Kirk Wellum over at Redeeming the Times has this to say about Moreland’s address at the ETS meetings recently (see the post below for what Moreland said):
I was fascinated to read how Moreland thinks that our over-commitment to the Bible is actually doing us evangelicals harm and holding us back. Fascinated because I am not sure what evangelicals he is talking about. From my experience it is not our ‘over-commitment’ to the Bible that is holding us back but our increasling ‘ignorance’ of the Bible both in the pew and the pulpit and increasingly among those who fancy themselves evangelical scholars.
The drivel being published today that seeks to redefine ‘a high view of Scripture’ so that inerrancy is not required, or those who are looking to ‘recover and proclaim the scandal of the cross’ in a way that downplays penal substitution, or those who want to reconfigure the atonement in terms of ‘non-violence’… just to name a few recent offerings from formerly reliable evangelical publishers — do not seem to be examples of ‘over-commitment to the Bible’ but symptomatic of a restless desire to escape the constrains of Scripture.
He says that the problem with evangelicals is that they see the Bible as the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items, and accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice. This may be true in some circles, or at least it might seem that way, but most evangelicals that I know believe that the Bible is the final source of authority, not the sole source. We understand that “all truth is God’s truth” (to quote a familiar phrase) but not that all truth is revealed in the Bible.
Read the rest of Wellum here. I agree with Wellum and am repulsed by Moreland’s remarks.
November 21, 2007 at 9:40 am
I went to Moreland’s session at ETS. I’m not sure I agree with him on all fronts. However, you might be misunderstanding some of his points. Randy, from what I heard at the session, I think Moreland would agree with John Frame’s quote.
Here is a quote from my notes at the session:
- “Sola Scripture does NOT mean that the scripture is the ONLY source of wisdom and knowledge, it means that it is the sole standard and ultimate authority.”
He feels that many evangelicals look to the Bible as the sole source of all information. Now, whether this is really a problem is probably disputable. It doesn’t surprise me that Kirk Wellum disagrees that this is an issue.
At the end of his talk he admitted that the title for his session (the use of the word “overcommitted”) was for shock value. Really, he said, we should probably call this overcommittment an undercommittment because of the rampant problem with ignorance of the Bible in our circles. (sounds similar to Wellum again).
Anyway, I am definitely not agreeing with everything he said, but from reading this critique, I am not sure that it accurately represents what Moreland said. I do also think he had some good points. But of course it all has to be carefully discerned.
November 21, 2007 at 9:52 am
I seems to me like Moreland is reacting against a biblicism that has found some expression within evangelicalism (just the Bible in me). I don’t think he is trying to spurn the final authority of Scripture, but he does want to recognize the role of the Spirit, the church, and general revelation.
I think the best contemporary exploration of this topic is found in Kevin Vanhoozer’s book, The Drama of Doctrine. I would highly recommend this book, where he places the doctrine of sola scriptura in theo-dramatic perspective.
November 21, 2007 at 10:33 am
One more thing about Moreland. His biggest beef isn’t about being over-committed to Scripture in theology, but being over-committed to Scripture in public discourse. For example, he might refer to the dead end of discussing homosexuality with an unbeliever by starting with “well, the Bible says…” They don’t believe the Bible, so it’s better to argue from a common ground. Anyway, those are my two cents. Only Stephanie went to the session, but from what I heard from her, his talk was not as “blasphemous” as some people are making it out to be.
November 23, 2007 at 12:11 am
As a preacher, I know exactly how powerful “shock value” can be. But it almost never is wise and is more often than not self-serving. It is a cheap way of trying to get a point accross when one does not want to take the time to be articulate.
As for being charitable, we must remember that we owe charity to people and not necessarily their ideas. I’ve shared this quote in another context, but it fits here. This is from Philip Ryken (he was originally speaking aboutthe Federal Vision):
“I…suspect that a category mistake may be at work. Is charity a virtue that properly may be exercised toward a theological position with which we disagree? I wonder. Certainly charity is an obligation we have to persons, especially brothers and sisters in Christ. But is it something we owe to a constellation of theological ideas, especially if we consider them doctrinally unsound and pastorally unwise? In that case, would not the truly charitable thing be to oppose those ideas, for the good of the church? In this context, a call to charity gives the impression of being an emotivist attempt to claim ground in a theological dispute.” (Reformation21, May 9, 2006)
He is dead on. We think we are being gracious when we strain out orthodox gnats while we are swallowing irresponsible, irreverent–and yes, blasphemous–camels.
Again, it seems as though being “nice” (!) is what really matters, even if what someone says is not merely ridiculous but even dangerous.
November 24, 2007 at 7:55 am
Rob, I think you and Ryken have said it best. “Nice” is not good for the body of Christ and the cause of the gospel.
November 24, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I think you have misunderstood me. I am not advocating being nice. I am advocating really trying to understand what someone is saying, rather than having knee jerk reactions to a phrase or an idea.
November 26, 2007 at 12:19 am
Sometimes the jerk of the knee is correct when error or dangerous theology is being propounded. Hopefully more knees will jerk and perhaps knock some theological sense into these guys!
November 26, 2007 at 12:40 am
Wes,
I agree with you 100% regarding trying to understand what people are saying. We owe them that. However, what I am finding is that very often folks like Moreland have really made themselves abundantly clear; the problem is that far too many “evangelicals” are trying to make them say something more orthodox than they in fact have said.