Can Someone Recommend a Church that still Teaches the Bible?
Over the course of a few days, I heard/read inquiries/comments like this: At our church, we don't apologize for what we believe. And, I'm new to the area: can someone please recommend a church that follows and teaches the Bible?
A few years ago when our teaching pastor dealt with the question of biblical authority, interpretation and how to read the Bible, one of the results was that some people left the church. It wasn't so much what he taught during this series -- although some took exception to that as well -- it was his approach and attitude. Which was one of: I can't possibly be right 100% of the time about 100% of all things theological, therefore... humility? It deserves to be noted that said teaching pastor who advocates humility is currently working on his Phd in theology.
Some didn't like,to be reminded for example, that within any biblical tradition -- even the particular strand of, say, evangelicalism to which you belong -- there are gradients of belief that a) are supported by equally brilliant theologians who all love God and b) have historically caused church splits. Our pastor's conclusion: we should be respectful of the beliefs of others when they differ from ours. In other words, how arrogant is it to think that we have completely figured out the infinite God of the universe? Which isn't to say we should not "study to show ourselves approved" (2 Timothy 2:15). We should. But this study or conviction of what we believe should be held humbly.
So let's start with: we're not ashamed of the Bible. I read this on a church website: "At our church, we don't apologize for the Bible." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, in part, what they're saying is, "We're not like those churches who do apologize for the Bible... or water it down."
Specifically, this statement might be followed by sentiments such as: we believe in a literal hell, we believe homosexuality is a sin, we believe in the the literal six days of creation (Speaking of "literal", we read the Bible *literally).
Back to not "apologizing" for the Bible. Before dealing with the scripture this likely comes from -"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile" (Romans 1:16) -- allow me to back up the bus and make a few points.
Firstly, the word "gospel" predates the New Testament and exists in other ancient literature. Outside of Christian literature, in Greek, Roman and Egyptian literature, for example, it was used both as a verb and noun meaning good tidings, to bring good tidings, good news, and the beginning of good news. One usage has it as sacrifice to bring good tidings.
In Hebrew literature, 2 Samuel and 2 Kings 4, the definition of "gospel" is a messenger's reward.
Second point: let's not confuse Paul writing that he's not ashamed of the gospel -- as he was admonishing first Century believers in Rome -- with modern western believers when they say they don't apologize for the Bible. There's a stark difference. At the very peril of death, Paul was saying he was not ashamed of this gospel/kingdom ideal: this new powerful way of life that was salvation to both Jews and, radically, also Gentiles who were despised by the religious elite of the day.
In other words, this persecuted minority was willing to die not to defend a specific theological brand or a narrowly prescribed list of correct beliefs. No. Instead, they were willing to die defending a new way of life ushered in by Jesus. Mostly, they were not ashamed to align themselves with the very person of Jesus as his disciples in the new, counter-cultural kingdom-way He taught.
And what is this kingdom-way that Jesus preached? What is the New Testament gospel?
Perhaps the good news can be best summed up by some of Jesus's first words spoken during his adult ministry:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has chosen me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed and proclaim the year of the Lord's favour (Luke 4:18).
This was indeed good news to a very marginalized, neglected groups of people.
The good news is not primarily that Jesus died, rose again, and made a way for us to have eternal life. This certainly is good news. But given the fact that Jesus preached about the kingdom before he died, it has to be more than this. It has to be about what He envisioned -- and still envisions -- as life now on earth as it is in heaven. And, as stated in Luke 4:18 above, this must have justice and mercy as its cornerstones.
It -- God's kingdom -- is not a checklist that, I suspect, people are really looking for when they seek a "Bible-believing church."
It is...
...like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches” (Luke 13:19).
_______________________________________________
* a good blog post that deals with "reading the Bible literally"
A few years ago when our teaching pastor dealt with the question of biblical authority, interpretation and how to read the Bible, one of the results was that some people left the church. It wasn't so much what he taught during this series -- although some took exception to that as well -- it was his approach and attitude. Which was one of: I can't possibly be right 100% of the time about 100% of all things theological, therefore... humility? It deserves to be noted that said teaching pastor who advocates humility is currently working on his Phd in theology.
Some didn't like,to be reminded for example, that within any biblical tradition -- even the particular strand of, say, evangelicalism to which you belong -- there are gradients of belief that a) are supported by equally brilliant theologians who all love God and b) have historically caused church splits. Our pastor's conclusion: we should be respectful of the beliefs of others when they differ from ours. In other words, how arrogant is it to think that we have completely figured out the infinite God of the universe? Which isn't to say we should not "study to show ourselves approved" (2 Timothy 2:15). We should. But this study or conviction of what we believe should be held humbly.
So let's start with: we're not ashamed of the Bible. I read this on a church website: "At our church, we don't apologize for the Bible." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, in part, what they're saying is, "We're not like those churches who do apologize for the Bible... or water it down."
Specifically, this statement might be followed by sentiments such as: we believe in a literal hell, we believe homosexuality is a sin, we believe in the the literal six days of creation (Speaking of "literal", we read the Bible *literally).
Back to not "apologizing" for the Bible. Before dealing with the scripture this likely comes from -"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile" (Romans 1:16) -- allow me to back up the bus and make a few points.
Firstly, the word "gospel" predates the New Testament and exists in other ancient literature. Outside of Christian literature, in Greek, Roman and Egyptian literature, for example, it was used both as a verb and noun meaning good tidings, to bring good tidings, good news, and the beginning of good news. One usage has it as sacrifice to bring good tidings.
In Hebrew literature, 2 Samuel and 2 Kings 4, the definition of "gospel" is a messenger's reward.
Second point: let's not confuse Paul writing that he's not ashamed of the gospel -- as he was admonishing first Century believers in Rome -- with modern western believers when they say they don't apologize for the Bible. There's a stark difference. At the very peril of death, Paul was saying he was not ashamed of this gospel/kingdom ideal: this new powerful way of life that was salvation to both Jews and, radically, also Gentiles who were despised by the religious elite of the day.
In other words, this persecuted minority was willing to die not to defend a specific theological brand or a narrowly prescribed list of correct beliefs. No. Instead, they were willing to die defending a new way of life ushered in by Jesus. Mostly, they were not ashamed to align themselves with the very person of Jesus as his disciples in the new, counter-cultural kingdom-way He taught.
And what is this kingdom-way that Jesus preached? What is the New Testament gospel?
Perhaps the good news can be best summed up by some of Jesus's first words spoken during his adult ministry:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has chosen me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed and proclaim the year of the Lord's favour (Luke 4:18).
This was indeed good news to a very marginalized, neglected groups of people.
The good news is not primarily that Jesus died, rose again, and made a way for us to have eternal life. This certainly is good news. But given the fact that Jesus preached about the kingdom before he died, it has to be more than this. It has to be about what He envisioned -- and still envisions -- as life now on earth as it is in heaven. And, as stated in Luke 4:18 above, this must have justice and mercy as its cornerstones.
It -- God's kingdom -- is not a checklist that, I suspect, people are really looking for when they seek a "Bible-believing church."
It is...
...like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches” (Luke 13:19).
It is not a binary system that preoccupies itself with who's in and who's out. God's will is for all to come to a saving knowledge of Himself.
It is...
"...like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it (Matthew 13:44-46).
It is...
"...not of this world. If [Jesus's] kingdom were of this world, [His} servants would fight, so that [He] should not be delivered to the Jews; but... [His] kingdom is not from here....For this cause [He] was born, and for this cause [He came] into the world, that [He] should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears [His] voice" (John 18:36-37).
Richard Rohr likes to point out that this "cause" was largely lost when the church became a powerful, political force and no longer a revolutionary movement to serve, to love and to restore.
It (God's kingdom) is still so counter-cultural that it is foolishness to the wise. In fact, one has to be like a child to even begin to grasp it... no, scratch that and roll it back further: one has to be born again to see God's kingdom. Richard Rohr likes to point out that this "cause" was largely lost when the church became a powerful, political force and no longer a revolutionary movement to serve, to love and to restore.
_______________________________________________
* a good blog post that deals with "reading the Bible literally"
Comments
Post a Comment