Assignment 4c: Seminar Discussion Session #4: Functional Authority of Scripture

Your reading has presented a wide range of theological methods, and it might be tempting to dismiss some of the methods as without merit. For example, you might vigorously reject various forms of liberation theology, but is it not true that some people in history have been oppressed? In which way is the crucified Christ made more intimate by considering the reality of oppression?

QUESTIONS:

1. Of the theological methods discussed in Veeneman, which are congruent—in whole or in part—with a commitment to the functional authority of Scripture? Why?

2. How might one of those methods assist in your dissertation research?

_____

1. The functional authority of Scripture means, in one shape or another, that the Bible is the inspired (i.e., God-breathed) Word of God, and because it comes from God, it is a decisive ruling voice to both the church and the individual. As the Word of God it functions, not as a replacement for God, but as the representative of God. It’s words are God’s words, and it authoritatively communicates God’s will.

While not all theologians give the Bible the same level of importance, Veeneman’s survey seems to indicate that many theologians hold some level of commitment, whether in whole or part, to the authority of Scripture. Examples of theologies that lean toward a full commitment to Scripture’s authority are evangelical, neo-orthodoxy, and post-liberal theologies. Others that appear to hold at least a partial view of Scripture’s authority include some political and feminist theologies.

Of course, the primary example of a commitment to the authority of Scripture is evangelical theology. The use of Scripture in this way is seen most clearly in the work of Millard Erickson (pp 81-84). To him, “theology arises out of a careful study of Scripture” by which he collects the biblical material, assembles it, and puts it together in “a set of statements that delineate fundamental ideas about the nature of God and reality” (81). In Erickson’s method, scripture is the primary source of revelation and by it he is able to put together a series of “propositional truths” (84), or a set of doctrinal statements. Good doctrine is a very helpful framework for doing theology, but theology seems to be more than that. To me, theology is thinking beyond the propositions and applying them to questions from both the church and the world.

Two neo-orthodox theologians that hold a congruent functional authority of scripture are Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg. “For Pannenberg, God’s revelation is chiefly found in history” (31), and the history he refers to is that of Israel and the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. This means that the Bible is the record of the most significant revelation in history- the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Barth, theology must start with God and “be utterly grounded in the Word of God” (27). It is by the Word that God speaks, reveals himself, and enters into relationship with humans. To Barth, the Word is primarily found in the person of Jesus Christ, then in the biblical text, and in Christian preaching (28).

To a lesser degree, Gutierrez’s political theology of liberation has a partial view of scripture’s functional authority. Though the starting place of his theology is the contextual challenges to the church, particularly that of the oppressed, he nevertheless says that these challenges should be considered in relation to the Word of God.

In a similar way, Veeneman points out that certain types of feminist theologies view the Bible in a positive way. Different from revolutionary feminist theologians that say the biblical text is the problem, reconstructionist Christian feminist theologians argue that the biblical text has a liberating core. More than that, reformist Christian feminist theologians approach the biblical text as fundamentally liberating for women. Delores Williams’ womanist theology seems as though she is trying to give an honest reading to the Scriptures, giving voice to the “oppressed of the oppressed.”

2. My background is that of an evangelical raised in a propositionalist tradition (like Erickson’s theology), but I am sympathetic to both liberation (especially black liberation theology) and feminist theologies (particularly Delores Williams’ womanism). I tend to think that extremism of all kinds is dangerous. Given that, the two methods that resonated as the most helpful to me were George Lindbeck’s postliberal theology and Stanley Grenz’s type of evangelical theology. What I appreciate about both of these is that they tend to walk a middle road between propositionalism and expressivism. Lindbeck holds that doctrine is a normative rule for the community and that it is the lens through which members of the community view their experiences (68). In the same way, Grenz sees the work of theology as assisting the believing community in proclaiming and living out Christian message (86). Both theologians move beyond mere propositions (doctrines) into something that is meant to be practiced in both the life of the church and the individual. For his part, Lindbeck categorizes doctrines into “unconditionally necessary,” “conditionally essential,” or “accidentally necessary” (69-70). Lindbeck puts the call to feed the poor into the category of something that is “conditionally essential.” Since at least a portion of my dissertation is to argue for the church’s responsibility to the poor, this is a useful to me. Also helpful is Lindbeck’s view that Scripture can offer a framework for interpreting the world and our experiences in the world. In other words, Lindbeck argues for a biblical worldview that is “able to absorb the universe” (73).

Grenz builds upon Lindbeck’s view of doctrine and applies it to the work of theology. He identifies three hierarchical sources for theology: the biblical message, theological tradition, and contemporary context. He too believes the Bible is of first importance and the primary norm for theology, but he doesn’t see the need to “remake the wheel” so to speak. Instead of arguing for the authority of the Bible, the theologian should assume it “on the basis of the relation of theology to the faith community” (89). Having done that, theology should give the church “a particularly Christian way of understanding the world” (i.e., a biblical worldview) (92). Theology should help the church fulfill its Christian calling.