In the talk he assesses the local option offered by Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter and lays the foundation for a global Methodist church that might arise out of our current crisis.
At the outset let me say this categorically. If losing your current understanding of scripture will lead you to abandon your faith, then I would insist that you should absolutely hold on to the vision of scripture you currently embrace. From a Christian point of view, nothing is more disastrous than the loss of faith. So if your theory of the Bible is integral to your having faith in the first place, then stick to your theory.
And he goes the other way as well.
I would say equally categorically that if holding to the inerrancy of scripture leads you to lose your faith, then you should not hesitate to stick with your faith and look for a much better way to think of its nature and use. … What matters is coming to know and love God; theories of scripture are secondary and should be treated accordingly. So if your theory of the Bible gets in the way of knowing and loving God, go find a better one.
Here’s a video I had not seen before about ways the church could and should engage the world. His talk has three section: the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ, the changing culture of North America, and engaging that changing culture with the unchanging gospel.
About 18-19 minutes in he has this interesting claim: We should no longer accept the claim that we United Methodists are an American mainline church.
*Note: He gets Kenda Creasy Dean’s school affiliation wrong. She is at Princeton.
Brian McLaren has inspired some further reflection about the things that William J. Abraham has been arguing about the nature of scripture.
After posting the Asbury definition of holiness, I spent a few minutes digging around for another voice addressing the same question. In just a few minutes, I did not find exactly what I was looking for, but I did find this interesting McLaren blog post in which he defends Rob Bell and Love Wins from a criticism by Albert Mohler.
In the post, McLaren explains that all we have as Christians are different interpretations of the gospel. We do not have the gospel itself, but our own versions of it.
Our versions (mine included) are all, then, human interpretations of the gospel of Christ and the apostles, and human interpretations of the original message are not exactly the same thing as the original message. Some are more true to the original and some less, but no articulation of the gospel today can presume to be exactly identical to the original meaning Christ and the apostles proclaimed. That doesn’t mean we can’t proclaim anything with confidence, but it demands a proper and humble confidence rather than a naive and excessive confidence.
Which brings me back to Abraham’s thesis, laid out in the opening sentence of the first chapter of his book Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology:
The fundamental problems which arise in treatments of authority in the Christian faith stem from a long-standing misinterpretation of ecclesial canons and epistemic criteria.
To an extent, McLaren illustrates the argument Abraham has been making.
I was reading John Stott‘s classic little book Basic Christianity the other day. Stott begins with a move similar to the one CS Lewis makes in Mere Christianity. He examines the things Jesus says about himself and concludes that Jesus either is who he said he is or he is not to be trusted at all.
Stott sets out the case well and his passion is clear.
With some of the recent reading and thinking I’ve been doing in the work of William J. Abraham, though, I wonder if Stott’s approach is compatible with Abraham’s warning that we not turn the Bible into a foundation for truth claims. Stott, it seems to me, is doing exactly that.
Abraham wants us to begin with the claim of the church — Jesus Christ was divine. He does not try to prove this by appeal to scripture. Indeed, he argues that making our confidence in Christ’s divinity depend on scripture opens up all kinds of problems for Christianity.
I am, frankly, not well versed enough in philosophy or epistemology to appraise Abraham’s argument to any extent. Its similar to when the air conditioner repair man says I need a new coil. How do I know?
But I am trying to figure out what Abraham’s argument means for what have been effective apologetic and evangelistic arguments in the past. What does it mean if Stott and Lewis and Wesley have defended their claims about Christ on what amounts to a “for the Bible tells me so” argument?
And what does Abraham offer us in place of such resources? I suspect not a lot of my readers are Abraham experts, but if you have some thoughts on the subject, I’d love to read them.