation for authentic Christianity. Pinnock concludes: The reason Christians have felt historically that the authority of the Bible is a crucial conviction is that they have realized the Bible is needed to give us a reliable knowledge of the truth, without which we cannot exist long as Christians.22
MODERN CHALLENGES
As already noted, developments coming out of the Enlightenment resulted in serious challenges to the above conviction about Scriptures authority. In fact, the whole discipline of biblical criticism, consisting of various forms of and approaches to the study of the Bible, emerged from the Enlightenment milieu. Some ultraconservative evangelicals have viewed biblical criticism negatively, concluding that it is
26
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
always destructive. But criticism, wherever it is applied, is not inherently negative. It can be positive and constructive. As Ladd suggests, it is not an enemy of evangelical faith, but a necessary method of studying Gods Word.23 On the other hand, [t]here is also a kind of biblical criticism that, as Pinnock points out, has played a disastrous role in biblical studies. It is biblical criticism of the kind that treats Scripture as a merely human document. In this negative critical approach to Scripture, the Bible is considered to be ancient but otherwise ordinary human literature, not the inspired Scripture of the Church. Pinnock provides a thorough discussion of both the positive and the negative aspects of biblical criticism.24 Other evangelical scholars have also addressed the issue. For example, Millard Erickson provides an excellent presentation of the modern challenges to biblical authority. Following a brief description of the various kinds of biblical criticism, he presents some of their contributions and liabilities.25 Here it is sufficient to note that such challenges to biblical authority have a common element. They share the view that the Bible is fallible, human literature rather than the inspired Word of God. However, when the Bible is lowered to this status, human criticism itself assumes the position of final authority. Scripture is special revelation, and as such, it provides knowledge, understanding, and wisdom beyond that normally accessible through human reasoning. And since criticism is a function of human reason, the authority of Scripture stands above it. By means of normal human scholarship, biblical criticism provides valuable knowledge and understanding of and about Scripture. But it can neither supercede nor judge
27
Scriptures authority. Therefore, evangelicals affirm that the canonical writings of Scripture, rather than human criticism, are the final authority because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
CONTEMPORARY, PRACTICAL ISSUES

Beyond the challenges to Scriptures authority are the more immediate, pragmatic issues of how Scripture actually functions as authority for doctrine and practice in the Church today. Two questions especially need attention in this present discussion. The first one is: What is the relationship of Church tradition to Scripture? The second one is similar: What is the relationship of experience to Scripture? Church Tradition and the Authority of Scripture The question of traditions role and function as authority in relationship to Scripture is certainly not new. The two have always been related, even if that relationship has sometimes been misunderstood, improperly maintained, or even unrecognized. Whatever one may think, in practice, tradition always plays some role in the development of Christian doctrine and practice. Pinnock acknowledges, For all our talk about sola scriptura, the Bible is seldom left alone.26 Elsewhere, he more specifically observes that biblical faith is never found apart from tradition.27 When properly understood and maintained in relationship to Scripture, tradition plays a necessary, positive role in the development and service of doctrine and practice. John Van Engen defines tradition as: The entire process by which normative religious truths are passed on from one generation to another.28 Edward J.
28
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
Yarnold offers this description: Tradition is the process by which the revelation made by Jesus Christ is passed on and interpreted from age to age. He adds that it consists of the particular beliefs and practices which are handed down in this way.29 Tradition is the product of the Churchs continuing endeavor to interpret and apply Scripture in an appropriate way in every generation of the Church. That is, tradition is how the Church in each age attempts to make Scripture culturally relevant and thereby authoritative everywhere in the world. Tradition in this sense can be recognized as a viable authority in the life of the church so long as it is appraised in the light of the written Scriptures.30 Thus, when their relationship is properly understood, Scripture and Church tradition should not be viewed as opposed to each other. Church tradition began with the apostles in the first century. In fact, the Old Testament was their Scriptures, and what we have in the New Testament was their Church tradition or doctrine and practice. Church tradition continued to develop following the close of the first century as the Church continued its effort to translate the eternal truths of Scripture into relevant doctrine and practice wherever the Spirit led. As necessary and as valuable as tradition is, it is not inspired in the same sense as Scripture. Thus, tradition is not infallible. Pinnock notes that the essence and the forms [of Scripture and tradition] are not identical and must not be equated.31 Bloesch also cautions concerning the necessity to distinguish between the prophetic and apostolic traditions out of which Scripture emerged and the ecclesiastical traditions, which interprets Scripture in every generation after apostolic times.32 Therefore, tradition should never be viewed as
29
a source or criterion of final truth over or beside Scripture. In view of this, tradition must always be monitored by Scripture. This is the primary idea of the Protestant Reformation. During the Middle Ages prior to the sixteenth century, the conflict between Scripture and tradition became extreme. Luther and the other Reformers recognized this and asserted that Scripture must be the standard against which all tradition is tested. Fortunately, the Protestant Reformation did not jettison church tradition, but it definitely relegated it to secondary status on the grounds that Scripture has primacy (sola Scriptura). Thus, Protestants insist that when the relationship between Scripture and tradition functions in the proper manner, Scripture judges and corrects tradition and in this way keeps tradition faithful to the gospel.33 The idea of Scriptures primacy as the final rule of faith and practice seems straightforward enough. But always allowing Scripture to properly monitor tradition in such a way as to keep it truly faithful to Scripture is not easily done. Church groups are often quite unaware of the authoritative status their traditions have gained. Protestants, who are quick to chide Roman Catholics for subordinating Scripture to their traditions, are sometimes unconsciously guilty of the same.34 Bloesch suggests that [i]n modern Protestantism there seems to be a movement away from sola scriptura to a view that coincides with a sectarian Catholicism that denigrates Scripture by elevating church authority.35 The problem is that tradition can be a two-edged sword. On the one hand, tradition serves a necessary function. Without it the Church cannot fulfill its God-
30
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
ordained purpose of making the truths of Scripture relevant and applicable in each generation. Usually, Church groups deem it necessary to write down the fundamental essence of at least their most essential doctrines and practices. The purpose is to provide clear communication of these doctrines and practices both in the present and to future generations. In Protestant circles, the purpose also includes having these in a form in which they can supposedly be evaluated in light of Scripture. On the other hand, tradition may become problematic. As Pinnock says, Tradition never mirrors purely and perfectly the truth of the gospel. Inevitably there are conflicts between the two.36 Tradition may develop in such a way that it seriously distorts the pure, infallible truth set forth in Scripture. When traditions are written down, in the form of doctrines and practices (even for the positive reasons noted above), they tend to become fixed and viewed with increasingly high regard and reverence. Often, such creedal statements are defended as if they provide the ultimate way to state the particular truth.37 Without realizing what is happening, Church groups may even proof-text or interpret Scripture in such a way as to guard their traditions. Whether it is realized or not, in this manner tradition is venerated above Scripture. Perhaps we Pentecostals would like to think that we could not, or at least would not, be guilty of venerating our doctrine and practice statements above Scripture. If so, we would not be as wise as our founding fathers. The Pentecostal leaders who came together in 1914 to form the Assemblies of God were keenly aware of the problem. They were greatly concerned about the potential of their own beloved Fellowship allowing creeds to
31
gain authoritative stature. William Menzies observes that at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in 1914, [o]ut of fear of creedalism the Founding Fathersassiduously avoided any attempt at articulating precise doctrinal statements as a test of faith.38 In fact, the Preamble and Resolution on Constitution adopted at that founding Council declared: We recognize ourselves as members of said General Assembly of Godand do not believe in identifying ourselves as, or establishing ourselves into, a sect, that is a human organization that legislates or forms laws and articles of faith.39 However, as Menzies also notes, In spite of the solemn vow expressed at Hot Springs that the Assemblies of God would never adopt a formal creed, two years later, out of the necessity created by doctrinal controversy, such action was taken.40 The leaders of the new Fellowship recognized the wisdom of clearly articulating a set of fundamental beliefsa creed.41 But this was done only after heated debate over the advisability of taking such action. The Fourth General Council of the Assemblies of God in 1916, then, formulated and adopted a set of 17 doctrinal statements in a document entitled A Statement of Fundamental Truths Approved by the Assemblies of God. Their continuing concern about creedalism42 was evidenced not only by the heated debate that preceded this action but also by the wording of the preamble paragraph in this document: This Statement of Fundamental Truths is not intended as a creed for the Church.The human phraseology employed in such statement is not inspired nor contended for.43 Later General Council action further strengthened their resolve to guard against creedalism by adding, The Bible is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice at the beginning of the preamble paragraph.44
32
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
Also, their desire to give priority to Scripture was evidenced by the very order of the doctrinal statements that they included. They might have started with their doctrine of God, since all that they believed was about Him, and especially since the nature of God was the focus of their doctrinal controversy at that time. Or, they might have been tempted to begin with their distinctive doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, first in the list is their statement on the authority of Scripture.45 Strictly speaking, they did adopt a creed. Of course, all Christian groups have them, whether or not they are stated. The Assemblies of God simply found it necessary to state theirs in order to resolve controversies. To their credit, their hearts and intentions were right. In effect, they came to believe that they could be creedal without succumbing to creedalism. Heretofore, our Statement of Fundamental Truths has served us well. We have usually managed to wield the two-edged sword of our creeds in such a way that it has provided positive results. However, being now 100 years into the Pentecostal Movement, we, even more than our founding fathers, must be aware of the possible dangers of creedalism. As noted in the introduction, by about 100 years into the Reformation, Protestantism was all too often subordinating Scripture to its creeds. Like our Protestant forerunners, we have now had our creeds long enough that we hold them with very high regard (as we should). Therefore, we must heed Bloeschs admonition: Tradition as the amplification and interpretation of the Word in the community of faith is to be respected and honored, but it is not to be accepted uncritically. All church traditions must be measured in the light of the transcendent
33
meaning of the gospel of God that shines through Holy Scripture.46 We must guard against the very attitude, as well as the practice, of venerating our doctrine and practice statements above Scripture. Creedalism begins as a subtle attitude before it issues into a practice. If we develop the attitude that our Pentecostal beliefs are so special and so well stated that we should guard them against any change, then without even realizing it, we open ourselves up to the problem of using Scripture in a proof-texting manner to preserve them. All aspects of our traditions must remain open to discussion and be genuinely amenable to Scripture. For example, this was the intent of our Pentecostal forefathers who first developed and adopted our statements of faith. Consequently, they preceded their doctrinal statements with [t]he phraseology employed in this Statement is not inspired or contended for, but the truth set forth in such phraseology is held to be essential to a full gospel ministry. Likewise, we must never contend for the phraseology as though it is sacred and non-amendable. If we do, we are subtly subordinating the authority of Scripture to human expressions. Rather, however, we should strongly hold to the truth set forth in our doctrines. Finally, with our Pentecostal forefathers, we affirm and hold to [t]he Bible [as] our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice.47 Despite having a creed, let us nevertheless continue to avoid creedalism. Experience and the Authority of Scripture Besides the question of the authority of Church tradition, what is the authority of the believers experience? That is, what is the relationship of experience to
34
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
Scripture in the process of developing and maintaining proper Christian doctrine and practice? Like the question of Church tradition, the question of experiences role in this endeavor is not new. Especially in view of the Pentecostal emphasis upon spiritual experiences, it has contemporary significance for us. Also, this question has further significance in light of the current focus in some segments of evangelicalism on a rationalistic view of Scriptures authority. An appropriate position must be found somewhere between an extreme subjectivism related to experience and an extreme objectivism related to rationalism. In his excellent article Of Tidy Doctrine and Truncated Experience, Robert K. Johnston, himself an evangelical, highlights the problems associated with an imbalanced rationalistic view of Scripture. Evangelical intellectualism based on a rationalistic and idealistic philosophy has so abstracted the Christian faith that it risks missing the heart of the Gospel. In their desire for precision, evangelicals have become so analytical, so mired in contrived conceptual schemas, that correct doctrine has superseded faith and life as the focal point of Christianity.48 As Scott A. Ellington points out, all too often the Evangelical movement has chosen largely to defend its notion of biblical authority with the limits of modern rationalism.49 Such a rationalistic approach to sola scriptura leaves the Church with a straight-jacketed epistemology.50 The problem does indeed have to do with an adequate epistemologyhow one comes to know and understand truth. In our case, the issue is how we come to know and understand divine, revelational truth. Bloesch notes the problem in his discussion of how rationalistic orthodoxy fails to grasp the dynamic,
35
inaccessible nature of revelation. He explains that Protestant orthodoxy has recently leaned too heavily toward a scholastic model of biblical authority in which faith is basically an intellectual assent to propositional truth.51 This model is not wrong, but it needs to be complemented with a model that understands revelation as a present, dynamic work of the Spirit. The special illuminating work of the Spirit is absolutely essential. Scripture is given to be the context in which we encounter Gods presence and therein not only learn about God, but also truly come to know Him and His will through the miraculous work of the Spirit. We understand and know the ultimate, God-intended meaning of Scripture only when, by the Spirit, we encounter Gods presence therein. Scripture, then, is recognized to be authoritative and it is made the final authority by the present, miraculous work of the Spirit. Bloesch is among an increasing number of evangelicals who join some Pentecostals in insisting that to have an adequate method of developing useful doctrine, sola scriptura must be coupled with an appropriate pneumatic epistemology. Surely, the Spirit is the key to the proper functioning of biblical authority, Pinnock declares. He adds: Both religious liberals and conservative evangelicals have conspired to leave the Spirit out of hermeneutics, and this must come to an end.52 We must allow the Spirit to show us how to recognize and adequately respond to Him in this process and yet not be swept into the eddy of subjectivity. Bloesch and Pinnock join other scholars such as James B. Shelton in insisting upon the continued activity of the Holy Spirit as epistemologically essential.53 They, along with Johnston, recognize that if the Church is ever again to set forth a relevant and ade-
36
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
quate theology, it must begin . . . with reflection on our experience with him [Jesus Christ] through the Holy Spirit.54 As Ellington observes, This has clear implications for a doctrine of the authority of Scripture. The Bible is not simply a text about whose propositions we can debate, it is the authoritative word of God because the same Holy Spirit who inspired its writers meets us today in its pages.55 The clear implication is that spiritual experiences do affect doctrine and practice. That is, when the Holy Spirits role of being epistemologically essential is properly recognized, then spiritual experiences are allowed to function in a dynamic relationship with sola scriptura. Those who recognize this utilize doctrine to describe and verbalize lived experience, Ellington says. Their understanding of the authority of Scripture is influenced by their experiences of encountering a living God, directly and personally.56 Again, the notion of spiritual experiences playing a role in understanding truth and developing doctrine is obviously not a new or strange idea to authentic Christianity. With all of its focus on sola scriptura, the Reformation started with the dynamic relationship between Scripture and experience in proper perspective. The sola scriptura, sola fides of Luther included a focus on personal experience of divine grace, as James Martin notes.57 James Atkinson also shows this in a quote from Luther: When I had realized this I felt myself absolutely born again. The gates of paradise had been flung open and I had entered. There and then the whole of Scripture took on another look to me.58 For good reasons, serious concerns are raised by the notion that experiences play a role in understanding truth and developing doctrine and practice.59 How can
37
excesses, extremes, and erroneous teachings be avoided? Experiences are subjective and their role in relationship to sola scriptura may be uncertain. Ellington, who strongly advocates the epistemological role of spiritual experiences, acknowledges this. Personal and communal experience is quite obviously, a precarious basis for faith, being more open to subjectivity and self-deception.60 Some are tempted in their religious enthusiasm to formulate inappropriate doctrines and follow extraneous practices by appealing to their own experiences. But there is a corrective. To stress ones experience, which is an experience of the Spirit, is not, according to evangelicals, to ignore the Word as manifest both in Scripture and in Christ himself.61 When the epistemological role of the Spirit is advocated, the proper function of Scripture as the final rule of faith and practice is especially important. In the dynamic relationship between sola scriptura and experience, the importance of sola scriptura simply cannot be overstated. Ultimately, as Ellington points out, the Bible is the basic rule of faith and practice and supplies the corrective and interpretive authority for all religious experience.62 Again, we especially emphasize that all experiences of the Spirit must be judged by their faithfulness to the whole Word of God. Thus far I have made a case for the idea that to have relevant and adequate doctrines and practices, spiritual experiences must be coupled with the principle of sola scriptura. That is, I contend that Scripture and experience, Word and Spirit, function in dynamic union, with neither violating the other. Without this, as Ellington says, Scripture becomes a place where we go to acquire information about God and not a place where we go to meet the person of God in a direct
38
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
encounter through the words of the text. In this dynamic union of Word and Spirit the Bible is experienced as authoritative as the Holy Spirit is found to be at work in and through Scripture in the lives of each member of the church community.63 The next question is: How do such experiences function epistemologically in relation to Scripture? To begin with, all interpretation is affected by personal experiences. The old Enlightenment Age notion that one can approach the study of Scripture with absolute objectivity, as a clean slate, simply is not tenable.64 As Gordon Anderson points out, All interpreters intentionally or inadvertently incorporate personal experience in their hermeneutics.65 The result may be either positive or negative. The negative side is part of the reason for the concerns discussed in this paper. On the positive side, many students of the Bible are realizing the significance of personal experiences in understanding Scripture. For example, at age 20, when I read Pauls great discussion about the resurrection of believers in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians, I understood it very well. But when I read it 30 years later following the death of my godly mother, my understanding rose to a new level. I did not obtain some new revelation; the text simply took on different nuances of meaning because of the experience I then brought to it. Similarly, Roger Stronstad notes that the Christian who has been healed will understand the record of Jesus healing ministry or that of the apostles better than the one who has never experienced it.66 Experiences, including those distinctive moments when the Holy Spirit illuminates the text, are a special part of what Anthony Thiselton and others call the hermeneutical spiral of understanding Scripture.67
39
The hermeneutical spiral begins with certain preunderstandings every student of the Bible brings to the task of understanding Scripture. Preunderstandings include all of the information, attitudes, and ideas that the reader already has about the Scripture when he or she begins the study. As the reader studies the text, the understanding he or she gains is affected by these preunderstandings. The readers new understanding of the text, in turn, changes his or her preunderstandings, if not fundamentally at least by adding new understandings to them. When the reader returns to the text with these new understandings, they in turn enable the student to gain yet new understandings. And the spiral continues with ever-increasing understanding.68 Experiences are only one of many constituent elements in this hermeneutical spiral; however, they add a distinctive dimension and a special dynamic to the process of understanding Scripture. Without the dimension that experiences provide, we simply do not have the phenomenological context necessary to gain the level and kind of understanding that the Spirit desires. Stronstad cites German theologian Hermann Gunkel of a century ago to make this point. What was true of the primitive churchs daily experience of the Spirit was not true of the church in Gunkels own day. Stronstad uses a quote from Gunkel to show that he considered the church of his day to be handicapped in its ability to understand the apostolic witness to the Holy Spirit because it lacked any analogous experience of the Spirit.69 This is the reason the discussion on rationalism above is so important. Because again, as Bloesch says, The knowledge of Gods Word is never merely conceptual knowledge but also existential knowledge.70 That is, ultimately knowing revela-
40
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
tional truth is experiential. As Ellington points out, for the Bible to be truly authoritative in the life of an individual and the community, God must be experienced and encountered by that person and community in and through Scripture.71 The idea here is profound yet plain. Certainly the Bible is authoritative in one sense, whether it is ever recognized or experienced as such. However, for a truth to be actually authoritative, it must be known. And what one does not know will not be practically authoritative. That is, the authority of the text is affected positively or negatively by ones experiential preunderstandings. For example, as Stronstad points out, Pentecostals bring a valid experiential presupposition to the interpretation of Actswhich enables them to understand the charismatic life of the Apostolic Churchbetter than those contemporary Christians who lack this experience. They bring positive and sympathetic experiential presuppositions to the interpretation of the biblical data on the charismatic activity of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, non-Pentecostal evangelicals often bring negative and hostile experiential presuppositions to the interpretation of those same texts.72 The typical doctrinal position of a non-Pentecostal is stated by Morris, [W]e must regard them [the charismata] as the gift of God for the time of the Churchs infancy.73 In effect, these biblical materials are not authoritative to non-Pentecostals as they are to Pentecostals. Pentecostals are prepared to affirm the doctrine that the charismata are for the Church today as a biblical truth because they haveby the Spiritexperienced these gifts. Also, Pentecostals contend that this doctrine is correct because the Bible does not teach cessationism, that the charismata ceased at the end of the New Testament writing period.
41
Besides the influence of ones experiences at the beginning of the interpretative process, they bring still another dimension to the process of developing doctrine and practice. Menzies identifies it as the verification level. If a biblical truth is to be promulgated, then it ought to be demonstrable in life. That is, in the development of theology or doctrine, there is a connection between revelation and experience. Menzies gives this example: It was the inductive study of the Bible that led the students at Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, in 1900-01 to expect a baptism in the Spirit with the accompanying sign of speaking in tongues. When they in fact experienced precisely what they thought the Bible was teaching, they were then able to affirm the continuity between biblical concept and experiential reality.74 Note that in talking about biblical truth being promulgated, Menzies is talking about the idea of biblical truth being passed on as authoritative. Thus, here he is discussing how experience functions in relationship to the principle of Scriptural authority. Though experience does not establish doctrine, it does verify the authoritative truth derived from Scripture. In the case of the students at Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, the students first came to believe, on the basis of their study of Scripture, that speaking in tongues accompanied the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In a similar way, a person may, because of experience, change his or her mind about a biblical teaching or practice. Jack Deere, former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, tells how he knew of the biblical accounts of healings and other spiritual gifts but did not believe they were for the Church today. His doctrine was this: I knew that God no longer gave the
42
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Then he began to have experiences which convinced him that in fact the charismata are for the Church today. In his words, he was surprised by the Holy Spirit.75 For Deere, experience verified the contemporary validity of this particular doctrine and practice. Besides verification, there is yet another dimension that experience brings to the hermeneutical spiral. At the verification level, the reader has at least already been exposed to a truth in Scripture. Experience then follows as an affirmation, a verification. Both the students at Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, in 1900-01 and Jack Deere serve as examples. But sometimes we may not be aware of any specific teaching in Scripture that relates to our experience. We experience something dynamic that we are not expecting. It is unusual, fresh, and transforming. Here we are referring to what should be termed extrabiblical experiences, experiences not clearly found in Scripture. Although these experiences may not have clear biblical precedents, nevertheless, if we believe they are authentic experiences of the Spirit, we may conclude that what we have learned from them should influence our understanding of doctrine and practice. In practice Pentecostals have held to this notion from the beginning of the Pentecostal movement. For example, Pentecostals believe in (doctrine) and experience (practice) what they term being slain in the Spirit, dancing in the Spirit, and laughing in the Spirit. These are extrabiblical in that they are not plainly taught in the New Testament. Yet, many hold them to be acceptable, contemporary Pentecostal practices. Pentecostals believe that even though these experiences are extrabiblical, that does not mean they are contra-
43
biblical.76 Certainly if such extrabiblical experiences are also contrabiblical, then obviously they are not authentic and should not be allowed to continue. But if extrabiblical experiences are not contrabiblical, Pentecostals believe they are worthy spiritual experiences in which God is doing special supernatural works in the lives of believers. There are broad Scriptural principles, norms, and truths by which these and other experiences must be judged. These events occur and they have this impact precisely because God cannot be confined to the theological boxes framed by human dogma or limited to even the historical examples He himself has provided in the Bible. He is so infinite and His ways of relating to humankind are so dynamic, we must always be open to being surprised by the Spirits activity. Thomas F. Torrance suggests that a theology faithful to what God has revealed and done in Jesus Christ must involve a powerful element of apocalyptic, that is epistemologically speaking, an eschatological suspension of logical form in order to keep our thought ever open to what is radically new.77 As God promised, He is pouring out His Spirit in these last days! Therefore, we must always be open to the Spirit revealing God to us in wonderfully fresh and dynamic ways. So again I submit that there is another important dimension that spiritual experiences add to the hermeneutical spiral. In that this dimension of understanding is grounded in the experiences of our spiritual existence as Gods people, we might term it the existential level. Here we are not suggesting or implying that God is adding any uniquely new revelation beyond that revealed in the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ. The canon of Scripture is closed, but God,
44
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
in keeping with His inherent character, certainly is still actively revealing himself in the personal and corporate experiences of those who respond positively to His Spirit. And Pentecostals affirm that Scripture is the final rule for faith and practice. But Pentecostals also agree with Bloesch who discusses how that often in our present situation the creative, transforming power of Godseizes us and points us in a new direction. We agree that [r]evelation happened in a final and definitive form in the apostolic encounter with Jesus Christ. And the inspired record and interpretation of that is provided for us in the New Testament. However, revelation happens again and again in the experience of the Spirit of Christ.78 Certainly we recognize that the idea of allowing such extrabiblical experiences to influence doctrine and practice raises serious concerns. As already noted, all experiences are subjective and open to personal interpretation and application. Certainly these extrabiblical experiences could, and admittedly sometimes do, lend themselves to generating excessive, extreme, and even totally erroneous teachings. When this happens, remedies must be sought and implemented. No matter what experiences may indicate, doctrines and practices that are contrary to biblical principles, norms, and truths must not be allowed. The Bible must continue to be the final rule for faith and practice. Further, any and all teachings and practices that are derived from extrabiblical experiences must also be controlled. That is, even if they do not seem to be contrary to biblical teachings, if they are excessive or extreme, they must be guarded against. The apostle Paul provides principles for this in 1 Corinthians 1214. A detailed discussion of them in this paper is not pos-
45
sible. Here it must be sufficient to note that, for example, Paul insists that even utterances in tongues, which are inspired by the Spirit and are clearly biblical manifestations, must be controlled. Certainly, then, he would likewise insist that extrabiblical practices be properly controlled. Also, phenomena that are associated with extrabiblical experiences, even if one believes they are of the Spirit, must never be set forth as norms and should never be developed into standard doctrines and practices for the Church. There must be safeguards. But Pentecostals hold that sola scriptura does not mean that authentic extrabiblical spiritual experiences have no role in influencing doctrine and practice. Rather, to have adequate and relevant doctrines and practices, we must allow the Spirits dynamic work among believers in the Church to influence our understanding. Pentecostals consider the emphasis on personal, existential experiences with God to be a strength. As Anderson notes, they are not unnerved by the search for a theological explanation for a divine act that has been experienced but not understood. Pentecostals hold that the potential of experiences leading to extreme, excessive, and erroneous doctrines and practices should not result in our restricting the dynamic work of the Spirit. They recognize that allowing experiences to influence doctrines and practices can lead into existential subjectivism. However, they contend that this does not have to be the case. The solution is a balanced relationship between the influence of experience and sola scriptura. The safeguard with regard to experiences, as Anderson discusses, is a continued commitment to the truth and authority of the Bible.79
46
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
CONCLUSION
The doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture is vitally important to the contemporary Church. In Scripture, God has given to humanity the official account of His redemptive activities along with their official interpretation through uniquely inspired prophets and apostles. Scripture is special revelation in that it provides divine knowledge, understanding, and wisdom beyond that normally accessible by human reasoning. Without Scripture the Church would have no objective standard for knowing and understanding God and His will. In Scripture, believers both individually and collectively (as the Church) find divine direction for life and ministryhow to fulfill Gods purposes. Since the beginning of the Church the principle of Scriptures authority has often been compromised and challenged, bringing serious threat to the vitality and effectiveness of the Church. By the Middle Ages, Scriptures final authority was largely compromised by the place given to Church traditions. But by far the most significant threat has evolved from the eighteenth-century Enlightenment milieu. Although competent Bible-believing scholars have provided welldeveloped responses to this threat, the continuing negative effect remains substantial throughout much of modern society. Therefore, the Church must continue uncompromisingly to reaffirm and properly apply the principle of sola scriptura recovered during the sixteenth-century Reformation. The principle of sola scriptura has to do with how Scripture functions in the Churchs endeavor of developing and maintaining contemporary doctrine and practice. In modern times, this is usually stated simply
47
as Scripture is the final rule of faith and practice. Scripture never stands totally and absolutely alone. That is, when sola scriptura is properly understood and applied, both Church tradition and experience function in a dynamic relationship with Scripture. Each one of the three has an influence upon and is influenced by the other two. Scripture, however, is the final rule of faith and practice in that all Church traditions and all experiences must be judged and monitored by Scripture. Church traditions and experiences are all a part of the preunderstandings that affect our understanding of Scripture. Also, the eternal truths of Scripture become practically and effectively authoritative in contemporary culture through the doctrines and practices of the Church and in the experiences of Gods people. Church tradition is valid and worthy only when it is true to the teachings of Scripture and when it makes those teachings effectively relevant and applicable in contemporary culture. Therefore, Church tradition must remain genuinely amenable to Scripture and open to modification in view of contemporary needs. Church tradition must not be allowed to become rigid in form and dominate over Scripture. Experience also has an important function relative to the authority of Scripture. Experience influences the Churchs understanding of Scripture. Also, the Bible is experienced as authoritative as the Holy Spirit works in and through Scripture in the lives of individuals and the Church collectively. Thus, the authority of Scripture issues forth in relevant and vital doctrines and practices when these describe current, lived experiences of Gods people. We must especially always remain open to the supernatural dimension of the Scriptures authoritative message when the Spirit does something surprisingly transform-
48
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
ing, opening our hearts and minds to unique and fresh works of an infinitely creative and dynamic God.
Endnotes
Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), 29. 2 Clark H. Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984), ix. 3 Colin Brown, Kant, Immanuel, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 599-600. 4 Colin Brown, Enlightenment, The, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 355-356. 5 This definition of inspiration is intended to state the evangelical position commonly called verbal-plenary. This position means that inspiration includes the thoughts and words of Scripture; all parts of Scripture are equally inspired. See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1968), 26-36; and John R. Higgins, Gods Inspired Word, in Systematic Theology, Revised Edition, ed. Stanley M. Horton (Springfield, Mo.: Logion, 1995), 93-101. 6 For an excellent articulation of the reasonableness of the verbal-plenary inspiration position, the reader could see Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 200-203; or Carl F. H. Henry, Bible, Inspiration of, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 145-147. Henrys article is the most extensive. Also, see Higgins, 81-101, in Systematic Theology. 7 Pinnock, Scripture Principle, xix. 8 Carl F. H. Henry, God Who Speaks and Shows, vol. 4 of God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1970), 148-149. 9 In other words, verbal-plenary inspiration does not mean or imply verbal dictation. 10 Henry, God Who Speaks, 155 (my emphasis). 11 Erickson, Christian Theology, 190. 12 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
1
THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE What the apostle John says concerning the works of Jesus is also true concerning any attempt to write a full revelation of God: I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written (John 21:25). 14 Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994), 26. 15 Henry, God Who Speaks, 37, 42. 16 Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 16. 17 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 56. 18 See David M. Howard, An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody, 1993), 37-38, where he emphasizes that Scripture is special revelation not only in that it provides the inspired record of Gods redemptive activities but also in that it provides the inspired interpretation of those activities, revealing their divine meaning and significance. 19 Pinnock, Scripture Principle, xv. 20 Henry, God Who Speaks, 75. 21 Ibid., 12, 42. 22 Pinnock, Scripture Principle, x-xi. 23 George E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 53. 24 Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 130-152. 25 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 81-104. A more thorough discussion of the various kinds of biblical criticism is provided by F. F. Bruce, Biblical Criticism, in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity, 1988), 93-96. Also, Carl F. H. Henry, God Who Speaks and Shows, vol. 4 of God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1970), provides a good general discussion of the challenge to biblical authority in the chapter The Modern Revolt against Authority, 7-23. 26 Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 80. 27 Clark H. Pinnock, How I Use the Bible in Doing Theology, in The Use of the Bible in Theology/Evangelical Options, ed. Robert K. Johnston (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 34. 28 John Van Engen, Tradition, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 1104. 29 Edward J. Yarnold, Tradition, in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, ed. Alister E.
13
49
50
JOHN W. WYCKOFF McGrath (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1995), 643-644. 30 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 142. 31 Pinnock, Doing Theology, 34. 32 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 142. 33 Ibid., 145, 148. 34 Van Engen, Tradition, 1104; Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 79. 35 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 146. 36 Pinnock, Doing Theology, 34; also, see Paul Valliere, Tradition, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 15, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillian, 1987), 4. 37 Bromiley notes: The dangers of creed-making are obvious. Creeds can become formal, complex, and abstract.They can be superimposed on Scripture. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Creed, Creeds, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 284. 38 William W. Menzies, Anointed to Serve (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 116. 39 Minutes, First General Council of the Assemblies of God, 1914, 4. 40 W. Menzies, Anointed, 118. 41 Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1994). 42 By creedalism I mean undue insistence upon traditional statements of belief. Websters Third New International Dictionary, s.v. creedalism. More specifically, creedalism is the practice of allowing creedal statements to gain an authoritative stature either beside or above Scripture. 43 Minutes, Fourth General Council of the Assemblies of God, 1916, 10-13. 44 This sentence was added as early as 1920. Combined minutes of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, 1914-1920, 12. 45 Minutes, Fourth General Council of the Assemblies of God, 1916, 10. 46 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 151. 47 Preamble paragraph of the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths. 48 Robert K. Johnston, Of Tidy Doctrine and Truncated Experience, Christianity Today (February 18, 1977): 11. 49 Scott A. Ellington, Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture, Journal of Pentecostal Theology (9:1996): 22.
THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE A term borrowed from James B. Shelton, Epistemology and Authority in the Acts of the Apostles (Springfield, Mo.: unpublished paper presented at the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 1113 March 1999), 6. Sheltons discussion of the problems related to extreme rationalism is very helpful. I must, however, disagree with his overly negative view of sola scriptura. He seems to believe it is inherently rationalistic. But the problem is not with the concept itself but rather with the rationalistic approach that has been imposed upon it since the turn of the twentieth century. Sheltons solution to the problem of extreme rationalism, which is discussed later, does not necessitate discarding sola scriptura. 51 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 40-45, 67. 52 Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 156-157, 174. 53 Shelton, Epistemology and Authority, 11. 54 Johnston, Of Tidy Doctrine, 11. 55 Ellington, Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture, 24. 56 Ibid., 17-18. 57 James Alfred Martin, Jr., Religious Experience, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 12, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillian, 1987), 328. 58 James Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 84 (my emphasis). 59 Pinnock, Scripture Principle, 156. 60 Ellington, Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture, 21. 61 Johnston, Of Tidy Doctrine, 11. 62 Ellington, Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture, 21. 63 Ibid., 25, 27. 64 A. Berkely Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 44-47. 65 Gordon L. Anderson, Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part 1, Paraclete (Winter 1994): 2. 66 Roger Stronstad, Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics, Paraclete (Winter 1988): 19. 67 Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 104. 68 William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993), 114. For a complete discussion of this, see pages 87-115.
50
51
52
JOHN W. WYCKOFF
69
Stronstad, Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics,
14.
70 71
Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 53. Ellington, Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,
30. Stronstad, Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics, 17, 21. 73 Leon Morris, Spirit of the Living God: The Bibles Teaching on the Holy Spirit (London: InterVarsity, 1960), 64-65. 74 William W. Menzies, The Methodology of Pentecostal Theology: An Essay on Hermeneutics, in Essays on Apostolic Themes, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1985), 12-14. 75 Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 14-32. 76 See Russell P. Spittler, Spirituality, Pentecostal and Charismatic, in Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 804-809, where Spittler discusses other similar Pentecostal and Charismatic practices that are based upon extrabiblical experiences. Concerning proxy prayer he says: There is no biblical precedent for the action, nor any injunction against it (p. 806). The same is true for the other extrabiblical practices noted above. 77 Thomas F. Torrance, Theological Science (London: Oxford University, 1969), 280. 78 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 50, 53. 79 Anderson, Pentecostal Hermeneutics, Part I, 1, 4, 10.
72
2 Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal, Postmodern World

