again? really?
I am not too sure how many times Ken Silva is going to write an article based on this relevant magazine interview with Erwin McManus. I am getting tired of writing rebuttals that easily dismiss Silva’s articles as academically and theologically irresponsible. Here are a few notes on the latest [miss]ive.
Erwin McManus, an influential voice within the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church as well as lead
vocalistpastor, cultural architect and distinguished futurist of Mosaic
Are the petty jabs really that pastoral or necessary here? Again, they are not only juvenile, but inappropriate for a pastor or spiritual leader.
For a more in-depth look at this issue I refer the interested reader to Rob Bell and Karl Barth. But for our purposes here Dr. Francis Schaeffer gives us a concise understanding of the neo-orthodox approach to the Bible when he points out that Barth
This is the basic logic here
- Ken say Bell agrees with Karl Barth
- Francis Schaeffer says Karl Barth is a heretic
- Therefore Bell is a heretic
- Because Ken says Bell and McManus are the same, McManus is a heretic
Ken continues
The reason why you will see so many leaders within the emerging church so unwilling to commit to the inerrancy of Scripture is their own adherence to Barth’s essentially higher critical i.e. near liberal approach to Holy Scripture. And for those who have not been taken in with McManus’ more mystic bent it then becomes clear that McManus interprets the Bible according to his own feelings about what he thinks God is saying
Unfortunately, McManus was not asked about the inerrancy of scripture. He was asked “How do we begin to move toward living a life that reflects God’s character? What are some practical ways?†Had he been asked about the inerrancy of scripture, he would have addressed the issue. That’s like criticizing someone for not saying the sky is blue when they were asked what the grass feels like between your toes. It is simply bad logic and research methods.
But, since Silva is so anxious to know McManus’ view of the scriptures, he only needs to look as Mosaic’s first core conviction: “The Bible is God’s infallible, authoritative word to us.†Now, the dictionary defines “infallible†as incapable of failure or error. So, sounds like McManus has clearly stated that the scriptures are not only the authoritative word of God, but they are incapable of error. That sounds a lot like inerrancy to me.
Ken continues to scrape at any hope of pinning his self-defined advisory by trying to prove McManus and John Shelby Spong hold to the same theological views on scripture. You can read for yourself, but they are unmerited, and unsupported at best. Ken does not address McManus’ statements
but I do see the Scriptures as the primary access, a portal into God’s presence. I began to have a clear sense of God’s voice in my life through reading the Scriptures and hearing God’s voice through the Scriptures… The Scriptures are to me the instrument that God has placed in history for me to learn the voice of God. (emphasis mine)
He did address McManus’ statement “I treasure the Scriptures.†However, he calls the statement “patronizingâ€. I suppose David was patronizing when he wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart,That I may not sin against You.” You can be the judge of the rest. I find it interesting that Silva writes yet another [miss]ive on this interview with McManus after being proven inaccurate here.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:47 am
Nathan,
I got a perfect graphic for this article yesterday, and I’ve added it to the top. If you don’t want it there, I will move it to the comments.
Excellent job demonstrating what actual research looks like when compared to slander disguised as pseudo-research!
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
This is the one instance where discussing the difference between Modernism and Postmodernism actually is helpful, even if it is cliche. I believe to many Christians of my parents generation, “inerrancy” is basically a way to weed out the liberals from the conservatives.
I have seen many of them take the stand that questioning things like a literal 6-day Creation, the scope of Noah’s flood, etc. is questioning the inerrancy of Scripture. To them, “inerrancy” is a statement about purported facts of the Bible, not the author’s original intentions. So, it is really a loaded word.
The reason I say it comes down to the modern/postmodern divide is this. I have hardly met any students, other than those from Evangelical families who start off asking questions like, was Noah’s flood worldwide. They start off asking who Jesus was and what does that mean to us. They are willing to accept the Bible as true if it resonates as truth to them. This is in oppostion to how a modern looks at it. They say, “show me everything in the Bible can be proven true, then I’ll believe it.”
I still think many churches are struggling with even if they don’t acknowledge it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 am
I do not believe in the 6 day creation, I believe it 3 1/2 days.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
Phil,
Well stated.
I have found that when i try to talk to “moderns” (which the term “modern” is not all negative to me) even infallibility is not the same as it was originally intended.
I once wrote on that I struggle with the term inerrancy and that I have come to terms that I simply trust God at His word.. that a translation may not be accurate and infallible or inerrant, but that I can trust God at His word for my salvation and spiritual growth.
Now, I have sort of read that same thing from some “moderns” yet I used the word “certainty” and was accused of being Barthian in thought… I found it funny as John MacArthur (had to mention him for Keith) stated that we can be “certain” in God’s word… and was just taken at face value.
I was also criticized for having a “struggle” and accused of not even being saved as someone who is saved would “never have doubts in God’s word”. Yet, I did not say I have doubts in God’s word… but in the translations and transliteration being as accurate to say without a doubt that they are inerrant…
All that to say, it seems to play out that way… as “some” will take anything that “sounds” to their itching ears as heretical, something they can attack and point and cast verbal stones.
blessings,
iggy
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 am
Iggy:
Great thought. It makes me ask the question: Are our translations inerrant and if so, which ones? KJV? ESV? NIV?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
I like to think that the message, the original oral preaching of Jesus & the apostles was inerrant, which has been faithfully transmitted into the Greek manuscripts. I think that the esv is the *closest* to the meaning of the originals, which was representative of the original message, but you’re never going to get an exact inerrant translation. Keep in mind I only said translation.
IDEALY we’d all know Greek (this is what the majority of muslims require when reading qu’ran; except classical arabic, naturally). I’m in the process of learning it, but in reality not everyone is going to learn an ancient language. So we have to do the best we can.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 am
Tyler,
This assumes that the original synoptics were in Greek and that the primary language of Jesus’ teaching was Greek. There is good evidence that the common source (sometimes called “Q”) used by synoptic writers was either a written or oral history written in Hebrew, and that Hebrew (not Aramaic) was the common language in Israel in the first centuries BC and AD. Just because our earliest manuscripts are in Greek does not mean that the originals were…
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Chris L:
Interesting. I was always taught that Jesus spoke Aramiac. Are you saying this isn’t true?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Did anyone see the article linking Brad Pitt to the emerging Church? You just can’t make that kind of thing up!
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Speaking of goofy Brad Pitt and the emerging church, here’s another goofy thing to consider:
Slice goes down. Weekly World News stops publishing. Coincidence?
Weekly World News is that really bad tabloid that has great headlines like “Two Headed Alien Spotted with Elvis”.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Matt,
There are Catholic traditions about Aramaic (primarily relating to Jesus’ quote from the beginning of Psalm 22 on the cross, and a couple of other Aramaic references). However, the Dead Sea Scrolls and some other archaeological studies since the restoration of the nation of Israel in 1948 have led many to conclude that Hebrew was the language of the common people in Israel - especially in their religious discussions - whereas Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire.
Bivin & Blizzard’s “Difficult Words of Jesus” probably does the most concise job of demonstrating this, though there are much more in-depth works which flesh it out. When you examine all of the Hebraisms which, when translated literally to Greek, don’t make as much sense (like the “good eye vs. bad eye” discussion) or miss puns and wordplay (like “gnat” and “camel”), you can see that - at the very least - Jesus’ teaching was primarily in Hebrew.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I still haven’t met anyone who fully obeys the English so let’s keep pressing! I guess God didn’t forsee the fact that people would not understand Greek or Hebrew, that was a real shock to Him.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“I am getting tired of writing rebuttals that easily dismiss Silva’s articles as academically and theologically irresponsible.”
I had never thought to link the word “academic” to these opinion missives that would not qualify for any type of academic research paper. Once the trivial name calling begins they fall short of anything pastoral as well.
Ken: Write what you will, but just be nice. Fruits of the Spirit, brother. Then folks can trust what you write.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Well one definition of the word “academic” is “Having no practical purpose or use. ” So perhaps it could be a descriptor for Silva’s missives.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I thought the KJV was divinely inspired.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
HJ,
I think the only divine thing about it is that God inspired King James to have in translated.
If it was so inspired, then we should still be reading the 1611 version… which even very very few KJVonly people read… though they claim it the “anointed” version.
Now, is KJ a good version… I read the NKJV myself and enjoy it immensely… yet I still use many new versions also…
My biggest complaints of newer translations is the continuance of traditional transliterations, and that the use of “atonement” in regards to Jesus is not accurate… he was the propitiation which is more than just an atoning sacrifice. He took the sins of the world away and not just covered them… in fact Jesus became sin and not just the “sin offering” and in that sin was judge and died with Jesus on the cross. Jesus did more than cover our sins… he became sin and both Jesus and sin died at the Cross… that is why we too died with Him on the Cross.
2 Corinthians 5: 21.
Be blessed,
iggy
October 4th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Iggy,
I hope you know I was joking regarding the KJV. Although some KJV-onlyers actually believe that.
My translation of choice is the NASV. I have some trouble with the Message and think that paraphrases as a rule should only be used in devotional study and not used to exegete from the pulpit. But since there is little if any exegeting from the pulpit going on nowdays this is often not a problem.
I also have serious problems with PCing the Bible. Let the arthor say what he said. I even pcked up a copy of the gnostic Gospel of Thomas to read and the translator had PCed all referrences to men and women to unisex references. What an absolute crock. How can you get into the mind of someone who wrote thousands of years ago if you force your own agenda on it?