fbpx
37.4 F
Spokane
Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomeCommentaryBlogsCaves, Christianity, and Clarity

Caves, Christianity, and Clarity

Date:

Related stories

My Journey through Homelessness Part Five: Learning to Live Outside the Box

The value of my homeless experience lies not so much in having learned how to live outside — at least not in the geographical sense. The value of my homeless experience lies in having learned how to live outside the box.

Lost in Translation: Isn’t It Time We Moved Beyond a Fear-Based Repentance?

When I hear the kingdom is at hand, followed immediately by the command to repent, the good news is overshadowed by the fear that I’m not good enough to be part of the kingdom of God.

Inspiring Others: How Our Marriage Turned 50

As we prepare to celebrate 50 years there are so many thoughts and memories going through my head. I have joked about how I don't know how you've put up with me for this long, which is really true in a sense with my Irish enthusiasm and temper.

Taking the Road ‘Less Traveled by’ Has Made ‘All the Difference’

Pete Haug remembers hearing Robert Frost read his poem "The Road not Taken" 65 years ago. It reminded him of his spiritual journey out of the Christianity of his youth into choosing the Baha'i faith as an adult.

Ask an EOC: Can You Confess in Private to God but not in Church Confession and be Forgiven?

Concerning the sacrament of Confession, Christ directly gave the authority to his Church to remit or retain the sins of the penitent. 

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img

[todaysdate]

By Corbin Croy

There is a growing movement in the evangelical form of Christianity, and it is being heralded by an up-and-coming theologian named Dr. Michael Brown. I have heard relatively little from this man, but I can tell you that his message packs a punch, and it is only a matter of time before this guy takes the place of other great Bible bashers like RC Sproul and Norman Geisler. Dr. Brown’s central message seems to revolve around the idea that on all accounts it is wrong to impose our own will, wishes, identity, or whims upon what the word of God says.

Recently, Dr. Brown debated Matt Vines, author of the book “God and the Gay Christian,” on Moody Radio, and as an intellectualist the debate was embarrassing for Dr. Brown. He also debated Bart Ehrman on the subject of human suffering. In this debate, there was an equal amount of rhetorical and emotional appeals, but I could tell that this man had mastered the craft of using highly sensitive theological ideas to exploit a very dubious and ignorant Christian population. Also, Dr. Brown has a new book coming out as an attack of what he calls “hyper-grace,” which I understand as a belief that God’s grace empowers us to live in freedom. Reviewing some of Michael Brown’s materials, I can tell that he has a very strong belief in the purity of biblical authority and that he sees any compromise on the clear teachings of scripture as a dilution of God’s true words to mankind.

What Michael Brown is doing is something that I find many evangelical Christians do. They substitute the irrationality of the Bible for their own rationality. To put it another way, if something doesn’t make sense to us in the Bible, it is our fault, not the Bible’s. If we as honest individuals find something within the revealed writings irrational, and we have good reasons to think this, then our objections are seen as mere opinion and whim in the face of an all-knowing God who has given us unchanging truth. I call this a “high view” of biblical authority. The high view seeks to lift up the propositions given in the Bible as the standard for rational judgment. Thus, the reality given to us through our senses and cognitive assimilation must be something that conforms to the propositions given to us in the Bible. It is always our judgments and cognitive syntheses which are faulty and never the clear interpretation of scripture.

Basically, what the high view of biblical authority does is eliminate any authority for general revelation. What is general revelation? General revelation is the acknowledgement that all truth comes from God. God reveals himself in truth. Science, history, math, poetry, art, and philosophy all reveal truth to us in some way. I may not discover the truth of the cosmos by reading poetry, but I am immersed in some form of truth through the arts nonetheless. These truths, which we discover independently through our cognitive faculties, are theologically labeled as “general revelation.” For the most part, anything rational or independently verified can be seen as existing in the sphere of God’s general revelation. Thus, general revelation is a theological tool. We have no physical evidence to suggest that everything rational is rational because God made it so. Nor do we have a reason to think that rationality demands a “reason” for itself. The fact that something is rational is typically the end of the road for that argument. Nonetheless, general revelation does work as a bridge for understanding God and everything in relation to Him.

What does this have to do with the Bible? Well, in contrast with general revelation, the Bible is considered “special revelation.” Special revelation is truth-bearing, just as general revelation is. This would seem to put it underneath the category of general revelation. However–and here is the kicker–special revelation is believed to either come without mediation or to have the fewest number of mediators. So while special revelation may appear to be a subset of general revelation, it also seems to be more reliable in identifying truths that stand in relation to God. Here is how a typical conflict between general and special revelation is viewed: since we can be wrong about God’s general revelation, or we can be unsure of how the truth of general revelation stands in relation to God, we ought to doubt general revelation in light of what we find in special revelation, because we know that these truths came directly from God.

Typically, this is a good argument, and from a first glance it would seem to be correct. It is unclear to me how modern science and ethics has anything to do with God: our universe is being seen more and more as an independent system without any need for a supernatural creator. Additionally, our cultural and political systems are slowly becoming more and more secular; at the very least, it has become accepted that the word “secular” stand for non-religious, or non-supernatural, bias. It has become very difficult for most Christians to see how these “truths” relate to God. Before, it seemed very easy to stand in an empty field and look up into the stars at night and feel like all this was possible only because of a creator, and special revolution confirmed this conclusion.

Now, it seems that general revelation has overturned many of the once-believed-to-be-true beliefs that religious people thought to be sacred and unchanging. Because of this, it is only natural to fall back on the security of special revelation: it is easy to retreat into one’s own religious community and coda. The difficult task of faithfully uniting general revelation and special revelation is certainly not required in order to stand in relation to God, but that is not our problem now, is it? If our problem was simply that people lacked the courage to do the hard work, then we could go about encouraging and educating people, but that is not what we have to do. The problem that we need to correct is that people do not lack in courage: they’ve been led to believe that they are being courageous. They are being told that they can retreat into the safety of special revelation and that they can stand as men and fight the good fight, but this is a lie. They are also led to believe that they are defending God’s truth and God’s word in the conclave of their own special revelation. This is what Michael Brown affirms when he accuses others of imposing their desires upon the word of God. He means that they have not retreated into their caves of religion, where their view of everything is narrowed by the authority of a more direct relationship with God.

What is happening in the religious world today is something that we have known about mankind for thousands of years. Plato famously spoke of this with the symbol of a cave. In the cave, man’s truths are the shadows that get reflected on the walls. However, these shadows are poor representations of the actual truth, which is illuminated by the light outside the cave. Outside the cave, things may be more dangerous and isolated, but they are clearer. Inside the cave, we have no real virtue, but it can still be a place where we bond with one another deeply and where stories take shape more meaningfully. Just because one denies the shadows does not mean one denies the cave. One can live in a world with both cave and light.

What I wish to challenge is the premise that one cannot impose one’s desires on the word of God, for how is one assured that their desires have no part to play in the word of God? What is the evidence that suggests that our desires and God’s word are two separate and distinct entities? I am not suggesting that they are the same, or that we can impose whatever meaning we want upon special revelation; however, before we go hacking away at what might be God’s leading on our hearts, let us stop to consider the source of our desires. What is the source of belief, reason, insight, preference, “will,” and emotion? We may desire things for completely selfish reasons, I can grant that, but even then, are such desires wrong? Are they misguided? If God created us with desires, then should we not take them more seriously, and not simply dismiss them because we have a Bible? Would it not be more wise to first work out our own desires independently, then assess whether we can fulfill them in good conscience with our identity in God, and then finally work out how God’s special revelation relates to us?

For here is the hard truth to face. Special revelation does not give us any mediated advantage in a relationship with God. The reality is that we are imposing our will in special revelation no matter what. The idea that there exists an independent clarity to scripture because it “comes from God” is a false bill of goods sold to us from a power structure that profits from the ignorance of men. Any special revelation requires an interpretation. The only unmediated truth that exists is our own internal states. If there is going to be any unmediated relationship with God, it could only happen in our internal states. Special revelation does not fit the bill of being the least mediated form of truth possible. If the authority of special revelation relies on its immediacy to God, then it has to be stated that religious experience trumps special revelation. If religious experience trumps special revelation,  then no superior authority can be granted. This holds given that the intrinsic clarity of special revelation is false.

Corbin Croy
Corbin Croy
Corbin Croy was born in Spokane and grew up in Post Falls. In 1998 he got married at the age of 18 and moved to Coeur d’Alene. Together they have four children, and try to live as simply and honestly as possible.

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img
spot_img

2 COMMENTS

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eric Blauer
9 years ago

Stopped reading when I read the way you described these men: “…Bible bashers like RC Sproul and Norman Geisler.” Those men have contributed so much to the body of Christ, sad to see you define their gifts to the Chuch in such dismissive ways.

Corbin
Corbin
9 years ago
Reply to  Eric Blauer

A calvinist and a presuppositionalist? Not to dismiss their achievements; you may very well be correct, but I think the appellation applies. Geisler and Licona have been going back and forth over a very trivial matter of Biblical interpretation that Geisler prompted with a very open letter to Licona. And Sproul I simply threw into the mix because he has a similar view of Biblical authority. You could easily use Mohler, or dare I say, Ken Ham, instead.

As far as what defines these men, I think it is equally mistake to jump to the conclusion that I am pigeonholing these people. I have done no such thing. Describing a person, and defining them are two different things. I have read these men and grown in my faith, because of it. I would not dismiss myself in such a way as to define these men as bad for faith.

If you are uncomfortable with the term “Bible bashers” I would certainly be open to changing it. But my impression is that you are making this bigger then it needs to be. As far as I understand things, none of these men would be ashamed of holding to such a high degree of Biblical authority, which is really the tacit motivation to weaponize the Bible. You may simply hold to a “kinder” view of these men, but if I lack such a view then I do not see why it would be sad for me to use the descriptions I have chosen.

spot_img
2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x