This will be a heavy series. I hope to generate conversation, some consternation, and (at the end of the day) some light. Here\u2019s my big point: Some evangelicals have been tossing sharp barbs for a long time at \u201cliberals\u201d or \u201cmainliners\u201d for disregarding the Bible. (It would not be hard to give good examples.) Most evangelicals criticize liberals on the basis of a robust commitment to the Bible \u2014 and in so criticizing they believe it is they who are being faithful to the Bible. This will be a heavy series. I hope to generate conversation, some consternation, and (at the end of the day) some light. Here\u2019s my big point: Some evangelicals have been tossing sharp barbs for a long time at \u201cliberals\u201d or \u201cmainliners\u201d for disregarding the Bible. (It would not be hard to give good examples.) Most […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1736,1739],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-emerging-movement","category-pharisees"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nEvangelicals tacitly assume or overly claim that they believe the whole Bible; they practice the Bible much better; and their theology is based on the Bible and the Bible alone. The contention is simple: liberals deny the Bible; we (evangelicals) don\u2019t; we (evangelicals) are faithful and liberals are unfaithful.
\nLet me suggest that evangelicals, too, do plenty of Bible-denying but they deny in a different way. They question the sufficiency<\/em> of Scripture.
\nI call this problem Zealotry<\/em>. Here\u2019s what I mean: Zealotry is conscious zeal to be radically committed, so radically committed that one goes beyond the Bible<\/em> to defend things that are not in the Bible. Which is the mirror image of the accusation made by many evangelicals against liberals. The \u201cbeyond the Bible\u201d stuff is not in the Bible and it means evangelicals get themselves committed to things that are not in the Bible. What\u2019s the difference, I ask?
\nTrotting alongsie this zeal is a friend named immunity: Zealots think their zeal makes them immune <\/em> to criticism because they are so zealous for God; their zeal never to get close to breaking any commandment makes them better than others. In other words, zeal shows just how deeply committed a person is to God and therefore immune <\/em>to criticism. What, they reason to themselves, is wrong with doing more than the Bible? Does not God recognize our zeal?
\nThis is an old tactic: the rabbis called this \u201cmaking a fence around the Torah.\u201d Example: the Torah says not to work on the Sabbath. So, let\u2019s specify every kind of \u201cwork\u201d, they say. So they come up with 40 or so kinds of labors that are \u201cwork.\u201d These various kinds of works are the \u201cfence\u201d and the Sabbath command is the Torah. If one does not do such \u201cwork\u201d a person does not violate the Sabbath working law. The idea is \u201cadd, add, add\u201d and \u201cclarify, clarify, clarify\u201d and if follow the \u201cadds\u201d and the \u201cclarifies\u201d you\u2019ll not break the Torah\u2019s commandment \u2014 always more general, always less specific, always open to some interpretation.
\nIs the practice of making a fence around the Torah a trust that the Bible is wise? I think not. Making fences around the Torah suggests God needs our help to make his will a little clearer.
\nI contend that evangelicals do lots of \u201cfence making\u201d. One example, and I\u2019ll give others in this series: the Bible says don\u2019t get drunk. The evangelical fence is \u201cdon\u2019t ever drink alcohol, and you\u2019ll never get drunk.\u201d (True enough: if you never drink, you\u2019ll never get drunk. That\u2019s not the problem.) The problem is this: quickly, the \u201cfence\u201d becomes the \u201cTorah\u201d and drinking alcohol in moderation is no longer good enough. Anyone who crosses the fence has broken the Torah (which she or he hasn\u2019t, folks). Zealotry <\/em>commits to the fence and in so doing goes beyond the Bible. Commitment to keeping the fence is a sign of radical commitment. It gives immunity. It ends up being no longer biblical but lets something else be \u201cbiblical.\u201d Is this what God wants?
\nNope. Zealotry through fence-making is a failure to trust what the Bible does say, and it is a trust in what the Bible does not say, and it ends up snubbing God\u2019s good Word which evangelicals believe is sufficient. Come now, let\u2019s stop castigating liberals or let\u2019s start being more biblical.
\nAnd I don\u2019t care if a group of good and godly folk get together and make a decision and say \u201cwe\u2019ll avoid alcohol totally.\u201d (Frankly, they usually have a little thump to the chest to show their commitment and assert their immunity.) By so doing, they are saying this: What God says isn\u2019t good enough. We know better.<\/em> Sure, they don\u2019t say this, but it is what they are doing \u2014 in the name of zeal. They are zealous for one thing, while the liberals being criticized happen (if they care to examine the case) are zealous for something else. Those \u201csomething elses,\u201d my friends, are not in the Bible.
\nThis is what I mean by Zealotry<\/em>. It is zeal to do what God says so bad that one is willing to construct a new Torah that goes beyond the Bible and in so doing betray a trust in God\u2019s sufficient revelation in Scripture. (And I\u2019m not bringing in Tradition here; that\u2019s another development.)
\nZealotry is only slightly different than the liberalism evangelicals complain about. You might just as well call it a zealous liberalism or a liberal zealotry. It is a failure to let the Bible be God\u2019s Word and a decision to let something else be the final word.
\nTomorrow: the motivation behind Zealotry.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"