Wave E. Nunnally, Jr.
Introduction
Historically, the responses of Pentecostalism to the challenges of liberalism, modernism, and postmodernism have been minimal and ineffective. Pentecostals have seldom taken the time to understand the origins and presuppositions of these movements. Their presuppositions, methodologies, and conclusions have usually been the objects of our derision and polemics, but we have yet to engage them where the battle can truly be won: the battlefield of ideas. In the past, we have reacted to liberalism in three ways. We have ignored it (Rudolf who?); we have made light of it (And they want us to believe the whole Egyptian army drowned in six inches of water right!); and we have responded to their substantive challenges with simplistic sound bites (God said it; I believe it; that settles it!). The results of these approaches have been negligible. Because we have not won the war of ideas, the other side continues to set the agenda. They control the col-
53
54
WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.
leges and universities. They are the darlings of the print and visual media. They educate our sons and daughters. They write the majority of the textbooks, commentaries, and reference works. Recently, matters have only become worse. In previous generations, the liberal approach to Scripture was in full display largely in their rarefied and theologically correct atmosphere of seminaries and elite universities.1 Now, after decades of success in the absence of effective conservative rebuttal, liberals have become emboldened. John Dominic Crosson has noted: [There was an] implicit dealyou scholars can go off to the universities and write in the journals and say anything you want. [But now] the scholars are coming out of the closet.2 Richard Ostling has observed that liberal scholars are now in the midst of an all-out offensive, demanding that the general public pay attention to the way they think.3 This new offensive has taken many forms. A flurry of books such as Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (Crosson), The Lost Gospel, and The Five Gospels (both by Burton Mack) are popularizing a revised version of Jesus no orthodox reader of Scripture would recognize. When the major TV networks do human interest segments on Christianity (usually around Christmas and Easter), the reporters instinctively run to liberal scholars such as members of the Jesus Seminar (see below). On June 26, 2000, Peter Jennings (ABC) did a two-hour, prime-time documentary entitled The Search for Jesus. All but two of the scholars interviewed were of the liberal persuasion. Popular magazines such as Time and Newsweek regularly feature articles such as A Lesser Child of God: The Radical Jesus Seminar Sees a Different Christ.4 Even an average daily newspaper
PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD
55
may lead with an article headlined A Controversial Work Rethinks the Gospels. In this case, the subtitle was really no subtitle at all, for in bold, oversized print, the title continued, Did Early Christians Put Words in Jesus Mouth?5 Popular TV shows such as The View, Oprah, Seventh Heaven, and Touched by an Angel bombard the public daily with the worldviews of liberalism and postmodernism.6 On a recent episode of a primetime show a Christian Science couple was on trial for failure to seek medical help for their child, who died as a result. At one point in the investigation, one of the lead characters stated, One guys faith is no more right than the next guys.7 The point is this: A threshold has been crossed. Your deacons now have this on their coffee tables. Your Sunday School teachers read this in their newspapers. Your Junior Bible quizzers watch this on their TVs. Its on the Internet, sitcoms, the radio. Worse yet, it has struck a nerve with the public. Not only does all this attention to spiritual things fit perfectly with the publics heightened interest in spirituality; a nonauthoritative, non-exclusive gospel is considerably more comfortable to the nature of fallen humanity and the current politically correct cultural climate. As pastors, proclaimers, and parents, our work is cut out for us. The liberal worldview is dominant, entrenched, and strident. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Making light of it risks making us look like fools. And trite sermons with three points which all begin with the letter c no longer impress anyone because they often fail to effectively engage the issues. Our pews are now filled with parishioners who have adopted a postmodern mentality. Most are not even aware of it, but it is there. The average person on the
56
street, who may scoff at philosophy as irrelevant and vote Republican, is postmodern to the core with respect to how he or she understands the world and the nature of truth. Things have changed. We no longer have the luxury of a congregation that accepts what we say because we are who we are or because we have a Bible verse to hang it on. (Maybe this is a good thing!) Gone are the days when people in our community respond with an inherent sense of respect for us, our church, or the Bible. People inside and outside the church are a harder sell, and those of us who wish to communicate effectively to them will have to be better versed in what we offer. Admittedly, this was not our choice: The change was made without consulting us. How we respond, however, is our choice. How, then, should we respond? First, we must respond with sensitivity. We can no longer simply shrug off this movement with statements such as, Itll pass. Thats their problem, not mine. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. And I never signed on for thisIm just a simple pastor with a simple gospel. Instead, we have to adopt the attitude that motivated Jesus and Paul (Luke 19:10; 1 Cor. 9:22): to pursue people where they are and to care enough to refine our method without changing our message. Looking at liberals and postmoderns as the enemy will be as selfdefeating as our previous indifference. They are not the enemy: They are the mission field! Second, we must respond with substance. In this new environment, clichs, sounds bites, and bumper-sticker theology will not suffice. No amount of stomping, spitting, and shouting will tip the balance back in our favor. Flights of hermeneutical fancy relabeled revela-
57
tion knowledge will not win the battle. We must begin to articulate a clear message backed by substance and the ring of biblical reality. We will also have to care enough about people to educate ourselves as to what they have come to believe and learn how to counter with life-giving truth.
LIBERALISM
The following is a sketch of the history and basic tenets of classical liberalism. (A more comprehensive treatment of these subjects may of course be found in libraries and on the Internet.) Some may question why as conservative Christians they should even waste their time. Graham Johnston answers: Understanding the assumptions, beliefs, and values of your listeners will enable communicators to connect in areas of common ground and shared interest.[B]iblical communication to [this] culture should be approached in the same way that a missionary goes into a foreign culture. No missionary worth his salt would enter a field without first doing an exhaustive study of the culture he or she seeks to reach.8 Therefore, we must educate ourselves about liberalism and postmodernism before we attempt to formulate responses to them. The liberalism we see today in science, politics, economics, morality, and religion has its roots in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.9 These movements awakened in man a renewed desire to understand his world. There were many positive results of these movements, such as modern science, democracy, and increased literacy. As with most movements, however, there was a downside. One downside was the tenden-
58
cy toward rationalism. The tendency was to eliminate all irrational and disorderly aspects of life.10 Human reason became the highest authority. Descartes taught that the primary aspects of human nature are autonomy and rationality. Sir Isaac Newton believed that the natural world functioned like a machine, governed by laws and perfect regularity; he believed it was possible to understand everything in the world through human reason. The next logical step was for man to see himself as the master of the world, able to improve both himself and his environment through technology.11 In this way man becomes the center of his world and his reality.12 These radical shifts in the way humanity, the natural world, and reality were viewed were inevitably applied to faith. David Hume and Immanuel Kant maintained that any part of Scripture which could not be upheld by human reason was invalid. Human reason eventually came to be seen as independent of and superior to divine revelation. The authority of Scripture soon began to suffer when human reason became the primary criterion for determining its legitimacy. After Scripture was demoted from its place of primary authority, its position was eventually given to ongoing religious experience.13 By 1799, Friedrich Schleiermacher was describing the essence of religion as a certain sort of feeling or awareness. He insisted that all legitimate doctrine ultimately rests on experience. Nancey Murphy notes that [l]iberal theologians since Schleiermacher have followed him in taking human religious experience as a starting point for theology[and thus] doctrine is to be evaluated in light of experience, never the reverse.14 Existentialism is in large measure a reassertion of this
59
emphasis. Gene Edward Veith summarizes the three major developmental stages of classical liberalism in this way: During the Age of Reason of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, many theologians jettisoned the supernatural teachings of Scripture in an effort to turn Christianity into a rational religion. When the rationalistic vogue gave way to the emotional focus of the nineteenth century Romanticism, the liberal theologians changed their tune and taught that Christianity is a matter of religious feelings [and in this respect Schleiermacher was a pioneer]. After Darwin, Romanticism gave way to a trust in utopian social progress, and the liberal theologians said thats what Christianity is all about.15 In other words, liberalism is not entirely objective. Nor is it entirely static and detached from popular cultural shifts. Rather, it derived from, and has continued to morph in response to, trends that have come and gone in the culture at large. Protestantism in general and Pentecostalism in particular have seldom shown a discernable difference from classical liberalism in this respect. It should be noted that at this point, liberalism had made a radical departure from historic orthodoxy. The Christian church had always maintained that primacy of Scripture, and with the Reformation, Protestantism had asserted the cardinal doctrine of sola scriptura (matters of doctrine and practice are to be determined by Scripture alone). It should also be noted that throughout its history Pentecostalism has flirted with the tendency to determine matters of faith and practice on the basis of experience and personal revelation. This is clearly the trend in certain quarters today as well. The official position of the Assemblies of God, however, is articulated in the first of the Statement of Fundamental
60
Truths and reflects the position of historic orthodoxy and sola scriptura. The current trend should be cause for real alarm; history indicates that abandonment of belief in the primacy of Scripture was the first step toward theological liberalism.16 In this context, the historical-critical approach to Scripture was developed. Since human reason could not account for the supernatural, then divine revelation as the origin of Scripture could no longer be maintained. Soon Reuss, Graf, and Wellhausen were advocating a Pentateuch of purely human origin. Next, this approach was applied to the New Testament when Gotthold Lessings New Hypotheses Concerning the Evangelists Regarded as Merely Human Historians was published posthumously in 1784. His stated goal was to destroy this hateful edifice of nonsense [Christianity]on the pretense of furnishing new bases for it.17 Once liberals made the claim of possessing the scientific, rational approach to Scripture, Anyone who declined to play along with this game of hypothesis building, preferring instead to ground his thinking in the clear and reliable Word of God, was denounced as unscientific.18 Eta Linnemann has noted, however, that the liberal approach to Scripture is more ideology (presuppositions) than scientific methodology. In Is There a Synoptic Problem? she catalogs the major figures involved in the beginning of the historical-critical movement and demonstrates that the vast majority consisted of philosophers and poets who were not trained in theology, biblical languages, and the like. Instead, they appear to have been motivated by a desire to avoid the obligation to adhere to the clear teachings of Scripture.19
61
BULTMANNIANISM
Perhaps the best-known form of liberalism is Bultmannianism. Rudolf Bultmann was most active in the middle of the last century. He insisted that the New Testament documents consist not of reliable reports of what actually happened or was said; rather, the New Testament reflects the message of the later church. Entire books, like the Gospel of John, were summarily dismissed as unreliable. The other Gospels were also suspect because they were all products of Hellenistic Christianity, which was chronologically, geographically, and linguistically far removed from the original events.20 For Bultmann, as for many liberals before him, the Jesus of the Scriptures was mythologized from the very beginnings of earliest Christianity.[T]he early Christian community thus regarded him as a mythological figure.His person is viewed in the light of mythology when he is said to have been begotten of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, and this becomes clearer still in Hellenistic Christian communities where he is understood to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense, a great pre-existent heavenly being who became man for the sake of our redemption and took on himself suffering, even the suffering of the cross. It is evident that such conceptions are mythological, for they were widespread in the historical person of Jesus. [This] is part of the Gnostic doctrine of redemption and nobody hesitates to call this doctrine mythological.21 Since the assertions of the New Testament about the person and work of Jesus cannot be taken seriously by rational, modern men, Bultmann raises this question: What is the importance of the preaching of Jesus and
62
the preaching of the New Testament as a whole for modern man? He answers his own question decisively: For modern man the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer, and of redemption, are over and done with. Is it possible to expect that we shall make asacrificium intellectus [a sacrifice of the intellect, or reason] in order to accept what we cannot sincerely consider truemerely because such conceptions are suggested by the Bible? Or ought we to pass over those sayings of the New Testament which contain such mythological conceptions and to select other sayings which are not stumbling-blocks to modern man?[T]he worldview of Scripture is mythological and is therefore unacceptable to modern man whose thinking is shaped by science and is therefore no longer mythological.Nobody reckons with direct intervention by transcendent powers.The science of today is no longer the same as it was in the nineteenth century, and to be sure, all the results of science are relative, and no worldview of yesterday or today or tomorrow is definitive.Therefore, modern man acknowledges as reality only such phenomena or events as are comprehensible within the framework of the rational order of the universe. He does not acknowledge miracles because they do not fit into this lawful order.22 Therefore, Bultmann suggests that passages which attribute divinity and the supernatural to Christ be deemphasized in favor of Jesus high ethical and moral teachings. This process of sorting out that which is of eternal moral and ethical significance from religions and cultural overlays of a superstitious, pre-scientific world he calls de-mythologizing.23 Problems associated with this methodology are man-
63
ifold. One can easily note the connection to the exaltation of human reason (over divine revelation) and antisupernaturalism first observed in the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. Humanity and human intellectual ability become the center. The foundations of the faith are fluid, not fixed, and are subject to the progress of man. The methodology is subjective. Because there are no controls and all scholars are free to discard and keep what they wish, there is seldom universal agreement among them on any conclusion.24 The methodology is often arbitrary. For example, the presupposition is that the testimony of the New Testament is suspect. In addition, one of Bultmanns primary criteria for rejecting a passage as inauthentic was the criterion of dissimilarity. If a passage is too similar to Judaism or too similar to practice or theology that emerged in the Early Church, it cant be original and should be ignored. Darrell L. Bock has appropriately criticized this approach, noting, Then Jesus becomes a decidedly odd figure, totally detached from his cultural heritage and ideologically estranged from the movement he is responsible for founding.25 In this way, however, modern man had set up his own criteria to determine which parts of the testimony will be accepted and which will not. In the end, the version of the gospel that emerged bore a distinct resemblance to post-Enlightenment, liberal Christianity. Liberalism had refashioned Christianity in its own image. Conservative Pentecostalism, however, has often been guilty of the same transgressions. We have acculturated the gospel; we have used essentially the same hermeneutics; we have exercised a pick-and-choose approach to what we will emphasize. Worse yet, in many quarters, there has been a decided de-emphasis
64
on the person and work of Jesus in favor of His teaching. Moralistic, self-help, and how-to messages abound in our circles, while little time is devoted to the person and work of Jesus. One Assemblies of God scholar recently analyzed almost two hundred sermons preached from our pulpits. In 85 percent of these messages, there was absolutely nothing of substance about who Jesus was and what He did. It would seem that we have been as heavily affected by the culture at large as the liberals. They would have been happy with that status quo, and the drift toward greater and greater liberalization has continued. Are we willing to live with our status quo? If so, we will have to be willing to live with the fallout.
THE JESUS SEMINAR

