Understanding That I Cannot Live at Peace with Everyone: Living with Not Being Able to Do the Impossible

On August 14, 2023August 16, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn 1 Peter, 1-2 Samuel, Book of Acts, Christian Leadership, Galatians, Genesis, Hebrews, Isaiah, James, Jenkins Institute, John, Leadership, Leadership Ethics, Matthew, Ministry, New Testament, Old Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Preacher, Psalms, Published, Romans, Spiritual Formation, The Preaching and Ministry Journal

[Note: This is a pre-pub version of my article submission for The Jenkins Institute’s August 2023 issue of The Preaching & Ministry Journal.]

God created human beings to be social, and to live within community. When “God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him,” notice that the text then equates this action with, “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).[1] The word “man” (’adam) here is not exclusive to the male but is generic for mankind as a created order. Mankind is the only creation made in God’s image and likeness, which is to say, that elements of the human species allow us to approximate what God is like. Humans are not God, but they share a “family resemblance.” A few of these resemblances include being free social, moral, spiritual, and relational creatures.

Christian ministry among God’s people and in the world speaks to these fundamental human issues and experiences. God has always communicated his will to humanity to shape our social, moral, spiritual, and relational toward godliness through Divine action, word, or prophetic revelation (Heb 1:1–2; 4:12–13). Unfortunately, our ungodliness gets in the way. Not only is the human response to the exposing power of God’s word often filled with resistance, but often the people who pursue godly living are resisted, rejected, and in extreme cases have been persecuted (1 Pet 4:1–19). Christian ministry, then, is grounded in the understanding of God’s word, its proclamation of the gospel by which sin is condemned, and the power of God’s gracious sanctification is heralded.

The work of Christian ministry is seated right in the heart of the human experience. It challenges free will choices, condemns certain actions, and commends others, and does so with love and righteousness serving as tandem virtues. Jesus in his farewell words to his disciples, reminded them that the word of God makes enemies. For this reason, he quoted Psalm 35:19, “They hated me without a cause” (John 15:26). This raises the issue of this short essay: while ministry is often filled with wonderful experiences and we witness meaningful spiritual triumphs, it is inevitable that the ministry of the word will create conflict among those we share it. We cannot always live in peace with everyone. How do we as ministers navigate this hard bitter truth? I suggest the following spiritual and emotional tools.

Spiritual Tools

Sitting with the Rejected Jesus

When we find ourselves at the barrel end of the anger and rejection of those we minister to, we need to sit with Jesus. God’s work comes with rejection. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). The prophet Isaiah foresaw the coming of Jesus and depicted him as the rejected servant who will suffer for the healing of Israel (52:13–53:12; Acts 8:35). On the surface, he was “stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (Isa 53:4), but in fact, he was punished by God for Israel’s rebellion against God (Isa 53:5).

Robert Chisholm notes that Isaiah affirms that “this apparent alienation was not final” for God’s servant will be vindicated (53:10–11).[2] The Gospels recount in detail how in his ministry Jesus was rejected for the hard truths against hypocrisy, traditionalism, and lack of love and grace for the downtrodden. I have learned to sit with Jesus when I feel rejected by those to whom I minister the word of God.

The Light Must Shine in the Darkness

The light of God’s word often creates tensions with those whose sins, consciences, or beliefs are cloaked in the darkness of worldliness. There is a great temptation to preach what is agreeable to the majority. When we push beyond what is traditionally expected or on controversial topics, biblical conclusions about sin may be met with hostility. These hostilities may be warranted if the presentation lacked love or adequate biblical foundation. Other times, hostilities arise because a social norm that has become acceptable is called sin. The preaching of repentance is to trade in resistance.

Additionally, preaching God’s word trades in light and darkness, righteousness and sin, morality and immorality, and personal sins and relational sins. If we refrain to proclaim the “whole counsel of God” then we will have abdicated our role as servants of God (Acts 20:26–27; Gal 1:10). It is hard to speak God’s word to people you love when you know that you are shining God’s light into their darkness (John 1:5, 11–12), but this is the task we have accepted. Trust the light to do its work.

Compassionate without Compromise

Every preacher brings a culture to their pulpit. Our desire to be faithful to God’s word can sometimes lack compassion. We should take time to evaluate if some of our uneasy relationship with others is because we preach as if there is only one type of preaching: harsh. The oracles of Moses, the prophets, and the sermons and discourses of Jesus and the apostles provide us with diverse examples of proclamation. Jesus certainly condemns sin. Remarkably, he lovingly invites the sinner to the innermost part of his heart (Matt 11:28–30).

On one occasion, Matthew cites Isaiah 42:1–3 to describe Jesus’ healing love for the sick. His compassion is framed as “a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench” (Matt 12:18–21). William Barclay (1907–1978) reflects on this well, “A man’s witness may be shaky and weak; the light of his life may be but a flicker and not a flame; but Jesus did not come to discourage but encourage.”[3] We should always do some soul-searching when reflecting on the friction created by our attempts to proclaim God’s word.

Emotional Tools

Disappointment is a Normal Reaction

Isaiah declared, “who has believed what he has heard from us?” (53:1). Paul himself cited this in Romans 10:16 as he discusses the problem that not everyone will believe, yet the gospel must go out. Ministry is people work. We work with people. People disappoint us, especially those that know us and our love for them. It is hard not to personally take the rejection of what we teach and preach. Jesus reminds us that when our teaching aligns with his, any rejection of the doctrine goes back to our God.

The disappointment in “ministry outcomes” can tap into our identity issues and send us down a shame and depression spiral. Not everyone will like our preaching style. Not everyone will like our personality. Not everyone will accept us either. Sadly, we will be misunderstood as well. We will be judged by word gaffes in the pulpit. Our hard stand on sin will sometimes be confused for bigotry and outdated morality. People we love may be inadvertently hurt by ministering the word of God. We always want clear skies, but we must endure cloudy days. Disappointment is a normal reaction when our good-faith intentions in ministry create personal problems with others. Love them through your disappointments.

Frustration is No Excuse for Bad Behavior

As a young man, I thought I would become an auto mechanic for Mercedes-Benz. One day in auto school, two Russian students were heard banging on a car. The teacher yelled out into the shop, “What are you doing?” In response one of the men said in a thick Russian accent, “Don’t worry, sledgehammer and screwdriver fix everything.” My teacher was not impressed. When our message offends, and it will then remember we are stewards of God’s word. When we are frustrated by how people respond to us, we need to remember it is not an excuse for short-sighted responses that satisfy our emotional fixations of retribution.

“Sledgehammer and screwdriver” will not fix everything. When reading the Gospels, Jesus certainly had his fair share of direct controversies, but he always tempered them based on the kind of person that stood before him. Frustration often seeks a release because we have been let down. It is hard to remember that the person in front of you needs the grace of Jesus, not a petty unkind word that took a second to say but may take a lifetime to overcome. Yet, we are called to be peacemakers between God and man, and with each other (Matt 5:9; Jas 3:17–18). The work of peace-making applies the transforming “heart of Jesus” to times of conflict.[4]

Pray and Meditate through the Psalms

If there ever was a biblical figure that understood conflict in his life with those who oppose God’s will, few rival David. To say David was not perfect is an understatement. He is a multi-dimensional figure. Warrior and worshiper, sinner and a man after God’s own heart, condemned and vindicated, a political rival and a Divinely appointed king. The books of Samuel also reveal him to be musically inclined. He eventually received the moniker, “the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sam 23:1). 73 psalms in the Psalter explicitly are “of David.” They are prayer-songs David wrote to praise God, declare faith and trust in God, plea for divine retribution, and recount God’s deliverance. Philip Yancey says that these “150 psalms are as difficult, disordered, and messy as life itself, a fact that can bring unexpected comfort.”[5] These psalms are a powerful tool for emotionally wrestling with ministry conflicts.

A significant form of the psalm is the lament. The lament is essentially a broad category of urgent prayer for God’s redeeming and saving intervention. Despite the sense of being God’s anointed and chosen, it seems rejection follows God’s servant. Sometimes the rejection is fatal and communal (Psa 22), or betrayal (Psa 41). These laments reveal that conflict in the life of God’s servant can cause confusion despite a deep faith. They can help structure our prayer life when wrestling with conflict. Psalm 13, for example, illustrates this process: call to God with our complaint (1–2), petition God to intervene (3a), give God reasons for his intervention (3b–4), and an expression of faith or sense of vindication that God has helped us through our conflicts with others (5–6). It is an interactive type of prayer.[6] As ministers, we need a prayer life to help us cope with conflicts in ministry when we are unable to live peaceably with others.

Conclusion

The spiritual and emotional tools I have surveyed are essential tools for the minister in times of conflict. I have not listed intellectual tools because our instincts to respond to conflict and rejection are often emotional responses. As Jack Cottrell (1933–2022) reflects,

What should a Christian do when harmed by another person…? The almost-universal tendency is to personally strike back, to retaliate, to try to get even, to make the evildoer pay for the harm he has done, i.e., to seek personal revenge.”[7]
Cottrell, Romans (1998)

Paul calls all Christians to resist this tendency for vengeance, “repay no one evil for evil… if possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:17–18). My prayer for those in ministry is to develop the emotional and spiritual disciplines above so they can endure the temptations which emerge from ministerial conflict.

Endnotes

[1] All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.

[2] Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets (2002; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 120–21.

[3] William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1975), 2:34.

[4] Ken Sande, The Peace Maker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict, 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 134–35.

[5] Philip Yancey, The Bible Jesus Read (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 119.

[6] Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 281–84.

[7] Jack Cottrell, Romans (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1998), 2:343.

Bibliography

Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. 2 vols. Revised edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1975.

Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. 2002. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

Cottrell, Jack. Romans. 2 vols. College Press NIV Commentary. Edited by Anthony Ash. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1998.

Sande, Ken. The Peace Maker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict. 3^rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004.

Yancey, Philip. The Bible Jesus Read. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.

Genesis on Nations and Ethnicities

On October 25, 2022June 20, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, Articles, Genesis, Miracles, Old Testament, Old Testament Background, Primeval History, Theology

Genesis is the wellspring of all biblical thought and serves as the foundation for any well-rounded biblical worldview. Genesis reports the rise of nations and ethnicities is the result of God’s judgment on human rebellion. Is it myth or history?

Genesis as Theological Literature

First, Genesis is written in historical prose. It recounts in succession fashion early human stories, their consequences, and God’s responses. Genesis has a literary genre (historical prose), and it is theological because God is the central figure of the book.

Moreover, it is important to understand God also has inspired the form of his word. God selected the genre (i.e., form) as well as the words to be the vehicles of his word and message. Knowing this and following the scripture’s lead will help us to read the Bible closer to how God intended to experience its transforming and soul-searching power (Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 4:12-13).

Following basic genre guidelines will help us to identify what to expect when reading the book to, therefore, understand God’s intent; discouraging a subjective, privatized, understanding of God’s word. As Paul writes, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (English Standard Version).[1]

God has spoken variously: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2). This “many ways” phrase (polytropōs) indicates diversity. Our job as readers is to recognize this literary diversity and read scripture accordingly.

There are challenges to reading this ancient historical narrative. One challenge is its age because it is “older than most books we read… [and] the Bible’s antiquity provides a challenge to our understanding.”[2] We are separated by some two-and-a-half thousand years before we were born. Also, narratives often “make their points indirectly,” so we must read much larger portions of the book to improve our grasp of the book.[3] For example, how many Bible reading plans have died at the genealogies? Why? It is not part of our modern story reading expectations, which means such reports, lists, or ancient story forms are often lost on us.

Genesis as Theological History

Second, Genesis tells us a tremendous amount about God and about the human story. But is all of it historical? Did it happen? These are serious questions asked in our secular and skeptical world. Unfortunately, even Bible scholars are counted among the skeptics.

The 2017 faith-based documentary, Is Genesis History?, argued that the historical narrative of Genesis 1–11 happened.[4] Sadly, Bible professors of Wheaton College reacted negatively to the film’s showing on their campus, a majority of whom are reportedly theistic evolutionists who believe that God used evolutionary processes to produce all the variety of organic life today.[5] This presumption calls into question the historicity of the Adam and Eve story and leads to shattering confidence in the historicity of the rest of the stories relegating them to mere theological myth.

There are clues in Genesis that it is theological history. For example, Genesis uses the phrase “these are the generations” or “this is the history” (toledoth) eleven times to mark historical events, genealogies, or literary movements (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). Except for Genesis 2:4, ten references include a personal name to mark narrative’s events, much like in later times when events are timestamped to the year of a historical person’s reign (Jeremiah 1:1–2; Daniel 1:1; Luke 3:1–3). I believe this literary pattern asks the readers to have a historical expectation.

Unfortunately, a school of skeptical and naturalistic archaeologists (i.e., the supernatural does not exist) has been very successful in pushing their agenda that Genesis is unreliable history. To be clear, archaeology is not my field of training, but I have been reading about these issues for some time.

There are a few important counterpoints to consider: (a) the ancient world is vastly lost to us moderns due to site plundering, destructive wars and occupation, and natural erosion or burial; (b) many early discoveries were not properly cataloged, obtained, lack translation, lack proper chain of custody; (c) there are many areas that have not been excavated due to politics or lack of funding; and yet (d) what is available to us has provided two valuable interpretation tools: the contemporary setting and context to set the biblical narratives against.[6]

The field of archaeology, nevertheless, provides limited and revisable interpretations of locations, texts, and artifacts, which often illuminate the realism and narratives we read. Genesis is consistent with what we know of the ancient world.

Finally, Genesis affirms the possibility of miracles. The argument is simple: “if God exists, then miracles are possible.”[7] One of the main problems with reading the Bible is found in the first sentence of Genesis: “In the beginning God…” If the reader keeps the door open to the existence of God, then the miraculous events throughout the book that seem improbable (creation from nothing, a global flood, confusion of languages) are quite possible or probable. The naturalist, on the other hand, keeps the door tightly shut against such possibilities.[8] Yet, Genesis presumes the existence of a God.

The Rise of Nations and Ethnicities

Third, Paul summarizes dozens of passages about God’s hand in the human story:

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place… (Acts 17:28)

Every “nation” (ethnos) of humanity is derived from “one” (heis) person.

The nations go back to one historical human figure: Adam through Noah (Genesis 10:1). This biblical truth, tied to the historical creation of humankind (Adam and Eve) made in the image of God, is the foundation for understanding the unity, value, and indivisibility of the human race. There is no basis found for teaching prejudice toward others based on the color of one’s skin (there is no curse of Ham, Genesis 9:25). Instead, we are all descendants of the same person.

The rise of nations and ethnicities begins with the literary toledoth key in Genesis 10:1. The “criteria of division” used are genealogical, regional, and political divines of various relevant nations which interacted with Israel. A key point is, that “ancient peoples were more concerned with distinctions based on nationality, linguistics and ethnicity.”[9] By listing the personal names of the patriarchs (Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth), the names of their descendants as the names of political nations, and noting their linguistic differences (10:5, 20, 31), we are to understand a big picture development of early human history. All of these nations and languages are known to this day.

“The Nations of Genesis 10,” *Nelson’s Map Collection***[10]**

The snapshots of the family of Noah in Genesis 10 prepare us to understand the “Tower of Babel” story in Genesis 11:1–9. To this point, Genesis connects the human story from one act of uncontrolled rebellion and sinful pride to another. Babel, the ancient Mesopotamian city founded by Nimrod (10:6–10), was the epicenter of a human endeavor to build a community around a tower to the heavens (11:1–5). Today, it is well documented that in ancient Mesopotamia such pagan temples existed. These are known as ziggurats, three-to-seven-tiered mountain-shaped tower structures.

