There is a discussion going on over at Jonathan Brinks Blog. He has been singled out by self-appointed heresy hunter Ken Silva for stating that he (Jonathan Brink) hoped that God was bigger than his theology or anyone’s and, asked what others thought. Ken wants to confine God to scripture saying that what God has revealed is all he wants anyone to know. Ken’s blog is a classic example of those who would contend for the faith.
The question remains… is he right about scripture and his idea of what it means to contend for the faith? I don’t think so for the following reasons. I think that the evangelical fundamentalists have a hermeneutic lens that is similar to that of the first century scribes and Pharisees. They see the entire scripture as the word of God. I, on the other hand have pointed out in several posts that Jesus and his followers corrected that idea and redefined the term. Here are a few of the posts.
It seems to me that contending for the faith ought to be about contending for what Jesus and his followers taught. This would mean that one would contend for a redemptive view of scripture and would contend for the gospel being the word of God. Instead, the loudest contenders contend for the bible to be the word of God; They contend for a hermeneutic lens that is similar to that of the scribes and Pharisees. When I use the word scribes I am referring to the first century rabbis… teachers of the law.
I just wish that some main stream theologians would acknowledge that Jesus and his followers redefined the word of God to be the gospel and, Jesus the living gospel. I think that they cannot do that because they fear that if they admitted this truth their theological house of cards would tumble down. They would have to change their view of scripture. I don’t think this is the case at all. I think that it could create a Christianity that would appeal to more individuals and truly reach more people for Christ.