April 22, 2008
Before our mishap on the Connversaton blog (in which we accidentally deleted a couple months worth of posts and comments) some lively discussion took place concerning Kenton Sparks’ new book, God’s Words in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship. When I sat down the other day to read the first hundred or so pages of Sparks’ book I ran across the following comment, which I thought would be interesting to post here and might lead us into some edifying discussion:
“In essence, the old-school evangelicals have been so sure that they are right that they no longer consider seriously the possibility that they are too conservative; ‘conservative,’ not in the sense of theological orthodoxy, but in the sense that they are unable to really think critically about whether their traditions are intellectually adequate and spiritually healthy.” (p12-13).
This comment struck me when I read it. I have long been concerned that in our zeal to fight off being too liberal, we forget that it is equally dangerous to be too conservative. This danger appears to remain essentially unrecognized amidst many of the struggles in our circles now. Such a tendency (being too conservative) has many unedifying outworkings. Sparks has hit on one of them here.
In the context of Sparks’ discussion this comment comes as he brings up how traditional American Evangelicals have been chiefly concerned with defending against views that might undermine the authority of Scripture. In this particular pursuit another danger fell from view: “…that their [traditional evangelical scholars] version of the Christian faith might harbor false ideas and beliefs that, because they are mistaken, serve as barriers to faith for those who see our evangelical errors.” In this zeal against “liberalism,” many conservative scholars missed the danger of being too conservative…(now, see the quote above). Sparks thus brings up a pastoral concern. What about the danger of setting up stumbling blocks other than legitimate Gospel stumbling blocks?
Sparks broaches here one outworking of a larger issue: the danger of being too far to the right, if you will. I generally focus on other aspects and outworkings of this danger and I hope to bring up some of these. But, for now, I put forth Sparks’ helpful comment. Any thoughts?
April 22, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Perhaps with such an aggressive preoccupation with securing one’s tradition as being the right one over against the non-believers comes a concommitant fear that if one is ever proven wrong then the whole faith is proven wrong. IF that were to ever happen, then all would be lost. After all, the battles fought by the previous generations were cosmically interpreted. They were the last “true” Christian stand against the tide of unbelieving liberalism. How in the world can anyone now ask them to concede the very points that they had staked their faiths on? Or as I put it in my book (following James Barr), how can anyone dare to ask them to apologize to critical scholars for their past mistakes?
These guys should be commended for what they’ve done in the past, not admonished. (I’m rhetorically putting these last sentiments into the mouths of “older generation” inerrantists.)
April 22, 2008 at 8:17 pm
In Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals, I refer to evangelicals’ “dogmatic” argument and “maximal-conservative” argument as being “not only a major liberal concession but possibly also a disingenuous way to save evangelical face. Barr has been forthright enough to suggest that evangelicals owe critics an apology. Unfortunately, they probably owe their students one, too.” (ix)
April 23, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I also like what Sparks is saying here. If you’ve come to a point in your Christian life when you really have to wrestle with some hard questions that scripture, life, and human experience present to us, I think you’ll likely have to agree with Sparks on this at some level. The canned answers don’t work; they tend to drive thoughtful people away from the faith. Folks such as Pete Enns and Kent Sparks have kept me more than once from diving off the deep end of the pool.
April 24, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Stephen Young: you know, the Sparks quote contains a lot of loaded language. If you could (of if Sparks does) define “conservative,” “too conservative,” “theological orthodoxy,” “intellectually adequate,” “spiritualy healthy,” and critical thought, you might be on to something. As it stands, it is an abstract assertion about what could be little more than a straw man.
April 24, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Hey everyone. I am sorry to have disappeared from this thread since posting it. Since I am tired now, I will try to get back to it in the morning.
April 25, 2008 at 8:53 am
Carlos,
Your points make sense. To bring in an aspect of another conversation that has relevance here, part of the problem is that in our Evangelical fight against ‘the Liberals’ everything is charged with faith-shattering importance. So, to “concede” a point about the interpretation of Genesis 1 is not simply a historical and theological point, but a modern social-identity point that is bound up with all sorts of shibboleths/sibboleths beyond what it should be bound up with. I am not saying our identity should not be tied in with the text, but not in un-self-critical ways.
One of the main points of Inerrancy and Hermeneutic runs along these lines. You cannot tie inerrancy to certain interpretations of Scripture. People have tended to do this as their fight for inerrancy is generally a fight against a group of people who try to deny inerrancy in order to use the Bible for certain doctrines of practices that the more conservative Evangelicals find repugnant. Thus, specific interpretations become bound up with what it means that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God such that said interpretations are no longer open to question. These leads to the troubling situation that Sparks might label as people who are not concerned about being ‘too conservative.’ In our zeal to fight for inerrancy (with the function of that fight varying depending up if we are fighting with a group trying to deny inerrancy for some specific ethical or doctrinal purpose) we have lost sight of concern that we too might no longer be open to criticism from Scripture, especially on anything that to us seemingly relates to our fight.
