Section 7
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
A word about the role of Christian virtues is in order here. There is a Christian tolerance that demands we love, respect, and cooperate as far as possible with our fellow believers in Christ who differ from us on certain theological issues. But to be tolerant, loving, and respectful is different than allowing incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction in our hermeneutic and thereby constructing theologies upon flawed interpretations of Scripture. Tolerance, love, and respect should not be used to excuse or deny the incoherence in one’s interpretations, beliefs, and teachings. Certainly, there is a personal element to this controversy, as there is with any differences of opinion that people hold. This requires us to refrain from personal attacks and resist the negative influences of anger or resentment. Christian charity and humility are the rule. What needs to be made clear is that this is not a personal matter. In any controversy, we need to be reminded that persons are to be treated with courtesy and respect. Moreover, a person’s views should be carefully listened to and accurately represented.
But there is also an intellectual element to this controversy, and it is this element that needs to occupy our minds and check our emotions. Truly Christian tolerance and love cannot ignore the fact that there is a serious controversy here because it is one in which the gospel is at stake. Within churches that identify themselves as “evangelical,” defining, defending, and proclaiming the gospel is of the highest priority. The prevailing anti-intellectualism and sloppy handling of Scripture, which results in theological and soteriological relativism, should not be accepted as the norm for the thinking Christian. This theological and soteriological relativism is infecting evangelical life and thought. To be unconcerned about logical and moral coherence in our Bible teaching, textual interpretations, and the theological paradigms we develop from them is to accept theological relativism and an intellectually superficial Christianity that cannot serve the cause of truth or the gospel. It is to foster intellectual suicide and denigrate the life of the mind in our churches. It is obvious from this controversy that the evangelical church tolerates contradictory theological and soteriological teachings. This is not Christian tolerance. It is intellectual suicide. It has a direct and negative impact on the gospel as “good news.” This state of affairs should be resisted and remedied.
Many evangelical churches are complicit in fostering an anti-intellectualism that breeds doctrinal and theological relativism, subjectivity, and apathy, along with interpretive confusion and indifference. J. P. Moreland astutely observes how the Bible study methodologies and mindsets in many evangelical churches institutionalize poor reasoning and a lack of intellectual growth and maturity. He writes,
“I have spoken in hundreds of churches and have regularly observed Sunday school classes which divide into small groups to reflect on a passage or discuss an idea. Later, when the groups recombine to share their observations with the entire class, group feedback is almost always affirming, no matter how inaccurate or poorly reasoned a point is. Over the years, this creates a feeling of safety in the class, but at the price of generating both a false sense of pride and the mistaken notion that all opinions are equal, whether spontaneous and quickly conceived or the result of detailed study prior to class time. It also keeps adults from learning how to receive criticism for their ideas in the interest of truth and stifles growth in the ability to respond nondefensively.
If we don’t work on this in the safety of the company of our own brothers and sisters, we will come off as small, reactionary, and inarticulate in the public square. We need to give one another permission to express inadequately thought-out points to each other and create the expectation that we can learn to argue with one another, critique and defend ideas, or leave class with more work to do on a subject. All of this is in the interest of learning to reason carefully to get to the truth of what we study together.
This may be a bit threatening at first, but over the long haul it will produce a church filled with people who are more secure about what they believe and why. The very forms that define our periods of study together often institutionalize false pride and a lack of intellectual growth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with admitting you don’t know something or that you’re currently inadequately equipped to think a topic through. What is unacceptable, however, is running from this fact and thereby giving up on intellectual and spiritual growth in the interest of avoiding embarrassment or possible rejection. We all need help in this area, and we should care enough about the truth and reason to give that help. Even if we agree with one another’s conclusions, we need to dedicate ourselves for Christ’s sake to refusing to allow each other to reach those conclusions with poor argumentation and sloppy treatment of the data.”[35]
This Calvinist/non-Calvinist controversy highlights the interpretive, theological, and doctrinal agnosticism and relativism that abounds in many evangelical churches today. We are not teaching believers how to carefully reason and interpret the Bible and value gaining knowledge of the truth. All opinions should be heard, but they are not all equal as far as biblical truth is concerned. We cherish non-confrontation to the point that we convince ourselves that gospel unity exists where there really is none. A “what does it mean to you” approach is the accepted subjective method of Bible “study” while an appreciation and use of more objective scholarly materials and input are anathema. It is no wonder that we either skip over the passages dealing with sovereignty, election, and predestination. This is to shut down our minds to avoid disagreements that we fear might lead to division. But as J. P. Moreland points out, this only reveals our personal and spiritual fears and intellectual immaturity. It cannot produce intellectual and spiritual growth. It also betrays a disconcerting devaluation of a desire to know and speak what is true, which can be attained while also speaking in love. The use of sound reasoning is essential to spiritual maturity and for coming to the truth so as to resolve this persistent controversy. As Moreland says, we need to learn to reason carefully to get to the truth of what we study together.
Evangelical scholar John R. Stott also observes that flights to ritual, a “social gospel,” and emotional experience are symptomatic of Christian anti-intellectualism and “the widespread despair of ever reaching doctrinal agreement.”[36] He observes that Christian reformation, renewal, and unity depend upon thoughtful doctrinal reflection and precision in our theological formulations. He writes,
“Ecumenical activism thrives on the rebound from the task of theological formulation, a task which cannot be avoided if the world’s churches are ever to be reformed and renewed, let alone united.”[37]
So we see that reason is foundational in biblical interpretation and essential for progress towards unity in the faith. If there is any point at which the church, as a truly Christian church, should be unified, it is concerning the biblical gospel. But this Calvinist/non-Calvinist soteriological divide affects the content and proclamation of the gospel. To have two mutually exclusive gospels in the evangelical church is a serious matter. But this problem persists due to the church’s indifference to rational and moral coherence in its interpretative task.
This indifference is certainly not Christian, nor is it productive in getting at biblical truth. Such indifference does not serve to maintain or exalt the sovereignty of God, nor does it serve the cause of truth. Neither does it foster the meaningful unity of the body of Christ or the proclamation of the gospel. The evangelical church must come to grips with why it holds to two mutually exclusive “gospels”, each supposedly gleaned from the same biblical testimony.
Stott gives a fourth reason as to why our minds matter. It has to do with the doctrine of divine judgment. He states,
“It is a solemn thought that by our anti-intellectualism, in which we either refuse or cannot be bothered to listen to God’s word, we may be storing up for ourselves the judgment of Almighty God…he will hold us responsible for the knowledge we have.”[38]
It is sobering to consider that the decline of civilized and moral society that we are presently witnessing may be the result of the decline of the gospel as “good news” in our churches. The effects of the gospel upon the heart, mind, and life act to preserve a civil society. It just may well be that the spreading influence of Calvinism in our churches is resulting in a dearth of the proclamation of the truly good news message of salvation in Christ that genuinely offers God’s love and hope to all and changes the heart, the mind, and the life. I contend that the greater the influence that the determinism of Calvinist theology and soteriology has in the minds of Christian pastors, teachers, and lay persons, the greater the loss of a vibrant evangelical spirit sustained by the truth of the gospel. I submit that the Calvinists’ soteriology (i.e., TULIP) cannot be consistently and honestly put into the service of a truly “good news” evangelistic gospel ministry. Calvinism ultimately produces a ministry that is either inconsistent with its underlying theological and soteriological doctrines or results in a gospel-less “church” that devolves into a social gathering of religious people of like mind.
Returning to Stott’s quote, note that the thought about God’s judgment is obviously incoherent with Calvinist determinism, for it is God himself who predetermined and caused the anti-intellectualism that he himself will hold us responsible for and judge us for! The exercise of Christian virtues and the search for truth through argument, critique, and the use of reason are not mutually exclusive. Rather, all these must work together to get at the truth. As J. P. Moreland stated, we need to refuse to allow each other to reach our doctrinal conclusions with poor argumentation and sloppy treatment of the data. We need to learn to respond non-defensively to criticism and refuse to affirm inaccurate and poorly reasoned interpretations and teachings.
Read the next section – The Role of Philosophical Reflection and Moral Intuition in Exegesis and Hermeneutics
Footnotes
[35] J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997), 97.
[36] John R. W. Stott, Your Mind Matters, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 9.
[37] Ibid. 9.
[38] Ibid. 25-26.
The Truth of the Gospel 