'British evangelicals see the Bible primarily as a "rule of life" to be followed; our American sisters and brothers see it firstly as a "deposit of truth" to be believed'
Stephen R. Holmes, in What Are We Waiting For? Christian Hope and Contemporary Culture, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008, p.7
I dunno if that convinces me, to be honest, but a difference there certainly is.
Christ Sein, Küng
Existiert Gott?, Küng
Der Anfang aller Dinge, Küng
Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat
The Character of Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task, and Purpose, John R. Franke
Shadow Sides. God in the Old Testament, Eric Peels
The Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight
Gebete des Lebens, Karl Rahner
Jesus and the Victory of God, N.T. Wright
Universal Salvation? The Current Debite, ed. by Robin Parry and C. H. Partridge
6 comments:
...and Australian Evangelicals see the Bible in front of them, ignore it and go to a bookshop and buy a book written by an American or British Evangelical. Then they see that as a deposit of truth and a rule of life to be followed! Is that a bit harsh? ;-)
Actually I would say that American Evangelicals see the Bible as both a deposit of truth and a rule of life. Although I think that is changing somewhat.
I'm commenting on a link. I listened to the unauthorized recording of Westminster Seminary's chapel service regarding the disgraceful decision to suspend Peter Enns.
There is nothing heretical in Enns' wonderful book Inspiration and Incarnation. He affirms the authority and inspiration of scripture but he deals with issues that are real and are not going away.
The book is a very helpful way of affirming the inspiration of Scripture and recognizing the realities of historical issues.
After reading some of the anti-feminist tirades of some members of the WTS faculty, I rejoiced to hear a voice of reason when I read Dr. Enns' book.
This reactionary decision is not good news for the church.
so so harsh, emergent pilgrim.
so we're not allowed to read us/uk authors now? now if i could only grab my bible from wherever i left it last month or so i would quote something about saying stuff like that that you shouldn't - actually, piper puts it quite well... joke.
i just reckon we call each other different things. i am sure there are americans who i would call evangelical, who wouldn't dream of calling themselves evangelicals because of the connotations associated with it in that neck of the woods. i'm sure this is a issue (which, to further ep's stereotype, carson touched on in sydney last week!)
so one man's evangelical is a ken ham lovin, wife beatin, king james quotin fundamentalist. know what i mean?
Emergent, I hear you! And I agree entirely that "American Evangelicals see the Bible as both a deposit of truth and a rule of life". I suppose the matter is emphasis.
Thanks for these comments, Mark. I listened to the unauthorized recording myself - and finally felt a bit sick in my tummy about the whole nonsense.
Dougie wrote: "so one man's evangelical is a ken ham lovin, wife beatin, king james quotin fundamentalist. know what i mean?"
I've been chuckling about that today!
I can't speak for British Evangelicals (and because I am American I don't even know where Australia is) but I would say that the quote captures the belief of most American Evangelicals. Not everybody, to be sure, but it does capture the essence of the American attitude/belief.
There's something inadequate about both views I think. The Bible, primarily, is neither epistemological norm nor practical life guide, but a vital servant in the triune God's saving purposes.
Webster's book Holy Scripture was helpful in reminding me of this.
Post a Comment