Ok, I am getting into rambling here…
April 25, 2008 at 8:56 am
dopderbeck,
I agree with you. Zooming in on your last point, I know people for whom the Spirit used Enns’ book to help them continue in faithfulness to Jesus. Enns helped the Bible come alive to them in ways they thought were not possible due to how they had been taught (or assumed from all the cultural-theological assumptions in the air in various parts of the conservative-Evangelical world).
April 25, 2008 at 9:07 am
Dr. Hart,
Since, from one perspective, I am a student of history and religion who likes explicit methodological self-consciousness, I appreciate your points about loaded-language and the need for definition.
At the same time, I have trouble believing that you do not still ‘get’ what Sparks is after in this quote (especially if read in context). In your knowledge of modern and contemporary “Evangelical” and Confessional Christianity in America—a knowledge that dwarfs what anyone else on the Connversation blog brings to the table—can you honestly say you do not see or have not experienced what Sparks is getting at here?
April 26, 2008 at 6:28 am
Judging by what Darryl Hart has said in Deconstructing Evangelicalism, for example, I’d say Mr. Hart does know what is being said here. I think he’s simply trying to remind that all inerrantists do not represent the “theological ortohodoxy” equally well. I’ve been trying to understand better how those who are “too conservative” are looking at contemporary discussions regarding inerrancy. Frame’s remarks show that there may be some room for discussion–at least in theory:
“Shall we speak today of biblical “inerrancy?” The term does, to be sure, produce confusion in some circles. Some theologians have gone far astray from the dictionary meaning of “inerrant.” James Orr, for example, defined “inerrant” as “hard and fast literality in minute matters of historical, geographical, and scientific detail.” [5] Well, if “inerrancy” requires literalism, then we should renounce inerrancy; for the Bible is not always to be interpreted literally. Certainly there are important questions of Bible interpretation that one bypasses if he accepts biblical inerrancy in this sense.
But we should remember that Orr’s use of the term, and the similar uses of contemporary theologians, are distortions of its meaning. Perhaps those distortions have become so frequent today as to inhibit the usefulness of the term. For the time being, however, I would like to keep the term, and explain to people who question me that I am not using it in Orr’s sense, but rather to confess the historic faith of the church.” (http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1999IsThe.htm)
There is a fight going on over who can really say to belong to a theologically orthodox tradition confessing the “historic faith” of the church or who can be said to be thinking of a “historic faith” at all. I think that sense of belonging that I spoke of earlier comes under fire ina most acute way when historical criticism raises its ugly head for it does not seem to distinguish among the traditions but threatens them all in a way that makes tradition-minded believers more than a little uncomfortable.
April 27, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Mr.Young, fair enough on my historical work on conservative Protestantism. But having conceded that I may know something about the history of such conservatism, I am still at a loss to know what Sparks is saying. I think I know what he is implying. But it seems to me that his notion of conservative relies on a straw man historical understanding of evangelicalism that is as wooden as the “conservatives” he may have in view for their “uncritical” views of inerrancy. (Funny how cultural conditioning bites both ways — both the defenders of inerrancy and their critics.)
In my own understanding of conservatism, evangelicalism and liberalism are both shaped by pietism and the real conservatives are confessional Protestant traditions (excluding Rome from the conversation for now) such as the Lutherans in the Missouri Synod and the Reformed in the URC, OPC, and RPCNA. From the perspective of such conservatism, evangelicalism is liberal because it has given up the Protestant creeds, church polity, and traditional worship. Yes, views of the Bible are involved, but it is a piece of a much larger constellation of faith and practice.
That’s why I ask about being too “conservative.” From the perspective of confessional Protestantism in a tsunami of evangelicalism, it is hard to think that being too conservative is a problem or threat.
April 28, 2008 at 8:19 am
CB
Your comment leaves me wondering how much of Warfield have you really taken time to digest. For instance, have you read BBW’s article ‘The Present problem of Inspiration’ ( The Homiletic Review,21.5, May 1891:410-416) This was later slightly revised an titled ‘The Real problem of Inspiration’ and is found in vol.1 of his Works.
April 28, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Stephen Young, Dr. Hart and c. bovell,
Are you arguing that once the results are in there’s no more need to look at the issues? Using this logic it would seem to me that we’d have to concede that the whole authority of Scripture debate was settled in the 1930s (and not in favor of inerrancy).
Perhaps we could try the following definitions (though I’m not suggesting these are the ones Kent Sparks had in mind). By ‘conservative’ we mean those who affirm a traditional confession. By ‘too conservative’ we mean those who affirm a traditional confession uncritically. This is somewhat of a sliding scale. At one extreme may be an elder who affirms a confession without any questions or exceptions but also without taking the time to read the confession. He might say, “Whatever the confession affirms, that’s fine with me.” At the other extreme would be an elder who questions and doubts every line of the confession to the extent that his affirmation is quite tepid. Assuming that the goal is that an elder affirm the confession as his own beliefs (with perhaps some exceptions), we might ask can an elder be too conservative (too uncritical) so that he isn’t able to appropriate the confession as his own? Would being too conservative, in this sense, be a barrier to his own spiritual growth since he would be affirming a document that has no real meaning for him? Would being too conservative do more harm than good when such an elder tried to pass his tradition to others?
April 28, 2008 at 10:27 pm
GLW:
I may not be as well-read in things Warfield as you would like, but in chapter 3 of my book (have you read it?), I do engage the Warfield article that you mention in an attempt to help my point along: without plenary inspiration, Christian faith would still be true. Inerrancy is not essential to faith. Yet to the detriment of younger evangelicals, inerrantist culture does not always come across as being willing to admit this, as the inerrancy or bust position makes plain. I’m sure you remember that conversation, GLW…
Craig V.:
The issues have been looked at again and again. I think the inerrancy issue was settled in the 30s, in the 70s and again during the intervening years, not in favor of inerrancy in my opinion.
With regard to your conservative continuum, if being critical does more harm than good to someone, then let him be conservative. Being conservative does me much more harm than good, this is one reason I will be more critical. Yet I encourage those who are “too conservative” to begin with some small doses of criticism in order to begin down the hermeneutical spiral, as they call it, in order to help them develop spiritually, intellectually, and existentially. Or at the very least they should recognize and sincerely admit to themselves and others that there are believers out there who need the room to be critical (I have in mind regarding inerrancy specifically) in order to continue in the faith. Give them that room, I say, and for God’s sake: don’t keep trying to convince them that with higher criticism comes apostasy necessarily (or even most likely), like it or not. That’s no help at all to the believers I have in mind.
April 29, 2008 at 7:27 am
CB & CV
Yes, CV I read your book and will be interacting with it as well as work Sparks, Allert and McGowen in a forthcoming article entitled ‘The New Battle for the Bible: Evangelicals and Inerrancy at an Impasse’. For the time being, would one of you please spell out how the doctrine of inerrancy was upended in the 30’s and 70’s? Be specific- Who is credited with accomplishing this? Since this site has focused on two things: (1) Defending Peter Enns and (2) dismantling the doctrine of inerrancy- maybe that is too harsh- let me rephrase that: Raising questions about the priority and importance of the received doctrine of inerrancy. I see a link here and since Enns claims to be standing in the Old Princeton/Westminster tradition while seeking to advance it, your claims about the 30’s and 70’s being periods where the defenders of inerrancy were sent running is , by all accounts, an indicment against Westminster tradition since from it’s founding in 1929 and running through the rest of the 20th century, WTS was in the forefront in defending and promoting the Old Princeton doctrine of inerrancy. Step back and look at the contributions of John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, E.J.Young, Harvey Conn, Clair Davis, Moises Silva, Richard Gaffin and now you guys come along and say, “Oh, this issue was settled back in the 30’s and definitely buried once and for all in the 70’s” Tell me , why should I not connect the dots here?
April 29, 2008 at 11:48 am
c bovell
You bring up an interesting point that different people may have different needs in terms of my continuum. I wasn’t thinking about it in that way and will have to give it more thought. What I had in mind by “too critical” is a criticism that makes it impossible to affirm anything. My concern is more with the other side of the scale as I want to ask a question similar to Sparks’ but in a way that it’s clear that I’m not critiquing a straw man. I wouldn’t stop at encouraging those who are too conservative, in my sense, to engage in a little criticism. I would argue that in today’s world if they don’t engage in criticism (especially self criticism) they can’t really appropriate their confessions for themselves. This results in the spiritual problems Sparks alludes to.
The arguments of the 30s and 70s didn’t settle the issue for me. I still believe Warfield’s arguments are basically sound. You’ll have to be patient with me as I re examine these issues.
GLW Johnson,
I’m delighted that you’ve read my book. If only I had written one. Yes, that’s a minor mistake that I normally wouldn’t bother to call out. In this case, however, it seems to me that it’s a metaphor for a more serious problem. Though I have great respect for c bovell, it should be obvious to even the casual reader that I do not share all of his views. I have never said that these issues were settled in the 30s.
April 29, 2008 at 1:43 pm
GLW:
I note that in your last comment you refer to “you guys.”
This site, I think, exhibits a good deal of diversity with regard to theological opinions and perhaps even ecclesial belongings. I, for one, only speak for myself whenever I post, not for the people who run this site or everyone who doubts inerrancy for that matter–and certainly not for Enns.
Since you bring up the formation of WTS, I don’t think forming WTS was the right move. I think if we say that there were separatist conservative believers, tolerant conservative believers, liberal conservative believers, and liberal separatist believers at Princeton at the time Machen wanted to start a new school, I would have been within one of the tolerant groups, categorized as conservative by the liberals and liberal by the conservatives, urging Machen to stick it out at Princeton.
I don’t want to lose the authority of scripture but I’m not interested in perpetuating an inaccurate and most unhelpful account of scripture’s authority. I am tolerant and open to non-conservative viewpoints and look forward to being challenged by them. As I have gone through the different stages of believing just in these last 14 years, I am much less interested in engaging the same old issues again as if I have not been decisively persuaded against inerrancy.
April 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“liberal conservative readers” in my previous comment should read “tolerant liberal believers.”
Craig V:
Interestingly enough, GLW was pointing me to that same Warfield article–the one where he says that inerrancy is the capstone and not the cornerstone of Reformed theology–that we were talking about on another occasion.
April 29, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Ok, there you have it CB has put his cards on the table. Sorry about the mix up CV- I was referring to Carlos- who will have to wait with bated breath to read my article. Still, CV, you did not address the issue that you raised-care to clarify the comment about the issue being settled in the 30’s?
April 29, 2008 at 5:04 pm
GLW Johnson,
I never made such a comment. That’s a misreading of what I wrote. I’ve tried to point that out to you but haven’t been successful. R Glenn gave a good summary of my actual comment. Perhaps that will help.
April 29, 2008 at 6:03 pm
CV
comment #12. I have reread it, could you clarify?
April 29, 2008 at 6:16 pm
GLW Johnson
Ah I see the problem. Comment #12 has a copy and paste error on my part. The first paragraph is my response to you on another thread (wts documents released). It doesn’t belong in the comment. I apologize for the confusion.
April 29, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Is this what you guys are looking for(?):
“R Glenn Says:
April 28, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I think its pretty easy to see what he [Craig V.] means. The majority who rejected inerrancy when Machen & company left Princeton & when Machen was tossed out seemed to be on the “winning” side. They had control of Princton & the PCUSA. machen was out. Case settled. But Machen & company did not accept that settlement & continued to discuss the issue.
You [Craig V.] seem to be saying the issue is settled & no need for further discussion b/e Enns is out. Seems fairly easy to understand.”
April 29, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Almost, and again I apologize for the confusion. If you replace the second [Craig V.] with [GLW Johnson] you’ll have my argument on that thread. It makes absolutely no sense on this thread. On the other thread GLW Johnson made this comment:
“Guys, I hate to break the news to you, but the final results are in. Game over.”
My reply was that results (in terms faculty reorganizations) don’t eliminate the need for discussion. If they did, things would have been settled, not to my liking, in the 30s.
April 30, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Craig V. — you suggest that being too conservative is not holding to a confession critically. I wonder how far you’re willing to press the criticism vs. conservation dichotomy. It is too conservative to hold that Jesus is the Son of God? Is it too conservative to believe that the sixty-six books usually printed and bound together are the canon? I mean, we could push the point about being too conservative all the way down. Or we could admit that both sides in this debate hold to some truths uncritically, that some are non-negotiable for being a Christian no matter his or her standing as a scholar. If it’s the case that both sides are a combination of critical and conservative, then maybe we can get beyond the labels of who’s “too” and simply debate the substance.
April 30, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Dr. Hart,
I was trying to find a scale, to be used in our confessional world, where we could meaningfully show that being too far on either side of the scale is undesirable. This might give us a useful context for asking Kent Sparks’ question (”Can we be too conservative?”). I agree that we all hold some of our beliefs uncritically and others critically. I did not intend to label pejoratively, so in that respect I misfired.
I think it’s not at all simple to know when we should and shouldn’t be critical of specific beliefs. We have to take into account, among other things, what questions are being asked in our community. It may be, though I’m not enough of an historian to know, that there were times in church history where being critical of the Vulgate would have been an example of being too critical. Once questions about the Vulgate appear with some force (questions as to whether or not the Vulgate is faithful to the original autographs), however, there’s no going back. At that point attempts to silence the questions by the raw exercise of church authority can do great spiritual harm. On the other hand a community that attempts to be critical of all of its beliefs (assuming that’s possible, which I rather doubt) is in danger of losing its identity.