This morning, I was saddened to hear of Bishop Lipscomb’s, the Bishop of Southwest Florida, intention to leave the Episcopal Church for the Roman Church. It is hard to know the interior process that led to his decision, and why speculate. At the end of the day, individuals choose a course based on many factors. Sometimes, it is a combined weight that leads us in a particular direction. I wish him well and the peace of Christ.
In his letter to the diocese he writes:
“I was blessed to grow up in a Christian home where I was given the gift of a deep love for the Lord Jesus Christ and a reverence for God’s revelation of his love and redemptive purpose in the Word written, as well as the Word made Flesh. I was blessed to be brought into the family of the Episcopal Church 40 years ago. I have a deep love for the sacramental life, most especially the Eucharistic sacrifice through which God continues to pour his grace into our lives in the Word that needs no words.”
This is a beautiful reflection, and I am in no way seeking to be critical of it, but I want to think through it. My thinking is related to reading Karl Barth of late. For Barth, as I understand him, theology begins with the Word of God. By this, Barth means Jesus. The ultimate revelation of God comes in the person of Jesus, the Word made Flesh. The Bible, of course, contains the story of the revelation, but the Bible itself is not the revelation. This is a somewhat subtle distinction. I think it is a distinction that Bishop Lipscomb makes in the above paragraph.
Barth was concerned about bibliolatry, making the text the object of devotion, rather than the revelation contained in it. Many Christians seem to understand this, and it seems that many don’t. I love Jesus. I love the Bible. Does the order in rank make a difference?
I would argue it does. Thoughts?
In his letter to the diocese he writes:
“I was blessed to grow up in a Christian home where I was given the gift of a deep love for the Lord Jesus Christ and a reverence for God’s revelation of his love and redemptive purpose in the Word written, as well as the Word made Flesh. I was blessed to be brought into the family of the Episcopal Church 40 years ago. I have a deep love for the sacramental life, most especially the Eucharistic sacrifice through which God continues to pour his grace into our lives in the Word that needs no words.”
This is a beautiful reflection, and I am in no way seeking to be critical of it, but I want to think through it. My thinking is related to reading Karl Barth of late. For Barth, as I understand him, theology begins with the Word of God. By this, Barth means Jesus. The ultimate revelation of God comes in the person of Jesus, the Word made Flesh. The Bible, of course, contains the story of the revelation, but the Bible itself is not the revelation. This is a somewhat subtle distinction. I think it is a distinction that Bishop Lipscomb makes in the above paragraph.
Barth was concerned about bibliolatry, making the text the object of devotion, rather than the revelation contained in it. Many Christians seem to understand this, and it seems that many don’t. I love Jesus. I love the Bible. Does the order in rank make a difference?
I would argue it does. Thoughts?
10 comments:
I would agree.
I think the order in rank makes a difference, but the distinction needs to be carefully made.
Jesus Christ is THE Word of God (cf. the Prologue to the Gospel according to John), and Holy Scripture is the Word of God in a secondary sense. Scripture derives its authority from Jesus Christ, not vice versa.
I do not believe this distinction in any way detracts from the authority of scripture as the record of God's revelation and as "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" (BCP, p. 877). Indeed, we can know nothing about Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior - as the definitive revelation of God's intentions and purposes - apart from scripture. Nonetheless, I think it's important to make the distinction lest we fall into the very 'bibliolatry' you write about.
I find it interesting and disconcerting that some Christians seem to espouse an almost Islamic view of Holy Scripture. Orthodox Islam teaches that God commanded the Prophet Muhammed to "Recite!," and Muhammed obediently wrote down everything God said to him in Arabic. This means that when Muslims recite the Koran in Arabic, they believe they are reciting the very words of God Himself.
This Islamic understanding of the Word of God is quite different from the Christian understanding of the Word of God as preeminately a Person rather than a book (or the words in a book). And yet, there are Christians who conflate the two, making the Bible the Word of God in a sense that arguabely rivals or even displaces Jesus Christ as the Word of God.
Well said Bryan. Thinking about matters of faith and ethics, I wonder how we manage issues with The Word, Jesus and the Word the Bible? What are we to make of issues that the Bible addresses, and Jesus remains silent?
Considering issues of sexuality, the Bible mentions them quite sparingly. Jesus remains silent. How are we to interpret his silence? Do we conclude that he didn't mention them, because he was in agreement with the traditional but sparse line? Or do we conclude that these were not issues that concerned him. If that is the case, we have to wonder why Paul makes his move. I suppose another angle would be to attempt reconcile Jesus teaching and ministry with Paul and the Holiness Code.
What to got Bryan?
Peace,
Chris+
I think that the order is unimportant as long as you are aware of the difference as articulated by Barth. Toby
I of course meant, What you Got...Sorry about the typos.
You raise important and very difficult hermeneutical issues in your response to my comment, Chris. I have no easy answers. I think we have to continue struggling with scripture - that struggling with the silence of scripture on important topics, or with places where scripture seems to contradict itself or offers rival and incompatible teachings (as the NT does on the issue of divorce and remarriage, as I've summarized on my blog) is part of our faithfulness.
Here's an interesting and hopefully relevant nugget from Frank E. Wilson's wonderful book (unfortunately no longer in print) Faith and Practice: "The Church ... is not dependent upon the Bible. It is the Bible that is dependent upon the Church, because, when all is said and done, it was the Church that made the Bible. That is the reason why the only sensible way to interpret the Bible is by reference to the Church which made it. We must keep the order straight: First Christ - then the Church - then the Bible" (p. 46).
Bearing Wilson's words in mind, part of our struggle involves not just with what scripture says (or where it fails to clearly address something), but also with what the Church has said about the issues of concern. And so we have to consult not only the great interpreters of scripture, but also read scripture together to see if, standing together under the Word, we can better discern the mind of Christ.
Thx for your response, and I like the quote from Wislon. Too often, we don't really engage the Bible, or seek the mind of Christ.
Some preach a kind of "cheap grace" that ignores God's claim on us. This school creates a kind of works righteousness, bound up in being a "good" person. The Bible is then reduced to being a quaint collection of stories about how to do it.
Another perspective is to treat the the Bible like the U. S. Constitution. The most ardent interpreters seem to completely ignore issues of context. It gets tricky, when dealing with issues the authors could never have imagined in their wildest dreams.
Now, I am not foolish enough to think that people are so different now, as opposed to the past. We might see the world in different ways, but change the particulars a wee bit in most Bible stories, and the stories resonate.
I think a path may be available to us in Jesus' interaction with the his tradition. It seems that Jesus strikes at the argument of officials, when it centers on observance disconnected from his read of the intent of the tradition. This is an oversimplification and a generalization, but one maybe not too far off the mark.
Maybe in the process of engaging the Bible as a living document, seeking the mind of Christ, we discover the truth within the truth of the written Word of God.
"Jesus remains silent."
Huh? Read Matthew and Jesus' endorsement of male and femal in marriage 'from the beginning' for one. It is amazing how educated people--priests no less--say this kind of stuff.
Dear Anonymous,
I somehow overlooked your comment in moderation and just discovered it. My point of Jesus remaining silent had to do with same-sex relationships, not any mention of marriage.
Chris+
Post a Comment