Ok, so my rant about Beth Moore was, well, imprecise. But there is one characteristic of Moore’s efforts that her critic missed, and it is one which is pervasive among many teachers. While in her case it dove-tailed very nicely with the word-faith approach, it expresses itself quite clearly in regular evangelical teaching. This is the propensity to make the Scripture into a metaphor for life instead of a direct teacher to life.
It does not take long for one to find a sermon or lesson that reduces the content to metaphor. Let’s mention a few of the common ones:
1. Goliath. What is the giant in your life?
2. Jericho. What are the walls that keep you from moving on?
3. Hagar. What is the compromise that you must chase out of your life?
4. Bathsheba. What is the wrong opportunity that you face today?
And they’re in the New Testament as well. A common is:
5. Pentecost. What is the experience that you need today?
Now, we’ve seen the liberals employ metaphor for the past two centuries. They have changed the ethical content of the Sermons on the Mount to some public language that has nothing to do with the demands of a holy God. They have also changed the church from a fellowship of believers responsible before God into a place of public service. But as much as I would enjoy jumping on liberalism, our internal issues seem to be not a lot different.
Right now I am struggling with the statements of Knud Jørgensen at Lausanne World Pulse as he expresses what looks like a near-universalism in his understanding of the Christian faith. (Part 1, Part 2).
So I am committed to believing that every part of the created world and every human being is already related to Jesus (cf. Paul’s speech on Areopagos where the presence of the altar for the unknown God implies that God is already there). Everything was made through the Logos, he is the life of all, and he is the light that gives light to every person. The presence and work of Jesus are not confined within the area where he is acknowledged.
In every human there is not only a moral consciousness (Romans 2:14-15), but also a religious consciousness. This does not imply that everything is light; both scripture and experience make it clear that there is also darkness, but the light shines in the darkness.
And this light may also shine in the lives of other human beings. My Christian confession does not force me to deny the reality of the work of God in the lives, thoughts, and prayers of men and women outside the Christian Church. Neither do I deny the dark side of religion. But this dark side does not prevent me from seeing the light of God in the lives of men and women who do not acknowledge him as Lord. Paul’s speech on Areopagos points to a continuity between our lives and the only God, at the same time as there is confrontation and a call to conversion. This “twofoldedness” means that I am challenged to think two thoughts at the same time.
This is problematic to me. While he does say that the Christian faith is distinct, he come so close to universalism here that I seriously wonder about his understanding of the Gospel. His sense of pluralism seems to override his sense of the need for personal redemption and its absolute supremacy even over rationalism. So this comment of his must be rejected:
Since the late nineteenth century, the following conviction has played a large role in missionary motivation: those who die without the saving gospel of Christ face an eternity apart from God.
I have struggled with this view—and reached the conclusion that it cannot be true. At least seventy-five percent of those who have lived and died throughout history have never heard the gospel. In spite of our best efforts today and in the future, there will be millions more who, through no fault of their own, will live and die without being presented with the good news.
John 3:16 talks about those who believe in him (that they will be saved)—and about those who are confronted by him and do not believe. It hardly talks, however, about those who are not rejecting him or failing to believe in him because they have never heard about him.
But does not Romans 10 argue for the necessity of preaching the gospel for people to be saved? To be honest, I have preached several sermons along those lines. Today, I realise that the point Paul is making relates to the Jewish people and not necessarily to everybody else: God has sent messengers, the messengers have preached, and their message has been heard. Nevertheless, Israel has not believed, even though they have heard, Paul says (Romans 10:18). The point I (and many others) am making when using this text is not addressed in the text at all. The focus is on people who have heard the gospel, but have not believed.
But what then is the motivation for mission? Is not the primary motivation for mission the glory of God? I am not questioning the essential role of sending missionaries, but is it not so that God goes out ahead of his Church—and that he calls us to follow him?
What we do with the Word is critical. Even those who might otherwise be orthodox and prudent can run into serious problems.
March 14th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #1
Thanks Collin for this helpful clarification of your own struggles and desires to uphold Christian truth. I share both.
Your post causes me to wonder if part, and I do mean part, of the problem is not ecclesiological. For instance, there is a long tradition within Christianity of employing allegory and metaphor, and this tradition is being recovered. I am thinking here of the movement that took off from Pro Ecclesia and the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology with its desire to read the Bible through the eyes of the church. Allegory and metaphor are fine, it seems to me, when one couples them with tradition. They become problematic when they are severed from tradition and then become a free-floating exercise to promote any and all positions.
Secondly, from the perspective of the tradition of the church, Jorgensen’s comments are not all that troublesome. From at least Justin Martyr (with his idea of the “seeds” of the Word), Christianity has affirmed that the triune God is at work in the world through the “two hands of the Father,” to borrow an Irenaean metaphor, the Word and the Spirit. The quotation from Jorgensen seems nothing more than an attempt to talk about greater continuity between “nature” and grace, which, admittedly is a little foreign to Protestant ears because we normally like to talk about sin and grace. I would have to see whether Jorgensen went so far as to suggest that humans could be saved on the basis on that knowledge and then how he might formulate this.