Among the movements spawned by Bultmanns approach is the Jesus Seminar (see Introduction). Scot McKnight has observed that the modern-day Jesus Seminar is heavily indebted to the scholarship [that is, the presuppositions, methodology, and conclusions] of the post-Bultmannian[s].26 These scholars are making many of the same claims originally heard from Bultmann himself. They see most of the material as deriving from the later gentile, Hellenistic church. Thus, they insist that the Gospels contain little eyewitness testimony, if any. The same anti-supernatural tendencies can also be found, such as the denial of true predictive prophecy.27 For Dominic Crosson, Jesus deification was akin to the worship of Augustus Caesara mixture of myth, propaganda and social convention. The virgin birth in Bethlehem and Jesus Davidic ancestry is retrospective mythmaking.
65
Lukes birth narratives are pure fiction, a creation of [his] own imagination. For Crosson, the demon possession Jesus encountered was actually a metaphor for Roman imperialism. Crosson considers the Resurrection to be latter-day wishful thinking. In reality, he says, the body was probably consumed by dogs. Fellow Jesus Seminar member Burton Mack concurs. He states, The narrative Gospels have no claim as historical accounts. The Gospels are imaginative creations. For the Jesus Seminar, eighty-two percent of Jesus words are inauthentic,28 based on the application of criteria suspiciously similar to that employed by Bultmann. So what is it that the Jesus Seminar actually accepts? Teachings about the holiness of the simple life. They accept verses such as Turn the other cheek, Love your enemies, and Rejoice when reproached.29 In other words, the Jesus Seminar, much like their liberal predecessors, has latched exclusively onto the moral and ethical aspects of New Testament revelation. Before we dismiss the Jesus Seminar and their conclusions as too far out to be taken seriously, lets remember the information discussed in the introduction. They have gone public, dominating most media outlets. Their message is now available for general consumption twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. They are not limited to 30 to 45 minutes each Sunday morning, and their audience numbers not in the hundreds or even thousands, but in the millions. Perhaps most importantly, their message comports perfectly with the tendencies of what the apostle Paul describes as the old man.30 The vigor with which members of the Jesus Seminar press their message requires that we take their challenges seriously. If we fail to engage them on
66
the issues, their opinions will win the day and, worse, the minds in the marketplace.
POSTMODERNISM
It cannot be claimed that postmodernism is the direct spiritual descendent of liberalism, Bultmannianism, and the Jesus Seminar. However, it can be said that these movements prepared the cultural soil in which postmodernism currently flourishes. Further, like its predecessors, postmodernism is not limited to elite intellectual and philosophical circles of our world. D. Lyon has noted that this worldview has affected the earthy realities of everyday lifewhat people actually do at home, at work, at play. It has touched every area of our lives: the cultural, aesthetic and intellectual dimensions[as well] as the social, political and economic ones.31 How does postmodernism compare to its predecessors in terms of influence? Diogenes Allen states, A massive intellectual revolution is taking place that is perhaps as great as that which marked off the modern world from the Middle Ages. The foundations of the modern world are collapsing, and we are entering a post-modern world. The principles forged during the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1780), which formed the foundations of the modern mentality, are crumbling.32 David Buttrick describes the situation in similar terms, [We are] in the midst of a cultural breakdown not dissimilar to the collapse of the Greco-Roman world or the fragmentation of the Medieval synthesis.33 The changes underway are so drastic and the challenges are so great that Johnston notes that postmodern thought is the main battleground for this century.34
67
Stanley J. Grenz explains the origins of postmodernism as the quest to move beyond modernism. Specifically, it involves a rejection of the modern mindset, but launched [was birthed] under the conditions of modernity.35 Craig A. Loscalzo has observed that the worldview of the Enlightenment was captured by Descartes famous dictum, I think, therefore I am (actually plagiarized from St. Augustine!). The worldview of postmodernism, however, could well be characterized by a slight but significant revision, I doubt, therefore I am.36 Further, Loscalzo notes that, reflecting the spirit of the times, postmodern thought is dominated by skepticism, pessimism, and suspicion.37 Postmodernism is skeptical of the faith which modernity and liberalism have placed in the fundamental goodness, reason, rationality, and objectivity of humanity. Having observed the continued wars and pollution of the earth, it is not convinced of the inevitability of human progress. Postmodernism is skeptical about the powers of empirical observation and the promise of unlimited technological progress.38 On the positive side, postmodernism enthusiastically embraces the subjective, the spiritual, and the supernaturalwhich modernism and liberalism summarily dismissed as irrational and unscientific.39 D. Howell has identified some of the primary characteristics of the postmodern movement: the value of self, importance of relationships, desire for community, concern for the world, tolerance, and commitment to spiritual pursuits.40 Thus far, it would appear that postmodernism is the perfect antidote to the excesses of modernism and liberalism. A closer look, however, reveals the problemat-
68
ic philosophical presuppositions which underlie the movement. Howell states that the emphasis on the value of self has led to poor choices in the area of morals and ethics in general and sexuality in particular. Concerning the importance of relationships, emphasis on image and greater peer pressure have also been a negative factor. While concern for the world can lead and has led to positive expressions such as advocacy for equality, fairness, and human rights, it has also fueled extremist animal rights and environmental movements. Tolerance is not merely allowing competing views to exist and be heard; it is insistence that no view is any better than another. To the postmodern mind, all positions must be accepted as equally valid. This is nowhere more evident than in spiritual matters, where it is just as legitimate to seek answers in astrology, native religions, shamanism, or Wicca as in western religious expressions.41 What would cause such an overthrow of the philosophical underpinnings of western civilization? The basic premise of postmodernism is that relativism rules.42 The concept of absolute truth is completely rejected.43 Truth is relative. Instead of truth being an objective, external reality, it is merely a belief in the mind of its holder. Therefore, one persons opinion is as valid as anothers,44 and each person becomes his or her own authority.45 This is not only the case with respect to the details; it is also true with respect to the big picture, the metanarrative (that is, the story that makes sense out of it all).46 To postmoderns, the metanarrative is merely the view of those in power used to keep those out of power in check.47 All these characteristics and beliefs directly influence how our culture has come to understand the church,
69
the Scriptures, and the faith. With respect to the influence on the church, pollster George Barna recently reported that sixty-two percent of born-again Christians no longer believe in objective truth.48 Lyon has observed that modern outlooks and lifestyles are now taken so much for granted that many religious people do not even realize that they are influenced by or colluding with a system that may in some important ways be inimical to their faith commitments.49 Similarly, Loscalzo has noted, [I]ts obvious that church people have not escaped the effects of relativism.Our current context is permeated by the postmodern worldview.50 According to the Barna poll cited above, the percentages of those who accept postmodern views show little difference between those who claim to be born again and those who dont.51 Confronted by these realities we are forced to agree with D.A. Carson that most Christians have been so heavily influenced by postmodern culture that no thoughtful preacher can afford to ignore the problem.52 Johnston sounds the same note: [T]he postmodern mindset is not exclusive to the unchurched. Its shared by those folks who fill church sanctuaries each Sunday.[M]any pastors would be surprised at how postmodern some longstanding members seem. Postmodern thinking creeps into our lives not necessarily through conscious choices but through a steady bombardment via movies, magazines, song, and television. Our congregations gather each Sunday and nod at the appropriate spots in the sermon, but in their hearts many parishioners hold deep-seated beliefs and values more in keeping with a postmodern worldview than with a biblical one.53
70
As for the Scriptures, postmodernism has been less kind than modernism and liberalism. Previous movements were simply selective; postmodern thought questions the legitimacy of the whole. Further, this has nothing to do with liberal objections on historical or text-critical grounds. Rather, postmodern rejection of Scriptures authority rests on dismissing the very concept of absolute truth itself.54 To the postmodern, the message of Scripture is no more eternal than a fleeting e-mail message. Further, it must compete with a plethora of other messages, having no more right to be heard than the next.55 The Bible is often placed on equal footing with other sacred books such as the Koran and the Hindu Vedas. Even those who tentatively accept biblical authority quickly fall back on Thats your interpretation, not mine, when the message of Scripture runs contrary to the postmodern worldview.56 This can be seen in Christian and non-Christian circles, among laity and clergy alike. Loscalzo has observed that people subjectively interpret Jesus according to their immediate personal needs and presuppositions. If your bent is psychology, then Jesus looks like the great therapist. If you lean toward social action, Jesus becomes the divine social activist. If you are a feminist, Jesus sounds like the keynote speaker for the National Organization for Women. If you are an evangelical, Jesus becomes the local director of Promise Keepers.57 In other words, postmodern thought has so affected proclamation in the church that some pulpits are actually promoting, rather than confronting, the movement in its rejection of absolutes. We fear sounding judgmental, doctrinaire, divisive, fundamentalist, and irrelevant, so in the words of Loscalzo, our ser-
71
mons become mundane chatter about raising self-actualized children or coping with the latest midlife crisis or providing five easy steps for managing anxiety.58 Thomas C. Oden notes that evangelicals are looking more and more like the old liberals. Less and less is being heard from our pulpits about the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the sinful human nature, and the need for redemption. We hear more about the goodness of God than we hear about Gods willingness to judge mankind in its rebellion against Him. He observes, We have peeled the onion almost down to nothing. We have cheated our young people out of the hard but necessary Christian word about human sin and divine redemption.59 Loscalzo reports a conversation with the pastor of a fairly successful seeker-based congregation who explained: We never mention the crucifixion of Christ. Its too gruesome for a lot of our folk. If we talked about that, many would stop coming, so we focus on the resurrection instead. The resurrection of Jesus is a positive hopeful message.60 Loscalzos commentary on this conversation hits the nail squarely on the head: [W]hen we allow the subjectivism of our hearers to undermine the objective realities of Christian faith, havent we violated the integrity of the gospel? Wed be better off staying quiet and letting the rocks preach than to offer a version of Christianity so diluted that it becomes unrecognizable.61 In this general trend toward the subjective, Johnston has detected a particularly large shift in the way sin and self are discussed. He states, [The] shift from sin to self-image reflects a move not just in society but in the church. We have replaced a fundamentally theological perspective with a psychological approach to life
72
and the world. Sadly, much of what passes as biblical preaching is nothing more than pop psychology wrapped in poor exegesis.62 He concludes that the church desperately needs to help its people develop a truly biblical view of self and a truly biblical worldview.63 Further, Johnston rightly observes that this subjectivist approach to the Scriptures has generated a slip in the morality of the church. He cites the example of former President Bill Clinton, who was asked in an interview how he reconciles his acceptance of the authority of Scripture with his acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. His response was predictable: Its all a matter of personal interpretation!64 Another example of this same mentality is seen in a recent front-page story of a newspaper in the Midwest (some would say the Bible Belt). The story begins, Louie Keen says its possible to be a good Christian and operate a porn store and a strip club. Despite owning and operating an exotic dance club, adult novelty shop, tattoo salon, and packageliquor store, the owner declares, Im saved! Im washed in the blood of Jesus Christ. How does he reconcile this disparity between his belief system and his behavior? In perfect postmodern form: [M]y personal relationship with Jesus has nothing to do with this here [referring to his multi-acre complex].65 Unfortunately, he is another victim of a worldview which facilitates cognitive dissonance (simultaneously holding two contradictory positions), dichotomizing thought and action, belief and behavior. Johnston predicts continued problems in the areas of morality and justice should these trends continue unchecked. He appropriately warns that any sense of community, indeed, society, cannot survive without some commonly held sense of
73
decency and right and wrong.66 Lyon concurs, stating that the lack of universals causes even the most basic and time-tested virtues (such as heterosexual monogamous marriage) to suffer.67 Because the Scriptures have been abandoned as either the source or a source of authority, postmoderns look for that authority elsewhere. A. H. Anderson has observed, [Postmodernity has] rejected both modernitys scientific objectivity and premodernitys traditions [including the authority of the Bible] and have emphasized the validity of subjective religious experience.68 Grenz agrees, noting that truth is not certain, objectivity is not possible. There are paths to knowledge better than reason, namely, the emotions and the intuition.[R]eality is relative.69 The situation described above indeed appears bleak; unfortunately, a further element renders it dire. At the very time when society at large has abandoned objective, absolute truth and is in need of the prophetic voice of the church to call it back to its senses, the church has run headlong into the same error. Time and again we hear preachers make their own subjective spiritual experiences normative. Our home Bible studies often devolve into this is what the Bible means to me sessions. A colleague once asked me, How can I deny my own experience? I told him, Do what Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell should have donehold up your experience to the scrutiny of Scripture. A few years back at the height of Rodney Howard-Brownes popularity, a pastor told me, On the basis of my experience, I will never read Acts 2:4 and Ephesians 5:18 the same. The statement of Jack Deere, former Dallas Theological Seminary professor-turned-CharismaticpreacherGod is bypassing the mind to get to the
74
hearthas been embraced in many Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Just a few years ago, speakers in national forums were saying that there were certain teachings and experiences that were not to be judged according to Scripture. These few examples are classic cases of putting the cart before the horse. If the checkered histories of the Gnostics, the Montanists, the medieval mystics, and some other groups tell us anything, it is that experience is to be understood in light of Scripture and not vice versa. They also suggest the degree to which believers can be shaped by the very culture they should be shaping. A healthy emphasis on experience becomes unhealthy when it comes to function as an unquestioned source of authority, equal, and sometimes superior, to the authority of the Bible. In this is it possible for a Spirit-baptized believer to commit the same error made by the liberal and postmodernist?
RESPONSES
In light of the state of the culture and the church, how will we as Pentecostal proclaimers respond to these challenges? Indeed, will we respond, or will our response be to continue with business as usual? C. Trueman has observed that the future of the various movements which constitute Protestantism will be determined by their response to the issues raised by postmodernity.70 Chuck Colson calls for action: We cannot content ourselves with business as usual, preaching soothing sermons to a shrinking number of true believers.71 Loscalzo states the matter even more emphatically: For Christians to assume they can do business as usual and remain a player in the world of multiple religious options bor-
75
ders on the ridiculous.72 Johnston therefore offers this challenge: The church can choose to bury its head in the sand or, equally disastrous, attempt to turn back the clock to the good old days. Neither option works. The former is unadvisable and the latter impossible.The way forward for the Christian faith will be for evangelical Christians to stop shrugging or twitching at the mention of postmodernism, and get on with engaging the culture with Gods timeless message in a critical and thoughtful manner.73 If we are to accept Johnstons challenge and if we are serious about influencing our world, it will require a number of adjustments and a considerable amount of hard work. The following list of changes that will have to take place provides only a starting point. If these foundational (and therefore more difficult) changes are made, then the other related issues that surface will be more easily dealt with. Reestablish the Primacy of Scripture Johnston has noted that a primary responsibility of the proclaimer today is simply to compel people to take the Bible seriously again.74 According to author Michael J. Hostettler, the modern preacher can no longer presume that his hearers accept the Bible as relevant; rather, now they must be able to demonstrate it.75 Once the minds of hearers are convinced that the Bible is important and relevant, Loscalzo states that the next step is to convince the hearers that the Bible is the basis for faith.76 In order to make these claims, we ourselves must first be convinced of the reliability, sufficiency, and primacy of Scriptures.77 We must recall that Pentecost began as a back-to-the-Bible movement that took biblical revelation seriously enough to believe that it
76
describes what God still does. As recent, numerous resolutions and Spiritual Life Committee reports have called for, we must do more than give mental assent to the first of our Statement of Fundamental Truths. We must actively place the Word of God at the center of who we are, what we say, and what we do. The Scriptures as our eternal, objective authority is the antidote to the subjectivism, relativism, and existentialism of this age. As stated above, it will require that we return to our original Pentecostal roots and reject the idea that experience trumps Scripture in matters of faith and practice. In the official publication of the Azusa Street revival, William J. Seymour stated, We are measuring everything by the Word, every experience must measure up with the Bible. Some say that is going too far, but if we have lived too close to the Word, we will settle that with the Lord when we meet him in the air.78 Besides emulating Seymour, we will have to shift emphasis away from ourselves as authority figures and back onto Scripture, where it belongs.79 When we show ourselves as human, fallible, and transparent, we become role models of total dependence on the Word of God, and people quickly get the picture. To do otherwise will continue to alienate a postmodern culture, which despises the arrogance of [pastoral] infallibility.80 Further, we will have to renounce our faith in the Gospel of Pragmatism. Loscalzo states that many preachers have toned down their messages to suit the new sensitivities of their hearers, hoping to avoid running them off to mega churches.81 Another side of the tendency toward pragmatism is discussed by Johnston: When you know the right switches to flip, you may be tempted to preach in order to garner a response. But
77
just because something works doesnt make it right or biblical. A preacher may completely mishandle a text, close with a heart-wrenching story of a boy and his dog, and have people repenting up and down the aisles. [However,] effectiveness must be understood in terms of bringing the listeners to a clear appreciation of the biblical message.82 Therefore, the issue is not what works or what gets results; rather, our first priority must be what pleases God and what honors His Word.83 I attended a national conference in the mid-90s. One seminar was begun by a nationally known authority on youth ministry with this question, Do you want to know what really works in youth ministry? This is exactly the right question for corporate America, but runs exactly in the opposite direction of biblical Christianity. For the Christian minister, when evaluating a priority, a plan, or an emphasis, the question to be asked is, What will please God, reflect His character, honor His Word, respect His people? Too often we have taken on the modus operandi of the business world, reflected in statements such as, If it works, use it, and With these results, Gods blessing must be on it. If this attitude is correct, then it must also apply to slavery, herding Native Americans off their lands and onto reservations, and to Nazism. All of these approaches to dealing with people succeededfor a while. All, however, dishonored the character and will of God as expressed in His Word. While each seemed to work, they all violated eternal principles, and eventually fell under their own weight, leaving only destruction. We must recommit ourselves to do Gods will Gods way, and this can happen only when Gods Word is the center of who we are, what we
78
do, and how we do it. Another sacrifice that will have to be made to reestablish the Scriptures as the center of who we are is our emphasis on entertainment. Howell has observed that in an attempt to address the problem of declining attendance, many churches have resorted to an entertainment-oriented format to attract more people. With this approach, however, comes the riskof following the culture, elevating style over content, and providing yet another experience.84 Trueman has noticed the same trend: The shift away from pulpit-centered worship, with its emphasis on wordsto more corporate and experiential emphases can itself be seen as a part of the more general shift away from verbal-literary to a visual orientation in contemporary western culture.Th[is] change in emphasis upon the word in Protestantism has also affected the position of the Bible.85 Throughout the course of the last quarter of a century in which I have been involved in Pentecost, there has been an overall decrease in the amount of time devoted to the preaching of the Word in church services. In the 1970s, it was not unusual to hear 45- to 60-minute sermons. In critique of mainline denominations, Pentecostal preachers would often say, Sermonettes produce Christianettes, and the like. Interestingly, such statements are no longer heard in our circles. The primary reason for this is that our sermons are often as short as those we used to critique, if not shorter. We have opted for a plethora of other emphases, including extended and often repetitious song services, drama, skits, human videos, and interpretive dance. Not content with a special at offertory, churches often feature an array of vocal and/or instrumental solos that
79
rival many variety shows. In such contexts we as leaders are often the most to blame for promoting a performance or entertainment mentality. To be sure, this is unintentional, but when we encourage clapping in response to ministry instead of a verbal, biblical response such as Amen or Praise the Name of the Lord, hearers naturally connect this to the typical response to live entertainment. Likewise, use of terminology such as stage (versus platform) and audience (versus congregation) sends messages to our hearers that frame us as actors, them as spectators, and church as entertainment. All these expressions of worship are fine in and of themselves. In the current environment, however, the proclamation of the Word of God has suffered as a result, and this has in turn resulted in a weakened church and a diminished view of Scripture. Johnston alerts us to an unfortunate development: People in the postmodern world tend to confuse truth and entertainment.86 Therefore, we should not construct our services in such a way that they exacerbate that confusion. And why further abbreviate the already limited time we have to influence our hearers with the Word of God? Our culture gets the other 167 hours of each week to influence them. It is incumbent upon us to make the very most of this one hour that is allotted to us. In determining what we will prioritize in our services, we should keep in mind the concerns of Doug Webster that while marketers seek popularity[w]e are becoming secularized by the culture we are trying to reach with the gospel.Loss ofpopularity should not concern a church that ought to be more worried about losing its soul than about gaining the whole world.87 To reach our culture with the liberating mes-
80
sage of Gods Word, it is imperative that we reemphasize the ministry of proclamation. Dont Compromise the Message According to Ravi Zacharias, Every generation will try to get [preachers] to change the message.We are called to be faithful to our calling in the Word.88 Johnston reminds us that we can ill afford to become so pragmatic that we accommodate our message to modern sensitivities.89 Lesslie Newbigin warns against allowing the world to dictate the issues and the terms.[When] the world is not challenged at its depth [it] absorbs and domesticates the gospel and uses it to sacralize its own purposes.90 Given liberalisms questions and postmodernisms lack of absolutes, our culture is crying out for a clear, confident testimony based on the facts, which has always been the strength of Christian witness (1 John 1:1-3).91 More specifically, in light of the pluralism of todays religious environment, it is absolutely essential that we press the exclusive claim of Christianity to be the truth. We must argue effectively and persuasively for the uniqueness of Jesus as the only means of atonement and the only way to the Father. Loscalzo states that our effectivenesswill stand or fall on our ability to defend this claim.92 Recommit Ourselves to Christocentric Preaching Practically every evangelical author writing on the subject of how to affect modernism and postmodernism shares this common thread: We must return to Christcentered preaching. On this point, Loscalzo is insistent: Jesus Christ should be the subject and object of Christian preaching. He should certainly be the central figure of oursermons. Apologetic preaching
81
should be Christocentric. The complete and full measure of Jesus Christ remains crucial if our apologetic endeavors are to be faithful [to the Word]. I have heard of some seeker-targeted churchessome, not allthat have removed all vestiges of the cross, both physical and verbal, from their gatherings. No mention of Jesus suffering or death is ever made. They say they dont want to offend seekers with a concept as gruesome and offensive as crucifying someone.[T]his kind of practicecould be called deception.93 To be sure, the cross of Christ is as much a stumbling block and foolishness today as it was two thousand years ago, but it is still the greatest expression of the power and wisdom of God that the world will ever know (see 1 Cor. 1:2324). It was this message, so antithetical to the world of that time, that the first-century church preached with unflinching fidelity. God honored it, and it was this message that turned the world upside down. Return to Substantive, Reality-based Proclamation Thoughtful messagesmessages with real substanceare what our liberal, postmodern world cries out for. Johnston has observed that people have become accustomed to being lied to and manipulated and calls on ministers of the gospel to do the opposite, helping our listeners know that we have nothing to gain by deceiving them.94 In addition, modern listeners want reality. Gen-X author Dieter Zander adds, Dont give me six easy steps to keep joy in my life. I know life is not easy.95 Loscalzo elaborates: Timid sermons that dismiss sticky issues of Christian faith, sermons that water down the demands of the gospel, pabulum preaching pleasing to peoples ears but unable to offer
82
transformed lives will be transparent to the skeptical lenses of postmodernity.More than anything, the postmodern world expects authenticity. If our preaching offers anything less, for Gods sake let us shut up and let the stones themselves cry out.96 Time has long past for us to shed our clichs, theatrics, emphasis on style over content, over-emphasis on the messenger, and get back to the basics of the message. In the last analysis, it is not our performance but the eternal message of the gospel that truly transforms lives. Rediscover the Importance of Apologetics Today, true apologetics (defending the tenets of orthodox faith) has fallen on hard times. Theology and doctrine are de-emphasized. It is not polite to be confrontational, and it is politically correct to show proper respect to those who think or believe differently. No one wants to appear judgmental or be labeled a heresy-hunter. While this may be true today, it has most assuredly not been the case throughout the course of Christian history. From Jesus (Matt. 23) to Paul (Acts 17 and 22; Phil. 1:7) to John (Rev. 2:14,15,20) to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, and Francis Shaeffer, Christian leaders throughout the ages have humbly yet powerfully confronted other religious systems and argued for a hearing for Christianitys unique beliefs. Authors who write on the subjects of liberalism and postmodernism are calling for a revival of the apologetic ministry in Christian pulpits today. They see this as a necessity for successfully meeting the challenge of communicating the gospel to todays culture. For example, Loscalzo states: [I]n the current cultural climate of pluralism and relativismwhat one might call a neo-pagan culturethe ground for evangelism will have
83
to be properly furrowed and prepared by effective apologetics.For the third millennium, apologetics and evangelism must go hand in hand.97 This is because [a]pologetic preaching unashamedly takes on rival meaning systems and helps address obstacles to faith. The smorgasbord of religious options open to postmodernists rivals the array at any cafeteria. Other religious systemsIslam, New Age, varieties of Eastern cultic religionsunapologetically vie for postmodern peoples attention and allegiance. Apologetic preaching equips Christians, intellectually and spiritually, to intelligently present and defend the Christian faith. [For the unbeliever,]apologetics creates a climate favorable to faith.98 As noted above, however, [f]or Christians to assume they can do business as usual and remain a player in the world of multiple religious options borders on the ridiculous.99 We are reminded by the apostle Peter that this is not an option: Always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).100 Emphasize Education Apologetics and thoughtful, substantive sermons are rare today, perhaps because they require hard work. We preachers often object that we are not theologians or apologistsbut we will have to be if we want to engage todays audience. Citing George Hunter III, Johnston relates that most people today doubt the intelligence, relevance, and credibility of the church and its advocates.101 Fifty years ago ministers were usually the most educated people in their community. This is not the case today. In many communities they are below
84
the average educational level. In any event, people are reading and thinking for themselves. They are influenced by far more voices claiming authority than the voice of the minister alone. It is time we preachers upped our game. Modern listeners expect and demand that communicators be widely informed.102 It is no longer enough to simply know ones Bible. We must also be familiar with the issues and concerns confronting us in this culture. Johnston notes, Its a shame when fellow preachers write off even the attempt to engage our culture and state, Why bother? Its deemed a waste [of time] to [do outside reading].103 The unsaved world, however, does not limit itself to TBN and Charisma magazine. As communicators of the gospel we must keep up with what is going into the minds of our congregants, our children, and the unsaved we want to reach. We have to be informed so we can reach the world at the level of ideas. This is what Jesus and Paul did so well. It is their role model we need to follow, not the Christian version of Whats Hot and Whats Not. How do we handle the Word with sensitivity, become apologists and theologians, and get to know our world as well as a missionary does his prospective field of ministry? We discipline ourselves to read. We do serious study. We take courses in continuing ed programs. In other words, we commit ourselves to the task of being life-long learners. Loscalzo suggests that to do less amounts to ministerial malpractice and should not be tolerated by churches.104 The time has come to apply ourselves. Our world is wallowing in subjectivity and relativism, and at the same time crying out for reality. We must take it as our responsibility to give exactly that. I have visited many
85
churches where copies of Charisma magazine are prominently displayed in the waiting room. In only one instance did I come across Biblical Archaeology Review. Not surprisingly, therefore, some of the most astounding archeological discoveries in history, making recent news, have received little or no notice in our pulpits. Examples of this are myriad, but simply think back and see if you can remember any mention of the Jesus Boat, the Tel Dan Inscription (which proved once and for all that David was a historical figure), or the discovery of the Tomb of Caiaphas. Since the story of the ossuary of James broke in October 2002, I have been following it closely. It has been publicized as the most significant New Testament archeological discovery in history. Having asked students from all over the country about it in the last few months, however, I have had only one say it was mentioned from the pulpit of her church. Why not take such events as opportunities to proclaim a historically- and factually-based gospel to a world that questions the existence of absolutes? We do not have to continue in the current mode of creating stories to support what we believe. For example, when Kathleen Kenyon excavated Jericho from 1952 to 1966 she proclaimed it an unwalled village in the time of Joshua. Pentecostal apologists quickly rebutted, Of course you found no wallsthe angels pushed them straight down into the ground! Not only did we sound foolish; we also rewrote Scripture, for Joshua 6:20 indicates the wall fell down flat (NASB). Instead, why did we not train and fund individuals to reinvestigate this liberals claim? Eventually, this is what Bryant Wood did, and he found the wall exactly where it was supposed to be.105 The point is this: There are enough objective, historical, factual realities available to support our positions
86
that we do not need to manufacture them. Instead, we need to discipline ourselves to study to show ourselves approved. There is no need for us to perpetuate modern myths like the rope around the High Priests leg/waist (which cannot be found in Scripture or any other ancient source) when we have such inscriptions as James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus. Reality is sensational and convincing enough. We need only to educate ourselves about it! Moreover, thinking of our liberal and postmodern world as a mission field, we will need to begin putting more emphasis, effort, and money into preparing ourselves to harvest it. For one thing, we must reach our own culture so we can continue to be the sending and giving nation that we are. Given this situation, we must bring more content to the lectern and pulpit than our parishioners are able to get on-line or from a study Bible; we must continue to train ourselves, and promote the training of others. For example, a facility in biblical languages is a tremendous enhancement to teaching and preaching. Up to this point, liberals have had what amounted to a monopoly on language studies. Consequently, we have had to rely on their sometimes tendentious commentaries and lexicons. However, liberal universities have taught their students that the Bible is mere literature for so long that today their students are opting out of serious language study. This has left the door open for students who accept the Bible as the Word of God to make great stridesif well encourage them. With respect to the laity, the church is also woefully unprepared to meet these challenges. Since the media has taught us to let them do the thinking for us, Johnston suggests that part of the pastors mission is to
87
help [parishioners] rediscover truth for themselves as opposed to having ideas dropped into their lap.106 He also notes that by helping our laity develop their critical thinking skills, they can increase their awareness; in time, theyll become critically discerning of the messages they receive.You can also educate people to evaluate the underlying, inherent messages [of liberal and postmodern thought].107 In so doing, the pastor will be following Pauls defensive, preventive advice for steadying the believer (Ephesians 4:14). But what about the offensive, evangelistic aspects of Pauls injunction (verse 12)? Loscalzo issues both a warning and a challenge to those of us who wish to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the Body of Christ: [A] survey of contemporary Christianity would be a church membership with little reflection on or understanding of the implications of Christian faith. If the typical congregant were asked to make a defense for the hope they hold, Im afraid the results would be less than admirable.Christianity will not survive into the third millennium with believers who cannot articulate and make defense of their faith. Aloof, apathetic, comfortable Christianity will not survive the twenty-first century.A key role of apologetic preaching is to provide believers with the wherewithal to make that defense.[A]pologetic preaching becomes basic training for church members to present and defend their Christian faith. It could be argued that the pulpit is not the proper venue for such instruction.However, the gathering of folk in worship remains the best venue to allow a congregation as a whole to know and be exposed to the issues facing them as believers.108
88
CONCLUSION
I have sought to convey the most basic aspects of liberal and postmodern thought, to candidly discuss some of the ways Pentecostalism has responded to and been affected by these movements, and to lay out a more effective strategy for the future. I hope this chapter has not only educated, but also challenged you to take action. The situation is not hopeless, but I think its close to that. God raised up the Pentecostal movement to be a witness. Although today the world looks significantly different from those early days, we are still to be His witnesses. In Neros day, the need was for faithful witnesses willing to suffer martyrdom. In William J. Seymours day, the need was for men and women open to the power of God and willing to suffer humiliation. In todays world, we need the resolve of these previous generations, plus the courage to suffereducation! Today, the flashpoint is not the executioners sword or tar and feathers; rather, it is the world of ideas, and we must be equipped to engage and affect our culture. Today we must shift our focus to Jesus and Paul as models. Both were well-equipped to deal with the competing worldviews of their day, and both were men of the Spirit and of power. The premium would not seem to rest on being either unschooled or educatedbut on being devoted and obedient. Yet today, fullness of the Spirit combined with excellence in education means a more powerful and effective Pentecostal witness to our liberal, postmodern world. May we display our love and devotion to God with all [our] heart and with all [our] soul and with all [our] strength and with all [our] mind (Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 22:37 and Mark 12:30).
89
RESOURCES FOR THE PASTOR*

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1987. Geivett, R. Douglas and Gary R. Habermas, eds. In Defense of Miracles. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997. Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Harper San Francisco, 2001 (originally published in 1952). _____. The Case for Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Arrowhead Springs, Cal.: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1972. _____. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, Cal.: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1975. _____. A Ready Defense: The Best of Josh McDowell. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990. Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003. Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Norris, Christopher. Whats Wrong with Postmodernism: Critical Theory and the Ends of Philosophy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1990 [not a primer!]. Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who Is There. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998.
*in addition to those already cited in the notes
90
Stott, John R. W. Basic Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1988. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. _____. The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Veith, Gene Edward. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994. Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message. Nashville: W Publishing Group (Thomas Nelson), 2002.
Endnotes
Richard Ostling, Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple: A Trinity of New, Scholarly Books Tries to Strip Away the Traditional Gospel Accounts of the Man from Nazareth, Time (January 10, 1994), 38. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Russell Watson, A Lesser Child of God: The Radical Jesus Seminar Sees a Different Christ, Newsweek (April 4, 1994), 53-54. 5 Dawn Peterson, A Controversial Work Rethinks the Gospels: Did Early Christians Put Words in Jesus Mouth? Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader (February 8, 1994), 1A, 6A. 6 See the list given by Graham Johnston in Preaching to a Postmodern World: A Guide to Reaching Twenty-first-Century Listeners (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 17. 7 The Practice (ABC, October 20, 2002). 8 Johnston, 9-10 (my emphasis). 9 D. Lyon, Modern and Postmodern Culture, in Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World (henceforth referred to as DCR), ed. Christopher Partridge (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002), 31.
1
PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD Ibid., 32. Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 3. 12 Ibid., 2. 13 Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997), 93-94. 14 Ibid., 94-95; cf. also 89. 15 Christianity and Culture: Gods Double Sovereignty posted at http://www.issuesetc.com/resource/archives/ veith2.htm, p.2, cited 28 December 2002. 16 An excellent example of this is the case study presented by Bradley J. Longfield in The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates (New York: Oxford, 1991). 17 This quote and the survey of the rise of the higher criticism (the historical-critical method) taken from Eta Linnemanns Is There a Synoptic Problem? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 12. This text, and even more so her earlier Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990) are devastating critiques of the liberal presuppositions and methodological approach to Scripture. Unfortunately, I have never once heard or seen her work referred to by Pentecostal preachers or writers. We have long held back from engaging the issues raised by liberalism. One of the primary reasons for this is evidently a feeling of inferiority in the areas of methodology and evidence. Linnemann has placed before us a mighty sword, but thus far we have failed to use it. 18 Linnemann, 12. 19 Linnemann, 9-12, 19-42. 20 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1958), 12-13. 21 Ibid., 16-17. 22 Ibid., 17, 36, 37 (all emphases his). 23 Ibid., 17-18. 24 Cf. Linnemann, 39, for a surprising example. 25 Darrell L. Bock, The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?, in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 90-91. 26 Scot McKnight, Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Jesus Studies, in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P.
10 11
91
92
WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 54. 27 Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, Introduction: The Furor Surrounding Jesus, in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 4. 28 Ostling, 38-39. 29 Ibid., 39. 30 Linnemann, 36. Here, she is describing the message of liberalism; the same, however, can be said of the message of the Jesus Seminar. 31 Lyon, 31-32. 32 Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989), 2. 33 David Buttrick, Speaking Between Times: Homiletics in a Postmodern World. (paper presented at the Academy of Homiletics, Durham, N. C., 13 December 1994), 2. 34 Johnston, 96. 35 Grenz, 2. 36 Craig A. Loscalzo, Apologetic Preaching: Proclaiming Christ to a Postmodern World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 18-19. 37 Ibid., 19. 38 Ibid., 14. 39 Johnston, 31; Lyon, 34. 40 D. Howell, Religion and Youth Culture, in DCR, 133; Johnston, 24. 41 Ibid. 42 Lyon, 31; Loscalzo, 68. 43 Loscalzo, 16, 68; Howell, 133. 44 Ibid., 18, 84. 45 Johnston, 24. 46 Howell, 133; Grenz, 6. 47 Johnston, 32-33. 48 Cited by Johnston, 16. 49 Lyon, 31. 50 Loscalzo, 85. 51 Cited by Johnston, 8, 16. 52 D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 47. 53 Johnston, 9, 15. 54 Cf. C. Trueman, Christianity (Protestant), in DCR, 203; Murphy, 110. 55 Lyon, 33.
PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD Johnston, 30. Loscalzo, 103-104. 58 Ibid., 12. 59 Thomas C. Oden, After ModernityWhat? Agenda for Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 168-169. 60 Loscalzo, 89. 61 Ibid. 62 Johnston, 71. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid., 30. 65 Eric Eckert, Fighting a Proliferation of Porn: Churches Buy I-44 Billboards to Counter Presence of Huge Adult Bookstores, Springfield (Mo) News-Leader (19 January 2003), A1. 66 Johnston, 31. 67 Lyon, 34. 68 A. H. Anderson, New Religious Movements in Christianity, in DCR, 300 (my emphasis). 69 Grenz, 7. Cf. Loscalzo, 86, and Johnston, 9, for similar analyses. 70 Trueman, 203 (my emphasis). 71 Charles Colson, cited in Johnston, 16. 72 Loscalzo, 126. 73 Johnston, 14 (my emphasis). 74 Ibid., 54. 75 Michael J. Hostettler, Introducing the Sermon: The Art of Compelling Beginnings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 68. 76 Loscalzo, 39. 77 Cf. Johnston, 90. 78 Apostolic Faith 1.9 (June-September 1907), 1. 79 Johnston, 94. 80 Ibid. 81 Loscalzo, 11. 82 Johnston, 62. 83 Ibid. 84 Howell, 134. 85 Trueman, 202-203; cf. Howell, 133. 86 Johnston, 49. 87 The concerns are those of Doug Webster; the actual words, however, are from the introduction to Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, ed. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), 22-23.
56 57
93
94
WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. Ravi Zacharias, Reaching the Happy Thinking Pagan, Leadership (Spring, 1995), 27. 89 Johnston, 61. 90 Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1989), 152. 91 Loscalzo, 68. 92 Ibid., 120. 93 Ibid., 119 (Loscalzos emphasis). You will recall the high percentage of this phenomenon in sermons surveyed in our circles, which indicates that this has become a problem in our Fellowship as well. I am aware of at least one instance in which one of our pastors stated for a local newspaper, We dont have crosses in our building, because the cross is a symbol of defeat. Here, we preach victory! Johnston appropriately comments on such license with the gospel, Distortions of Gods message, for whatever reason, are a disservice to the Lord; genuine concern for biblical integrity and ones listeners will demand that they come to understand [all] Gods truth (62). 94 Johnston, 69. 95 Cited in Johnston, 145. 96 Loscalzo, 22. 97 Ibid., 125 (my emphasis). 98 Ibid., 27-28. 99 Ibid., 126. 100 Cf. Loscalzos comments on this text on pp. 9, 126. 101 Johnston, 66. 102 Ibid., 79. 103 Ibid. 104 Loscalzo, 26. 105 Bryant G. Wood, Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence, Biblical Archaeology Review (March-April 1990), 44-58. 106 Johnston, 75 107 Ibid., 165. 108 Loscalzo, 128-130.
88
3 Inerrancy and Interpretation
Edgar R. Lee
The ministers role as interpreter of Scripture is an essential one which must be accepted and undertaken with great care. Whatever other important roles ministers are called upon to filland there are manytheir ordination first of all charges them with the proclamation of the Word of God: In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach [keruxon] the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encouragewith great patience and careful instruction (2 Timothy 4:1,2).1 The word for charge is the Greek verb diamarturomai, which has the sense to exhort with authority in matters of extraordinary importance,2 and is used frequently with reference to a divine power, here God himself. Receiving the charge, Timothy was in reality in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead and whose appearing and kingdom are imminent. The charge to preach the Word [keruxon ton logon] comes with a solemnity and urgency that can hardly be overestimated.
95
96
EDGAR R. LEE
THE WORD OF GOD

The Word to be preached is, of course, the Word of God, a consistent designation found throughout the New Testament.3 It is especially common in Pauls letters but he sometimes shortens Word of God to Word (as here and Galatians 6:6).4 Jesus and the New Testament writers, steeped in the Hebrew Bible where the word of the Lord (dabar YHWH)5 appears 241 times, naturally used the same language.6 There the most common formula is the word of the Lord came [to the prophet] for announcement to its intended recipients. Since 221 of the Old Testament references to the word of the Lord denote a prophetic word from Him, it has been observed that this phrase virtually represents a technical term for the prophetic revelation of the word.7 The revelatory word of the Lord is a concept that ties together both the Old and New Testaments and, in a real sense, the preaching ministries of both Testaments. The word of the Lord [God] in both Testaments denotes that the sovereign creator and Lord of the universe himself condescends to speak to fallen persons, whom He has made and in whom He has invested His image (Genesis 1:27). At His initiative, He sends His word through His chosen servants. The word of God is dynamic and effective, as Isaiah 55:11 demonstrates: So is my word (dabar) that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. The Hebrew dabar has the meaning of both the word itself and the thing it signifies. [I]n the word there is always contained something of the thing itself,the thing itself is only ever accessible in
INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION
97
the word, andthe word cannot be separated from its content nor the content from the word.8 That is to say, God is always personally involved in whatever He says to bring it to pass. The word of God is thus not only a means for conveying information, but is also a creative power that produces a positive effect. Utterance and deed are inextricably connected. 9 Although they use the nomenclature word of God, Jesus and the New Testament writers do not use the customary Old Testament formulae the word of the Lord came and thus says the Lord.10 Instead, Jesus came proclaiming the good news of God [kerusson to euangelion tou theou] and announcing the age of fulfillment. The time has come.The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news! (Mark 1:14,15). As a preacher and teacher Jesus spoke with personal authority, clarifying the meaning of Scripture or reinterpreting the texts the rabbis had twisted for their own purposes: You have heard that it was saidBut I tell you (Matthew 5:21,22; 27,28; 31,32; et al.).11 He also commissioned His disciples to be preachers and teachers of the word as He taught it to them by precept and example (Luke 9:1ff.; 10:1ff.; 24:47; Matthew 28:18-20). The commission was accompanied by the promise of His presence (Matthew 28:20) and the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49). When filled with the Holy Spirit on and after Pentecost, they spoke the word of God boldly (Acts 4:31). The word of God as preached by the first disciples is simply the Christian message, the gospel.12 The word is centered in the good news of Christ crucified for our sins and raised from the dead by a mighty demonstration of Gods power. Its core is discernible in Peters sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-39) as
98
EDGAR R. LEE
well as the other sermons of Acts (3:12-26; 4:8-12; 7:1-53; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 17:22-31; et al.). Its content is further fleshed out in the letters of the New Testament, the messages of which would by and large have been preached and taught in the early churches before being committed to writing.13 In missionary and evangelistic settings, the message of the cross and forgiveness of sins seem to have been paramount. In communicating to believers, doctrinal and ethical issues were regularly addressed. For the apostles, [the ministry of] the word of God (Acts 4:31; 6:2) was the focal point of their activity and they, like Paul, all understood that their message andpreaching came with a demonstration of the Spirits power (1 Corinthians 2:4). Throughout the New Testament, the word of God preached by the early Christians remains a selfrevealing message from God to humans, whom He wishes to bring into relationship with himself. Reminiscent of the Old Testament dabar, it is living and enduring (1 Peter 1:23), living and active (Hebrews 4:12), at work in [those] who believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17). With regard to the Spirit-filled believers activities, it is to be spoken boldly (Acts 4:31) and more courageously and fearlessly (Philippians 1:14). It is not to be distorted but set forth plainly (2 Corinthians 4:2). It is to be correctly handled (2 Timothy 2:15), presented in its fullness (Colossians 1:25), proclaimed (Acts 13:5), and taught (18:11). It is not to be peddled for profit (2 Corinthians 2:17). Acceptance of the word means conversion to Christ (Acts 8:14; 11:1) and as preaching elicits conversions, the word of God spreads (Acts 6:7). The emphasis throughout is upon a spoken word infused with the
99
power and presence of God as Jesus had promised, You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
A GOD-BREATHED BOOK
Both the Old Testament community, and the New Testament community after it, associated the word of God with a book. From the time of Moses onward, the word began to be written down, or inscripturated (Exodus 17:14; 24:4,7; 34:27; Numbers 33:1,2; Deuteronomy 31:9,11, et al.).14 It is not surprising that before Paul charged Timothy to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2), he first pointed him to the Scriptures: All Scripture [graphe]15 is Godbreathed [theopneustostheos (God) + pneo (to breathe)]16 and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). Note the paradoxical connectionthat which is Godbreathed can also be written down and communicated in and through a book. The Scriptures in this context would have referred to the Old Testament, which Paul and Timothy, with his Jewish maternal heritage (2 Timothy 1:5; Acts 16:1), had in common. Very quickly, however, the Early Church expanded its understanding of the Scriptures to include the New Testament writings we now regard as canonical.17 Certainly by the time 2 Peter was written, Pauls letters were regarded by the church to be among the Scriptures: His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures [graphas]
100
EDGAR R. LEE
(2 Peter 3:15,16). The very position in the canon of Pauls statement about the nature of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 has been taken to be providential and the church has come to understand it to apply to the entire canon.18 In any event, it is obvious that the written texts of the New Testament letters became more and more important in the spread of the young church (cf. Colossians 4:16). But our primary focus here is on the God-breathed [theopneustos] quality of Scripture. Addressing theopneustos, B. B. Warfield pointed out long ago that the Scriptures are the product of the creative breath of God and [t]he breath of God is in Scripture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. Warfield went on to cite Psalm 33:6, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.19 While Warfield attempted to build a strong lexical case to restrict the effect of theopneustos to the origin of Scripture and strongly rejected Hermann Cremers lexical reinterpretation of the term to mean breathing Gods Spirit,20 it nonetheless remains true that the Spirit is frequently seen as speaking or empowering the words of Scripture. Jesus prefaced one Scripture quotation with the assertion, David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared (Mark 12:36; cf. Matthew 22:43). In citing Isaiah, Paul said, The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers (Acts 28:25). The writer to the Hebrews wrote, The word of God is living and active (4:12) and regarded it not only as what God says (1:5,8,12,13; 4:3; et al.) but also what the Holy Spirit says (3:7). Rather than being merely a deposit of propositional truth about God and eternal life that people may rational-
101
ly examine as they would any other book, and choose to believe or not believe, Scripture as theopneustos[is] alive with the vitality of God, which He, himself, breathed into it when He created it.21 [I]t is penetrated and filled with the Holy Spirit. It is God-breathed, and the creative breath of God remains in and with Scripture.22 The theopneustia of Scripture is not a passive characteristic of Scripture but rather a vital saving activity.23 Without any implications of magic, Paul was saying to Timothy through the breath metaphor that the Bible was produced and continues to be energized by the presence and activity of God. It continues to express the mind of God and brings the power of God to the believing heart. Just as in the dabar YHWH in the Old Testament, God is both the originator and the continuing force in its ultimate victory and fulfillment. Peter captures something of this vitality of Scripture when He writes, For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). The verb phero means literally to bear or to bring but was occasionally used of the force of the wind on the sails of an ancient vessel driving it across the sea.24 The Holy Spirit is the divine agent who breathes out these divine words expressed in the human words of the unique and varied persons God chose and prepared to use. It is the Spirit who oversees both the inscripturation of these words into our Bible and their continuing relevance to searching hearts.
JESUS AND THE SCRIPTURES

The apostolic regard for Scripture simply follows that of Jesus, who demonstrated complete trust in its author-
102
EDGAR R. LEE
ity and reliability. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus affirmed without hesitation the perpetual accuracy and dependability of Gods Word: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). As has often been noted, Jesus made His point by apparently referring to the Hebrew yodh [ y ], the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and possibly the little horn, or projection characteristic of certain Hebrew letters, as beth [ b ] or daleth [ d ].25 Not one yodh or one horn (or brush stroke) of the Hebrew letters conveying the Law of God will disappear before it is all fulfilled (and the kingdom of God has come). Jesus went on to emphasize in no uncertain terms the responsibility of His disciples to believe and practice the Scriptures by sounding a negative judgment upon those who do not: Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19). To disregard and break even the least of the commandments, and to teach others to do so, jeopardized ones kingdom status. What appears, at first glance, to be almost an incidental saying in the Gospel of John further enhances Jesus absolute confidence in Scripture that was noted in Matthew: If he called them gods, to whom the word of God cameand the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). In this case, Jesus hung His whole argument on the one word gods in the Hebrew text of Psalm 82:6, which most might consider a very obscure passage of Scripture. Then, with regard to the truthfulness and reliability of that word, He immedi-
103
ately went on to state, The Scripture cannot be broken. Leon Morris comments, The term broken [luo] is not defined, and it is a word which is not often used of Scripture or the like (though it is so used in John 7:23 and cf. 5:18; Matt. 5:19). But it is perfectly intelligible. It means that Scripture cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous.26 That kind of confidence in Scripture was something Jesus and His Jewish adversaries held in common. What is significant here is that Jesus not only considered the Scriptures to be the Word of God, He considered them accurate and unassailable. Throughout Jesus life and ministry, the Scriptures were His source of spiritual wisdom and authority. They thoroughly shaped His worldview. Not only did He rely on the Scriptures in His teaching and debate, He turned to them in the crucial moments of His personal life. At the outset of His ministry He countered the attacks of the devil with Scripture (Matthew 4:7,10), and at the end of His ministry He interpreted His betrayal with it is written (Mark 14:21,27). The Scriptures were woven into the warp and woof of His life. R. T. France has identified 64 quotations or allusions to the Old Testament in the Synoptic Gospels alone, demonstrating how well the disciples understood Jesus sense of Scripture.27 It should be noted, however, that Jesus did not become a polemicist for the Scriptures; He simply lived, taught, and ministered out of the power of the Scriptures as the authoritative and absolutely trustworthy Word of God.
AN INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT BOOK

Guided by the regard of Jesus and the New Testament writers for the power and truthfulness of the
104
EDGAR R. LEE
Scriptures, historic Christianity has, in effect, always proclaimed the Bible to be infallible, thereby meaning it is completely truthful and without error. While there has not been a fully enunciated theory until modern times, nonetheless there was, down through the years of church history, a general belief in the complete dependability of the Bible.28 As the Bible in the modern era was subjected to more intense scientific scrutiny, the commonly used term infallibility became increasingly elastic among theologians and came to be understood in some quarters as applying only to the soteriological purposes of Scripture. The historical and scientific details under attack were not considered to be necessarily infallible. As a result, inerrancy has gradually come to be a more definitive term for evangelicals who wish to contend for the truthfulness of both the redemptive and historical details in Scripture. It should be remembered, of course, that the two terms infallibility and inerrancy are synonyms. Infallibility is derived from the Latin fallere, to deceive, err, and has as the first meaning not fallible; not capable of error; never wrong. Similarly, inerrant derives from the Latin errare, to wander, err, and has as its meaning not erring; making no mistake; infallible.29 The problem with the two terms is not in their lexical meanings; the problem is how different writers choose to define them. For its statement on Scripture, the Assemblies of God adopted the term infallibility, which was current and sufficiently definitive at the time, and, strictly speaking, remains so: The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Timothy 3:15-17;
105
1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).Statement of Fundamental Truths, No. 130. While inerrancy is among evangelicals the more popular term to describe Scripture accuracy today, there are still different meanings attached to it in opposing theological quarters. The watershed issue between them remains whether or not the Bible is true in just redemptive content (faith and practice) or whether it is true in all the facts that it affirms, including scientific and historical matters. While fine lines of distinction can be drawn between various scholars on both sides of the issue, this paper briefly will contrast two views: Full Inerrancy. Millard Erickson, an influential evangelical of Baptist persuasion, in his popular seminary textbook Christian Theology, uses this term. By full inerrancy Erickson affirms that the Bible in the original manuscripts (the autographa) is completely true even in historical and scientific details. He does, however, allow for what seems obvious in Scripture, that these details are often stated as general references or approximations.31 Doctrine and Practice Inerrancy. This term is used by Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider, who writes Wesleyan-holiness evangelicals hold the confidence that Scripture is inerrant on doctrine and practice but that it might contain error on matters relating to mathematics, science, geography, or such like.32 This view would be typical of others who might identify their positions by such terms as limited inerrancy or inerrancy of purpose.33 These positions are characterized by a general indifference to the historical and scientific accuracy of Scripture with regard to non-salvific details. There are many theologians, of course, for whom the
106
EDGAR R. LEE
whole infallibility/inerrancy debate is irrelevant to their understanding of divine revelation. Dealing with those positions is beyond the purview of this paper.34 At the height of the inerrancy debate in 1978, a group of prominent evangelical scholars under the auspices of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy came together to frame The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. With that statement, the inerrancy debate has largely receded into the background of contemporary theological discussion (though different camps have retained their distinctive views). The Chicago Statement reflects what may be termed a centrist evangelical understanding of inerrancy. Item four of the summary statement reads as follows: Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about Gods acts in creation and the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to Gods saving grace in individual lives.35 This understanding is essentially the full inerrancy position of Millard Erickson expressed above. It is the position I have adopted for the following four reasons: 1. The didactic teachings of the Bible, that is, what the Bible teaches about its own nature, declare it to be a trustworthy message from God accepted as such by Jesus and the New Testament writers. These teachings, some of which are spelled out in this paper, should be definitive in ones doctrine of Scripture. No New Testament writer ever suggested that Scripture errs. (There is nothing in the biblical text, however, to suggest that all subsequent copyists are protected from error, and the science of textual criticism does in fact recognize and correct errors of copyists, establishing the original text of ancient Scripture to an amazingly high degree.)
107
2. God who speaks truth and cannot lie is the final author of Scripture. Repeatedly all through the Bible there are attestations of Gods truthfulness. In Jesus high priestly prayer, He affirms to God, Your word is truth [aletheia, not alethes; that is, truth, not true] (John 17:17). Paul, writing to Titus, spoke of God, who does not lie (Titus 1:2). The writer to the Hebrews mentions things in which it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). Every word of God is flawless (Proverbs 30:5). Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens (Psalm 119:89). O Sovereign Lord, you are God! Your words are trustworthy, and you have promised these good things to your servant (2 Samuel 7:28). God is not a man, that he should lie (Numbers 23:19). Numerous other passages bear the same message. Truth is an attribute of God; it is manifested in Scripture.36 3. The Bible is a historical book that purports to give correct historical information. The trustworthiness of the Bible hinges on the accuracy of vital historical details. Grudem, for example, cites about 25 passages in the New Testament that refer to the historical details in the Old Testament, ranging from Jesus reference to Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:40) to Peters reference to Baalams donkey (2 Peter 2:16). This list indicates that the New Testament writers were willing to rely on the truthfulness of any part of the historical narratives of the Old Testament. No detail was too insignificant to be used for the instruction of New Testament Christians. There is no indication that they thought of a certain category of scriptural statements that were unreliable and untrustworthy (such as historical and scientific statements opposed to doctrinal and moral passages).37 The church has never rested its case for the authority of Scripture on its ability to prove every historical or scien-
108
EDGAR R. LEE
tific detail, feeling that theopneustic Scripture is selfauthenticating; nonetheless, the demonstrable historical accuracy of the Bible, written and compiled by many authors in a span of time well over 1,000 years, is truly amazing. Bruce Lewis and Gordon Demarest cite the following concession from Time magazine: After more than two centuries of facing the heaviest guns that could be brought to bear, the Bible has survived, and is perhaps better for the siege. Even on the critics own termshistorical factthe Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack.38 Donald Bloesch voices similar convictions. It should be noted that both archaeology and historical science tend for the most part to support rather than call into question the biblical accounts of historical events.39 Hostile critics have not given up the fight, but in the light of historical and archaeological research they speak with less and less authority. 4. If the Bible is proven to be in error in its historical and scientific details which humans can often verify, how can it be assumed to be reliable in matters of faith which they cannot verify? If the truth claims of a purported revelation can be shown to be false on a factual level, we can hardly claim it to represent the truth about God and man on any other level.40 Devout scholars have acknowledged throughout the history of the Church that there are some inconsistencies in the text of Scripture for which completely satisfying answers are not always immediately available.41 Some of those problem passages may be explained in terms of copyists errors. Others may be somewhat more difficult, but plausible solutions exist for all. Grudem observes, But while we must allow the possibility of being unable to solve a particular problem,
109
it should also be stated that there are many evangelical Bible scholars today who will say that they do not presently know of any problem texts for which there is no satisfactory solution.42 The Bible has a remarkable record of proven accuracy that the passage of time continues to embellish. Believers affirm that when all the facts are in, the Bible will continue to be proven true. Supporters of an errantist view of Scripture commonly apply the strict standards of modern technical and scientific writing to Scripture and thereby assume it to be in error. While the Church historically has insisted on the accuracy of Scripture on whatever matters it addresses, the Church has insisted that Scripture be understood in its particular cultural context. Erickson offers the following principles for an appropriate understanding of biblical inerrancy, which when rightly applied will resolve most of the questions raised about the reliability of the biblical text: 1. Inerrancy pertains to what is affirmed or asserted rather than what is merely reported. 2. We must judge the truthfulness of Scripture in terms of its meaning in the cultural setting in which its statements were expressed. 3. The Bibles assertions are fully true when judged in accordance with the purposes for which they were written. 4. Reports of historical events and scientific matters are in phenomenal rather than technical language. 5. Difficulties in explaining the biblical text should not be prejudged as indications of error.43 Finally, in seeking to demonstrate the accuracy of the facts of Scripture, it should not be assumed that the power of Scripture is tied to our ability to find acceptable solu-
110
EDGAR R. LEE
tions to every single Bible inconsistency that may be raised. As the late Kenneth Kantzer so aptly put it, Evangelicals do not try to prove that the Bible has no mistakes so that they can be sure the Bible is the Word of God. One might prove that a newspaper article is free from all mistakes, but that would not prove that the newspaper article is the Word of God. Christians hold the Bible to be the Word of God (and inerrant) because they are convinced that Jesus, the Lord of the church, believed it and taught His disciples to believe it. And ultimately their conviction of its truth rests on the witness of the Holy Spirit.44 It goes without saying that an effective preacher must have confidence in the truthfulness and dependability of the word of God written. The preacher must approach the text with the attitude of Jesus and the apostles that it is theopneustos, vibrant with the breath of God and utterly dependable. In the final analysis, that has everything to do with a personal knowledge of the Living Word.
AN INDWELLING WORD
With intense emphasis currently being on the theological, homiletical, and pastoral competence of the minister in preparation for a shifting postmodern environment, it is easy to forget that the Scriptures not only are to be learned and defended intellectually but also are to be internalized in a transformational way. As the Bible is engaged, the Spirit illuminates and quickens it to the hearts of willing and eager disciples. To be a believer in Christ is already to have received the indwelling Spirit, the very Spirit who inspired and breathed out the Word in the first place. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living [oikeo] in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will
111
also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives [enoikeoen in + oikeo lives] in you (Romans 8:11). Colossians 3:16, for example, has special import: Let the word of Christ richly dwell [enoikeo] within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God (NASB). The within you45 of this passage is addressed to all the people of God and has particular relevance to their meeting together and ministering to each other in the context of joyous worship. However, the pastor-preacher of the Word is a gifted leader of the congregation, in no small measure responsible for their teaching and admonition, and a leader and guide for their worship, which is a time of wise teaching and admonition, even in the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs! The pastorpreacher ministers through the illuminating and transforming Word that literally comes alive in him or her. F. F. Bruce suggests, It would dwell richly in their fellowship and in their hearts if they paid heed to what they heard, bowed to its authority, assimilated its lessons, and translated them into daily living.46 Similarly, John wrote, The word of God lives [meno] in you, and you have overcome the evil one (1 John 2:14). Paul told Timothy, Guard the good deposit [the Word of God] that was entrusted to youguard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives [enoikeo] in us (2 Timothy 1:14). The foregoing texts show that the theopneustic word has to be welcomed and cultivated in ones personal life. Therefore, the first responsibility for preachers is to ensure the vibrancy of the word for their own spiritual growth and that of their congregation. Preachers are not biblical technicians. The Bible is not to
112
EDGAR R. LEE
be superficially mined for clever sermons to tickle postmodern ears or to advance ambitious pastoral agendas. It is to be cultivated as the Living Word of God transforming both preacher and parishioner in the service of the kingdom of God.
INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES

The acid test for the preacher is the actual use of Scripture in ministry. The way Jesus used the Scriptures to address the crucial issues of His times is instructive. Most of the religious establishment came to despise Jesus because His preaching and miracles among the masses spoke to their needs and, in effect, challenged the establishment and the status quo. The Jerusalem religious leaders constantly spied on Him and made every effort to discredit both His teaching and His miraclesand shortly concluded that the only way to limit His influence was to kill Him. His teaching and preaching were always under scrutiny, and it was crucial for Him to accurately interpret and expound the Scriptures in very trying times. Several examples follow: Divorce (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). The Pharisees challenged Jesus to respond to a common Jewish controversy over divorce: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? (19:3). In posing the question, the Pharisees were reflecting their own divided opinions on the issue and wanted Jesus on the record. The school of Shammai taught that divorce was permitted only for marital unfaithfulness on the part of the wife. The school of Hillel taught that a wife could be divorced for any cause.47 Rather than overtly identify with either school (He seems to have been more in sympathy with the teaching of Shammai), Jesus turned directly to His
113
knowledge of the Scriptures and countered with the Genesis mandate of marriage as a permanent union under God, which humankind were not to fracture (Genesis 2:24). Then pressed for an explanation for Moses divorce law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), Jesus went on to explain, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard (19:8), and asserted that anyone who inappropriately divorced his wife was guilty of adultery (19:9). Jesus did not simply offer a technical explanation of the divorce law that would make divorce more or less difficult. He set the law within its larger context of Gods affirmation and protection of the marriage covenant and made unjustified divorce a moral issue at a time when divorce was a social problem. Taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22). As a part of their continuing efforts to trap Jesus, the Pharisees teamed up with the Herodians (apparently a political party supportive of Herodian leadership) and devised a doublededged plotto portray Jesus as either a Roman rebel or a Roman sympathizer. Their question: Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? (v. 17). There was no one text for Jesus to appeal to, so He called for a coin used for paying the tax. Presented with a Roman denarius, Jesus asked them about the identity of the portrait and the inscription. Caesars, they replied (v. 21). Despite their supposed aversion to images of Caesar, the Jews carried coins that bore his image and inscriptions of his divine claims.48 Aware of their hypocrisy, Jesus answered adroitly but in keeping with wider biblical revelation (cf. Romans 13:1-7; Jeremiah 29:4-7), Give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods (v. 21). Jesus upheld the legitimacy of government on the one hand without approving its sins on the other. The Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:34-40). The
114
EDGAR R. LEE
Pharisees also tried to draw Jesus into their debate about the greatest commandment in the Law. With His profound knowledge of the Scriptures, Jesus reached back, not directly to the Decalogue (Exodus 20:2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21) but to Deuteronomy 6:5, and responded, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (v. 37). He, drawing from Leviticus 19:18, then added, And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments (Matthew 22:37-40). This was an important question for the daily lives of Gods people and Jesus answered directly and definitively. These two commandments, although written outside the respective Decalogue texts, actually epitomize them and are indeed central to our Christian ethic.49 The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11). In this story, not present in the earliest manuscripts but one most commentators feel to be a historical account from the ministry of Jesus, a woman allegedly caught in the very act of adultery is brought to Jesus in order to test Him. That the situation has been contrived by the Jewish leaders is apparent in that the male adulterer has conveniently escaped. They pressed Jesus, In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say? (v. 5). Will Jesus uphold the Law by ordering her to be stoned, or will He appear to ignore or disobey the Law by arguing for her release? As one who came not to abolish the Law or the Prophetsbut to fulfill them and also to insist upon a righteousness surpassing that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law (Matthew 5:17,20), Jesus appeared caught on the horns of a dilemma. But challenged to uphold the literal command of Moses (Leviticus 20:10;
115
Deuteronomy 22:22 [which called for the execution of both the male and the female]), Jesus took a totally unexpected course and demonstrated His superior understanding of the Spirit of the Scriptures and the age of grace He was inaugurating. Without commenting on Moses command to execute, Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger (v. 6). Pressed for a response, He said, If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her (v. 7). Whether Jesus was writing names of women the accusers had been intimate with, as some think, is unclear but, in any event, they quickly dropped their argument and slunk away. Powerful males then, as too often now, held to a double standard and practiced a much looser sexual ethic than was expected of women. Joining righteousness and mercy, so crucial in the modern era as well, Jesus then charged the woman, Go now and leave your life of sin (v. 11). On reflection, Jesus as Gods eternal Word incarnate had learned not just the letter of the Law but also the spirit of the Law. He knew how to evaluate the full sweep of the Old Testament, identify the cardinal issues of faith, synthesize them, and set them in proper perspective. Jesus never skewed the Scriptures by seizing on one single proof text and interpreting it in such a way as to violate the larger context of biblical truth. He is the constant model for all interpreters as they handle the Living Word of God for their times.
CORRUPT AGENDAS IN INTERPRETATION

The perennial temptation of the clergy is to use Scripture to accomplish selfish, if ostensibly well-meaning, agendas. Preachers may use the Scriptures to assert
116
EDGAR R. LEE
and protect an ungodly and egotistical will-to-power, as, for example, in the oft-cited Psalm 105:15, Do not touch my anointed ones (which really in this context refers to Gods people as a whole, not just their leaders). Passages are sometimes stretched in their meanings to justify exorbitant salaries or benefits (e.g., Luke 10:7). Large and ultimately unsuccessful ministries and building programs have been launched on the perversion of various scriptural injunctions to give generously (e.g., 2 Corinthians 8:2ff). If sound doctrine will not get a crowd, itching ears will always respond to popular mythsand pay for the privilege (2 Timothy 4:3,4). In Matthews account of the temptation of Jesus, the devil took him to the highest point [pterugion, pinnacle or summit50] of the temple, usually thought to be the southeast corner of the temple wall, which soared high above the Kidron Valley. Then, the devil prodded Jesus to jump. Deploying an excellent technical knowledge of Scripture, the devil quoted Psalm 91:11,12, He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone (Matthew 4:6). If Jesus jumped, God would have to do a miracle to save Him, the devil reasoned; otherwise it was certain death. The miracle would presumably draw the attention of the people, thereby establishing Jesus as a powerful wonder-worker. He could immediately attain power and prestige without the pain of the cross. Jesus understood, however, that to leap from the temple wall would be an act of presumption against His Heavenly Father and would abort the redeeming path to the cross. So He responded to the devils corrupt manipulation of Scripture with Deuteronomy 6:16, Do not put the Lord your God to the test (Matthew 4:7).
117
The lessons to be drawn here are several: (1) The devil quotes out-of-context Scripture verses to preachers to turn them from the high road of an ethical and disciplined ministry of the gospel. (2) The temptations to twist Scripture for ones own selfish agendas are great. (3) Preachers who truly love God and reverence the God-breathed Scriptures will carefully evaluate those self-serving impulses to ensure accurate and responsible interpretation. Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).
THE HOLY SPIRIT IN INTERPRETATION

The Blessed Spirit is not only the true Author of the Written Word but also its supreme and true Expositor, said H. G. C. Moule.51 In the person and activity of the Holy Spirit, the Triune God sends divine assistance to the preacher of His Word who reverently and sincerely seeks His guidance. Jesus promised His followers, The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:26). This was first a promise of what has been called total recall for the apostles. But it correctly represents the ministry of the Spirit to all believers as they struggle to deliver the Word of God. Jesus did not promise that the Holy Spirit would make the preachers work easy, but it is clear that God sends His Spirit to faithful ministers of the gospel to quicken and illuminate them as they diligently and prayerfully interpret and apply the Scriptures in preaching. But the promise must not become a pretension of mystical insight to justify some esoteric, allegorical, or
118
EDGAR R. LEE
self-serving interpretation not rooted in the original intention of the author. Roy B. Zuck offers the following cautions, here adapted for brevity, as one seeks the guidance of the faithful, ever-present Spirit of Truth: 1. The role of the Spirit does not make ones interpretations infallible. 2. He does not give a hidden meaning divergent from the normal, literal meaning of the passage. 3. An interpreter living in sin is susceptible to inaccurate interpretation. 4. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth (John 16:13) [and struggles to steer one away from error]. 5. The Spirit does not normally give sudden intuitive flashes of insight into the meaning of Scripture. 6. The Bible was given to be understood by all believers52 [and the preachers exposition of a passage should likewise commend itself to all believers]. The Holy Spirit has a vested interest in powerful exposition of the Word, and He is a faithful friend and guide through all the study and prayer involved.
THE CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGE

Modern western culture is undoubtedly the most pervasive and invasive in all of history. Carried by television, radio, myriads of music media, newspapers, magazines, books, and so forth, it pours into every nook and cranny of life. Without the populations even recognizing what is happening, it sets contemporary worldviews and values, even preempting the teaching and preaching of the Church. George Barna recently pointed out that [m]ore than four out of five Americans claim to be
119
Christian and half as many can be classified as bornagain Christians. Nine out of ten adults own a Bible. Most adults read the Bible during the year and a huge majority claim they know all of the basic teachings of the Bible. How then can most people say Satan does not exist, that the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol, that eternal peace with God can be earned through good works, and that truth can only be understood through the lens of reason and experience? How can a plurality of our citizens contend that Jesus committed sins and the Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon all teach the same truths?53 What today passes for Christian life is often far more influenced by the culture than by the Scriptures. Culture has succeeded to an alarming degree in muting the voice of the Church with regard to personal and social ethics and public policy. Matters of personal lifestyle, doctrinal belief, personal and social ethics, and public policy desperately need responsible interpretation and application of Scripture so that the voice of God can be heard in the land. Pentecostal preachers must discover again the theopneustic qualities of an infallible Bible and faithfully interpret it for an increasingly skeptical and apathetic generation.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1994. ________. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Black, David Alan, and David S. Dockery, eds. New Testament Criticism & Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
120
EDGAR R. LEE
Bloesch, Donald G. Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994. Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew (NAC). Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Bromiley, Geoffrey W., gen. ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 4 vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-88. Brown, Colin, gen. ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-1978. Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ________. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Danker, Frederick William, rev. and ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Duduit, Michael, ed. Handbook of Contemporary Preaching. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Fee, Gordon D. Gods Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Goodrick, Edward W. Lets Put 2 Timothy 3:16 Back in the Bible, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25. No. 4 (December 1982) 479-487.
121
Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. 4, God Who Speaks and Shows. Waco, Tex: Word, 1979. Johnson, Alan F., and Robert E. Webber. What Christians Believe: A Biblical & Historical Summary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. Keener, Craig. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Lewis, Gordon R., and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Academie, 1987. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Mounce, Robert H. The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Mounce, William D. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 46, Pastoral Epistles. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. OBrien, Peter T. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44, Colossians and Philemon. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982.
122
EDGAR R. LEE
Oden, Thomas C. The Living God, Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1991. Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Rev. ed. Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1956. Stott, John R. W. Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Weber, Otto. Foundations of Dogmatics. Vol. 1. Darrell L. Guder, trans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1991.
Endnotes
All Scripture citations are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted; (my emphasis). 2 Frederick William Danker, rev. and ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 233. Hereinafter, BDAG. 3 See, for example, Matt. 15:6; Luke 3:2; John 10:35; Acts 4:31; Acts 13:46; 1 Cor. 14:36; 2 Cor. 2:17; Eph. 6:17; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 4:5; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 2:14; Rev. 1:9. 4 In addition to the above citations from the Pauline letters see also 2 Cor. 4:2; Phil. 1:14; 1 Thess. 2:13. 5 See, for example, Gen. 15:1; Deut. 5:5; 1 Sam. 3:1; 1 Kings 12:15; Isa. 1:10; Jer. 1:2. 6 Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 3:1087. Hereinafter NIDNTT. 7 O. Grether in Brown, NIDNTT, 3:1087. 8 Brown, NIDNTT, 3:1087. See also Geoffrey W. Bromiley,
1
INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION gen. ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), s.v. Word. 9 Merrill C. Tenney, The Meaning of the Word, in The Bible: The Living Word of Revelation, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 20. 10 The one New Testament occasion of the word of God came relates to John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament prophets (Luke 3:2; cf. Luke 16:16); normally says the Lord in the NT prefaces OT quotations but see Rev. 1:8, 14:13. 11 In Johns Gospel, Jesus repeatedly emphasized that He spoke the words of His Father (John 12:49; 14:10,24; 15:15, etc.). 12 BDAG, 599. s.v. logos (cf. 1 Thess. 1:6, NIV). 13 Robert H. Mounce, The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), especially the summary, 150. See also Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), s.v. Kerygma and Didache. 14 See the discussion in Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 117-126. 15 The meaning of graphe is literally writing or book. However, in the New Testament the word regularly refers to the Scriptures. 16 BDAG, s.v. theopneustos. 17 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 317, cites Fred Gealys treatment of this passage [Interpreters Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1955) 11:504-506] and notes that he presents a cogent case that this passage does not limit inspired Scripture to the Old Testament writings. 18 For a discussion of the nature of canon criticism see Mikeal C. Parsons, Canonical Criticism, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, eds., New Testament Criticism & Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 255-294. 19 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), s.v. Inspiration. 20 Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration (New York: Oxford, 1927), 229-280. 21 Edward W. Goodrick, Lets Put 2 Timothy Back in the Bible, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25, no. 4
123
124
EDGAR R. LEE (Winter 1982): 486. 22 Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 129. 23 Otto Weber, Foundations of Dogmatics, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 1:245. 24 BDAG, s.v. phero. 25 See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC) (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 104, n. 26. 26 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 527. 27 R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1971), 27. 28 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 251. For a review of historic Christian teaching on the nature of Scripture see John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). 29 Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language. 2d. ed. (Collins World, 1978). 30 Minutes, 49th General Council of the Assemblies of God (7-10 August 2001), 89. 31 Erickson, Christian Theology, 248. For a helpful discussion see Roger Nicole, The Nature of Inerrancy, in Roger R. Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels, eds., Inerrancy and Common Sense (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 71-95. 32 J. Kenneth Grider, A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 1994), 75. 33 See Erickson, Christian Theology, 248-250, for discussion of various positions and supporting bibliographies. 34 The works of Bloesch, Erickson, Grudem, and Henry cited in this paper may serve as good guides into that literature. 35 The Chicago Statement may be found in a number of systematic theologies and journals. This citation is from Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol 4, God Who Speaks and Shows (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1979), 212. 36 See the discussion in Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England/Grand Rapids: InterVarsity/Zondervan, 1994), 82-84. 37 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 94. 38 Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Academie/Zondervan, 1987), 164, citing The Bible: The Believers Gain, Time Magazine (30 December 1974), 41.
INERRANCY AND INTERPRETATION Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 323 n. 88. See the bibliography on the subject that Bloesch has included. 40 Brown, NIDNTT, 334, s.v. Revelation in Contemporary Theology. 41 Donald Bloesch discusses some of these alleged inconsistencies in Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 109110, as does Erickson, Christian Theology, 255. For a more exhaustive treatment, see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). 42 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 99. 43 Erickson, Christian Theology, 259-263. 44 Kenneth S. Kantzer, foreword to Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 7. 45 Within you in this context must be interpreted not only individually but also and primarily corporately, with the entire congregation in view. For exegetical comment see Gordon D. Fee, Gods Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 649. See also F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 157-158, and Peter T. OBrien, Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44, Colossians and Philemon (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 210. 46 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 157158. 47 Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 463. 48 Keener, Matthew, 523-526. 49 Ibid., 530-532. 50 BDAG, s.v. pterugion. See also Bromiley, ISBE, s.v. Pinnacle. 51 Cited by Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Wheaton Books, 1991), 23. 52 Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 24. 53 Barna Identifies Seven Paradoxes Regarding Americas Faith, http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/home.asp (accessed 12/18/02).
39
125
4 Preaching the Bible as the Word of God
Randy Hurst
Friends often borrow my car when visiting Springfield, and sometimes they leave things in it. I dont know who left the tape of a well-known pastor in my car, but having never heard him preach, I popped it into the player to listen as I drove. The sermon was interesting, well delivered, and emotionally uplifting. But one thing was missing. Not even a phrase of Scripture was quoted or used as an illustration, much less a text as a foundation. Tragically, an increasing number of pulpits today are characterized by preachers who seemingly do not understand the essential power of Gods Word to transform lives. For a variety of reasons, including a desire to be more interesting or relevant, many have exchanged exposition of Scripture for mere sermonizing, forsaking both their God-given privilege of being His messenger and their responsibility of spiritually feeding His people. Pentecostals are people of the Word. When our Pentecostal forefathers commissioned the design of a logo for our Fellowship, they did not incor-
126
PREACHING THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD
127
porate the phrase Not by might, nor by power (Zechariah 4:6), displayed on the cover of the Pentecostal Evangel for many decades. Rather, playing off the initials of Assemblies of God, they chose the simple phrase All the Gospel. Further, the only symbol on our logo is not a flame, a dove, or even a cross (all of which had been proposed), but more in keeping with the phrase itself is the image of a bookthe Bible. In our Fellowships Statement of Fundamental Truths, the first of the sixteen doctrines singled out concerns the inspiration and authority of Scripture. It is foundational to all the rest. The authority of Scripture is our standard for belief and living. A split chancel with a central altar is common in mainline churches, but our churches place the pulpit central on the platform because we reverence Gods Word, and its proclamation is principal in our worship services. The Bible is not the object of our worship, but to truly and faithfully worship God we must worship Him as He is. This means, in essence, that we can worship Him only as He has revealed himself to be. The apostle Paul addressed this issue clearly and succinctly: Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!1 Because the judgments of an infinite and holy God are unsearchable and His ways unfathomable, humanity can know about God only what He has chosen to reveal of himself. People cannot worship Him as they conceive Him to be or wish Him to be but only as He truly is. God is known by experience, but that experience must be rooted in His revealed truth. It was not the experience of the Holy Spirit baptism alone that motivated so many Pentecostal people to
128
RANDY HURST
leave their churches and move to rented halls and storefronts. It was their hunger for the Word of God the whole counsel of God.2 In crude and poor surroundings faithful servants used the Word as more than a source of quotations to season their oratory. Instead, they offered up Scripture as the main course. This is why early Pentecostal churches often were referred to as full gospel churches. In fact, the largest church in the world, a Pentecostal church in Seoul, Korea, still calls itself Yoido Full Gospel Church. The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica: Weconstantly thank God that when you received from us the Word of Gods message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.3 Notice that Paul states that the Word of God performs its work in those who believe. The preacher must clearly understand the nature and power of Gods Word. The Word is not merely a resource for sermons but is living and active and sharper than any twoedged swordpiercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.4 Every Pentecostal preacher should be of the same mind as the apostle Peter when he wrote, As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and forever.5
129
The Bible preached and taught as Gods Word demands servants of the text, people who are, as Martin Luther expressed it, under the Word. The pulpit made available because of the authority of Gods Word is not for conveying personal opinion. People do not assemble to hear what the preacher thinks but what God thinks. Solomon said, Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law.6 Without the guidance of divine revelation human nature will always lead to destruction. The one primary, foundational source of all divine guidance is the written Word of God. He has provided various means for revealing His will to us, such as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit and circumstances. But all other means of guidance must come under the authority of His inspired Word. The Bible is our final source of authority for all that we believe and do. Early in the last century when the Pentecostal revival spread throughout the United States and much of the world, some groups elevated immediate personal revelation of the Spirit to the level of Scripture. Orthodox Pentecostals always strongly denounced this practice as an aberration or even heretical. Unfortunately, in recent decades some Pentecostal and charismatic circles have again treated immediate personal revelation as equal to Scripture, even if they do not verbally espouse such a practice. But personal revelation must always be subjected to the authority of Scripture. God has spoken in different ways throughout history. In Old Testament times, He spoke through His prophets. The record of their words and deeds are Gods recorded revelation to His people. But the Old Testament was not the complete revelation of God.
130
RANDY HURST
Humanity could not know God truly and fully until His Son came to earth. Jesus came to reveal what God the Father is like. Philip, one of Jesus disciples, said to Him, Lord, show us the Father. Jesus replied, He who has seen Me has seen the Father.7 Jesus Christ is the living Word. He was God in human form.8 The writer of Hebrews tells us, In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.9 After Jesus came, died, rose from death, and ascended to heaven, God inspired men to record His life and teachings and those of the apostlesconstituting the New Testament. It ends with Jesus future return to earth and the establishment of Gods eternal kingdom. The written revelation of Gods truth is complete. However, the Church still needs to hear from God, and God still speaks directly by His Spirit to believers. But the timeless truth of Gods written Word has not changed and remains complete. Since the New Testament was written, the church has suffered times of spiritual deterioration, and revival has been needed. These times didnt indicate a need for new truth but rather a fresh move of the Holy Spirit, who guides us into truth. In the Reformation, Martin Luther and other reformers did not introduce any new truth. They took the church back to the truth of Gods written Word, truth that was there all along but had been forsaken. Its truth is timeless. The messenger of Gods Word has a responsibility to proclaim the whole truth. We would do well to learn from our own legal system (which was established on biblical principles). When the truth is sought from a
131
witness in court, the witness is required to pledge to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Preachers and teachers of Gods Word should subscribe to the same pledge. For this reason the apostle Paul could say, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.10 As Paul mentored young Timothy, he told him, Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.11 For accurately handling the word of truthpreaching the Bible as it requires we examine three issues: inspiration, illumination, and application.
INSPIRATION
God used human writers as His messengers, but it is His message they have left us. The Holy Spirit moved them to write, breathing (Gods word choice) the truth of God through what they said. The writers did not pen Gods Word simply from their own initiative or from their own natural knowledge and wisdom. The apostle Peter said, No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.12 The Assemblies of God doctrinal statement makes this clear in its first fundamental truth: The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct. God used the experiences, thoughts, and vocabulary of the prophets and apostles. Furthermore, He directed
132
RANDY HURST
their thoughts. When we study Gods Word to understand what the writers inspired meaning was, we must recognize that they were writing beyond themselves. The unique nature of Gods inspired Word brings another dimension to this process. A great help in accurately interpreting the Bible in recent decades has been the focus upon the issue of authors intent. Unfortunately, this principle has been considered and utilized far more concerning the intent of the human authors than the intent of the divine authorthe Holy Spirit. As the primary author, sometimes the Holy Spirits intent transcended that of the human author. This is the case when a prophet delivered a word he did not fully comprehend, even though he was the vehicle of its delivery. The Bible is a collection of books, and each has a basic literary form: historical/narrative, didactic/doctrinal, poetic, or prophetic. The Holy Spirit is not limited by that literary form. Sometimes approaching the Bible from a perspective of analyzing literary style is helpful, but it can also be a hindrance if taken to an extreme or applied only in a limited sense. In recent years an argument has been put forward that would disallow narrative Scripture for doctrinal application. For example, because Acts is a narrative (history) rather than a didactic (doctrinal) book, so the argument goes, chapters 2, 10, and 19 do not support our doctrine of initial evidence. However, most proponents of such an argument would accept the text All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness13 as valid for supporting doctrine, since the nature of Pauls epistle to Timothy is didactic. But Paul states that all Scripture isprofitable for teaching14doctrine!
133
This obviously seems to include narrative Scripture such as the Gospels and Acts. The writer of Hebrews says: We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.15 Drifting takes no conscious effort or strategy. The currents and winds of social trend and fadin the church as well as in the world are always in motion. As preachers, we are challenged to accommodate those who view the Word of God as merely the words of men. But we must keep a straight course and not drift from our positioning on that Word, regardless of the trend or fad. Although God used human writers, His Spirit is the author of the Bible. We must be cognizant of that fact not only generally but also specifically when we preach and teach its content.
ILLUMINATION
To fully and accurately proclaim the truth of the Bible, the preacher needs the illumination of the Spirit as the authors needed His inspiration when committing Gods message to writing. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth.16 In prayer, Jesus said, Thy word is truth.17 The Holy Spirit helps us beyond our natural ability to understand the truth. The apostle John said, You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.18 The Bible itself provides abundant evidence that it is truly Gods Word. But a person is thoroughly persuaded of the Bibles divine authority through an inward work of the Holy Spirit, who convinces ones heart of the truth. A wonderful thing happens when a regenerated believer reads Gods Word. The same Holy Spirit
134
RANDY HURST
who inspired the writers will open the understanding of those who read it. The Holy Spirit guided the writers of His Word by inspiration. The same Holy Spirit guides those who hear, read, and study Gods Word by illumination. When we read the Bible, we are not just reading history and teaching. Jesus, the living Word, is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.19 An old hymn of the church says it well: More about Jesus in His Word / Holding communion with my Lord, / hearing His voice in every line / Making each faithful saying mine.20 Stained glass is a beautiful art form. But by its very nature, a stained glass window requires light to reveal its beauty. People will not see what the artist intended unless they view the window from inside the church during the day or from outside at night when the lights are on inside the church. Without the help of the Holy Spirit, we cannot truly understand Gods message spoken to us through the writers of Scripture. The light of His Spirit reveals Gods truth to our hearts. One who proclaims the message of truth as the Word of God must experience it beyond mere mental comprehension. We are saved not because we have accurate views of Christs redemptive work but because we are joined by a living faith to Him who accomplished that redemption. This experience separated the apostles teaching from the teaching of those called rabbi. The apostles were not from among the priests and teachers of Jerusalem. They were not Levites or scribes. They were, as Scripture records, uneducated and untrained men.21 None of the original apostles attended the school of Gamaliel or were taught by the other great Jewish teachers. Until Jesus call, they had been fishermen and tax collectorssimple and ordinary men. Yet
135
thousands devoted themselves to their teaching. Even the finely robed rabbis sat and listened to these common men who spoke as prophets because they had been baptized, as John the Baptist had prophesied, by their Lord with the Holy Ghost and fire.
APPLICATION
Inspired Scripture is God-breathed. The purpose of breath is to create and sustain life. Genesis 2:7 records that when God breathed into man, he became a living soul. Of all preachers, Pentecostals should continually be aware that Gods Word proclaimed by the enabling of the Spirit produces and sustains life in its hearers. Preaching the Bible as the Word of God requires that the message the Holy Spirit intends be communicated effectively, without compromise or distortion. The challenge to the preacher is to do this with vocabulary, concepts, and symbols that are relevant to the culture and generation of the receiving audience. In Pentecostal circles, speaking of the Holy Spirits anointing on preaching is common. However, many inaccurately equate such an anointing with volume, demonstrative emotion, or even perspiration. But our popular use of the term is extrabiblical. It describes a divine phenomenon in which we preach beyond ourselvesoutdoing ourselves because of the Spirits touch, presence, and activity in our preaching. I believe two other words in the New Testament better describe this activity: energeo, which describes Gods working in His human agents, and zoopoieo, which is translated quicken, give life, or make alive. The anointing has as much to do with what is happening to the hearer as to the speaker. Pentecostal preaching
136
RANDY HURST
with the energizing touch of the Spirit should produce the results we read about in Acts 2. When Peter preached after the Spirits empowering on the Day of Pentecost, Luke records, Now when they heard this they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? and Peter said to them, Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.22 Spirit-energized preaching pierces to the heart and results in repentance, forgiveness, and transformed lives. Many preachers believe the most critical issue in preaching is knowing what to say, when in fact knowing what to say is not enough. Proclaiming the Word of God is not merely an issue of content. Our message is not only what we say, but also how we say it and who we are. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul speaks of all three aspects: Our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.23 Our emotions, attitudes, and actions are just as much a part of our message as our words. How we say things and who we are will not be determined merely by study. These elements of our message come from our character. Effective preaching must be rooted in spiritual life. This has always been true. But in a culture that is increasingly skeptical of Christianity, it is even more critical. Our personal credibility as Gods messengers will significantly determine our effectiveness. We must declare the message of Christ with clarity and boldness, but the content of our message will be greatly hindered if our manner and lives are not consistent with our words. The apostle Peter also said it well: In your hearts set
137
apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.24 Peter advocates here the same three points that Paul makes: what we say, how we say it, and who we are. Among a population rapidly losing faith in the integrity of government and business leaders, the integrity of Gods messengers is not an option; its a requirement. Although homiletics speaks of the art of preaching, the calling of the preacher is not as an artist, displaying his own creative capacities. The apostle Pauls term of choice in 2 Timothy 2:15 was workman, a laborer. To accurately convey Gods message, the laborerthe servant of the textmust accurately handle the revelation God has provided. The Bible is not merely a well of truth; it is the water itself. Paul admonished Timothy that as Gods messengers, we must be wholehearted and diligent in our right handling of the word of truth that has already been delivered to us.25 The archaic meaning of study used in the King James Version is not misleading; however, it falls short of the strength of Pauls call to devotion and diligence in the task. The application of Gods inspired and illumined Word cannot be dealt with exhaustively in this chapter, but these five points will be briefly considered: exposition, simplification, organization, illustration, and invitation. Exposition Most preachers are familiar with stories of biblical texts being misinterpreted. While these may appear
138
RANDY HURST
humorous on the surface, they are tragic when we remember that what is being abused is Gods sacred revelation. Spin is defined in the dictionary as a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation. More than in any other context, biblical interpretation should be a no spin zone. Jesus addressed the Pharisees, Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of menyou are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.26 Exposition requires both what it meant (exegesis) and what it means (hermeneutics). Neither of these can be dealt with in this chapter to any significant degree. But both require disciplined study and a commitment of time on the preachers part. It is likely that in many if not most cases where a preacher does not preach expository messages, the reason is not that the preacher is incapable of learning how to do effective exposition, but is unwilling to commit the time required. That commitment will come only from a personal love of Gods Word or an understanding of the necessity of expository preaching (ideally, both). Simplification Expository preaching encompasses much more than merely a style. Unfortunately, many well-meaning proponents narrowly define expository preaching as a sort of running commentary on the text without going the second mile: working diligently to organize and illustrate the content of the text in a way that applies the truth in a fresh, relevant, and provocative way to a
139
contemporary audience. When we read the Gospels and examine Jesus communication with people, we find that He always used vocabulary and word pictures that came from their daily lives. He identified and connected with them, always using language they could understand and concepts they could relate to. Jesus, not the Jewish rabbis of His day, should be our model. Organization Homiletics is defined simply as the art of preaching. While it is imperative in preaching that we strive to excel to edify,27 thinking of preaching as an art has its hazards. For some, the primary emphasis in homiletics has focused on the organizational structure of a sermon. Some homileticians contrive such clever outlines that clarity actually suffers. If the homiletical structure of a sermon draws attention to itself and away from the text, its purpose is defeated. Structure should always serve the text, never overshadow it. Preachers would do well to apply to sermon outlines what Samuel Johnson, author of the first English dictionary, stated concerning composition: Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage you think is particularly fine, strike it out! Alliteration that flows naturally can serve to create greater understanding of a text as well as make it memorable. Alliteration that is exaggerated or strained does the opposite. I am convinced that in addition to guiding the human authors of sacred Scripture in choice of vocabulary and imagery, the Holy Spirit also influenced structure. While structure should serve the content of the text, its components will be most effective if they are
140
RANDY HURST
part of the text. The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible to be written a book at a time, so it should be studied a book at a time. Structure that is discovered within the text will naturally serve to explain the text. The preacher who is a conscientious laborer will not obscure the structure of the text with his own. The structure of a message should be discovered in the text. This cant always be done, but when it can, it will be especially effective, since in those instances the structure is part of the inspired content. For example, in three passages from the Pauline epistles concerning spiritual gifts, Paul structured the content in each passage along the same pattern. Pauls Spiritual Gifts Passages Unity Variety Maturity 1 Corinthians 12:1-13 12:14-31 13:1-13 Romans 12:1-5 12:6-8 12:9-21 Ephesians 4:1-6 4:7-12 4:13-16
Similarly, the apostle Peters gospel preaching in the Book of Acts follows the same simple pattern. In his four presentations about Jesus in Acts (2:14-36, especially verses 20-24; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; and 10:34-43, his witness to Cornelius), Peter establishes the same basic two points in each presentation: (1) who Jesus is and (2) why He gave His life. This pattern is a very simple and effective way of sharing Christ with an unbeliever, because all people need to be confronted with the decision concerning who Jesus is and what His sacrifice means for them personally. This same pattern is followed by Mark in his Gospel, which was based on Peters apostolic preaching. The structure of the Gospel of Mark also illustrates the dan-
141
ger of simplistic and rigid literary analysis of Scripture (see Inspiration). Not only does a rigid application of a certain literary form limit understanding what the Holy Spirit intended, it can also limit understanding what the human writer intended. The general assumption concerning narrative or historical material is that the authors intention was merely to record events as they happened, much like a journalist. An examination of the Gospel of Mark, perhaps the earliest history in the New Testament of our Lords life, offers a telling example. The gospel form was really defined by Mark. He begins the book sounding like a journalist as he opens with This is the beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.28 Early church history informs us that Marks history was taken from Peters apostolic preaching. Irenaeus wrote in A.D. 175, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Not coincidentally, the Gospel of Mark is structured somewhat like a sermon. Like Peters sermons about Jesus in the Book of Acts, the Gospel of Mark answers the same two simple but critical questions: Almost equally divided, the first half presents who Jesus is and the second half presents why He gave His life. From the earliest part of chapter 1 through the end of chapter 8, Mark records seventeen miracles of Jesus and repeatedly draws attention to the significance of who He is. That is why in the first half of Marks gospel the word who occurs so often. In the first chapter, Mark clearly declares that Jesus is the Son of God. Even demons gave this testimony: I know who you arethe Holy One of God!29
142
RANDY HURST
(However, Jesus did not permit them to speak.30) In chapter 2, the scribes said, Who can forgive sins but God alone?31 In chapter 4, after Jesus miraculously calmed the storm, the disciples said to one another, Who then is this that even the wind and the sea obey Him?32 The climax of Marks presentation of who Jesus is in the first half of the book comes at the close of chapter 8: Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, Who do people say that I am? And they told Him, saying, John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets. And He continued by questioning them, But who do you say that I am? Peter answered and said to Him, You are the Christ.33 The second half of Mark describes the final week of Jesus life on earth: His suffering, death, and resurrection. In a series of statements Jesus reveals why He was sent into the world: He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.34 He said to them [His disciples], The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.35 We are going up to Jerusalem, he said, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.36 Also contained in Mark are three dramatic confessions. In the first verse, Mark himself confesses Jesus
143
as the Son of God.37 This is followed by Peters confession at the turning point in the middle of the book, You are the Christ,38 and builds to the Roman centurions confession almost at the end of the book, Truly this man was the Son of God!39 Illustration Both in preaching and teaching, illustrations have great value in a variety of ways. They bring clarity and make a lesson or truth memorable. Whenever possible, illustrations should be found from Scripture. Augustine said, The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed. Often Old Testament narrative stories offer appropriate and powerful illustrations of New Testament truths. The Gospels illustrate the Epistles, and the Epistles amplify the lessons taught in the Gospels. In Great Britain early in the last century, much preaching leaned to the typological and, unfortunately, created typologies where the Scriptures do not clearly define or even seem to intend them. However, I have often found that some typological applications make good illustrations for enhancing exposition. When they are used, however, it should be stated that a particular application is an illustration rather than an exposition. For example, I read a sermon by an old British preacher in which his text was taken from the marriage in Cana of Galilee: And [he] said to him, Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.40 The sermon basically proposed a principle that God always saves the best until last in everything in life. That is not what
144
RANDY HURST
that text is saying, of course. However, many other passages do teach that principle, and I believe it is not inappropriate to lift that example out of the story of the marriage in Cana to illustrate a principle that is the intent of a text elsewhere. Invitation The purpose of preaching is not only to instruct, but also to incite to decision. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote, My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.41 Though Paul certainly had persuasive ability, he understood that earthly wisdom and human persuasion were inadequate to reach the Corinthians with the gospel of Christ. The reason human persuasion alone will not lead someone to a decision for Christ is found in the nature of persuasion itself. For persuasion to be effective, it must appeal to desires that already exist in a person. People essentially do what they want to do. To move people to a decision, they must see that the decision will result in gratifying a desire they already have. This is the fundamental objective of all advertising. People who are living in sin do not naturally have the desire to deny themselves, follow Christ, and do Gods will. It requires a special work of the Holy Spirit in their minds and hearts to bring people to understanding and move them to a willingness to obey the truth. People are not naturally inclined to believe the gospel, because sin blinds them to the truth. Paul says, The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.42 Minds that have been
145
supernaturally blinded must have their spiritual eyes supernaturally opened. Jesus said, If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.43 The heart inclines the mind. Paul also says, A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.44 Without Gods help, a person cant understand or respond to the truth. That is why no one can come to Christ through human persuasion alone. After teaching His parable concerning the sower and soils, Jesus explained to His disciples that the seed in the spiritual harvest is the word of God45the message. The Holy Spirit prepares the soil (peoples hearts) to receive the message. The messengers role is to enter into the Holy Spirits work in peoples lives. As Jesus said to His disciples, The saying is true, One sows and another reaps. I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor.46 In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul describes sharing the gospel in terms of planting and watering seed: I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.47 In this statement, Gods work in the spiritual harvest is clearly distinguished from that of His human servants. The time factors Paul describes in this process are different. When Paul and Apollos planted and watered the seed (the message), the tense in the Greek verbs used indicates specific time frames: For a period of time, Paul planted the seed; for another period of time, Apollos watered it. But when Paul describes Gods activity in this process, the verb clearly reveals
146
RANDY HURST
that God did not merely work after the seed was planted and watered, but all along God was causing the growth. The preacher is planting and watering the message. God is causing the growth. We are dependent on God to open doors of opportunity,48 to bring understanding to hearers minds, and to move their hearts to decision. A revealing example of the necessity of the Holy Spirits work in the proclamation of the Word is found in Acts 16. When Paul and his companions went to a riverbank outside Philippi to pray on the Sabbath Day, they sat down and began speaking to a group of women: A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.49 Paul spoke the message, but the Lord opened [Lydias] heart. As I walked through the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois, I read quotations by Billy Graham displayed on the walls. One of them caught my attention. It said, If God should take His hand off me, I would have no more spiritual power. The whole secret of the success of our meetings is spiritualit is God answering prayer. I cannot take credit for any of it. Anyone who has been involved in evangelism for any period of time knows that it is a spiritual activity, and human persuasion alone cannot accomplish the task. We can do our part, but unless God works in peoples hearts, we will not see lives changed. Billy Graham knows that and so should every person who answers our Lords call to preach the Word. We have the privilege and responsibility of sharing the message, but only God can open a heart.
147
As great a miracle as occurred on the Day of Pentecost, the response of the crowd that resulted in salvation was not because of the sound from heaven like a rushing mighty wind, or the tongues like fire resting on them, or the foreign languages being spoken by locals. Rather, it was in response to the Spiritempowered Word that was preached. Attacks against Gods Word come repeatedly. It began in the Garden of Eden when Satan influenced Eve to question the truthfulness of what God had said.50 But Gods Word cannot be destroyed. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.51 As I mentioned earlier, the only symbol on our A/G shield is a Bible. The Waldensian Christians in the 1600s had a shield similar to that of the Assemblies of God. In the center was an anvil representing the Word of God. Around it were broken hammers. Its motto read, Hammer away, ye hostile hands. Your hammers break. Gods anvil stands! A friend of mine was studying for his masters degree in philosophy at Oxford University. One day, during a tutorial in which they discussed Descartes and his use of the ontological argument,52 his professor attacked his Christian faith. His faith was shaken and he prayed to God for help. In desperation, he opened his Bible. His eyes fell on these words: I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.53 Faith flooded his heart. He realized that unbelieving hearts and minds will always create evidence for their unbelief, but the truth of Gods Word is unshakable. Like the men inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the text, we need the Holy Spirits help both to understand
148
RANDY HURST
Gods Word (illumination) and to communicate its truth with quickened or energized (what Pentecostals would term anointed) application. If a good preacher is in command of the message, a great preacher lets the message be in command of him. Let our testimony be the same as Pauls: My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.54 In todays multicultural environment, when absolutes increasingly are denied and tolerance represents a primary virtue, the world needs missionaries bearing Gods truth, which is universal, applying to all cultures because it is above culture, being from heaven. A world in despair needs the hope of the gospel.55 Gods Word, which transcends all human philosophy and thought, is the antidote to human sinfulness, rebellion, and lostness. The pulpit has never been the place for lazy laborers. To clearly and effectively preach and teach the Bible as the Word of God requires both discipline and dependence. The discipline of thorough exegesis and hermeneutics is essential. We must also exercise conscious and focused dependence upon the Holy Spirit to illumine our understanding and help us apply the truth. The desperate spiritual needs of people demand preachers who are diligent to preach the Bible as the Word of God, so that it will perform its work.56
149
Endnotes
Rom. 11:33 (my emphasis). All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise noted. 2 Acts 20:27, NKJV 3 1 Thess. 2:13 4 Heb. 4:12 5 1 Peter 4:10,11 6 Prov. 29:18, NIV 7 John 14:8,9 8 See John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:6,7 9 Heb. 1:1,2, NIV 10 Acts 20:26,27 (my emphasis) 11 2 Tim. 2:15 12 2 Peter 1:21 13 2 Tim. 3:16 14 My emphasis 15 Heb. 2:1 16 John 16:13 17 John 17:17, KJV 18 1 John 2:20, NIV 19 See John 16:14 20 More About Jesus, Sing His Praise (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1991), 102 21 Acts 4:13 22 Acts 2:37,38 (my emphasis) 23 1 Thess. 1:5 24 1 Peter 3:15,16, NIV 25 2 Tim. 2:15 26 Mark 7:6-9 27 1 Cor. 14:12, KJV, NIV, et al. 28 Mark 1:1 29 Mark 1:24 30 Mark 1:34 31 Mark 2:7 32 Mark 4:41 33 Mark 8:27-29 34 Mark 8:31 35 Mark 9:31, NIV 36 Mark 10:33,34, NIV 37 Mark 1:1
1
150
RANDY HURST Mark 8:29 Mark 15:39 40 John 2:10 41 1 Cor. 2:4 42 2 Cor. 4:4 43 John 7:17 (my emphasis) 44 1 Cor. 2:14 45 Luke 8:11 46 John 4:37,38 47 1 Cor. 3:6 48 Col. 4:3 49 Acts 16:14 50 See Gen. 3:1-5. 51 Isa. 40:8 52 Paul Edwards, ed. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan & The Free Press, 1967), s.v. Descartes, Ren. 53 Ps. 119:99 54 1 Cor. 2:4,5 55 Col. 1:23 56 1 Thess. 2:13
38 39
5 The Word: The Foundation of All Preaching

Charles T. Crabtree
Historically, the Pentecostal pulpit has never wavered on the subject of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. However, in recent years there has been such an erosion of this doctrine in parts of the evangelical world that it is clear no one is immune from drifting. Any book on preaching must emphasize, underscore, and reaffirm the basis for all preachingan unwavering faith and an undying commitment to the written Word of God. The attack on inerrancy, by its designation and nature, comes first from academia. By its nature, it is an exercise in scholarship; and because of this fact, Pentecostals who are not highly educated are often overwhelmed by a feeling of inferiority in defending this eternal truth. Such a feeling has its roots in the past. Honesty compels Pentecostals to acknowledge the strong bias against higher education that existed in the first half of the twentieth century. The fathers of the modern Pentecostal Movement voiced the inherent dangers formal education brought into the Spirit-filled church but failed to appreciate its blessings and bene-
151
152
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
fits. The majority of early leaders were so afraid of what could happen to the highly trained mind they unwittingly missed an opportunity to teach a new generation how to maintain a powerful Pentecostal pulpit while producing a large number of respected scholars. In the second half of the twentieth century, the Pentecostal world in America has opened its doors wider and wider to Christian higher education. Institutions of higher learning have multiplied, and the standard of education for ministry has been generally rising in almost all Pentecostal denominations. The challenge now facing the Pentecostal preacher is how to use scholarship properly within the arena of faith. Will he look to scholars for his authority, or will he use scholarship to articulate more clearly the inerrant, inspired authority of Gods Holy Word? This challenge is a matter of spiritual life and death, for both the minister and those ministered to. No scholar on earth is educated enough to question the divinity of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of Scripture. Doing so automatically disqualifies one as an authority in divine truth. One has moved from a spiritual paradigm to a carnal paradigm. The carnal mind cannot know the things of God. The source of a carnal mind is rebellion against divine truth and authority. Scholars who question the incarnate Word of God are like students in math who decide the subject is not real and its teacher merely builds lessons on false assumptions. If such a group of students persisted, several negative things would happen. Soon after dismissing math as a true science, they would begin to think it was not worth their time to learn it. Other math students would call them fools, and mathematicians would call them ignorant. Good students of math have questions about math,
THE WORD: THE FOUNDATION OF ALL PREACHING
153
but they do not question the reality and value of math. In the same way, a good Bible scholar will have questions about the incarnate and written Word but will never question its reality or veracity. The Word of God sits in judgment on the student, not the other way around.
THE SETTLED WORD

Pentecostal preachers need never be ashamed of the Word they declare because it is not in flux; it is settled. Where it may be in question is inconsequential. Long before worlds were formed, churches built, or universities and seminaries founded, the Word of God was established as the ultimate revelation of eternal, absolute truth. Pentecostals have no problem with higher education until it discounts revelation by the Spirit of God. Science by itself is limited in understanding because all it can observe is present reality and physical processes. The revelation of the Word of God, both incarnate and written, comes first; and then comes science, higher education, and criticism. If a person is going to preach in the twenty-first century, it is critical to know absolute truth and how it is received. That person had better know for sure the source of spiritual comprehension. That person had better know for sure that a man or woman cannot know God through human wisdom and understanding. That person had better know for sure the Word of God is to be declared, not questioned. The certainty of this position rests upon unshakeable evidence. All scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). It does not say Most scripture or Some scripture or even All scripture is God-breathed but The state-
154
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
ment is unqualified; it is total and conclusive. Otherwise, the Scripture would not be authoritative; at any given time it would be subject to the best opinion. Scripture would not be settled because nothing can be settled in the world of changing human opinion. Each opinion could be successively broken by further study and argument. The preacher of Gods Word is not doomed to sorting out what part of the Bible is inspired. He has been given the canon of Scripture, which is not composed of just a number of disconnected books but a cohesive revelation of divine quality whose source is recognized as that which could only be God-breathed.
THE INCARNATE WORD

