The Issue of Biblical
Authority
There was a time not long ago when it was pretty clear what
it meant to be an evangelical.
It was
pretty clear because a generation of Christians had worked very hard to
separate themselves from the liberal denial of the faith while at the same time
avoiding becoming sectarian and mean spirited.
The high point of that evangelical ascendancy was the 1978 Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
[i]
The battle for the Bible was over, and
those who affirmed biblical inerrancy had won, at least as far as being an
evangelical was concerned.
If one wanted
the name “evangelical,” one had to affirm biblical inerrancy.
If one denied biblical inerrancy, it was
difficult to maintain that one was evangelical.
In recent years, what was thought to have been a battle
already won has re-emerged. It is not
that people are out and out denying the inerrancy of scripture as much as they
are denying our capacity to know what the Bible says. The wonderful scholars who crafted the
Chicago statement actually predicted that this would happen. The last sentences of the statement go like
this,
“We are conscious too that great and
grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible
whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is
that the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority
instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's
critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has
started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as
opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being
basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of
Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have
moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable
subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.”
We are now at that point of great and grave confusion. It is because of the failure to maintain the
total truth of the Bible. Lots of people
now, without apology, deny central doctrines of the Christian faith, e.g., the reality
of hell for those who do not believe in Christ, the substitutionary atonement
of Christ, and the nature of marriage. AND they do so while claiming to affirm
biblical inerrancy! Is it any wonder
that the average person in the pew is confused?
It is a confusion even greater than when liberal theology conquered most
major denominations in the 1920s.
This confusion over biblical authority will bring the
dismantling of evangelicalism. We are
seeing the disintegration of what has been a pretty clear consensus of nearly
100 years. The world of evangelicalism
is collapsing.
The Case of World
Vision
What does all this have to do with the recent controversy
surrounding World Vision?
Only
everything.
World Vision was founded in
1950 by Bob Pierce.
This was not because
no humanitarian agencies existed at the time—there were plenty of them.
Pierce founded World Vision because there
were few humanitarian agencies that took the Bible seriously.
[ii] He wanted to develop an organization that did
social good, but was also firmly committed to the Gospel and the authority of
scripture.
Because liberals in the mainline
denominations had abandoned the Gospel, they fixed their missional attention on
relief of social ills.
The conservative
fundamentalists wanted to show that they were not liberal and frequently looked
with disdain upon anyone who was interested in the alleviation of physical ills
in the world.
[iii] Pierce believed that one could do both—bring
the Gospel and alleviate human suffering.
This commitment to both the Gospel and social relief is found in their
mission statement and statement of faith.
The organization seeks to tackle “the causes of poverty and
injustice.”
But they also believe that
lost people are “lost unto the resurrection of damnation.”
[iv] This was Pierce’s “World Vision.”
Let’s fast forward to the present time. World Vision is no longer just an evangelical
organization. It is a behemoth of a
charitable organization. With a budget
of over $1 billion and serving 1.2 million children sponsored, World Vision gains
the attention of every NGO (non-government organization) in the world. The means of gaining the income for such a
large enterprise are many, including seeking United Nations and United States
government support, but just as important, World Vision seeks the support of
all churches, whether or not they subscribe to World Vision’s statement of
faith. As such, there are many, many
influences upon this organization, not all of them helping to aim them closer
to biblical authority for their mission.
So, it should not have been surprising that such an
organization would be influenced deeply against biblical authority on the most
pressing issue of the day, same sex marriage.
World Vision changed their policy on March 24 to allow employees to be
in same sex marriages. Then, on March
26, they reversed course and reverted to their former policy of not allowing
employees to be in same sex marriages. World Vision was hoping, by allowing
same sex marriage among their employees, to avoid a controversy. Instead, they created a firestorm, which
intensified upon reversal of the policy.
In order to understand how this happened, one must
understand that nearly every cultural indicator is leaning away from biblical
authority. World Vision was hoping that
they could avoid the criticism of being homophobic and still hold to their
statement of faith. As it turned out,
they offended everyone. By affirming
that employees could be in same sex marriages, people who believe in biblical
authority saw that World Vision was denying what it said it believed. Then, by reversing that policy two days later,
the people who favor same sex marriage were outraged that the organization
would capitulate to homophobia. In the
end, it seems that they may have made skeptics of everyone.
How to think about
the World Vision controversy
Many pundits have argued that whatever position World Vision
takes on the subject of same sex marriage should be irrelevant to support of
the organization’s mission.
If you are
sponsoring a child
[v],
what kind of callous heart must you have if you withdraw your funding over some
silly cultural dispute in America?
[vi] Keep sending World Vision money, these
pundits argue, because the starving children are more important than what we
think about same sex marriage.
On one level, this is a very difficult argument to
overcome. Who would want to starve a
child for a principle? (Al Mohler called
it “a moral quandary.”) But here’s the
deal: World Vision has made it clear by its statement of faith that principles
matter before the mission does. Just
going out on mission and not worrying about the principles which guide the
mission leads to disaster. Let’s say
that World Vision had made the decision to deny the resurrection. Would that have been a sufficient reason to
withdraw funding? Let’s say that they
decided to help starving children in the name of Allah, or in the name of
Satan. Would that affect this
argument? Which denial of biblical
principle is sufficient to separate from an organization?
What the folks who make this argument are saying is that the
issue of same sex marriage is not very important. There would be some issue for them that
doubtless would be important enough for them, but this one is not it. One lesson to be learned here is that the controversy about
homosexuality will not go away. It will
be an issue that continues to divide.
And it is an issue that is dividing evangelicals. In fact, this issue, in my opinion, will be
the dismantling of evangelicalism. Here
is why:
1) Evangelicals are increasingly soft on biblical
authority;
2) Evangelicals like to be liked by the broader culture,
thinking that by being liked they will be more effective evangelists;
3) The broader culture will only grow in its
support of homosexuality and same sex marriage;
4) So, evangelicals will increasingly abandon the
teaching of the Bible on that subject for acceptance by the broader culture.
[vii]
5) However, other evangelicals will continue to
hold to biblical authority. This will
mean a divide, a dismantling of evangelicalism.
The end game, of course, is that for many evangelicals,
personal experience/”happiness” will trump biblical authority.
Here is how theologian Luke Johnson put it, “I
think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the
straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority
when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is
that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and
the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to
claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has
created us.”
[viii]
As evangelicals are pulled in that direction, there will be
a fracturing of what it means to be an evangelical. New labels will need to be created to
describe various positions, much as the words, “liberal” and “fundamentalist,”
became labels to describe positions in the 1920s. I do not know what words can be used, but
good labels always have the advantage of being embraced by those labeled by the
word, and yet can be used by opponents with equal appreciation. That was why “liberal” and “fundamentalist”
worked for awhile, and “fundamentalist” turned into “evangelical” when
“fundamentalist” became too pejorative of a word.
Prepare for
isolation, then persecution
There is something more important than a label, however.
As many evangelicals are peeled off from
biblical authority, those who do hold to it will become increasingly
marginalized.
We “Bible Christians” will
be regarded as increasingly weird.
Especially since the LGBT issues are now cleverly framed as civil rights
issues, there will come, as evangelicals leave the Bible’s teaching, an
isolation of true believers in biblical authority.
[ix] This could come in the form of loss of tax
exempt status for churches, the treatment of these churches as enemies of the
commonweal, and discrimination in employment for anyone who publicly avows the
Bible’s teaching on marriage and sexuality.
After the marginalization, it will become quite easy to see
real persecution. Belief in traditional
marriage could become regarded as a psychological disorder requiring
treatment. Children could be taken from
homes who affirm a biblical view of marriage.
Property could be confiscated as an anti-racketeering measure. Now, these are extreme indeed. Who knows if something will stop the express
train of sex-without-consequence in our culture? I hope indeed that something (or, more
particularly, Someone) does stop it. But
these are measures that we must consider as possible, even as alarming as they
seem.
For the Bible Christian (is that the possible new term?),
there must be a readiness to forsake all to follow Christ. If tax exempt status is stripped, will I give
to my church anyway? If I am regarded as
an enemy by my neighbor, will I still love him?
If someone takes my home and even my children, will I say that I still
have Jesus? Am I committed to love those
who persecute me for righteousness’ sake?
Hebrews 10:34 speaks of those who “joyfully
accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had
a better possession and an abiding one.”
This sort of thinking is important, not because it is alarming but
because it forces us to think about what really matters to us. The words of Jesus come with increasing force
upon us, “Behold, I am sending you out as
sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware
of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their
synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and
kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. 19 When
they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are
to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For
it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother
will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will
rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you
will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end
will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to
the next . . . And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the
soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are
not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground
apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are
all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value
than many sparrows. 32 So everyone who acknowledges me before
men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but
whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in
heaven.” (Matt 10:16-23a, 28-33)
It is precisely here that the resurrection of our Lord
should matter to us. If the tomb is
empty, then Jesus is Who He claimed to be.
If He is Who He claimed to be, then what He claimed about scripture is
true. What He claimed about scripture
was that it was God’s inerrant, authoritative Word. One cannot consistently believe in the
resurrection of Jesus and deny the authority of the Bible.
A Final Word: What
Should I Do About World Vision
As mentioned earlier, the policy change and its reversal at
World Vision created lots of skepticism.
Many folks who applauded the reversal of the decision are now wondering
if they should continue to support World Vision.
I understand the skepticism, and it would be
important to monitor World Vision’s future policies.
However, I think that people should support
World Vision who have been partnered with them in the past and not allow this
to change their connection.
Support
sends a signal to World Vision that they made the right choice.
World Vision asked for forgiveness on this
issue.
Forgiveness ought to be granted,
and that should include continuing one’s support.
World Vision referred to its stand on
biblical authority as the reason behind the policy reversal.
[x]
This is a wonderful thing!
We ought to
support any organization that calls itself closer to biblical authority.
The authors of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
had it right: We are conscious too that
great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of
the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. We live in great and grave confusion in the
evangelical world today. Only a recovery
of the authority of the Bible will bring clarity. May God give us strength to hold fast to His
Word, no matter what.
Satisfied in Christ,
Pastor Scott
[i]
One can read this wonderful statement at: http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf
[iii]
See John Stott’s
Christian Mission in the
Modern World, pp. 15ff for a clear description of this divide.
[v] I
will not go into the arcane details of “child sponsorship” in this
article.
Suffice to say, “child
sponsorship” by all relief organizations is more a means of cultivating the
heart of a donor to the agency’s work than it is any direct infusion of money
to the child.
That is not a bad thing;
it just seems to me that “child sponsorship” should be more clearly
communicated on what it means and what it does not mean.
[vi]
This is the argument made by Jesse Tink, a pastor and blogger in Iowa.
See: http://www.keeppointinginwaterloo.com/blog/
[vii]
There will be attempts, of course, to show that same sex marriage and
homosexual behavior are biblically moral.
These attempts at self-justification fly in the face of the text of
scripture.
[viii]
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/homosexuality-church-1
[ix]
See Al Mohler’s
Desire and Deceit: The
Real Cost of the New Sexual Tolerance, pp. 95-102 for an excellent
description of how two men changed homosexual rights into a civil rights issue.
[x]
See:
http://www.worldvision.org/press-release/world-vision-us-board-reverses-decision for the full World Vision statement.
Of great import is this statement from the
release:
In our board’s effort to unite
around the church’s shared mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ, we
failed to be consistent with World Vision U.S.’s commitment to the traditional
understanding of Biblical marriage and our own Statement of Faith, which says,
“We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative
Word of God.”
