Examining "A More Christlike Word" by Brad Jersak
Day 3
I begin by adding the main thought from yesterday’s accidental detour around the forward to BJ’s “A More Christlike God”. Perhaps it wasn’t an accident after all!
Brian Zahnd presents the scenario that many of us have likely found in the Bible the God we wanted to find. The suggestion is that that book will show us who Jesus really is. But how will we know if BJ’s God isn’t the one he wanted to find and the one who found us with his word isn't the real one?
Okay, now that I’m done that detour, I’m back to the trail at hand.
Chapter 1: He Grew a Beard!
Interestingly, BJ begins with a quote by C.S. Lewis (p. 26) that denies the author’s earlier suggestion that we need to choose between God speaking and working through the scriptures, or God speaking and working through his Son. Lewis is quoted as writing,
“It is Christ himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to him.”
Okay, I’m smiling at that one. The Bible is God speaking to us and doing his work to lead us to experience him speaking to us and doing his work through his Son. That is what I see in the Bible, and it appears to contradict what BJ thinks he has found where the word and the Word are in conflict rather than divine cooperation.
Then, when the BJs’ Brian Zhand is quoted immediately following Lewis, he makes a parallel between what is written of John the Baptist in John 1 and how that could be applied to the Bible. I need to break this down so the false statements are clearly seen.
Zahnd states the following in his quote:
1. “What John’s prologue says of John
the Baptist, we can say about the Bible:” Okay, says who?
2. “‘There was a book sent from God
that we call the Bible.” Yes, what we have in the Bible was sent from God,
breathed-out by him, and carries that authority.
3. “‘The Bible came as a witness to testify
concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.” Yes, no doubt
about that. Jesus himself said that “everything written about me in the Law of
Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44).
4. “‘The Bible itself is not the light’
it came only as a witness to the light.’” Ok, there’s that pernicious false
dichotomy again. The BJ’s demand that we keep thinking that it is not the Bible
but only the Christ when the reality is always that it is Christ through the
scriptures (contained in the Bible). It’s the same as believers being “the
light of the world” (Matthew 5:14), and yet when Jesus says, “I am the light of
the world” (John 8:12) we know that does not invalidate what he said about us who
are his disciples. Neither would we deny that he is the supreme light (the vine
of light) who fills us with light to shine to others (as the branches of
light). Scripture does not call us to choose between scripture and the Savior,
but, as Lewis already stated, to attach to the Bible as the gift of God that “will
bring us to him.” So, the above statement should read something to the effect
that the scriptures as contained in the Bible is the light that leads us to the
Light, but not that it is not the light.
5. “This is not a low view of Scripture but a high view of Christ.” Which part? Lewis’s quote certainly fits. What he described is not a low view of scripture, but glorifying God for his word that brings us to the greater Word, Jesus Christ our Lord. On the other hand, Zahnd’s statement is a low view of Scripture because it forces that erroneous idea that the Bible isn’t the light that brings us to the Light.
I would challenge the claim that BJ’s “heritage habitually and primarily referred to the Bible as “the Word of God.” No, if my own experience with all the evangelical heritage stuff is even close to parallel (I grew up in the same Abbotsford and surrounding area as BJ was when I first heard about him), I have never heard any evangelical refer to the Bible as “the Word of God.” The only way I have heard anything close to this is referring to the Bible as “the word of God.”
What’s the difference? That “the Word” (upper case W) refers to Jesus, and “the word” (lower case w) refers to the Bible. To use the printed word “Word” as the preferred word for the Bible forces that ugly conflict like we must choose between the two. The reality is that in every church I have been in, every pastor I have ever been under, and every Christian book I have read that had reason to use such a phrase, everyone always distinguished that the Bible (the scriptures) is the “word” of God, and the Savior is the “Word” of God. We glorify Jesus Christ as the “Word” by getting to know him through the “word”! I can’t say the reason for using “Word of God” when printed statements would use “word of God” to speak of the Bible, but it is incorrect and misleading.
The author gives his “best I remember it” version of the Back to the Bible broadcast theme song. However, he puts “Word of God” in uppercase to make his point, but that isn’t the way we would write it if we were talking about the Bible. The Word is Jesus; the word is the Bible. So, who is using “the Word” for the Bible? Was it Back to the Bible, or is it BJs prejudice on the matter? It again appears to make a false argument that people are raising the Bible to Word-like status when that isn’t the case.