March 14th, 2010 | 2:49 pm | #2
well, if you had led with that, rather than pirates blathering, i probably would not even have posted because you are exactly correct on BM, as well as a whole generation of preachers (male and female)
March 14th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #3
I added an update as well, showing how far this missiologist has gone in rejecting the the necessity for redemption.
As Luther pointed out, the problem is not the church but the framework for authority. The church, as called as it is, is still subject to error. (Note the churches in Revelation.)
Perhaps I tried to build my case in a weak fashion.
March 14th, 2010 | 5:03 pm | #4
I need to follow up here and reiterate my frustration, expressed on Mark Olson’s most recent post, about putting up partial quotations that one cannot really comment upon.
I guess all I can say is that I will not comment on the quotation for fear that a second update will follow in which I am yet again made to see more nuance.
As a matter of procedure can we refrain from quotations that do not get at the fundamental idea.
March 14th, 2010 | 5:11 pm | #5
Dale,
I intend no additional updates.
March 14th, 2010 | 6:25 pm | #6
I realize now–one of those moments of silent lucidity–where you did post a link to the whole document. So, my comment was really misdirected. I have exorcised myself of the spirit of Homer Simpson, and I am hoping that it will not get seven more and attempt a return.
March 14th, 2010 | 9:08 pm | #7
I appreciate your statement that you were imprecise. But does the use of metaphor make her a heretic. That is pretty strong language.
March 14th, 2010 | 9:54 pm | #8
I understood the problem not to be the use of any metaphor per se, but the use of metaphor in a way that contradicts literal, historical, contextual understandings of the Bible, and then goes on to reduce the Bible to a dime a dozen self-help manual.
March 14th, 2010 | 11:47 pm | #9
But what about the over 4 billion living-breathing-feeling human beings on this planet who are not Christians?
And the hundreds of millions of Christians (probably even a majority) who do not subscribe to your self-righteous religiosity.
A self-righteousness which is inherently intolerant of other faith traditions.
March 15th, 2010 | 3:46 am | #10
Being “tolerant” of other faiths in no way makes them true.
That aside, if you want to discuss righteousness, it is this very thing that should (although sometimes not) makes Christians different. Our righteousness is not “self” but other. We need a rightousness apart from ourselves that can make us acceptable to a Holy and Living God.
Without the righteousness of Christ, what other religions believe does not matter one iota. I can be tolerant of thier existance, but I will never call them truth. The reality is they are self-righteous because it comes down to the individual “makeing themselves right” rather than allowing the Savior to make them right.
John, your comment came across as a slap (if that indeed was your intent) but the reality is tolerance does not make truth. And the tolerance I suspect you have in view is not tolerance at all.
Mike
March 15th, 2010 | 9:16 am | #11
That “the churches” are subject to error (re Revelations) does not necessarily imply that The Church is in error; at least not unless one assumes a novel ecclesiology ala Luther, etc.
March 15th, 2010 | 10:28 am | #12
Isn’t there a big difference between an allegorical interpretation and an allegorical application? I agree that to make a metaphor out of every passage is a bad idea. However, what else are we to do with the stories of the Bible? I don’t mean that they don’t teach us about life and God, but what’s wrong with drawing strength from David’s victory over Goliath? When I face a giant in my life, I do like to think of how God has repeatedly provided strength to His people. Isn’t that why we teach these stories to kids?
Having said all that, I do see that allegorizing can be dangerous because one can even allegorize God. That’s something New Agers, Oprahists, and liberals often do.
But doesn’t Paul use metaphor in Galatians when writes about the two mountains? If we keep our Faith as central to our understanding, I think we can go far with seeing the stories as “our” stories and not just “their” stories.
March 15th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #13
You need to start with what did the story mean to the original recipient – why was Paul telling the story, what was the intent. Then you can pull out some universal applications – but you have to understand the original application to then move to universal applications.
From this one clip, BM does not identify the original intent, then draw from that a universal application. And even if she did do that, and just not bother including it in her presentation, to me her universal applications are, in general, sadly lacking.
Perhaps this was a bad day for her, but at least this presentation was not very done.
March 15th, 2010 | 6:19 pm | #14
Collin – did you rant about her? Assuredly. Was it “imprecise?” At the least. It was mean-spirited and not loving. And when you refer to “her critic,” that would be you, not simply the Captain of the pirate ship who ramped up “ranting” to a whole new level.
You’re right. What we do with the Word is critical. Absolutely.
I wonder that you could stand to apologize to Mrs. Moore, since you were so eager to call her out on her heresy and your statement that churches should not “use her material. It’s dangerous.”
I think what the Word in these matters (of treating others lovelessly and angrily without first having gone to them privately) has to say is critical.
I think an apology is in order. And not an apology for “impreciseness;” but an apology for behaving publicly in a less than loving manner.
March 15th, 2010 | 8:10 pm | #15
edvee,
If I am wrong …
if name it-claim-it for personal power is acceptable
If redemption is merely a self-help course
If spoken words have power
… If these do not represent heresy, then i would certainly offer an apology.
But they are.
If loose metaphor is an acceptable method for dealing with the Word.
If telling people that they need not study the word is acceptable.
But they are not.
So I shall not.
Because correction is the most loving thing to do, both for her and for the church at large.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact