\n<\/p>\n
I would like to thank Geoff Holsclaw<\/a> for taking the time to write a review of my latest book How the Bible Actually Works<\/a><\/em>. The review appears in two parts. Part 1<\/a> covers the book\u2019s contents, and I want to commend Holsclaw\u2019s efforts there. He did a very good job summarizing the ground that I cover, and I don\u2019t take that for granted. Too often critical reviews falter on this very point. In Part 2<\/a> Holsclaw lays out his disagreements with some of the central conclusions that I draw the book, and it is here that I will focus my comments. <\/p>\n It should be apparent that my response is roughly twice the Holsclaw is fine in principle with the idea of biblical In response, I feel that Holsclaw makes some points that could generate brisk discussion, but on the whole, his theological and pastoral critique of the book raises more theological and practical questions than they answer[JB1]. At numerous points, Holsclaw makes theological assertions that open themselves up to serious scrutiny. A substantive theological and pastoral engagement with the phenomena of Scripture will have to do better than what we see here in this review. <\/p>\n From the very beginning of the review and continuing at a To illustrate, after affirming my language of reimagining God, Holsclaw immediately adds, \u201cBut what exactly has God revealed<\/em><\/strong> to us (to ask a theologian\u2019s question) and what does it mean for us (to ask a pastor\u2019s question)? \u201c<\/p>\n I have to admit, this rhetoric put me on guard. In my experience, I too often hear Evangelical critics in particular claiming this higher ground as if, in and of itself, holding such constitutes an argument<\/em>, which it doesn\u2019t (see below). I find that tactic distracting, if not off-putting, and creates more clutter than clarity. Indeed, a fair amount of my response stems from a need to address this problem.<\/p>\n It is not the case, as Holsclaw presents the matter, that he I only (reluctantly) raise the point to remind us, and Holsclaw\u2019s theological turf and notions of pastoral duty are To illustrate further, near the end of his review Holsclaw summarizes succinctly his theological and pastoral concerns with my view of Scripture:<\/p>\n Theologically<\/strong>, if God has sp<\/em>oken then<\/em> we can and should engage in theology, the task of asking who God is, what God is like, and how all this connects with all that is. If<\/em> God has not spoken then<\/em> all we have is cultural anthropology, an ancient text, university research projects, and the projection of human values onto divine fantasies.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Pastorally<\/strong>, if God has spoken then<\/em> we are not alone, abandoned within the angst of a life where all meaning, purpose, and significance is really just up to us. If God has spoken then <\/em>there really is something stable and reliable in the world.\u00a0 If<\/em> God has spoken that<\/em> [sic] life isn\u2019t just up to me <\/em>to figure out. If God hasn\u2019t spoken, then <\/em>pastorally my advice is to sleep in and skip my next sermon and don\u2019t worry about that daily devotion time anymore. [italics my emphasis]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Holsclaw\u2019s rhetoric here is overblown, and the conclusions raise First, note that Holsclaw has not actually answered his own question \u201cHas God Spoken?\u201d He has only expressed what he thinks is at stake if God has or hasn\u2019t spoken<\/em>. I\u2019ve never warmed up to this kind of \u201cif-then\u201d theological argument\u2014that position X must<\/em> be false, since it undermines some imagined necessary outcome Y. This is not an argument one can respond to\u2014because it is not an argument but an expression of a belief that is not subject to discussion. Expressing one\u2019s beliefs is fine under other circumstances, but as a counterpoint, it is not at all persuasive.<\/p>\n Second, my experience yields the exact opposite observation. Holsclaw\u2019s theological models of Scripture and pastoral care out of which he critiques HTBAW<\/em> are not universal. He is welcome to have them, but as a point of theological debate, they will carry no weight. We are left to trading anecdotes.