Some argue the Bible cannot be the Word of God because of human instrumentality. Such an argument fails to take into account the incarnate Word used a human vessel yet remained divine, without sin or error. Furthermore, if human fallibility rules on infallible Scripture, then it follows by simple logic we cannot have any Scripture that is infallible and inerrant. In Milan, Italy, stands one of the most breathtaking cathedrals in the world. One of the remarkable facts about it is that it took five centuries to complete through war, famine, and the death of many workers. Yet the cathedral is obviously the design of one mind because of its symmetry and perfection. The designer was the architectlong dead; nevertheless, workers for centuries stayed true to his inspired drawings. The Bible was written by forty writers over hundreds of years, but the writers were only instruments in the hand of a single Architectstill alivewho breathed
155
His Word through them and created divine perfection. In his book The Infallible Word John Murray makes a powerful observation about Pauls claim in 2 Timothy 3:16: Paul was, of course, well aware God used human instruments in giving us these Scriptures. In his epistles he makes repeated allusion to the human authors of the sacred books. But the recognition of human instrumentality did not in the least inhibit Paul from making the stupendous affirmation that all scripture of God is God-breathed, which means the Scripture is of divine origin and authorship and therefore of divine character and authority (The Presbyterian Guardian Publishing Corp., Philadelphia, 1946, p. 30). Pauls claim is nothing less than the high doctrine of plenary inspiration, for Paul is not speaking of an inbreathing into the writer of the Holy Scripture by God nor even into Holy Scripture itself. The term Paul uses represents the concept of breathing out, rather than that of breathing in and is far removed from the notion a human product or witness is so interpenetrated with truth or influence that it becomes the Word of God. The whole emphasis is upon the fact all Scripture proceeds from God and is therefore invested with divinity that makes it as authoritative and efficient as a word orally spoken by God directly to us. When it comes to the Word of God, Pentecostal preachers should be convinced in their own minds; that is the area of truth in which God has especially equipped them and ordained them to study, correctly handle (2 Timothy 2:15), and declare. Therefore, Pentecostal preachers should embrace constant learning and take advantage of every opportunity to better themselves through higher education.
156
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
THE WRITTEN WORD

The written Word comes to us in the form of language. It follows that the person who wrote it intends for someone to read it. That takes literacy, a foundational aspect of education. Furthermore, if the writer authorizes another to teach the writing, then the writer must naturally desire that those who so teach understand it. That means the teacher has a responsibility to be faithful not only to what the writer wrote but also to what the writer means. Spirit-filled scholars love Gods Word so much they want not only to study texts but also to understand contexts. They want to study every uncial, phrase, sentence, and paragraph. They want to compare as many ancient manuscripts in the original languages as possible. They study customs, demographics, and archeology. Every preacher of Gods Word needs to take advantage of the rich resources and products of good scholarship, not for the purpose of questioning Gods Word but to be more effective in clarifying what Gods Word says. Not only should preachers have a trained mind for God to use, but they should also be trained communicators in order to proclaim Gods Word more effectively to the culture and the contemporary church; thus, the need for hermeneutics, homiletics, and public speaking. Any preacher who does not want to become more proficient, to have greater clarity, in declaring the Word stands under self-indictment. Some of the hue and cry against Christian higher education is not motivated by a legitimate fear of undermining inerrancy but an antipathy to disciplined study.
157
MISUSING FAITH
In some cases, higher education has led to heresy. But a great danger also lies in using faith as a substitute for scholarship. The same Bible that contains Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit (Zechariah 4:6) also contains Study to show thyself approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV) and My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). Pentecostals should not fear scholarship in and of itself any more than they should fear encouraging the gifts of the Spirit. But like all good things, higher education and criticism can be and have been misused. It is a bit amusing to hear Pentecostals admonish the critics of speaking with tongues not to throw out the baby with the bathwater and then turn do that very thing with higher education. This does not mean Pentecostals should be indifferent to error in affirming scholarship or unmindful higher education tends to build pride instead of humility. Education can lead to a questioning of God rather than a questing for God; it can move us from God has said to Has God said? And if inerrancy and inspiration can be questioned, then the Scriptures are not really settled in heaven but actually subject to the educated guesses of earth. There is no question scholars such as Renan, Strauss, and Barth had great minds and were very educated. However, they made the fatal error of sitting in judgment on the Scriptures, misusing higher criticism to support their theories instead of seeking to bring greater clarity to, and building faith in, the veracity of Gods Word. For instance, Karl Barth could not understand the inspiration of Scripture by reason and logic, so he decided to make biblical inspiration conditional
158
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
and subjective as opposed to authoritative and objective. The result of his struggle is a theory of logic that happens to be untrue. In his opinion, the Bible could speak an inspired word and become the Word of God as the medium of truth, but the Scripture is not inherently inspired. Barth did not accept Gods Word, so he preached his own error. If the Word of God can only be such for a particular person at a particular time, then the character of Scripture is dependent upon the circumstances of mind and environment. The results are disastrous.
THE UNDERLYING BATTLE: FAITH VS. REASON

The underlying battle waged against inspiration and inerrancy is not higher education against the uneducated but the tension between faith and reason. The ultimate authority in the mind of a Pentecostal preacher is ones faith in the Word of God, accepting the fact that there will always be unresolved mysteries in matters of faith. The proud heart will not accept God as the ultimate authority, so God himself is a mystery; consequently His words and works remain unknowable, unable to be understood. The darkened mind is at enmity with the revelation of God. When people do not accept authority, they do everything in their power to discredit and question it. A rebellious child will go to great lengths in resisting a parents word, using its childish mind to point out perceived unfairness. Adults do the same with God; however, those who do not want to retain God in their knowledge may find themselves given over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).
159
The true scholar does not seek to prove the Bible wrong by studying perceived inconsistencies and problems. Rather, the true scholar seeks to understand the Scripture more clearly through correctly handling it, examining manuscripts, understanding custom, and appreciating archeology. In other words, the true scholar believes the limitation resides in finite minds and perceptions, not the text. No one knows why the original autographs of Holy Scripture were not protected and retained. Perhaps in Gods wisdom He knew the Church would make them objects of worship, leading to superstitious veneration. What God did protect was the perfection of His text. One of the greatest miracles in history is the way God preserved His Word. He did not leave transference to chance. In spite of all the translations from one language to another, in spite of the various theories of translation, scholarly translations of the Scripture are amazingly consistent. Variant readings account for a very small percentage of the Scripture and in that very small percentage, not one major doctrine is negated or seriously affected.
THE ISSUE OF TRANSLATION

In recent years, a multitude of Bible translations have come to the church. Great controversy has surrounded the shift away from the King James Version as the most popular text. Pentecostal preachers can take comfort in the fact that major translations (i.e., those done with a large number of recognized scholars carefully studying the most newly discovered ancient texts along with the rich depository of manuscripts gathered through centuries) have in no way weakened the great doctrines.
160
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
To the contrary, they confirm the truth with greater clarity for the modern believer. It would be incongruous to think God, who superintended the writing of Scripture through the Holy Spirit, would allow any generation to be robbed of saving truth. His Word is a living Word. It does not change in its truth. Translations are allowed by God so the original message will not be impeded by language as the Holy Spirit anoints Gods revelation. If modern translations were not true to the text of the original languages or if translators were evil, then new Bibles would strip Christ of His divinity, discount the blood, remove the miracles, and mock heaven and hell, which is not the case in any major translation recognized in evangelical circles. Of course, translators are not perfect people. The fact of imperfect human instrumentality is a greater proof the Bible is not a product of the human mind but of the Spirit of truth Himself; and in spite of changing linguistic vehicles, not one jot or tittle of Gods Truth has changed on its journey to the pulpit of the modern preacher. The Bible was written to make sense to any audience in any age. Good textual criticism is nothing more than a careful study and comparison of manuscripts. Pentecostals should never despise their continual discipline in scholarship, because the more the Word of God is studied, the more it confirms truth. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever (Isaiah 40:8). It is a thrill to observe nonPentecostal translators who are committed to accuracy, reaffirming in every translation the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, all the gifts of the Spirit, and the validity of the Pentecostal experience.
161
THE CONFIRMATION OF SCRIPTURE

The Pentecostal preacher can expound the Scriptures as the Word of God because the Lord of the Church Himself confirmed them in His ministry while on the earth. When confronting the devil, He pled the ultimate authority: It is written. End of argument. He proved the Sadducees in error and then gave the reason for their problem: You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God (Matt 22:29, NIV). And if He had never said anything about the Word except His declaration in Luke 21:33, it would be enough to maintain faith in the Scriptures: Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Hundreds of references in the Bible assure us we are in possession of the inerrant, inspired Word of God. The New Testament church was built upon the Word. The apostles declared the incarnate Word and appealed to the written Word as their authority. Some complain the Bible cannot prove itself by itself, using the argument you cannot accept the validity of an author based upon His own words; but in the case of the Bible, He is the only one who can validate what is inspired and infallible. In other words, God alone is the adequate witness to Himself and His Word.
THE WITNESS OF CONVERSION

Not only does God validate His Word by the witness of Christ and the internal witness of Scriptures themselves, but He also does so through the witness of changed lives: those who have read and believed the Word. No other book in the world can boast such results. The Complete Works of Shakespeare are recog-
162
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
nized as one of the greatest examples of English literature, but all the reading and studying of Shakespeare cannot bring a sense of soul-cleansing and healing like the Bible does. The preacher must never neglect the study of Gods Word by replacing it with other great writings, even books based upon the Scriptures. Because the Scriptures are inspired and God-breathed, they alone can satisfy the needs of the soul and spirit. They are alive with divine inspiration. In the classic face-off between Jesus and the devil in the wilderness, the Son of God as the Son of Man revealed the vital relationship between human beings and Gods Word. Satan began his tempting of Christ with a challenge to use miracle power to meet the necessities of physical life. The devil knew the Lord had been fasting for forty days and nights and had to be famished. If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread (Matthew 4:3). Satan tempts every preacher with similar words. If you are full of God and called of God, then use your faith to meet the necessities of physical life and gain material possessions. Christ replied with a revelation far exceeding any insight of modern psychology: Man [made in the image of God] does not live on bread [physical nourishment] alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). Pentecostal preachers need to understand that when they enter the pulpit filled with the SpiritWord of God in hand and its message in their heartsthey are the ordained authority of God to speak life into the soul and spirit of their listeners. What a responsibility! What a privilege! Pauls admonition to Timothy to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2) was not spoken neutrally, matter-of-
163
factly. Paul had been the religious fanatic who ministered death before he met Christ; out of his Damascus experience came an apostle who ministered life. The hallmark of his ministry thereafter was Christ crucified and risen, based upon fulfillment of the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3). So when Paul commanded Timothy what to preach, he was telling his son in the gospel to minister life, not death, by preaching the authoritative, life-giving Word of God.
THE QUESTION OF RELEVANCY

One of the buzzwords in the contemporary church is relevant. Is the church relevant? Is the Bible relevant? Is the pulpit relevant? The answer to that question is conditional. The church, the Bible, and the pulpit are relevant only if they are ministering spiritual life through the power of the Spirit. They are relevant only if they are fulfilling their divine purpose. Is the church relevant? If it is seeking to minister primarily to the physical and psychological needs of its members, it is not relevant in the eyes of God. If its first concern is to attract young people to the physical church, prepare people to be successful in the world, and minister to the social and material needs of the community, it may be relevant to people but not to God. Is the Bible relevant? If it is used as a textbook of tradition, a resource of wise sayings, a reinforcement for prejudice, a proof text for legalism, or a reading program, it is not relevant. As a matter of fact, it can be a tool for spiritual death rather than life. Is the pulpit relevant? If it uses the Bible simply to find a text to support a sermon outline or speaks only to popular themes and avoids all the counsel of God (Acts
164
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
20:27, KJV), if it is used as a hobbyhorse for an angry preacher, if it is seeking to make sinners and carnal Christians feel comfortable in the light of eternitythen the pulpit may be relevant to people but not to God. The preachers relevance, authority, purpose, and power are all kingdom based. In other words, his relevance is to be what is relevant to Christ. His authority is not what people think but what the Lord says. His purpose is to please God first, the people second not the other way around. His power is in the Holy Spirit, not church politics or human ability. The living Word of God is always relevant to men and women constitutionally. One of the most poignant longings of the human heart is for authoritative guidance. Proof of this is seen by the ever-increasing popularity of the occult. Nearly every secular newspaper and magazine offers horoscopes. Books and charts on astrology are being written and promoted by a growing number of fortune-tellers, warlocks, and witches. However, the preacher has a more sure word of prophecy (2 Peter 1:19, KJV), which will hold up under scrutiny and lead men and women to the saving truth of Christ. The Bible contains all the truth needed to set forth the way of salvation and Christian growth and development. It is a textbook on eternal truth but uses knowledge to underscore, illustrate, and apply divine truth for human understanding. The Bible is not a textbook on science, history, psychology, or any other educational discipline, but everything it says about these subjects is true. The preacher must not fall into the trap of trying to defend the faith by spending an inordinate amount of time studying false religions and attacking human theories. T. F. Zimmerman, the former general superin-
165
tendent of the Assemblies of God, loved to tell about a banker from the Midwest who was invited to the U. S. Mint for a weeklong seminar on how to detect counterfeit money. Upon his return, he told his friends he had never studied harder with such intensity for a week. However, they never studied one piece of counterfeit money. After a week of living with and studying the genuine, they did not need to do so. They knew the real so well the false could not deceive them.
LIFELONG LEARNING
Preachers must be lifelong students of the Word of God for at least two reasons. First, to gain approval from God, because God is serious about the integrity of His Word. He does not want His ministers misrepresenting or mishandling the truth of the Scriptures. Second, to avoid losing integrity as interpreters of the Word. Ministers who are not serious students of the Bible eventually bring shame to themselves and a reproach to their calling. The goal of biblical study is to bring the truth of God to the human race. That is accomplished by accurately handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). The proper use of hermeneutics is of great value in guarding against improper interpretation, especially in application. For instance, a good hermeneutic will help the preacher divide illustrative truth from absolute truth. It is quite clear the absolute truth of spiritual humility is illustrated by washing feet. Jesus was teaching His disciples they were not above menial tasks. Some have focused on the statement You also should wash one anothers feet (John 13:14) as not only the truth being set forth by Jesus but also an ordinance to be practiced
166
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
by the church. The greater application, however, was love, not law. The disciples of that day of open sandals and dusty feet were to routinely wash feet. In our day, the illustration itself does not apply; it is not a custom of hospitality. However, having the loving and humble heart of a servant remains as the absolute truth, in our day translating perhaps into a willingness to cut the grass, serve tables, pick up people for church, straighten up the sanctuary after communion, and so forth. In the culture where Paul was ministering, braided hair on women was a symbol of great pride; it was often used by the wealthy to display jewels and expensive ornaments. In writing Timothy, Paul taught against ostentatious display (1 Timothy 2:9). Today, however, the illustration referring to braided hair makes very little sense. If Paul were alive today, he would still preach the truth of modesty and temperance but would use other illustrations. The same would hold true regarding women keeping silence in the church. We know from correctly handling the Word of truth women were filled with the Spirit, prophesied, and taught. Paul was using an illustrative truth or circumstance to teach order and respect in corporate worship. Much care must be taken under the supervision of the Holy Spirit by any proclaimer of the Word of God. It is the greatest of all responsibilities to be stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1, KJV); let us not be guilty of preaching self but faithfully preach Christ and His Word.
THE SPIRIT AND THE WORD

Thank God, the preacher is not without divine help in discharging the grave responsibility of proclaiming
167
the gospel. The reign of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of Gods Word are providentially linked in order to reveal, illuminate, and apply the Word through Gods called ones. By being open to the Spirits anointing upon their minds and hearts, Pentecostal preachers can be greatly benefited in both study and proclamation. The same Spirit who raised Christ from the dead quickens our mortal bodies, and the same Spirit who breathed inspiration and divine truth through the writers of the Word is available to reveal to the preacher what God is saying in and through His Scriptures. Pentecostals are not exempt from error and should be especially careful not to stray from the Word of God. For example, if left unchecked and not brought under the authority of the Word of God, vocal gifts can open the door to a false interpretation of truth. For some time, the charismatic/Pentecostal world has used the term rhema word. In the purest sense, the Holy Scripture is the rhema word, but can God and does God give the church an inspired Word not in the language of the Bible? Certainly! But in its meaning and purpose that Word is subject to the inerrant Word. The danger comes in elevating a rhema word to the level of Scripture. Be assured, all the dreams, visions, rhema words, and prophetic utterances will never add to or change the Word of God. Under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, they will simply bring revelational truth to what is written. The Word of the Lord is to be proclaimed by men and women ordained by God and filled with the Holy Spirit. The results of being faithful to that Word fill many books with glorious testimonies in the library of Pentecost. May we again believe that as the Word is
168
CHARLES T. CRABTREE
preached, wonderful signs and wonders will follow. May again the Pentecostal pulpit believe sins power is broken by the truth of salvation even as the Word is declared. May again the Pentecostal pulpit believe the Lord will send His Word in healing as the preacher delivers the good news in the authority of Jesus name and the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
This chapter was originally published in Pentecostal Preaching by Charles T. Crabtree and is used by permission.
6 The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
NOTE: This was the statement that launched the International Congress on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational joint effort by hundreds of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend biblical inerrancy against the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox conceptions of Scripture. The Statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency OHare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, during an international summit conference of concerned evangelical leaders. It was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including [James Montgomery] Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham. The ICBI disbanded in 1988, its work complete. The congress ultimately produced three major statements: this one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. A published copy of the statement may be found in Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation and Authority, vol.
169
170
THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY
4 )Wheaton, Ill., Crossway Books, 1999), on pp. 211-219.
PREFACE
The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying Gods written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority. The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of Gods own Word that marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstanding of this doctrine in the world at large. This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement
171
be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission. We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we propose by Gods grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word. We invite response to this Statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help that enables us to strengthen this testimony to Gods Word we shall be grateful.
I. SUMMARY STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is Gods witness to Himself. 2. Holy Scripture, being Gods own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as Gods instruction, in all that it
172
affirms; obeyed, as Gods command, in all that it requires; embraced, as Gods pledge, in all that it promises. 3. The Holy Spirit, Scriptures divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning. 4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about Gods acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to Gods saving grace in individual lives. 5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bibles own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
II. ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I. We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source. Article II. We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
173
Article III. We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity. Article IV. We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted Gods work of inspiration. Article V. We affirm that Gods revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings. Article VI. We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole. Article VII. We affirm that inspiration was the work in which
174
God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind. Article VIII. We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities. Article IX. We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into Gods Word. Article X. We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
175
Article XI. We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated. Article XII. We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. Article XIII. We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
176
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved violate the truth claims of the Bible. Article XV. We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity. Article XVI. We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Churchs faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism. Article XVII. We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of Gods written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture. Article XVIII. We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.
177
Article XIX. We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
III. EXPOSITION
Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be set in the context of the broader teachings of Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our Summary Statement and Articles are drawn. A. Creation, Revelation and Inspiration The God, who formed all things by his creative utterances and governs all things by His Word of decree, made mankind in His own image for a life of communion with Himself, on the model of the eternal fellowship of loving communication within the Godhead. As Gods image-bearer, man was to hear Gods Word addressed to him and to respond in the joy of adoring obedience. Over and above Gods self-disclosure in the created order and the sequence of events within it, human beings from Adam on have received verbal messages from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indirectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself. When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon mankind to final judgement, but promised salvation and
178
began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of historical events centering on Abrahams family and culminating in the life, death, resurrection, present heavenly ministry, and promised return of Jesus Christ. Within this frame God has from time to time spoken specific words of judgement and mercy, promise and command, to sinful human beings, so drawing them into a covenant relation of mutual commitment between Him and them in which He blesses them with gifts of grace and they bless Him in responsive adoration. Moses, whom God used as mediator to carry his words to His people at the time of the exodus, stands at the head of a long line of prophets in whose mouths and writings God put His words for delivery to Israel. Gods purpose in this succession of messages was to maintain His covenant by causing His people to know His namethat is, His natureand His will both of precept and purpose in the present and for the future. This line of prophetic spokesmen from God came to completion in Jesus Christ, Gods incarnate Word, who was Himself a prophetmore than a prophet, but not lessand in the apostles and prophets of the first Christian generation. When Gods final and climactic message, His word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time. At Sinai God wrote the terms of His covenant on tablets of stone as His enduring witness and for lasting accessibility, and throughout the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation He prompted men to write the messages given to and through them, along with celebratory records of His dealings with His people, plus moral reflections on covenant life and forms of praise and prayer for
179
covenant mercy. The theological reality of inspiration in the producing of Biblical documents corresponds to that of spoken prophecies: Although the human writers personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin. B. Authority: Christ and the Bible Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest and King, is the ultimate Mediator of Gods communication to man, as He is of all Gods gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more than verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially isthe witness of the Father to the incarnate Son. It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new
180
revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Churchs part was to discern the canon that God had created, not to devise one of its own. The word canon, signifying a rule or standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of messianic prophecy. Thus as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Fathers instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to donot, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself that He undertook to inspire by his gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings that together make up our Bible. By authenticating each others authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.
181
C. Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths. Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penmans milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise. So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particu-
182
lar kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed. The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called phenomena of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions. Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writers mind. Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.
183
D. Skepticism and Criticism Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world views have been developed that involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism that denies that God is knowable, the rationalism that denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism that denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism that denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and anti-Biblical principles seep into mens theologies at presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible. E. Transmission and Translation Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free. Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed,
184
in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirits constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15). F. Inerrancy and Authority In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at the casual, inadvertent, and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day. We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible that God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of ones critical reasoning and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further. We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.
The Assemblies of God has believed in the Bible as the tion casts the subject of the not mere literature, or even
from its founding Council Word of God. Such a posiBible in a certain light. It is sacred literature.
It is Gods Word, authoritative for all cultures in all times. Those who proclaim it must believe this. Otherwise their proclamation gives an uncertain sound. In our time, postmodernism has given new meaning to subjectivism and relativism. Gods Word has something to say to this mindsetbut the bearer of the Word must take care in order to get a hearing. The Word of God is inherently authoritative, but it must be declared: It is Gods Word that will not return void, not human rhetoric. The Word must be the foundation we build on; all else is sand and rocky shoal. Herein is gathered a considered reaffirmation of the Assemblies of God stance on the Bible as the Word of God. Such a heritage will carry forward those who proclaim it in both word and deed.
ISBN 0-88243-787-9
GOSPEL PUBLISHING HOUSE SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI

Bible Word God

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bible Word God

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gospel Publishing House Springfield, Missouri 02-0683

THE BIBLETHE WORD OF GOD

THE BIBLETHE WORD OF GOD

1 The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

CONTEMPORARY, PRACTICAL ISSUES

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

Stronstad, Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics,

2 Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal, Postmodern World

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

THE JESUS SEMINAR

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD

RESOURCES FOR THE PASTOR*

WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR.

3 Inerrancy and Interpretation