So, when he asks, “See the issue?” that depends. Do I see the issue of BTTB using “the Word” to refer to the Bible (which I don't believe they did)? Or do I see the issue of BJ using “the Word” to make his case when it is doubtful that is the way BTTB would have used it? At best, this nullifies the point he is making because it isn’t even clear there is an issue since he isn’t quoting the ministry but writing what he remembers in his own words. And, since he said he only listened to the programs, he wouldn’t have seen these lyrics in print and is reading in the suggestion that this ministry would have mistaken “the word” (the Bible) with “the Word” (God’s Son). Again, misleading.
“The Word is a person.” Yes, of course. Very clear in John 1.
But the next part begins a serious misrepresentation of the facts.
“The confusion or conflation of inspired texts with the eternal son of God is deeply problematic, especially when the Bible displaces Christ as the ‘Word of God’ and ‘Scripture alone’ becomes our sole and final authority instead of him.” (p26)
First, the example he opens this argument with is a strawman. The likelihood that BTTB ministries would have written the “Word of God” about the Bible is slim. At least it is not something the author witnessed, so it is totally unfair to claim they would have used “Word” instead of “word”.
Second, if there are real examples of Christians or ministries confusing the Bible with the Christ, of course that would be problematic. However, a Christian author misrepresenting ministries and Christians with strawman tactics is equally problematic.
Third, “especially when the Bible displaces Christ as the ‘Word of God’” is also about whether this is really happening, or whether it continues BJ’s strawman argument. When we view the Bible as the light that leads us to the Light, or the word that leads us to the Word, the “word of God” never displaces the “Word of God”, but, as Lewis stated, it leads us to him.
And fourth, “and ‘Scripture alone’ becomes our sole and final authority instead of him” also raises the question of whether this is what Christians are really doing when they speak of the authority of the Bible or whether it is the author’s false dichotomy coming through. The "instead" of him invents a conflict where the "final authority" of scripture in a human plane leads us to the ultimate authority of the Word of God overall.
“Still, in the ultimate sense, I contend that Christ alone is the eternal Word of the triune God and, as such, uniquely reveals his Father and unveils the true meaning of the Scriptures as pointing to him” (p. 28). If this means that we get to know the Word through the word (as pointing to him), fine. But if this means we must choose the Word instead of the word (as has been already suggested), not fine.
Note: through the pages of personal testimony, the author keeps using “the Word” to refer to the Bible instead of “the word”. Not sure of the purpose of that, but it is misleading because it falsely gives the impression that people are thinking of the word as the Word when the author has not shown that to be the case.
At this point (p.30), I do not buy the idea that when evangelical churches refer to “the Word of God, our final authority for faith and practice,” they had “the Word” as the author contends. It would have been “the word”, acknowledging we were speaking of the scriptures as gathered into the Bible.
Also, there seems to be the suggestion that when we say that the scriptures are “the final authority for faith and practice”, this is about Christ, as though “the word” was the final authority over “the Word”. I have never heard any evangelical Christian suggest such a thing.
Rather, the point of these statements was the governing of a congregation that would be filled with ideas and opinions on every matter under the sun, and everyone needed to know that the final authority amongst the people for what the church believed would be the word of God, not a church constitution, not the statement of faith, not traditions, not by-laws, not the Societies’ Act (however that works out in other countries than Canada or other provinces than British Columbia), and certainly not Robert’s Rules of Order! And this was with the faith that by turning people to the word to settle every claim of belief or practice, it would point us to the Word, the true head of the church.
I simply deny this claim that referring to the Bible (the word) as the final authority in what churches believe or how they behave is in relation to Christ. It is about all the other beliefs and claims of the people in the church, and it would be the word that has authority over all such things because the word leads us to the Word.
I sympathize with the author’s journey of discovering how Christian academia focused on the Bible independent of the reality of knowing the Christ of the Bible. Been there. However, that doesn’t call for us to swing to the other extreme of Christ apart from the Bible. I contend that both the word and the Word call us to get to know the Word through the word. And as we do, we will love them both for their place in restoring our relationship with God our Father in heaven.
This
suddenly reminds me of something Spurgeon said when he was asked how he
reconciled divine election with free will. His reply was something to the
effect of, “I don’t need to reconcile friends.” In the same way, I would
challenge this idea that us poor church folk are picking between the word and
the Word when the reality is that we love the way the word brings us to
the Word. And that’s where I’m pitchin’ my tent for tonight so I can pick up my
journal journey as soon as I am able on another day.
© 2024
Monte Vigh ~ Box 517, Merritt, BC, V1K 1B8
Email: in2freedom@gmail.com
Unless otherwise noted, Scriptures are from the English Standard Version (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.)
A More Christlike Word © 2021 by Bradley Jersak Whitaker House 1030 Hunt Valley Circle • New Kensington, PA 15068 www.whitakerhouse.com
Jersak, Bradley. A More Christlike Word: Reading Scripture the Emmaus Way. Whitaker House. Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment