The Rationalism of the “Biblicist”
The April 25, 2010 episode of The Heidelcast, a weekly podcast by Dr. R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, and writer of the Heidelblog, contains a discussion between Dr. Clark and Martin Downes, author of Risking the Truth, about how “biblicism” is fundamentally rationalistic, and so undermines the sole authority of Scripture, which it intends to uphold. What follows is a transcript of this short segment of their interview.
Clark: What happens when a fellow comes with his Bible open, as Faustus Socinus did (an anti-Trinitarian heretic)? He had his Bible open, and his uncle Laelius Socinus, managed to convince Heinrich Bullinger that he was basically orthodox. And so, both of these fellows said, “Listen, we believe the Bible, but we just don’t think that you’re getting it right. We’re more biblical than you. In fact, we want to get rid of all of this systematic theology and these confessions, and we just wanna follow the Bible.” What’s wrong with that approach, which scholars have called “Biblicism”?
Downes: The real problem is that, although it claims to be, upholding Sola Scriptura and the sole authority of Scripture, actually what’s really going on beneath that claim is a subtle form of rationalism.
Something that Jehovah’s Witnesses are always saying to people is, “Did you know the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible?” As if to say, “Ah, crums! It’s not there. Well, perhaps the idea isn’t really there.” Perhaps somebody invented that and imposed it upon the text.
I think what we find is that Biblicism demands that truth be stated in a certain way, and will not accept that we believe things, because of the express statements of Scripture, but also what “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, section VI).
But it is very subtle, and I think that’s why it does take more people in. It’s an appeal to a standard of authority that we want to hold to whole-heartedly, but actually beneath that appeal, I think is a form of rationalism.
Clark: Doesn’t it also put the autonomous, individual Bible interpreter in charge of Scripture? And this is something of which Protestants are often accused, but it’s not really true. If someone pays attention to the history of Protestant theology, and the history of the Reformation, one would know right away that there was a huge difference between the Anabaptists, who were radicals and individualists and the Socinians, who were radicals and individualists…between them, and, the confessional Protestant Reformers, who actually worked within a churchly (ecclesiastical) context.
Downes: I remember once after an evening service, I chatted to a man at the door, and . . . I happened to mention what we are discussing—this particular issue—He said, “I’m not interested. That’s just a man made document.” But he wanted me to be interested in what he was saying, and his insights into the Scriptures.
So I said to him, “Look, why would I want to put aside a document that has churchly sanction, that represents the reflection from Scripture, and the thinking, not of an individual, but actually of the whole body of divines. And so, really what his claim was, “I’m not interested in what they think. I’m just interested in what I think. I just want you to believe what I’m saying. I struggle to find humility in that approach.
Clark: Not only is it arrogant, it’s essentially an Enlightenment-inspired, modernist approach to truth and error. At the end of the day, it’s not really God’s Word as understood and confessed by a body of believers, which is norming things, I’m norming things by my, private personal interpretation of Scripture. And so, at the end of the day, I, really, am the measure. I say I’m following the Bible, but I know better what the Bible says than anyone. And, unfortunately, I think, and maybe you’ll agree or not, I don’t know, that there’s a pretty radical misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. What’s the real difference between Sola Scriptura as understood originally, and Biblicism?
Downes: I think it goes back to what you were saying about individualism. That it’s not seeing Christian belief in the context of the church, and the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and maybe some of that is a fear of the Catholic element, with a large C and an R before it—maybe some of the squeamishness has to do with that—but I think fundamentally it is that individualistic mindset that it’s just me and my Bible. Well, it’s a big book. What does it teach? We ought to, if we are wise, consider very carefully two thousand years of Christian belief, in terms of the great creeds and the Reformed confessions.
My “Perfect Church” (With Apologies to My Current Church)
Redeemer Pres Exterior
I know the old saying, “If you find the perfect church, it’ll stop being perfect because you’re there,” or something like that. Well, I’ve been around the block a few too many times to think that there is such a thing as a church full of perfectly consistent Christians who always forgive each other, are loving, generous and caring, while at the same time utterly devoted to offering the purest, most biblically ordered and sincere worship of God. I may be a bit naive about some things, but when it comes to church, I’m . . . well, not so naive. But that doesn’t keep me from getting enthusiastic about church from time to time.
Perhaps a little closer to what I have in mind is the way people talk about “your own hell.” You know, some conceptualize hell by making it an infinite and eternal punishment of enduring whatever any given individual finds the most unpleasant or distasteful. Like hell for some people is lying on a bed of nails for eternity, for others it’s having to watch Family Matters reruns (I never did like that show), and still others may dread an eternity of reading poorly written blog posts, or something. But you get the idea. This is more analogous to what I have in mind when I say that this past Sunday, I visited what I consider to be “my perfect church.” It had just about everything I could ever ask for in a church (with very few exceptions).
In the world of debating the Reformed notion of the “Regulative Principle of Worship,” the matters that come under discussion are usually categorized in two ways: elements of worship (mandatory things the Bible requires:preaching, prayer, sacraments, etc.), and circumstances of worship (optional things utilized for practical reasons: choice of musical instruments, sound systems, carpet color, etc.). I think I’ll try to categorize the elements and circumstances of my own personal concept of the perfect church, which I discovered in Overland Park, Kansas at Redeemer Presbyterian Church.
Redeemer's Sanctuary (Not "Auditorium" or "Worship Center")
- Preaching that explicitly centers all exposition and application on the good news of Christ’s life, death and resurrection, with a minimum of autobiography, corny jokes, illustrations and sundry other rabbit trails.
- Weekly communion
- Long-winded prayers full of Scripture
- The predominance of classical, historic hymnody (I can tolerate a dose of contemporary music, as long as it’s done tastefully)
Circumstances (Icing on the Cake!)–
- Big, beautiful church architecture and a really cool pulpit (not a glorified music stand)
- Pipe organ accompaniment of at least the primary psalms and hymns sung by the congregation (okay, there were no pipes–just giant speakers, but the organ had the sound!)
- A book table full of Reformed literature
- A pastor who runs a Reformed blog
- Members who demonstrably care about me
Anyway, that gives you a pretty good idea of what gets me all giddy and makes me start speaking in terms of “the perfect church.” These were all to greater and lesser degrees present at Redeemer Presbyterian. I was even impressed by the hospitality of the couple in the pew in front of us with whom we “passed the peace” (my first time for that practice, but I’d heard of it from an Episcopal friend before). When they learned that we were from out of town to visit our daughter who attends UMKC, they gave us their name, phone number and address with an invitation to crash with them whenever we return to Kansas City.
Then there was the pastor and the preaching. First of all, when I was searching online for a church to visit last Sunday morning, I noticed on Redeemer’s webpage that their pastor is the man who runs the blog called “Reepicheep,” which I’d seen a few times before in the blogrolls of other blogs, but had yet to begin regularly following. Well that’s changed. When I shook his hand at the door on my way out, I told him I’d add him to my blogroll (see sidebar). As for the preaching, a thorough exposition and application of Philippians 2:9-11 on God’s and man’s response to the supreme humility of Christ sealed the deal (listen here). It was obvious by it’s predominance that the gospel is a priority for the preaching ministry of this church. If I lived in Kansas (or Kansas City, this would be the church for me). But I don’t, so it isn’t. But this is the heart of what I consider to be my “perfect” church.
P.S.–I would’ve taken more pictures like the tourist I was, but I was embarrassing my wife. 🙂
Jack Chick Earns the Respect of the Underground Comics Industry
Rare photo of the reclusive and elusive Jack Chick
I should probably save this for another time when I’ve got more time to write all that I have to say about Jack Chick and his world famous “Chick tracts,” (see his site, Chick Publications) but I can’t wait to at least show you the trailer for a documentary about Jack Chick and his comic books and comic book-style tracts. As it relates to me, Jack Chick is one of the instrumental causes of my dropping out of Bible College. I didn’t do my homework because I was too busy devouring his comics purchased from a nearby Christian bookstore.
Anyway, the following trailer features mostly the ways Chick’s views are poked fun of in the film, but if you ever get a chance to watch the documentary itself, as I did on the Documentary Channel a few days ago, you would see how much the filmmakers and even some of the non-Christian interviewees have for his comics as works of art. They say his work is even featured in galleries across the country and I think they said it even has a presence at comic book conventions and other such forums in which such material is auctioned. Jack Chick is collectible. All you fundies out there better hold onto at least a few copies of his tracts in case you need to cash them in once the economy completely collapses!
The picture to the right was found on the site of Catholic lay apologist Jimmy Akin’s website. He found it on the church website of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church whose pastor (right) has a testimony similar to that of the “Bad Bob” featured in the Chick tract of the same name held by the author (aka, Jack Chick himself, left). If you want to read about this picture and the hand-drawn portrait of Jack Chick at the Catholic apologist’s website, click here, here, and here. They make for fascinating reading, and serve as a little background info to some things I may share in a future post when I’ve got more time.
Below is the trailer to God’s Cartoonist: The Comic Crusade of Jack T. Chick.
Oh yeah, there are a few bios you will want to read on Jack Chick and his associates at Wikipedia in conjunction with this video:
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
Because the American Church is Losing Its Mind…
According to Jesus, the words of Scripture simply are identical with the word of God. The apostle Paul said that, “the Scriptures are breathed out by God,” and Peter said that, “no prophecy ever came from human initiative, but men spoke from God.” For its first sixteen centuries the Christian church enjoyed unanimous consensus concerning the nature of Scripture. This view came to be known as “verbal-plenary inspiration.” This means that the Bible is breathed out by God not only in its intended meaning but in its very words. In spite of all the other differences the Protestant Reformers and Rome agreed on this essential point. But this consensus was challenged by radical Protestant movements. The Protestant Reformers themselves faced the challenge of the radical Anabaptists who valued a supposedly “inner word” in their hearts, a direct immediate, and private revelation over the external word conveyed through Scripture and preaching. The Reformers called this “enthusiasm” meaning literally, “God withinism.” Like Adam after the fall our natural tendency is to want to bring ultimate authority inside our own hearts and minds under our control, instead of hearing an external word of command and promise from our covenant Lord.
By the time of the Enlightenment a full assault on the reliability, authority, and inspiration of Scripture penetrated theological academies and churches. Sometimes it came in the form of denials of any need for special revelation since general revelation and reason were thought to be sufficient. But in the Romantic era, through liberal theologians like Friedrich Schleiermacher, challenges came in the form of making anything and everything a medium of inspired utterance. Every impulse from the inner voice of the pious soul could be regarded as inspired. In Protestant Liberalism, then, we meet the convergence of radical Protestant enthusiasm and rationalistic criticism of God’s miraculous intervention. As a result the Bible came increasingly not as a written treasure of God’s communication to us, but as a record of our attempts to express in words that universal religious experience that is common to everyone. In this perspective inspiration doesn’t come to us from outside of ourselves as a characteristic of the Biblical texts, but from within individuals and communities and their spiritual experience.
Historically Evangelicals were known for defending a high view of Scripture against these challenges. The giants of old Princeton: Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, helped to shape a new generation of conservative Protestants as mainline Protestantism became racked with debates over inspiration. Led by Carl Henry, John Stott, F.F. Bruce, and many other theologians and Biblical scholars, Evangelicalism provided a sustained defense of Scripture with two generations of fruitful successors. But today the old arguments against the classic Christian view of Scripture are being retro-fitted with new lingo and updated arguments. Even within Evangelical circles there is a growing tendency to treat the Bible more as a record of the evolving religious experience of the community rather than as a revelation from heaven through human agents. In this program we will unpack the meaning of Biblical inspiration and take a look at some of the challenges that we face today.
Share this: