I cannot tell you how many times believers call into question my commitment to Scripture when they differ with my interpretation of Scripture. Whether young earth, male-only leadership, mandatory 10% tithing, or church attendance, I’m repeatedly reminded by my brothers and sisters in Christ how I do not fit into the family in ways they deem appropriate. Sometimes the exclusivity kills me! All I can think to say is “blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.”
Rachel Held Evans (again) hits it out of the park with her post. Here’s a quote:
What is perhaps most frustrating about engaging in such conversations within the evangelical community in particular, however, is that differences regarding things like Calvinism and Arminianism, baptism, heaven and hell, gender roles, homosexuality, and atonement theories often disintegrate into harsh accusations in which we question one another’s commitment to Scripture.
In some cases, folks are so committed to their particular views on these issues they seem incapable of making a distinction between the Bible itself and their interpretation of it, and so any critique of that interpretation is seen as a critique of Scripture itself!
In a previous post I warned about the dangers of the phenomenon “groupthink.” Admittedly when we do not run in the same circles as those who share our doctrinal commitments, we tend to be liberated from the jaws of “groupthink” and start to think differently about some of our commitments. But this does not necessarily entail that all commitments are subject to retreat. I may no longer be committed to a young earth interpretation of Scripture, but this does not mean I think Scripture is no longer authoritative or valuable in my understanding of the topic at hand. I sense the presence of a few fallacies of presumption in the evangelical community: slippery slope fallacy, guilt-by-association.
I’m confused, you don’t believe the bible supports young earth?
No…I do not believe the Bible supports a young earth. Of course, you’re not going to respond saying “Well then. You’re not committed to Scripture!” are you? ;-)
I would say congratulations on seeing that! I posted on your pervious blog post, but it didn’t show up, what’s up with that?
Sorry; it went to spam but I retrieved and approved.
Is it ever appropriate to question someone’s commitment to Scripture? I don’t think you would say every interpretation is equally valid. What does “not being committed to Scripture” look like or is it a meaningless (or empty) phrase?
Yes. It could be appropriate to question one’s commitment to Scripture. When the discussion thread is on topic about one’s commitment to Scripture, then by all means question away! But what is at stake here is a lack of respect for a difference in hermeneutic, not whether one is committed to Scripture. Of course not all interpretations are equally valid, since clearly some are more informed by historical/literary context, language studies, et al. than others. However, the main point I am making here is the fact that discussions are sidetracked because one claims a commitment to Scripture is in question, when indeed what should be asked is “How did you come to that position from the biblical text?” This question would keep the focus on the topic at hand and advance the discussion further. Did I mention red herring, too? ;-)
I guess what I was driving at was something like this: is it ever appropriate to question the commitment to Scripture given a particular hermeneutic? If someone says the entire Old Testament is the result of primitive pagan thinking and should be abandoned, is this just another hermeneutic at work or does it betray something deeper? I think you’re initial observation is right that some question a commitment to Scripture too quickly and on issues that are purely interpretive. But I’m just wondering if some forms of hermeneutics can bring with them an implicit doubt about the authority of Scripture. Does that make sense?
Hi Louis, although I am not christian and consider myself agnostic to the the possibilities and atheistic in my global outlook, I am very familiar with different hermeneutic interpretations of scripture. Questioning someone’s commitment to scripture is different than questioning a interpretation; one is questioning a person’s motives, while the other is finding possible flaws in someone’s logic. I think, whether we all want to admit it or not, we are all searching for truth and follow whatever makes sense to our experiences and education and even though you interpret the bible differently than me or Paul, that doesn’t mean any of our motives are maligned. Questioning motives has results in church splits, new denominations and even wars – all because one person thinks Adam was destined to eat the fruit and one says he had freewill to make the choice.
I understand where you could think the authority of scripture can be questioned, when one rejects that the earth is 6000 years old, given that Ken Ham has done the math for us and told us how old the earth is “from a biblical standpoint” However, because one holds the bible as true, does not mean they should cling to it at all costs. Currently, it’s pretty much only the fundamentalists of the world religions who think the earth is thousands of years old rather than billions, simply because their holy book tells them so. This is a slippery slope and I can see your frustration.
Hi Shawn,
I appreciated your distinction between questioning an interpretation and questioning someones motives. I’m still stuck on wondering if certain interpretations carry with them an implicit noncommitment to the authority of Scripture. Perhaps its more a question of certain presuppositions that I see more than the actual act of interpreting. As an agnostic you would not adhere to the authority of Scripture (at least not as “given by God). That’s a presupposition that would affect the way in which you interpret Scripture. I would not therefore challenge your commitment to Scripture on the basis of your interpretation but rather on your agnostic presuppositions. But suppose you hadn’t told me you were an agnostic but I started to sense from some of your interpretations a pattern which made me wonder about your commitment to Scripture? Would I be questioning your motives or simply deducing something from your hermeneutics that in turn proved to be true–as an agnostic you are not commited to the authority of Scripture. I fear I’m not being as clear as I would like to be so forgive me if this is a bit muddled.
Honest questions: Is it ever appropriate to tell another believer that they are incorrect/wrong on an issue or far afield of orthodoxy? When do we run the danger of saying “peace, peace” when there is not any peace? Are there vitals to the Christian Faith that without them, one cannot be a Christian?