This by Cranmer's Curate appeared yesterday on VirtueOnline:
Following the news that the Revd Dr Richard Turnbull is no longer principal of Oxford theological college Wycliffe Hall, the question now arises as to what sort of evangelical will succeed him.
Will the college Council go for a smooth-talking evangelical-ish PR person cum amateur therapist who fancies their 'people skills' - proudly sporting a doctorate and proclaiming themselves a 'healer'?
Or will they have the spiritual and moral courage to go for a believer in the infallibility of the Bible - with or without some fancy academic letters after their name?
It is important to be clear here. A theological college principal who believes that the Bible is like the film Chariots of Fire in its historical approach plainly believes that God's Word written contains inventions and distortions.
The 1981 Oscar-winning film about the 1924 Olympic Games is fact-based but it contains many inventions for the sake of dramatisation.
A 'Chariots of Fire' principal would believe that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were historical events. So, provided he or she believes that Jesus died for their sins and that the Lord's resurrection was bodily and eternal, it would be wrong to say that such a person is not a true Christian believer.
But their view of Scripture is such that they would feel free to perceive as invention, for example, Matthew's account of tombs being opened in Jerusalem just after Jesus died and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep being raised (Matthew 27v52).
The biblical infallibilist by contrast believes Matthew's account of these resurrections, miraculous though they are, is historically true - as historical as his account of Jesus' crucifixion and the resurrection. Matthew records that these resurrected saints came out of their tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the Holy City of Jerusalem where they appeared to witnesses (Matthew 27v53).
The infallibilist's approach shows proper respect for God-breathed Holy Scripture. And indeed for God himself.
The God of truth is not the author of a film script, inspiring fabrications for dramatic effect.
That is fundamentally why the 'Chariots of Fire' approach to biblical narrative is cavalier and intellectually arrogant. A principal who treats God's Word written like that is not fit to be entrusted with the theological education and training of future ministers of the true Word of the Lord Jesus Christ. Read here.
This sermon - Give thanks to God the Diamond Evangelist - appeared on Archbishop Cranmer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hopefully this dichotomy can be avoided. I would also think that one thing (of many other important things) going on in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 is actually a concern for PR. Based on both a deep consistency of life and thought, and on the way that blamelessness/holiness is a public virtue and arrogance and quick-temper etc. are public vices.
ReplyDeleteJulian,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid this comes across as rather more to do with trying to defend Richard Turnbull then a sensible piece about who should be the next Wycliffe Principal.
Peter,
DeleteI can't comment about defending Richard Turnbull - I don't know anything about what is going on.
But why cannot it be a sensible piece about who should be the next Wycliffe Principal (assuming, as Ros points out, that there needs to be one)? I guess my question really is, why can't it be a sensible piece about criteria for the principal of any theological college?
Given that Turnbull is on leave of absence and no other statement about the situation has been made, it seems somewhat premature to be discussing his putative replacement.
ReplyDeleteA theological college principal firstly needs to understand issues of formation for ministry and to have a grasp on the very fast changing situation that ministry division seem to be creating/dealing with. The really thriving colleges (like Cuddesdon presently is) have shown themselves able to do just that. A party spirit which simply looks after one tribe won't help any of us in the longer term.
ReplyDeleteThis stuff about biblical infallibly has to go. Where in our historic formularies are we told that the bible is infallible?
Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Andrew, you have just espoused a party spirit which simply looks after one tribe!
DeleteMichael, Sydney
Andrew. In your view which bits are 'fallible' and which 'infallible'?
ReplyDeleteAndrew. Which bits of the bible do you consider to be 'fallible', and which unfallible?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't presume to speak for Canon Godsall. But my own reply would be "none of them".
ReplyDeleteGraham: it's just not that kind of book. You can't ask which bits are fallible and which not. It's a book that records the relationship of people with God. You might just as well ask which bits are red and which are blue.
ReplyDeleteI would have two points to make in reply to Andrew's original (and perfectly fair and useful) original question.
ReplyDeleteFirst, back then everyone accepted the Bible's complete truthfulness so it wasn't thought an issue worth explicitly addressing in the 39 Articles.
But secondly, it is in fact *implied* in at least no. VIII "Of the Creeds":
"The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: **for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture**."
Please note that the only way those two creeds can "thoroughly" be trusted is if they logically follow from an equally "thoroughly" true canonical Scripture.
Meanwhile on Andrew's latter point, that the Bible records God's relationship with his people - quite so, and this immediately requires historical truthfulness as a necessary component. God never made a covenant with Goldilocks, and any attempt to draw lessons for modern Christians from a "covenant" with a nonexistent person is automatically fraudulent.
Where does Canon Godsall assert the non-existence of Jesus? The point still stands that an infallible bible is as dubious as an infallible Pope. Why do evangelicals demand infallible certainty in place of faith?
ReplyDeleteFr David, that's a false contrast - Biblically speaking, "faith is the substance/evidence" of unseen things, giving Christians "full assurance of faith". Coming to faith is equivalent to "coming to the knowledge of the truth". Where's the uncertainty there?
ReplyDeleteThe point I was making is that the logic of Article VIII makes no sense without assuming that the Bible is free from error.
Who was claiming Canon Godsall asserted what you say? How did you jump to that conclusion?
Dan
Ah, now I see why Fr David started with that strange question. You're thinking that "Goldilocks" is code for Jesus. I never said that. You know perfectly well that at various times rationalist critics have denied the existence of e.g. Abraham and David, both major Biblical figures in terms of God's covenant dealings. To this day, how many "liberals" unreservedly believe in the historicity of two other such figures - Noah and Adam?
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the answer ;)
Dan
There are some very fine statements of the Anglican view of biblical authority..the report on "Authoritative Standards of Doctrine and Worship" from Lambeth 1888 ( almost forgotten alas)The report "The Holy Bible: Its Authority and Message" from Lambeth 1958 ( owing much to +Michael Ramsey, then Abp of York) and even Section 2 on The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture in the Moscow Statement agreed with the Orthodox in 1977....but alas anglicans are remarkably ignorant of their theological history and it plays little part in the formation of Church of England clergy.
ReplyDeletePerry Butler Canterbury
Aandrew wrote:
ReplyDelete"Graham: it's just not that kind of book. You can't ask which bits are fallible and which not. It's a book that records the relationship of people with God."
I reply. Andrew it is precisely because the Bible itself, that is the Biblical authors, and in particular the NT Apostles, make that very claim that the Bible is that "kind" of book.
For that reason it has always been subject to the most rigorous testing of its validity, and never been found wanting (except by theological liberals who have closed their minds to the God's word, except subjectively, and selectively, to what they choose to accept or reject)
If for example, our eternal salvation rests upon the assumption that the teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is uniquely true, as nothing else is, then it is a supremely important matter to know whether these matters are objecitvely 'true' or not.
A "bible" that merely contains some nice stories, or an interesting history of the Jewish people, or any other subjective analysis is not worth much is it? There are plenty of other "religious" documents fables, tales, myths & etc if we want these. You either believe the Bible's own testimony to its unique revelation of God and of Christ, or you do not!
If the Bible is what it claims to be , namely a revelation of the one triune God, then clearly it stands over and above all other religions and their documents. In a word it is revealed truth. All alternative non Christin religions, cults, sects & etc also claim their own narratives, Moslems,Mormons, Hindus, and could equally claim they are recording "a relationship of people with God". The question is: which God?
The special nature of the Bible is that it is also self-revelatory in that it interprets its own history. For example in the OT Exodus was only one of many other migrations of history. Calvary was only one of countless Roman executions. Whoever would have known of the unique saving significance of these events , had not God himself spoken to tell us?
If you cannot accept that God has revealed himself in general revelation (nature), or through his Son in time and history, then you are left searching for answers that will never come, and you are left in the limbo of spiritual darkness.
Dan is entirely correct in that all the OT figures, the prophets, and the NT Apostles to Christ himself, were real and historic people, and it is by faith that we accept them at their face value.
We can discuss theoretical nuances of the word
"infallible", but 'trustworthy' is simple enough as a description of the Christian scriptures - and crucially to give a knowledge of the salvation Christ came to give.
It simply won't do to say the Bible is "true" because it says it is.
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between a truth expressed through fables, myths and parables and that of historical facts. Perhaps Mr Wood is confusing the word "truth" with "literal". Taking every word in the Bible as "literally true" is self-evident nonsense.
Fr David. You say: "There's a difference between a truth expressed through fables, myths and parables and that of historical facts. Perhaps Mr Wood is confusing the word "truth" with "literal". Taking every word in the Bible as "literally true" is self-evident nonsense."
ReplyDeleteAnswer: 1. The Bible's "truth" is self authenticating in so many ways that I could not begin to answer this particular straw man.
2. Myths and parables versus historical facts.
Frankly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Your last sentence is a truism, and who has suggested that this false dichotomy has any real bearing on the nature of the Bible. You are right - it is self evident nonense and not worth pursuing.
I return then to my former question - which parts of the Bible do you think are not 'infallible'?
Would you say, for example, that the physical death,resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ was literal? ....
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty"
Physical death: literal.
ReplyDeleteResurrection : a matter of faith
Ascension: not literal
"Graham: it's just not that kind of book. You can't ask which bits are fallible and which not."
ReplyDeleteUmmm, Canon Andrew, why can't he ask this? You don't have to answer of course. But why can't he ask it?
Michael, Sydney
Reading through the thread above, it seems to me that Fr David is the one confusing "true" with "literal", as though they can only be the same thing. I am not sure why that has to be so - I have certainly never thought it to be so.
ReplyDelete"Physical death: literal.
Resurrection : a matter of faith
Ascension: not literal"
This is an assertion by Fr David - is there any objective reason why anyone should believe it to be correct?
The death of someone can be an objective, historical fact. Their Resurrection and Ascension are matters of faith. The Bible doesn't infallibly prove they happened. You have to accept that an "infallible" view of the Bible is accepted by some evangelicals, but not all sincere Anglicans.
ReplyDeleteFr David. Thanks for your further comment, although it does little to clarify your own belief. Here we are not talking about "someone" but only about One, namely Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteI think you have agreed above that Christ's death in the body was a "literal" event as recorded in the Gospels, and testified by many eye-witnesses. That we have established.
Then what about the resurrection and ascension?
Your assertion that the resurrection is a matter of faith is I think a correct one, for nobody actually saw the physical resurrection of Christ, but the Gospels treat this as an established fact nevertheless, and the accounts are so full of accompanying detail about the empty tomb, the missing body, and not least very many recorded details of the risen Jesus' appearances to many more witnessess, that the resurrection itself is accounted as an established fact. A fact more substantiated by hostility and plotting of the Jewish authorities who had the most to lose from the reality of the resurrection - at no point could they disprove the disciples claim that He had risen from the dead.
Thus the accumulated evidence for the resurrection is so strong, even overwhelming, that logically your answer to the question should be both "literal" and accepted "by faith", grounded on the same Gospel record.
True also for the ascension, and again, the event was witnessed by the assembled Apostles.
Is it not logical also to say therefore that the death, resurrection and ascension, of Christ are all of a piece and to be regarded as literal?
Of course, ultimately Christians accept the Gospel accounts, and the veracity of all Scripture "by faith", and not least because of the sheer weight of evidence in the case of the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.
I would only make one further point which is, if these things are not so, then the rest of the New Testament simply does not make sense.
As I'm sure you are aware, very much hangs on believing the evidence for as Paul warns 'resurrection sceptics':
"And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins" 1 Cor. 15:17.
You mention "not all sincere Anglicans", but as the cliche goes, one can be 'sincerely wrong', and such sincerity is of little use if it flies in the face of the evidence and the facts. Do you agree?
Fr David wrote:
ReplyDelete"The death of someone can be an objective, historical fact. Their Resurrection and Ascension are matters of faith."
I disagree - you are conflating whether something is a fact with how we know it is a fact. There is no intrinsic reason (that I can think of) that a resurrection cannot be a fact.
"The Bible doesn't infallibly prove they happened."
Since no-one on this thread has made such a claim, why is this relevant?
"You have to accept that an "infallible" view of the Bible is accepted by some evangelicals, but not all sincere Anglicans."
Since no-one has suggested otherwise, what is the relevance of this?
I don't mean to be rude, but its just that you don't appear to have thought through either the beginning or the end of your argument.
Graham Wood asked in this thread "In your view which bits are 'fallible' and which 'infallible'?" This implies he was making a claim for the infallibility of the Gospel writers. Since no one - however inspired - is infallible, the basis of our faith must remain a relationship with the living Christ, not on claims about the Bible it doesn't possess.
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth happened? Julian posted about the sort of person who ought to head a theological college in the Church of England and it turned into a discussion about the minutiae of how we understand God's Word.
ReplyDeleteSurely what EVERY theological college needs is a principal who understands the relationship between the colleges and the mission of the Church.
The mission of the Church (lest we forget) is to call people to the obedience of the gospel of Christ who redeemed us from our sins and now reigns and will come in judgement. That, I would have thought, would be a matter of fundamental agreement - "Christ has died (for our sins), Christ is risen (where he reigns), Christ will come again (as judge).
The task of the Church, then, is the conversion of England, and the task of theological colleges is not to demonstrate theological breadth or brilliance per se, but to prepare ministers who can feed Christ's sheep and seek for the lost.
You can nuance your Bible all you like, but if you're preparing people for that task you will take it seriously, and if you take the task itself seriously, you will prepare people who can preach and teach the Bible.
Those are the principles for the principal every college needs.
Fr David wrote:
ReplyDelete"Since no one - however inspired - is infallible, the basis of our faith must remain a relationship with the living Christ, not on claims about the Bible it doesn't possess."
I hope it is clear that we are in disagreement about this (I only write that because you seem to be assuming common ground). I believe that the New Testament writers were infallible when they wrote; the Apostles were given that authority by Christ.
I also believe that this is a fundamental assumption (and in some cases explicitly so) of our Anglican formularies.
So I cannot accept your dichotomy between "a relationship with the living Christ" and "claims about the Bible that it doesn't possess". In my view, the Bible does in fact make these claims, and if we don't accept them, we can't have more than a very limited relationship with the living Christ, because we are denying his authority.
I appreciate that you don't agree with me on this, which is your right. But I didn't want you to think that we have common ground where we in fact don't!
John R wrote: "What on earth happened? Julian posted about the sort of person who ought to head a theological college in the Church of England and it turned into a discussion about the minutiae of how we understand God's Word."
ReplyDeleteJohn, I'm sure you will agree that the two aspects are intimately related, and rather more than "minutiae". Surely it is a given that a theol college leader should be one who is thoroughly committed to an infallible Bible?. Anything less would be disastrous for the spiritual training of future students.
I agree with Michael A's post and criticism of Fr. David's inadequate position - as if a "relationship with Jesus Christ" (whatever that might mean) is somehow a substitute for abandoning the understanding of the Holy Spirit inspired, and therefore infallible, Word of God, the Bible. Belief in both are not opposites or in tension as Fr David seems to believe.
If not 'infallible' Bible - then it follows no real Christ to believe in - only a post modern, subjective, mythical will-o-the-wisp.
In which case Fr David you might as well turn to Sci-fi, or Aesop, or perish the thought, Dawkins.
As the Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon once typically expressed the issue: "Defend the Bible? I'd rather defend a lion"
Graham, my point was that we need to get everyone thinking about gospel outcomes. There are indeed 'nuances' to our understanding of the Bible, as you will know. Even 'inerrancy' needs to be carefully defined.
ReplyDeleteBut I would like to know what the principals of ALL our theological colleges think of the gospel, of the future fate of humans, of the coming of Christ, of the need of the moment.
There is no doubt that a shifting attitude to the Bible affects these things. But there is equally no doubt that these things need to be discussed with folks like Fr David, Andrew Godsall etc.
I want to hear from them what they think - and therefore what sort of clergy they think our colleges should be producing.
Revd John,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I understand your post. I would have thought everyone on the thread has acted appropriately and helpfully. Canon Godsall was the one who raised the issue of biblical infallibility, which is after all a major theme in Revd Julian's article. Fr David supported Canon Godsall's position (as he was entitled to do). Both Graham Wood and myself responded to different aspects of the points raised by Canon Godsall and Fr David - where is the problem with that?
If you want to hear the views of Fr David and Canon Godsall on other issues, then surely the simplest way is for you to post a message asking their opinion on those issues?