In the 2nd chapter, Dr. Mulholland provides a good overview of the fundamentalist understanding of what scripture is. As he explains, “While all fundamentalists support a high view of Scripture, such topics as why Scripture is believed to be the Word of God, inerrancy, and the nature of biblical authority are explained in different ways within fundamentalism.” Generally, the different fundamentalisms present an array of propositional truths which must be believed in order for one to consider themselves a true orthodox Christian. With regard to scripture these beliefs range from believing that the King James Bible is the only inspired English version of scripture to believing that the Holy Spirit directly dictated every jot and tittle within, therefore the scriptures contain no error. Contrasted with a Wesleyan reading of scripture, Dr. Mulholland notes, “Wesley and most of his descendants in the developed a doctrine of scripture that focused on its role in transforming the believer’s inner being as the ground for reordering behavior. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, developed a doctrine of scripture that tended to focus on reordering behavior in obedience to a body of propositional truths.” A Wesleyan reading of scripture focuses on its transformative power. It is the medium by which God transforms us into the likeness of Christ through on meditating on it. It is a vessel for God’s grace. Rather than marrying one’s doctrine of scripture to one time and place in human history, a Wesleyan has a doctrine which effectively transcends the limits of the material world so that he may never find himself widowed in his scriptural belief. Rather than focusing on a literal view of Genesis, a Wesleyan will try to read Genesis in a way that will help the person’s soul gain greater holiness and closeness to God.
This Wesleyan way of relating to scripture causes several fascinating implications to arise. The first is the issue of modern science and the testimony of the scriptures. The text focuses on Genesis 1 as a case study for a Wesleyan view can allow us to accept the findings of modern science while still holding a high view of the Genesis account. Robert Branson notes, “The theological message of Gen. 1 has always been clear. Only one God has given order to the world. He is the sovereign Deity who is not part of the universe. But his majesty and glory can be seen in it by those of faith.” Wesleyans see modern science as bringing us greater knowledge of God’s creation. They recognize that the biblical account is not an accurate scientific record of how this world and humankind came to be, but rather a theological message about the creative aspects of the divine. In this, the Wesleyan seeks to find peace and unity with science rather than pit their faith against it. Another implication is that of scriptural authority. The fundamentalist view is that scripture is authoritative because the data contained within is reasonable and correct. It is a bulletproof document, much like a well written contract, and therefore carries intrinsic authority because of what it says about the world both natural and spiritual. The Wesleyan sees scriptural authority as being derivative of God’s Holy Spirit and the work of regeneration in the believer. As Truesdale notes, “The Bible’s authority resides in the miracle of transformation wrought by the Holy Spirit” Put succinctly, the scriptures are authoritative only if a person has been given eyes to see it, if that person has been filled with the Holy Spirit so that his heart and then his mind may grasp its truth. Apart from that work of grace, the Wesleyan view affords no intrinsic authority upon scripture. This view makes it difficult to argue for a biblical model of society or governance in a civilization that is increasingly multi-religious. A third issue is the matter of diverse interpretations of scripture. As Mary Lea Shea writes, “Neither the biblical mandate for the church, Wesleyan theology, nor the Church of the Nazarene Manual requires uniformity in all matters of thought and practice.” Wesleyans are free to embrace differing interpretations of what scripture is saying as long as it is centered around a few core and indispensable beliefs that Christians have shared for many centuries. These core doctrines are the belief in the oneness of God, the Lordship of his one Son, and the Holy Spirit: basic Trinitarian orthodox Christianity. This flexibility around a solid foundation will hopefully keep disunity from spreading within Wesleyan denominations and give room for the Spirit to move and grow in their midst.
All the authors writing this text are presumably Wesleyan Christians writing in the modern or postmodern period. This standing obviously carries with it various convictions and pre-conceived notions. It also afford one a 20/20 hindsight, being able to look back over the last 150 years and observe the way Western civilization has reacted to fundamentalist Christianity. All of these authors likely affirm basic orthodox trinitarianism and believe a generally conservative or traditional view of Christian history, especially with regard to the first few centuries. Their notions of early persecutions and the uniformity of doctrine in the first centuries betray this. On 117, Shea writes “From the beginning, the church universal has shared a small, but non negotiable, set of convictions…” This sort of thinking necessarily precludes all of the Christians who followed after the figure of Christ but believed things which would later be labelled heresy or non-orthodox. These assumptions are legitimate as this is a book mainly for Wesleyan Christians by Wesleyan Christians, so the authors and the readers likely will not disagree too much. If this were written for the wider academic community of biblical and church history scholars, they would probably not utilize these presuppositions too much if at all. The implication of this book with regard to interpreting scripture is the idea that one must be filled with the Holy Spirit to make heads or tails of thing. This necessarily implies that if someone’s interpretation deviates from core orthodox doctrine as listed by Shea, their understanding is flawed due to lack of sufficient spirit. This is a form of fundamentalism by itself and draws a sharp line between people who get it due to divine assistance and people who are hopelessly lost by relying on their own rational faculties. I do think that this way of seeing scripture is beneficial to a point. I see how it provides flexibility within Wesleyan communities to adapt to the changing of the culture and allow for an increasingly diverse society to take part in their communal worship. With that regard, I find this implication appropriate.
Sam Bolton - June 11th, 2015
Sources:
- Truesdale, Al, ed. Square Peg: Why Wesleyans Are Not Fundamentalists. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 2012
Comments
Post a Comment