DashHouse.com

I don't really travel in theological circles... so could you help me understand why this is even an issue? I've read so much venom from people who are unwilling to give cultural context any credence. I don't understand it.

"...epistles of the Bible, were written in a certain context to address certain situations. In other words, they are occasional documents"

What do you mean by the epistles being "occasional" documents?

Erin:

I think there's a fear that we'll mix culture and Scripture if we acknowledge that we're influenced by culture. The irony is that you're in more danger of doing this if you ignore culture, kind of like the fish who doesn't know that he's in water.

Jacob:

I first heard that phrase in Fee and Stuart's "How to Read the BIble for All its Worth". They say, "[The Epistles] were occasioned, or called forth, by some special circumstance, either from the reader's side or the author's...Usually the occasion was some kind of behavior that needed correcting, or a doctrinal error that needed setting right, or a misunderstanding that needed further light."

Darryl,
You tread on dangerous ground. You say:
"That doesn't make [the Westminster Confession] more or less useful or true. It only acknowledges that it, like the epistles of the Bible, were written in a certain context to address certain situations. My own denomination's Statement of Faith was written over fifty years ago. If it had been written today, I believe it would address certain issues that weren't even on the map fifty years ago. I think McLaren is right: we are called to do theology well in our own context."
1)You come perilously close to putting the Scriptures and the Confession on equal footing. As a Baptist I disagree with certain elements of the confession because I believe it is wrong. I cannot, as a Christian say that the Scriptures are wrong in any sense.
2)Your comments could lead some to conclude that you believe that the Scriptures are no more God breathed than the Confession. It is one thing for something to be written in the context of culture. It is quite something else to be bound by culture. Our view of Scripture means understanding that the human instruments God used, wrote from within their culture to specific situations while not being bound by culture because ultimately their writings were authored by God Himself. God does not get caught by surprise by changes in culture and time.
3) Your comparison of Scripture to the FEBC doctrinal statement is very odd, and the really shocking thing about it is that you seem to be saying that the Scriptures themselves would say something different if they were being written today. We believe that the Sriptures are not only true, they are sufficient. The culture and time they were written in does not make them in any way less than sufficient for us to govern our lives by and worship God by. The Scriptures would not make different conclusions if they were being written today. The FEBC doctrinal statement would indeed address things that it did not when it was written. But it would only address things (I hope) that it got from the Scriptures, which were there fifty years ago and are there still and are just as relevant now as when they were written 2000 years ago.
4) The issue is not so much about our being faithful to our times as it is being faithful to the Word of God in our time and never allowing it to be seen as a time/culture bound book. The framers of the Confession were faithful to their times by being faithful to the Scriptures.

Having said all that I must say that it was good to talk to you on the phone today - lest anyone think that we are not friends.

Ken:

Sorry, I don't think I was clear. I didn't mean to say that Scripture and the Confessions have the same authority. I meant to say that both arose out of a certain context and addressed particular issues. Scripture did so in a unique and authoritative way as God's inspired Word.

Again, Fee and Stuart (who are not emerging!) write of the epistles, "Although inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus belonging to all time, they were first written out of the context of the author to the context of the recipients. It is precisely these factors - that they are occasional and that they belong to the first century - that make their interpretation difficult at times."

I also agree with your last point: culture is critiqued by Scripture, not the other way around. But we can never pretend that we are not influenced by culture; we are so immersed in our own culture that we aren't even aware of it.

I am amused by those who critique postmodern culture as if modernism is any more a friend to the Gospel. All cultures are in rebellion against God, and people of every culture need the Gospel.

"we can never pretend that we are not influenced by culture; we are so immersed in our own culture that we aren't even aware of it."

Yes we are influenced by culture, but to suggest that the writers of Scripture might have been ignorantly influenced by culture in what they wrote, is to cast doubt upon the inspiration of Scripture.

Fee often writes from a viewpoint that troubles me in that egalitarianism is too often (in my opinion) relegating things to culture and therefore not applicable to us.

Never fear that I would be more lenient on modernism than post modernism. I am an equal opportunity critic - I hate everybody!

Darryl- Thank you for this. I think I see some of the spirit you mentioned within the comments here.

The Truly Reformed live in their own world - where the W.C. is part of the Canon to them. The rest of us are heretics. We just need to get over it and move on.

That being said, Tim is young. It will be interesting to see where he stands 10 years from now.

Did you just get back from Theology School or something?:^)

This is so much it's own world, populated by it's own geeks, isn't it? The rest of us are headed straight to hell in all our ignorance. How does this concern translate to real-world other than paychecks for pastors?

Ken:

I'm assuming that the authors of Scripture had many shortcomings, and the Spirit was able to overcome them.

Bene:

The thing I loved about last week is the diversity. If we ever got into something like this we would be coming from all angles. Mostly, we sticked to the subject matter (which wasn't this!)

I think that this is a very practical issue though. Mostly it's to do with recognizing that sometimes it's easy to mix in our cultural views with Scripture without realizing it.

Ken, thanks for your comments sticking up for the word of God as precedent over any creed or statement of faith.

Jim,
Whoever you are - thank you.