Sola Kerfuffle followup: a final word

Unless there is a seismic shift in the New Heaven and New Earth, this will be the last time I comment on the "kerfuffle" aspect of the Sola Scriptura conversation. There is a theological conversation I had with Joe Small this past week that I'm very excited to share with you, but the folks who are simply using my comments as a means to their end won't be taking up anymore of my time or energy.

I want to bring a piece of writing to your attention. I hesitate to do it because I don't want it to come across as self-serving, but that's a risk I'm willing to take in order to promote what I think is a very important line of thought that we would all do well to remember and take to heart.

The following is a post written by Xan Skinner. Remember that vow PCUSA officers take, promising to be a "friend to our colleagues"? In my opinion, Xan's post is a phenomenal explanation of one basis for that vow, as well as a reminder that direct, honest, and transparent communication is the rule for all people of God. The way we talk to and about one another is often the best way for people to "know we are Christians by our love."

Disagreement is good and to be expected, but unless we do it with grace and love, we're making Jesus cry.  What I find so wonderfully ironic is that the podcast Cindy and I did with Jody Harrington was very gracious even though there was disagreement.  Jody certainly exemplified the behavior Xan is commending to us, and I hope and pray that I did as well.

I am quoting the post in its entirety here, but make sure and visit Xan's blog and comment there as well.

Speaking Truthfully: Ephesians 4:25

I wrote recently about Glenn Beck and how he mis-states the position of his opponents in order to “disprove” the phantom view.  The problem is, that what he disproves has no relation to what his opponent was saying. 

This seems to be a general symptom of debate in our society these days.  Much of public discourse in both the political and religious sphere seems to involve fabrication of extravagant claims regarding the most extreme boundaries of opponents’ statements.  Then, once the fake argument is set up, the audience is entertained by the show of striking it down.   A current example in the Christian world appears in the  September 13, 2010 issue of the Christian journal, The Layman.  An article in that journal accuses the Vice Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Rev. Landon Whitsitt, of asserting that the Bible was not the Word of God.   Did Whitsitt really say this?!  Well, it depends. 

As with most lies, a kernel of truth is manipulated so as to lend credibility to the whopper.  In this case, Whitsitt did say something which struck a nerve, but his critics won’t allow him to elucidate or explain or try to draw finer nuance.  They just want to proclaim, “Gotcha!”  Taken all together, the issue is: “What did Whitsitt mean; what was he trying to express?”  His critics don’t really want to engage in dialogue about that, they just want to jump on him for saying one thing, which they take out of context, as impugning their view of the significance of the words on the page of the Bible. 

Ad hominem.  Straw man.  Argumentum ad logicum. 

These are the names for the basic logical fallacy of misrepresenting the position of one's opponent and then attacking the false argument and "defeating" it.  Seemingly, ad infinitum!  The problem is that the argument so "defeated" is a straw man and not a real one – it has no real resemblance to the true position of the opponent.   If Whitsitt really believed the things he is accused of – saying that scripture is not authoritative – not only would he never have been ordained as a minister, it’s more likely he’d never have any motivation to call himself a Christian in the first place.  Instead, his position has been misrepresented precisely so that it can be easily burned in effigy:  a classic straw man.  That why Argumentum ad logicum describes exactly what has happened here. 

Vice Moderator Landon Whitsitt has merely stated the obvious:  the “mind of God” [a metaphor in and of itself] is not "contained" in scripture any more than it can be "contained" in human thoughts or brains.  I hope that most mainstream Christians agree that whenever we begin to limit God to expression that falls solely within the constraints of human language, and even more so when we subject that language to a literal interpretation, we make the grave error of remaking God according to our own likeness. 

By reframing Whitsitt's point as an extreme view, claiming that he doesn't believe the Bible is authoritative, Whitsitt's detractors have gravely misstated his position.  They fail to address in any way Whitsitt's actual observation, which is that disagreement over social issues facing the denomination is really just a symptom of a deeper disagreement, which is to ascertain how do we decide what this writing MEANS, with respect to how we address this social issue?  Must we always pay homage to literal interpretations of scripture, choosing the literal over the metaphorical in every instance?  Whitsitt thinks not.  If the detractors were honest with themselves, I imagine they would not adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible in every instance, either.   Not only have Whitsitt's detractors committed logical error, they've also violated a basic tenet of scripture itself.  Namely, the duty to speak truthfully regarding our fellow Christians: "Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body."  This logical fallacy --   misstating the view of one’s debate opponent --  is also a specifically enumerated sin! 

To my way of thinking, these men commenting in the Layman are modern day Sophists:  seeking to be wise, they become fools.   They reveal themselves as fools not just because they speak untruths, but because they are thinking in a small minded way, at odds with deeper spiritual principles.  For when one member of the body of Christ is injured, we all are injured.  When even one is wounded, Jesus weeps.  I’m not going to quote a chapter and verse for this.  The detractors, if they are familiar with their Bibles, should know those.  

The comments in The Layman by Whitsitt’s detractors make it appear that they think they are winning and scoring points, as if they were playing in a game of one-upsmanship.  Strutting like gamecocks, writing letters with headlines like “More Liberal Drool,” and “Stay and Risk Decay,” they congratulate and encourage each other in finding fault with church leaders.  "Oh, I see you’ve located one more reason to proclaim the mainline denomination is going to hell, let’s congratulate each other on how bad it is!"  One imagines a figurative patting on the back, a scorekeeping where the writer checks a box that says “one up”.  But what they are really accomplishing, is nothing less than to wound the body of Christ. 

I know that I certainly feel insulted, belittled, betrayed, misrepresented, and misunderstood by this kind of "trash talk" aimed in my general direction.   And I’m not the only one.  We who are wounded would rather find common ground with these other Believers,  yet we find ourselves feeling spat upon, figuratively speaking, by the scornful attitude and deliberate misrepresentation of our earnest and sincere efforts when we attempt to engage in dialogue with them.   (What Whitsitt actually said can be heard HERE.)      

In spite of, and not because of, their thumping on its cover and proclaiming it as the “Word of God,”  I will continue to think that the Bible is one of the most beautiful writings ever.  I will continue to believe that to literalize the Bible, trivializes it.  To the extent that the Sophists proclaim that my refusal to trivialize the Bible means that I don't think it's the "Word of God," they lie and mis-state my position.  How dare they!  To the extent they are willing to engage in hyperbole and deliberate mis-statements, they should be ashamed. 

Great for boosting TV ratings, great for selling magazines, great for strutting and shooting pot shots.  Terrible for dialogue.  Tragic for the church.  Once again, Screwtape, take note! 

Comments

[Joe Duffus]

Mr. Whitsitt,

The Westminster Confession says this: "VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Even granting your point about Scripture not "containing" the full mind of God, we do still believe that some things are knowable through the "clear preponderance" of Scripture, do we not?

I do agree that your more vocal critics are guilty of creating a "straw man argument," over your paraphrased views. Yet, I cannot help wondering whether your beliefs about Sola Scriptura being "dead," are based not on a dispassionate contemplation of Biblical discernment generally, but instead as a foundational point towards arguing very specifically on behalf of gay ordination, gay marriage, etc.

Some American judges are rightly faulted for reasoning after the fact -- that is, for starting with a desired verdict they wish to reach and trying to contrive a legal opinion to justify that conclusion.

I daresay those traditionalists within the lay community of PCUSA who were alarmed by your comments believe this to be the real agenda here. Are they wrong to think so?

[Landon Whitsitt]

I must admit, your honesty about what you believe my position to be is both refreshing and shocking. Either way, it is helpful. Thank you for allowing us to cut to the chase, and in honor of your forthrightness I will address what I understand your main question to be first:

No, sir, I argue specifically for the full inclusion of our LGBT sisters and brothers *because* of what I find in the scriptures, not despite it. If you do believe me (and I hope that you do), what you are left with is the real reality that someone claiming to be a faithful follower of Christ understands that relationship very differently than you do. I do not have an ulterior motive that must be exposed.

To your secondary question:
I do not disagree that (as the Confession says) some things are clearly knowable. Where the Confession and I differ however is whether or not our relationship with God in Christ is dependent on us knowing, believing, or observing anything in scripture. I do not believe it is. To establish humanity knowing, believing or observing something as a requirement for entering a relationship with Christ is an affront to the sovereignty of God, in my opinion.

However, even that sort of discussion is secondary to the real point I've been trying (perhaps poorly) to make all along. You have asked me to either agree or disagree with a paragraph from a confession in the same way that I assume you would like me to agree or disagree with various portions of the Bible. And, while I understand that impulse, would you also ask me to agree to a few passages from the Scots and Secodn Helvetic Confessions which, in no uncertain terms, state that women are forbidden from ecclesiastical duties such as preaching and the administration of sacraments? I'm sure you would not. And so, we are left with a conundrum: What do we do when we are sure that we have misunderstood in the past?

I acknowledge that you do not think we have misunderstood on some specific points, but I hope that this gives you some insight into my argument with the Sola. In my opinion what we should be emphasizing is Solo Verbo Dei (The Word of the Lord alone), while using scripture as the first point on a journey (Prima Scriptura) through tradition and communal discernment to ascertain it.

grace and peace to you.

[Joe Duffus]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

I’m actually hoping to stay away from the specific issue of gay marriage, ordination or other facets of what you term “full inclusion,” and focus instead on the general question of whether scripture alone is our guide to understanding God’s will. I raised that specific issue only to sharpen the question of asking why you believe as you do. But I’ll willingly accept your statement that you believe you’ve found it in scripture itself.

My purpose is to understand your objection to so basic a reformed tradition pillar as Sola Scriptura. As I understand it from my limited research, this doctrine was originally a reaction to the Catholic policy of interpretation being the province of the trained clergy alone, and a rebellion from the Catholic Church’s attempts to twist scripture to its own ends. We both, as Presbyterians, can certainly agree there.

You may have to explain for me what you mean by “Solo Verbo Dei.” My first guess is you meant just those quotations in the Bible attributed directly to the Lord, but that seems an awfully pinched – not to say highly abridged – conception. I don’t want to misstate your position, but if the Lord’s direct word alone is the only thing you would consider sacrosanct in its interpretation, that raises huge questions for me. Since much of what we know of Jesus is of his actions as reported by his followers, then it’s unquestionably true that we cannot really know Him except as reflected in the words of the Gospel writers. But if that is you emphasis, then Paul and the Gospel writers bear no special credibility as deliverers of God’s word. Anything not “Verbo Dei,” is then hearsay, open to question and mere commentary.

Help a brother understand. I don’t think I do.

[Landon Whitsitt]

I think you're approaching what I'd like to rest my case on, namely, that the context of and the need for Sola Scriptura (especially as it's currently understood) has past. In order to accomplish something closer to what the Reformers intended a shift in focus is required.

Short answer: no, I'm not referring to the portions of scripture that are attributed to the Lord. Rather, I'm trying to point toward the idea of Logos/Word of the Lord, a la John 1.

Long answer: I actually have a piece that I'm going to post here soon in hopes of furthering the conversation. If you wouldn't mind reading that and commenting, I'd appreciate it.

[Joe Duffus]

I await your next piece on the subject and in order not to distract you from it I will pose only those questions I hope you will address in your longer answer to come.

As I’m sure you know, anyone who claims there’s something closer to Logos than the totality of the Scriptures faces a serious crisis of credibility. What other thing is closer? What revelatory insight have we moderns acquired to supplant the 2,000 years of discernment we’ve invested so far? And by what arrogance can we suppose that the time for relying on the Scriptures alone has passed? Even if the answer to those questions involves reference to modern behavioral science or physical science, we have gained no understanding of the mighty “why” behind the “what” and “how” questions we are answering regularly through scholarship.

For example, just this week came news of a possible answer to the “how” of the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus. Sustained winds of at least 68 mph over many hours, properly directed in a shallower area of the Red Sea could indeed have parted the waters, we learned from scientists. But that certainly doesn’t answer why the Lord did so, and there is no place besides the Scriptures that does.

I realize that’s an over-simplification of what you mean to say, but at least it’s a timely example!

[Tricia Dykers Koenig]

Thanks for including Xan's post. To add another detail: One of the "practice[s] the confessions call sin" is "misconstruing intentions, words and actions" - an example of bearing false witness (Westminster Larger Catechism, 7.255)

It is common in debates on LGBT ordination for one speaker to explain how s/he comes to his/her commitment to inclusion BECAUSE OF the Bible, only to have the next speaker declare that anyone taking that position has thrown off the authority of Scripture. NONE OF US could be ordained if we applied the prohibition on all who have "refused to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin."

[Joe Duffus]

Mr. Whitsitt,

have you completed that piece that you referred to in your last comment above? I was hoping to read a fuller statement of your idea of Logos/Word of the Lord, as it relates to this discussion about Sola Scriptura and biblical discernment.

Just wondering.

[Adel Thalos]

I want to, for a moment address your passing comment on what the reformers intended... Calvin made it quite clear that he believed and taught the full inerrancy of Scripture. I believe from the confluence of his statements that he would have agreed with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Here are some of the quotes:

Institutes I, 149, “The unerring standard.”

Hebrews xxi, “The infallible rule of His Holy Truth.”

Minor Prophets, I, 506, “Free from every stain or defect.”

Psalms II, 429, “The inerring certainty.”

Psalms, v, ii. “The certain and unerring rule.”

Psalms iv, 480, “Unerring light.”

Institutes, II, 58, and III, 309, “The infallible Word of God.”

Catholic Epistles 131, “Infallible oracles.”

Calvin says, “The full authority which they [the Scriptures] obtain with the faithful proceeds from no other consideration than that they are persuaded that they proceeded from heaven, as if God had been heard giving utterance to them.” 392, Institutes vii, I

And Calvin’s words on II Timothy 3:16:

"Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have received from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spake. The same Spirit, therefore, who made Moses and the prophets certain of their calling, now also testifies to our hearts, that he has employed them as his servants to instruct us. Accordingly, we need not wonder if there are many who doubt as to the Author of the Scripture; for, although the majesty of God is displayed in it, yet none but those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit have eyes to perceive what ought, indeed, to have been visible to all, and yet is visible to the elect alone. This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it."

The words of Calvin on inerrancy were often so strong that he was sometimes included within the camp of those who believed all the words of the Bible were dictated by the Holy Spirit to the authors.