The Ziggurat of Ur (**Source:** *Encyclopedia Britannica*)

Babylon, the later name of Babel, means “gate of god” and was known for its ziggurat in the center of the court of the temple of the pagan deity Marduk.[11] As Arnold and Beyer point out, “with a single international language and advanced building technology, humanity was unified in rebellion.”[12] In a dramatic ironic twist, God made the “gate of god” the source of their confusion and dispersed humanity into the nations and ethnicities previously mentioned in Genesis 10 (11:6–9). These nations would eventually have historical interactions with the nation of Israel.

Conclusion

Genesis recounts the historical rise of nations and ethnicities. First, there are good reasons to believe that Genesis was intended to be read historically and that the events it reports did happen even if reported in stereotyped ways. Second, reading Genesis reveals our presuppositions about miracles, evolution, and archaeological certainty. If God exists, the epic events recorded in Genesis are possible. Finally, the rise of nations and ethnicities emerged as a consequence of human rebellion; thus, amid the confusion of languages, arose ancient nations and ethnicities from which we all descend.

Endnotes

Unless otherwise noted all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
Tremper Longman, III, Making Sense of the Old Testament: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 19–20.
William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 424.
Is Genesis History? (Compass Cinema, 2017).
Brandon Showalter, “Young Earth Creationist, Wheaton College Students Speak at 1-Y Anniv. Release of ‘Is Genesis History?’“
See, Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), H. Darrell Lance, The Old Testament and the Archaeologist, Guides to Biblical Scholarship: Old Testament, ed. Gene M. Tucker (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981); Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017).
Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
Even some so-called supernaturalists, like John Clayton, have trouble with the miraculous components of these early Genesis stories cf. Does God Exist? 49.3 (2022).
John H. Walton and Victor H. Matthews, IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 31.
“The Nations of Genesis 10,” Nelson’s Map Collection, Logos electronic ed. (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1997).
“Babylon,” Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, electronic ed., eds. Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1990).
Bill T. Arnold and Bruan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1999), 86.

The Word of God among the Denominations

On January 29, 2018March 30, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Gospel Advocate, Hebrew Bible, Introduction, New Testament, Old Testament, Publications, Published, Revelation, Theology1 Comment

***Reprinted with permission from the February 2018 issue of* Gospel Advocate *Magazine.***

Hebrews affirms, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (4:12 ESV). This is part of a warning in Hebrews, which affirms that Christians who defect from God will fail to meet their rest as their Israelite counterparts did (vv. 1-11). God holds his people —and His creation— accountable by His presence (“sight”) in the word of God (Hebrews 4:13). This is a raw incontrovertible truth.

This passage makes no caveats; it makes no attempt to remedy a distinction between God’s word and God’s presence. They are both manifested at the same time. God is involved with real life (time and space) with Israel and with Christians. God makes promises and keeps his word regarding their “rest,” and God holds His people and creation accountable to His word. God is Lord of heaven and earth and everything in between, and He holds it together by the power residing in Jesus (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17). The word of God is connected not only to the authority of God but also to His nature and how He reveals Himself to the world.

Let me say the above in a differently. Our God, who is beyond time and space (God’s transcendence), enters our earthly “realm” bound by time and space (God’s immanence) with His divinity and authority (sovereignty) intact; furthermore, God enters into relationship with His creation (Abraham, Israel, Christians) by revealing Himself in creation and in His word. God is active both in creation and in His word. Creation reveals God’s existence and hints at elements of His attributes (natural theology), but it is His word that reveals God and His “will” so that humanity can enter into covenant with God. The word of God was both proclaimed orally through particular spokesmen (patriarchs, prophets, kings, apostles), but the prophetic word was not only through oracles but also in written communiqués embedded with the same divine authority (2 Peter 1:16–21). These writings reveal the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:11–16), His purposes and mystery (Ephesians 3:1–6), His involvement in human events (Acts 17:26–27), and the righteousness by which He will bring justice to the world (Acts 17:30–31).

To say it bluntly, the Bible is the word of God set in a permanent written form. Paul declared, “all scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Scripture bears the character of God and is no “dead” codebook, for it transforms every “man of God” into a competent, equipped servant (2 Timothy 3:17). The profitability of all Scripture is due to its quality as “God’s breath.” There is no pecking order between the spoken or written word of God. The inspired written word is as inerrant as God’s character. There is no source outside of the Holy Spirit-given Scripture that speaks God’s transforming work since it is the depository of the gospel’s message. What the word of God promises, God will do; what God proclaims, God’s holds His creation accountable to (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

The above may seem to belabor the point, but as anticipated by the title of this piece, we will sketch how the word of God is handled among Liberal (Modern) and Neoorthodox influences. It is essential for the church to reflect on these twentieth-century influences because dialogue is healthy, truth has nothing from which to hide, and any redefinition of biblical Christianity must be given due consideration (Galatians 1:6-7).

The following historical sketches will probably not satisfy everyone, but they will be enough to see their direction and how they redefine significant elements of historic Christian beliefs and their tendency to subvert scriptural authority.

Liberalism/Modernism

The word “liberal” is a very loaded word. It is often used with contempt to show disapproval of someone else thought to be progressive (instrumental music, expanded role of women, etc.). But this is not the historic sense of the word. Liberalism emerged in the late nineteenth century through the interplay of many players, thinkers, and philosophical trends. The influence of Liberalism, or Modernism, is seen in three levels: (1) revelation is not the final answer to reality, (2) naturalism is the key to reality and religion, and (3) since the Christian documents are built on ancient myths and superstitions, the historic supernatural claims of Christianity is immaterial. To be a “Christian” is a matter of experience and the “essence” of its teaching.

Liberalism, as an intellectual revolution, is a child of the Age of Reason (the Enlightenment). The “Age” saw the elevation of human reason over the institutional “church,” which wielded divine revelation. It was “the church” that dictated to the people what to believe about reality. Divine revelation was the final answer to determining truth and what really happened in the past. This was displaced with rationalism, scientific history (criticism), and naturalism as final answers to genuine and authentic history and truth. In essence, as Stanley Grenz and Roger Olsen point out, the maxim “I believe in order that I may understand” was turned to “I believe what I can understand.”[1] Faith was overturned by a reason informed by modern findings — thus, this point of view is called “Modernism.”

Everything that was received as genuine knowledge, now, was shaped by the natural world. This was further supported by what is called “the principle of analogy,” popularized by the liberal theologian Ernst Troelsch (1865–1923), which argued that the present is the best way to understand the past. The consequence was detrimental in the extreme on the trustworthiness of Scripture. The supernatural elements interwoven in Scripture are, by definition, myths and superstitions. This meant that there are no miracles, no supernatural interventions by God, and no resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, many new schools of “criticism” emerged to study Scripture with mixed results.

This naturally led to an embrace of “the essence of Christianity” so long as reason and experience allowed. “Liberals” are open to the modern findings from the natural world, open to a religious humanism and science —in particularly embracing Darwinian evolution as the process by which God created. If God exists, He could only be revealed through religious “experience.” It was also immaterial if the events of Scripture happened or not because religion is a condition of the heart. Yet, the apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that if the resurrection event has not occurred, both our preaching and faith are in vain and we are still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).

Another arm of Liberalism is the demythologizing of the New Testament pioneered by the “Form Critic” Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976). Bultmann argued that historic person of Jesus is built on untrustworthy sources. The New Testament is Christian propaganda shrouded in the imagery of the Greek myths and Roman legends. As such, they are not relevant for faith nor spiritual truth claims. It is the symbolism that matters. Today, one only need to watch the latest “history” programming to find modern theological liberals interviewed. Theological liberalism has significant questions that need to be answered, but it brings Christianity to a logical dead end.

