Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Art Works

Bibliolatry.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

I'd read the post at Verum Serum before it was linked on CRN.info.

The topic at hand was J.P. Moreland's talk on how evangelicals are over-committed to the Bible. A reader at Verum Serum linked to Moreland's reaction to the Christianity today blog post. Moreland provides links to a revised version of the paper he presented to the ETS.

I don't have much to say yet -- haven't read the articles closely enough at this point. I do think it is an interesting point that Moreland is making and have a sense of feeling like I've been on the whipping end of people very much in the grips of "Bibliolatry" in the way they react and demand scriptures, particularly in light of recent posts and comments.

I particularly found Moreland's paragraph on lay people very revealing:

It was not intended for a lay audience because lay folk have a tendency-- and this is not meant to be harsh -- of running with ideas beyond the context in which they were originally given. A professorial friend of mine preached at a church I used to attend and argued that, while he was totally against condom distribution in the public schools, nevertheless, a widely used argument by Evangelicals was a bad argument, and he showed why. After the service, I personally heard several parishioners criticize him for promoting condom distribution in the schools!

I'm not sure what it is about people in general or evangelicals in specific, this tendency to rephrase or put into words what they've just heard in the most common, simplistic, ingrained and understandable method possible. Everything must fit into the quick categories of thought that they've been told to think, whether they've been told that by their church or parachurch organizations. Some of this plays into the reaction people have in using scripture and how they interpret that scripture: they refuse to let go of the play book they've been told to use, and grip onto it like a dog.

Chris L.'s comment on this post (comment towards the end of the discussion) on "sola scripture" was dead-on, as he was responding to a woman who had accused me of mocking God and his Word when I supposedly mocked the concept of "sola scripture":

When you question "sola scriptura" you are questioning a human systematic theology which is open to a wide number of interpretations. The only "god" you are questioning is the false one men set up to worship in the form of man-made theological systems, and not the God of the universe...

A comment left by NC on the "Bibliolatry" post at CRN.info further expounds on a similar way of thinking:

I would say Scripture is the plumb-line.
Prima Scriptura, say I.
Sola...is really a pipe dream.

BECAUSE...

The moment you say, "I did X,Y,Z because I felt the Lord leading me to..." OR "The Spirit led me to just..." OR "Beloved, it seems good in the spirit..." OR "O, faithful ones, I say in the Lord..."

You've just laid the SOLA aside for a PRIMA.

Prima is where I think people function in reality (de facto).

Sola is a theological claim that unfortunately has become a weapon in the hands of those who desire to codify "their interpretation" of the authoritative text.

All interesting, and all, in some way, connecting vaguely in my mind. I need to do a little more thinking and research, first. Think of this post as a mere "FYI."