Being Evangelical

Since I am retired and unemployed, I have more time to read, to shoot pool, do housework and explore new places to eat breakfast. I am reading "Across the Specturm: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology" by  Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy. While listening to a podcast, I heard a discussion of the state of evangelical theology. While I affirm that God cannot err, I also affirm that human creatures cannot help but err when it comes to the things of God. If you take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, you come away affirming agnosticism. You must take the position that God likely exists, but is largely unknowable. We need a fixed anchor or we become adrift in a sea of human foolishness by those who claim to be wise. That anchor has always been the inscripturated word of God found solely in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.

Those thoughtful among us are familiar with the theological problem of Divine knowledge. Some affirm that God cannot be known until He reveals himself to the believer. Others affirm that some elements of God can be known through our meditation on His creation. Psalm 19:1-3 (NKJV) 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. 2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. When God reveals his mind, that revelation must be two tings. It must be without error and it must bear the highest and unquestionable authority.

Karl Barth insisted that no knowledge of God is possible apart from act of self revelation. He strongly insisted that this knowledge is personal to every believer. The sure revelation, the Barthian would argue is the Word of God which is the God who became flesh in the person of Jesus who is the Christ. Expanding on this, some draw the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of Faith. While Barth himself may not take this to its logical end others do. If all we can know is subjectively revealed and limited to only an encounter with the Second Person of the Trinity, then the reliability of all biblical history is suspect and all that scripture teaches regarding what is right and wrong is questionable. This is how some "evangelicals" justify their moral adventurism.

Some folks in the Church, who call themselves "evangelical", understand the Bible as selective revelation or a means by which the Spirit reveals the Son. This is the line of reasoning that allows Jack Rogers, who once taught at Fuller Seminary and was a shining light among evangelicals in the 1970’s to become a staunch advocate for the normalcy of homosexuality. More recently, the Rev. Dr. Mark Achtemeier the son of a neo-evangelical house, where both his parents gained a well deserved reputation as conservative Christian scholars, has turned his scholarly position into a platform of Gay Rights. Here is how he explains the change in an article published by the Huffington Post. He tells of his personal experiences with the homosexual rights community. Some impressed him with their piety but others impressed him by a display of their pathos in the form of self-loathing. He writes

If I know one thing, it's that Christian faith, properly understood, doesn't destroy people. Yet, this man was just one of many I met who followed this course to despair. How had the accepted pastoral response so utterly failed these deeply faithful Christians?

The only answer was to return to the Bible. To my surprise and chagrin, themes began to emerge I hadn't noticed before.

When God creates the world and declares it "very good," God also says, "it is not good that the human being should be alone." Genesis describes God's creation of human beings for intimate fellowship with another person. This is not something we can reverse or undo. It is deeply inscribed in our nature.

If a biblical scholar, with an evangelical reputation and heritage can so misinterpret the clear teaching of Scripture by allowing his experience to filter the plain words found in Genesis, then should it surprise us that many others will find ways to twist the Scriptures or set them aside completely? There are many who call themselves evangelical who hold to a purely subjective view of God’s revelation. The Bible to them is not the last word in a moral or theological conversation – it is merely one of the voices of the panel of experts.

This is one of the reasons I approach the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians with great caution. I find it troubling that they have accepted the Book of Confession which includes the Confession of 1967 where Barthian theology and ethics is codified with tactical ambiguity.