Neoorthodoxy

The Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) ignited a movement when he published his commentary on Romans in 1919. It charted a new theological direction away from Liberalism/Modernism. Barth (pronounced “bart”) was not fond of the misnomer “neoorthodoxy,” but his strand of thinking regarding the meaning of “revelation” and “the word of God” would rival the prevailing traditional belief held historically by the church. As a consequence, many regard Barth as one of the great theologians and the father of modern theology.

Orthodoxy affirms the teaching of historic Christian truth based on Scripture. This includes, for example, the following concepts: the inerrant inspiration of scripture, the triune Godhead, the deity and virgin birth of Christ, the historic creation and fall of humanity, the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ, the return and final judgment. Barth argued, on the other hand, that “revealed truth” was not written, but was the outcome of an encounter (an experience) with God. Thus, instead of scripture as being the objective word of God, Barth argued for a subjective experience with God initiated by reading the Bible.

Barth was offering a completely different course of thought altogether. “Revelation” does not appear in the form of propositional truths. Arguing book, chapter, verse, or appeals to the very words of scripture is insufficient to reveal God. Revelation (the word of God), it is argued, is an “event” in which God acts in history (God’s immanence). Barth even argued that revelation is not found in natural theology (Acts 17; Psalm 19; Romans 1) but, instead, in events like the call of Abraham, the exodus, and the resurrection. Millard Erickson is spot on when he classifies Neoorthodoxy as an illumination theory divorced from an objective standard.[2]

Although Neoorthodoxy is not a unified movement, there are three interconnected witnesses (modes/forms) that shape its view on revelation.[3] First, Jesus is the word of God in the truest sense, for He reveals God in the event of His incarnation, life, ministry, death and resurrection. This is true revelation, the very gospel. Second, Scripture points to Jesus but it is a flawed human (read “errant”) attempt to provide a witness to divine revelation. It is instrumentally God’s word but not properly. Third, the proclamation within the faith community —Barth preferred “community” to church— is likewise instrumentally God’s word. The Bible, then, only becomes God’s word when God uses it to reveal Jesus Christ in the encounter, contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16.

In fact, Neo-orthodoxy is quite a popular approach to handling the Word of God, even among churches of Christ. A popular theological branch of this movement is “Canonical Criticism,” popularized by the late American scholar Brevard Childs (1923–2007). It seeks to broadly bypass much of the liberal destructive criticism of the twentieth century by accepting the texts of Scripture as literary units. Nevertheless, this point of view struggles, as did Barth’s, to embrace the Bible as a very human (errant) book while appealing to its authority for theological thought as if they were inerrant. They seek, in the words of one sympathetic Abilene Christian University professor, to “articulate a doctrine of Scripture that recognizes human flaws in it.”[4] Treating the Bible as an inerrant text is simply a form of bibliolatry.

Keeping the Faith

Today, the phrase “Word of God” means different things to different believers, and that includes preachers. Liberalism ultimately rejects a supernatural Christian faith, and is at home with amputating its historic claims of a resurrected ascended Lord Jesus, in exchange for a subjective diluted Christianity. Neoorthodoxy, on the other hand, embraces a supernatural Christian faith, but it rejects the supernatural origin, inerrancy, and authority of the Scriptures which undergird its claims. The Word of God has always been a manifestation of God’s presence in our lives, in His proclamation, and in His Scripture without pecking order. Let us join Paul who declares, “Let God be true though every one were a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Notes

Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olsen, 20th Century Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 17.
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2013), 220–21.
Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, trans. G. Foley (New York: Holt, 1963), 26–36.
Christopher Hutson, “Scripture as the Human Word of God: Why Faith Contradicts Inerrancy,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 44.1 (2011): 210–21. Hutson serves as a professor of ministry and missions at Abilene Christian University.