A Response from a Philosopher

As I was reading through my friend's recent entry on his blog, I thought that a few comments were in order. He is writing on the topic of the usage of the Word of God - the Bible in church. It is worth reading, so read it. I strongly agree with the main content, I just have a few comments, particularly because I was indirectly singled out under the name "analytic" and "philosopher".

I think what my friend is trying to say is that Bible believing churches should spend the focus of their Bible studies and sermons on the message (reception) of the text rather than the truth of the text. We should spend more time understanding what the Bible is saying than trying to prove that what it says is true. With this I agree. Unfortunately, I think that he has engaged in some exaggeration to make his point. He states that "the method of historical criticism is what kills the life of the Church". Now, perhaps a diet of only historical criticism would do that, but historical criticism itself does not. (I am assuming that historical criticism relates to the practice of proving the truth of the text.) If one's faith in the text is already strong, then one has no personal need for historical criticism. But most in the church do not have a faith that strong. Otherwise, there would be no need to respond to the claims in the Da Vinci Code!

My friend suggests that this use of Biblical defense results from feeling threatened by liberal scholarship. I would suggest otherwise. Most people in the pew have never heard anything of liberal scholarship. He also suggests that the church spends too much time debating with secular critics. Again, I would suggest otherwise. Most pastors spend no time at all debating directly with secular critics. The concern of pastors who do defend the Bible in sermons and Bible studies is over the faith of those inside the church. When the Da Vinci Code came out, many ordinary evangelical believers doubted their faith. Since the Da Vinci Code contained very bad arguments and transparently false "facts", how much more will their faith be shaken by real scrutiny?

Let's suppose that a pastor of an average evangelical congregation decided to only preach the message of the text. Now let's examine the result this has on the congregation. There will be a small number who do not doubt their faith because they understand why the objections against it do not work. There will be a moderate number of people who do not doubt their faith because of their experiences. These two groups of people will find their faith strengthened and feel as if the life of the church is greatly increased. The rest of the congregation of believers will doubt their faith. The message will be relevant, but it will feel disconnected from their life. Because they do not trust the message, they will be less inclined to act on it. They will also disconnect the pastor's messages from the other messages and routines they have. This is not the only problem. Those who believe because of their experiences will not be able to transmit the faith without a similar experience. Their children will believe out of tradition rather than trust. That is precisely what happened to North American believers in the 50's and 60's.

I think that there is one final point. Our period in history is unique in a way that has little parallel in the ancient world. Anyone can access information on any subject quite easily. We are also given many messages throughout the day. So objections to the faith that were addressed to few then must be addressed to many now. Even if this were not true, we should remember that the ancients took time to refute every objection that took root in society - both inside and outside the church. We would do well to focus on the message of the Bible, but never forget to continually establish its truth and defend it against objections.