<\/p>\n Holsclaw\u2019s pastoral and theological concerns are focused almost That last bit of unguarded hyperbole notwithstanding, Holsclaw\u2019s Judging from the review as a whole, however, I am confident Holsclaw is correct that I don\u2019t address directly the matter Oh sure, it \u201cinterests\u201d me as a topic of lively speculative discussion or my own internal musings. In fact, truth be told, I \u201cimagine\u201d all the time what revelation might mean and how it might work. I even wrote a book about it in 2005, <\/a>Inspiration and Incarnation<\/a><\/em> where I adopt an incarnational model as a means of framing the discussion.<\/p>\n But as for HTBAW, <\/em>I I truly hope we can all agree that any doctrine of It is clear that Holsclaw sees this failure of mine as the heart I might, though . . . were he to demonstrate how the messy I\u2019m sure Holsclaw acknowledges<\/em> But what concerned me most\u2014if I may say, for both Emphasizing the process of \u201creimagining God\u201d might sound like a way to save the Bible from fundamentalism, to loosen the stranglehold of literalism and absolutism, and to appreciate the diversity within the Bible.\u00a0 And those are good things.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n But without a doctrine of Scripture\/revelation (a theologian\u2019s question) we haven\u2019t really saved our connection with God (a pastor\u2019s question<\/em><\/strong>). [my emphasis]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In I Let me say succinctly, that a doctrine of revelation<\/em> does not save our connection with God. That I happen to love the Bible and I think of it as, among other things, a non-negotiable \u201cmeans of grace\u201d that gives me language, concepts, and a touchstone for articulating my experience of Christ. And for the record, I at least acknowledge in HTBAW<\/em> the Spirit\u2019s presence and involvement in Scripture, even if only in a general sense. In several places in the book, I say that Scripture\u2019s antiquity, ambiguity, and diversity are not problems to be solved but reflect God\u2019s \u201cdesign\u201d and as such God\u2019s invitation to us to walk the path of wisdom. <\/p>\n God is not \u201clost\u201d because I do not fold into my view the mysterious inner-workings of revelation. God just shows up in, with, though (whatever) the human reflections of the biblical authors as we approach the text in our full humanity. Of course, I can\u2019t demonstrate how that works (!) or prove that I am right (!), but that is where I see Scripture itself pointing. <\/em>I do not<\/em> see Scripture pointing to an overarching \u201cdoctrine of revelation.\u201d <\/p>\n Holsclaw acknowledges these same pointers (that biblical [There] is one argument [about the nature of Scripture] which we should beware of using [when trying to define the nature of Scripture]: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this. For we are mortals and do not know what is best for us, and it is dangerous to prescribe what God must have done\u2013especially when we cannot, for the life of us, see that He has after all done it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Along Over [How we think of Scripture] is the working out and application of the central fact of revelation: the incarnation of the Word. The Word has become flesh, and the word has become Scripture; these two facts do not only run parallel but are most intimately connected. Christ became flesh, a servant, without form or comeliness, the most despised of human beings; he descended to the nethermost parts of the earth and became obedient even to death on the cross. So also the word, the revelation of God, entered the world of creatureliness, the life and history of humanity, in all the human forms of dream and vision, of investigation and reflection, right down into that which is humanly weak and despised and ignoble\u2026. All this took place in order that the excellency of the power\u2026of Scripture, may be God\u2019s and not ours.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nlength of Holsclaw\u2019s review. I felt the review was burdened by numerous
\ntheological assertions with unexamined subtexts beneath them that needed to be
\nteased out a bit. Also, Holsclaw\u2019s views no doubt mirror those of other Evangelicals,
\nand so I am hoping that by going into a bit more detail I might address nuances
