Social Justice Statement - Why I can't sign it, and you shouldn't (Part 1 Scripture) - Conditional Pass.

First up, to get the joke out of the way - to me signing requires a pen and paper. So, no, signing on the internet doesn't count. Unless cryptographicaly, and I doubt they'd accept my public key.

I won't go through the introduction, but I will go through the statement itself. So, on to part 1:

Scripture

WE AFFIRM that the Bible is God’s Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we must believe) and what is right (how we must live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God’s final Word, which is Scripture alone.

Well, here we have a couple of issues. Firstly I can agree scripture is inerrant and infallible for the purpose for which it was written. That means that scripture cannot be used to prove something it was never intended to prove (e.g. flat earth theories, or numerology (y'know the date setters who think that they can establish the end of the world by counting verses)).

So, there's that. But to be charitable, maybe that is what they mean? That is until we come to the "final authority". This is problematic and deeply so, because frankly, they're either lying to themselves or deceived. That's a strong statement, so let me clarify - "Scripture does not interpret itself". Scripture is not a sentient being (and most definitely not the 3rd person of the Trinity, I see that capital "W" in "Word" there, and I consider it unbiblical in the extreme), and while it can provide context to itself, it cannot interpret itself. That job falls upon the reader. Which means that the reader is the final authority in interpreting scripture. So if I disagree with their interpretation, it isn't a rejection of scripture, merely a rejection of say, John MacArthur or James White's interpretation and, by extension authority to interpret for me.

So from the very start we must necessarily diverge in agreement. In any case we will get to actual scripture in a bit.

WE DENY that Christian belief, character, or conduct can be dictated by any other authority, and we deny that the postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are consistent with biblical teaching. We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture.

Well, I can agree with the first part, to an extent. Scripture interpreted correctly does have authority over belief and conduct, and a lot of the other "post modern ideologies" don't. I haven't dug deeply into them, but I don't rule out they could be in line (in places at least) with scripture.

The second part is where the trouble begins again. What do we mean by "clear understanding" and what is required to have one? Even the men who wrote this statement will often appeal to the Greek, Hebrew or ancient Isrealite context to make their points. Therefore this is not as simple as it looks at first glance. While I agree that the Holy Spirit does guide us into understanding, the sheer breadth of different interpretations of scripture out there indicate that discerning the correct interpretation is not so simple. In fact I'd suggest it does involve study of those very languages, and contexts, and that involves the use of the mind, which is guided by experience.

Therefore one's interpretation of scripture depends on the following:
1. Scripture
2. Tradition and Context
3. Reason
4. Experience and the guidance of the Spirit.

Everybody interprets through these lenses, and it's often only really the Wesleyans who're honest about it.

I know a lot of other statements don't acknowledge this, and I know I'll also be accused of denying Sola Scriptura for this, but I think we must be honest with ourselves on this and admit this is where it comes from, for by not admitting it and clinging to the "Scripture interprets scripture" mindset, we cannot control it, and thus we have many many varying and often heretical interpretations of scripture.

This is controversial enough for a "Don't @ me."

So, in conclusion, the authors of this statement are asking me to accept their authority of interpretation without being up-front about what that means. It's mean to be a short statement, so we can read it charitably and suggest that number 1 can get a pass. On the condition that the "W" in word is a typo.

Anyhow, the usual principle on my blog applies. I reserve the right not to publish your comments and I expect charitable and respectful discourse or you shall be deleted.  This is my blog and I am the authority here.