Saturday, January 7, 2012

They Did Better Than We

I enjoy reading what early fathers of the Stone-Campbell Movement wrote in response to the religious climate of their day. Sometimes I disagree with their conclusions or manner, like when I consider Barton Stone's view of the Trinity (I think he is quite wrong when it comes to who Jesus is in His relationship with the Father), or when I think of the tendency toward post-millenialism that was present in Alexander Campbell and others, or when I think of the harshness and rigidity that the Alexander Campbell of the Christian Baptist showed toward those who disagreed with him, but I also greatly admire much of what they were about. One of the things I love about them was their level of commitment to genuine biblical scholarship. Now, read me correctly, I just wrote, "scholarship," not "academia." Scholarship doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the academy and degrees, it has to do with study and a concern for understanding in a way that includes knowing history, languages, and being able to work well with biblical texts. This can be done apart from the academy, and, in fact, the fact that it can be done apart from the academy is so much my point in appreciating our early Restoration fathers. Alexander Campbell had no degree. He did study at the University of Glasgow, but he took no degree. Barton Stone took no university degree (although he did study at an academy that offered what could be called post-secondary education). And those with whom these early Restorationists interacted typically possessed no advanced academic training. Advanced academic training and degrees were of little concern to them, nor were there abundant opportunities for advanced academic study available to many. But they were, nonetheless, amazingly - by our current standards - far more able to read and interpret well written texts than are the majority of Christians today. Scholarship for them did not equal time in the academy. It simply meant time learning; it meant being studied. What is more, not only did they often possess the scholarly skills (I mean by this only that they had the ability to study well; not that they had academic credentials) needed to interpret texts well, but the climate of the day meant that many held an intense interest in reading texts well, including the biblical text. It was simply part of who they were for them to do well in interpreting texts, and this was true of many people, apart from whatever advanced academic training they may have received. Now, this is not to say that there were not also many of their day who were essentially illiterate, but those who were afforded even just a grammar school level of education were often trained well in interpreting written materials, and they had an interest in being good at it. That was just who many of them were. So, for example, apart from his one year at the University of Glasgow, Alexander Campbell had already learned Greek and Latin from his father. Barton Stone knew Greek and Latin before he went on to post-secondary education. That is just what people did if any education was available to them. School boys learned Latin! These people knew languages and grammar and they knew what to do with texts and had the ability to reason well about them.

Things are not the same today. A certain level of being able to understand and interpret texts cannot be assumed to be the typical North American person's skill set. Nor can it be assumed today that a great interest in being able to understand written materials well is part of anyone's intellectual makeup or personality.

This poses a problem for the church today because, despite our current intellectual climate, the Bible will always be a written record. The Bible is a text constituted by texts. To not be able to interpret well the Bible, as a written text, or to not be concerned with interpreting it well as a written text, is to put ourselves in a highly vulnerable position; one that scares me. For instance, not being able to deal well with the biblical text leaves us unable to respond as well as we should to challenges regarding church doctrine. One person says they believe one thing, another says they believe another thing, but not as many, as should be able to, can discuss biblical doctrine by dealing well with the biblical text. Too often, we don't know the Bible well, don't know how to go about knowing it well, aren't all that interested in knowing it well, and, therefore, don't want to, or don't know how to, productively discuss biblical doctrine with others. (I suspect that the causes for this, in addition to the current intellectual climate being what it is, include a revulsion on the part of some stemming from the type of fighting and disunity that has been caused by Christians disagreeing and dividing about what they think the Bible teaches. And this I get. Unfortunately, we are often woeful at knowing how to disagree without allowing anger and frustration to rule our thoughts in debate, rather than letting logic and the results of sound understanding dominate our discussions. I love discussing biblical topics with those who disagree with me, but I don't know many Christians who can do this without getting angry, who can consistently focus on the issue at hand without bringing into the argument pre-judgments about the motivations of the one(s) with whom they disagree, or who give the thoughts of another a fair hearing. We don't actually listen very well to what our discussion partners are actually saying, and we far too often pre-judge what we think they have said or their motivations. This kills the opportunity for genuine learning to take place on the parts of those involved in such discussions.) For another instance, if we cannot do well with the biblical text, we cannot do well in discerning the kind of spirituality that its pages communicate. How can we love well God or our brothers and sisters if we cannot well discern what Jesus wants us to understand about such things? We must be able to read well what the Bible records of the teachings of Jesus.

So, we are in a bit of a pickle. That we live in the intellectual climate we do does not mean we can relax on our responsibility as Christians to know the text well. At the very least our preachers and teachers and Elders have this responsibility, but we all do! No matter the causes of the conversational dysfunctions that prevent us from disagreeing in productive ways, we are not absolved from doing well doctrinally or from dealing well with biblical texts that communicate Christian spirituality. Dealing well with texts is still so much the basis on which doctine must be decided; and it lies at the heart of productive Christian teaching and discipleship. The culture in which our spiritual forefathers was raised perhaps made this easier for them, but this does not mean that we have an excuse because it is not so easy for us. Christian, learn well to deal with the biblical text! Be as expert as you can! Academic degrees count for nothing, or at least very little, and being associated with the academy is about the same. But biblical scholarship is available to all, especially in our day when almost anything can be studied on line (but, oohh, please be careful with this). Be a Berean! Learn how to rightly divide the word of truth! Study to show yourself approved! And learn how to argue your positions about texts and to disagree with others about the meanings of texts in a climate of mutual respect and true intellectual openness! Learn how to discuss actual opinions about texts, rather than allowing your suspicions of the motives of those who hold opinions with which you disagree about the texts you are studying, to prevent you from keeping the meaning of the texts at the center of your discussions.