\nthat others might have.\u00a0 <\/p>\nThe Whole Thing in Two Paragraphs<\/h2>\n
\nwriters reimagining God for their time and place, which is a key theme in my
\nbook. He is also comfortable agreeing that the Bible contains tensions and
\ncontradictions. However, Holsclaw is a pastor and theologian, and as such he feels
\nthat I as a biblical scholar do not go far enough in affirming the revelatory
\nnature of Scripture. As a consequence, God is left out of the picture, which is
\ntheologically inadequate and pastorally detrimental.<\/p>\nSpeaking as a Theologian and Pastor<\/h2>\n
\nsteady clip throughout, Holsclaw clearly wants to drive home the fact that he
\nis a pastor and a theologian. \u00a0His
\nresponse to HTBAW <\/em>is, he tells us,
\ninformed by what he feels those vocations require, namely keeping ever before
\nus the revelatory nature of Scripture wherein God \u201cspeaks.\u201d <\/p>\n
\nis bringing to the table theological and pastoral concerns and I am not. We are
\njust driven by different<\/em> theological
\nand pastoral concerns. My writing, including HTBAW<\/em>, has been affirmed by plenty with theological training. And
\nmany pastors have told me they are thrilled with HTBAW<\/em>, are using it in their congregations, and have invited me to
\ncome speak to their churches and even synods.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\nHolsclaw, that appealing to his vocations does not validate his critique. Knowing
\nthat he is a pastor and theologian is not particularly revealing. More
\npertinent to the discussion is knowing what kind
\n<\/em>of theologian and pastor he is. <\/p>\n
\nnot standards, simply givens in the discussion, but are as subject to criticism
\nas any other. And while the angle he is taking on the phenomena of Scripture
\nwill be satisfying theologically and pastorally to some, <\/em>to others, who have perhaps heard these answers before, it
\nwill not. They have other questions entirely. I have been conversing for many
\nyears with pilgrims who are trying to recover spiritually from their
\nconservative backgrounds and find other perspectives life-giving. They would
\nnot be as captivated by the particular kind of theological and pastoral matters
\nHolsclaw keeps pressing. <\/p>\n\n
\n
\nsome blazing theological and pastoral red flags for me. <\/p>\n
\nI know people\u2014many people\u2014whose spiritual lives are or have been in a process
\nof deep recovery because of the unyielding theological categories their
\nintelligence and their experience could no longer support, but who were told by
\npastors and theologians that their faith depends on their ignoring their experience
\nand falling back on the very formulations that fueled their crisis to begin
\nwith. They have found greater explanatory power, and therefore renewed faith, through
\nother models. <\/p>\nLosing the God Connection. <\/h2>\n
\nentirely on one issue: my failure to say something about divine revelation in addition to<\/em> the biblical authors
\nreimagining God. As he puts it, I have \u201ctotally left aside\u201d that issue and even
\n\u201crefuse\u201d to address it. In doing so, I have \u201cturned the Bible into what humans
\nreimagine God to be,\u201d which is nothing less than a \u201clie in the big picture.\u201d <\/p>\n
\nassessment of my work is a product of the kind<\/em>
\nof theology he embraces. There are, after all, as I\u2019m sure he knows, different theological
\nmodels for understanding the nature of revelation. I wish Holsclaw had taken
\nsome time to define\u2014even briefly\u2014what he means by \u201crevelation,\u201d given its
\nimportance to Holsclaw, and how that view helps address the phenomena of
\nScripture.<\/p>\n
\nthat Holsclaw\u2019s view fits comfortably within familiar Evangelical parameters. I
\nalso surmise, though Holsclaw does not use the term, that his deeper concern is
\nto protect biblical authority (a clear subtext of his two summary statements
\nquoted in the previous section), which is the logical corollary to his
\nunderstanding of revelation.<\/p>\n
\nof revelation. And the reason is that it simply doesn\u2019t hold for me the level
\nof theological and pastoral interest it does for Holsclaw. Nor does it need to.<\/p>\n
\nsimply had no interest in meshing together what I see the biblical writers
\ndoing with what God might be doing to them, or in them, or with them, or
\nalongside them. This was no oversight on my part, nor was it a \u201crefusal\u201d to
\naddress a central topic of theological and pastoral urgency.<\/p>\n
\nrevelation is by its nature speculative and hard to demonstrate when push comes
\nto shove. I am well within my theological and pastoral charge to work through
\nthe biblical phenomena (as best as I can, always looking out for my own hidden
\nagenda) and describe what I see from a cultural point of view without also
\naccounting for how all this fits together in the mind of God who was revealing
\ninformation to the biblical writers and then to us.<\/p>\n
\nand soul of his critique, but I simply don\u2019t feel the force of it. I do not
\naccept Holsclaw\u2019s presumption that divine revelation is a non-negotiable, even
\nself-evident, norm by which the phenomena of Scripture need to be viewed. <\/p>\n
\nphenomena of Scripture (which he acknowledges) would inform and shape<\/em> his doctrine of Scripture rather than be adjusted
\nby it. Or perhaps, were he to indicate how his doctrine of revelation does a
\nbetter job of accounting<\/em> for the
\nbiblical phenomena I lay out in the book, such as: contradictory portrayals of
\nGod, the many conflicts between the law codes in Torah though they are all
\ngiven by God in Mt. Sinai to Moses, the conflicting histories of Israel\u2019s
\nkings, various and sundry moral and historical problems, the unexpected nature
\nof the Messiah dying for others and then rising\u2014and more. <\/p>\n
\nthese phenomena, but he is obligated at this point not simply to talk the talk
\nbut walk the walk, to explain <\/em>how inserting
\na doctrine of revelation into this discussion would actually add to our
\nunderstanding of the biblical phenomena\u2014an explanation that would certainly
\npenetrate deeper than the \u201cif-then\u201d scenarios he posed above.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\ntheological and pastoral reasons\u2014was Holsclaw\u2019s unguarded rhetoric in the
\nfollowing: <\/p>\n\n
\n
\nother words, however correct it might be to think of the Bible as an ancient,
\nambiguous, and diverse collection of stories that represent how people of old
\nreimagined God for their here and now, without a doctrine of Scripture\/revelation
\nour connection with God is not \u201csaved,\u201d<\/em>
\nor to put it more directly, that
\nconnection is lost.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nhope Holsclaw is just aiming for a bit of drama here, but at face value, this
\nclaim is unsettling and illustrates a type of biblio-centrism for which Evangelicalism
\nis rightly criticized. Evangelicals tend to walk that thin line between respect
\nfor Scripture and idolizing it. If Holsclaw has not crossed that line, for me
\nhe is coming too close for comfort. <\/p>\n
\nis what the Spirit of God does working in
\nand through Scripture (along with other means of grace) without the false sense
\nof security offered by any \u201cdoctrine of revelation.\u201d <\/em>I truly hope Holsclaw
\ndoesn\u2019t think the people of God need a functional definition of revelation in
\norder for the Spirit to meet us. I can think of not a few Christian traditions
\nthat wouldn\u2019t quite know how to respond constructively to a claim like that.<\/p>\n
\nauthors do<\/em> reimagine God), but how
\ndoes he<\/em> see those pointers<\/em> pointing him
\nto add a notion of revelation? <\/em>Or has he already freighted a discussion of
\nthe biblical phenomena with a preconceived notion of what Scripture as God\u2019s
\nword must be? \u00a0I am reminded here of C.
\nS. Lewis\u2019s quip in Reflections on the
\nPsalms<\/em>:<\/p>\n
\nthose lines, I suppose I should throw another card on the table: I am very
\ncomfortable with, and am comforted by, the paradox
\nof Scripture<\/em> noted by others long before HTBAW<\/em>: Scripture as God\u2019s word comes to us irrevocably through
\nutterly ordinary means\u2014and that fact has pressing implications for
\nhow we frame the nature of Scripture.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nthe years I\u2019ve collected quotes from theologians and others that articulate
\nthis paradox. One of my favorites is the following by turn-of-the-century Dutch
\nCalvinist theologian Herman Bavinck from his Reformed Do<\/em>gmatics:<\/em><\/p>\n