2 Timothy 3:14-4:5 October 16-22, Year C:

This passage speaks of the authority of Scripture and the necessity of sound doctrine. Simply to read these verses of Scripture is to invite controversy. In what sense do we believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit? How do we determine sound doctrine? Paul tells Timothy that "all Scripture" is given by the Holy Spirit and profitable for correction, rebuke, reproof, and instruction in righteousness, I take that very seriously. I believe the words of Paul or the prophets or the other gospel writers are just as much the word of God as are the words of Jesus. (I think those red-letter Bibles can be confusing.) When I stand up to read the Scripture lessons in church, I do not say, "Listen for the word of God," suggesting that somehow there's a nugget in here for you if you just listen for it. When I was growing up, I never doubted that the Bible is the word of God. At a certain point in my development, I did ask myself quite seriously why I believed the Bible to be the word of God; but I thought it through, came to my conclusions, and went on from there. Many today want to put the revelation of God in Christ above the Bible in terms of authoritative truth or revelation; but where do we learn about Christ if not from the Bible? There is the witness of the Holy Spirit, of course; but even that witness must eventually be tested in terms of the Bible. Then, we come to the warnings about those who will not endure sound doctrine. Where do we find sound doctrine today? Again, sound doctrine must be that which is based on the Bible. How else will you know whether the doctrine of a preacher or a church is sound? But some will say that the Bible has to be interpreted. I agree that parts of the Bible are very difficult. And with the radical Christian preachers and teachers on one extreme and the "prosperity" preachers and legalist fundamentalists on the other, the sincere seeker of sound doctrine may often feel that the quest is hopeless. I wonder however just how much of the Bible is so difficult to understand--at least, at the most basic level of truth. To hear some talk today, you'd almost think it would have been better if the reformers had not been successful in their efforts to get the Bible translated in the vernacular of the people. Some will say, "Ah, but you can't take the Bible literally." That's true because some of the Bible is meant to be poetic, some parable. On the other hand, if you're not going to take a particular portion of Scripture literally and follow its precepts, you'd better have a very good reason! I'd much prefer to be out of accord with culture than out of accord with the word and will of God! Yes, we have to read the Bible in its proper context. And if we know something of the background and culture in which a certain portion of Scripture was written, it can make the meaning clearer and richer for us today. But I like what one person said when discussing the paraphrase called the Living Bible. One wag commented, "My Bible never died!" While I agree that genuine scholarship is helpful in reading and understanding the Bible, I am also convinced that much of what we consider scholarly today is just an attempt to make the Bible somehow conform to our own desires and behavior. When the Northampton Presbyterian Church, in Hampton, Virginia, was considering withdrawal from the PC(USA) and joining the EPC in 1991, a member of the congregation commented that the people no longer felt that the mainline denomination was as clearly based on Scriptural principles as it had been when the congregation was established in 1962. In reply, a Presbyterian minister from a neighboring town said, "Well, surely you don't read the Bible today the same way you did in 1962!" The church member who had made the comment was amazed by this reply; and so was I! Yes, we do still read the Bible today the same way we did in 1962! Why shouldn't we? What has changed?

What Changed?

I received an email recently from someone who had been raised in the Catholic church and is now committed to the reformed faith. She was thinking back to her teen-age years and the consternation many Catholics felt about Vatican II. She said that as a teen-ager, she wondered how it could be that after teaching for many generations that a Catholic couldn't eat meat on Fridays, all of a sudden, it was "no big deal!" What changed? This is the big question that haunts modern Christianity today. How could abortion be seen by the church as such a bad thing in the early '60's and be perfectly acceptable ten years later? How could it be that the Bible was "the only infallible rule of faith and practice" to Presbyterians in the mid-1960's, and then become simply "a unique witness to Christ" only a few short years later? What changed? Well, of course, nothing changed, except that the church decided to pursue what one friend calls "a theology of accomodation." Questions about morality, the attributes of God, the authority of Scripture, and other matters of faith are not questions that require new scientific discoveries or new technological insights. These are eternal, unchanging matters of right and wrong, truth and error. They are matters that have been decided by the church many times; but not until recently has the church been so unsure of the answers. Of course, there have always been dissenting opinions. Because we are sinful creatures, error is always mixed with truth. But the church has usually been able to distinguish heresy from the true understanding of the Christian faith. Are we now losing the capacity to preserve and distinguish the good from the bad, the true from the false? Certain segments of the church once defended some social practices we now find evil, or resisted the discoveries of science which seemed to fly in the face of church doctrine. But these were not questions that struck at the very heart of the gospel; and, in the case of science, it was soon apparent that one could prove that the earth is not flat, or that the sun does not revolve around our planet. Too many today are simply looking for ways to make the church and orthodoxy appear ridiculous. Actually, the ones who wind up appearing ridiculous are the ones who are so eager to destroy Christendom. No, the principles of God's Word and righteousness are eternal. If God's Word teaches a thing in 1961 or 1875 or 2007, it is still teaching it today; and so should we. God's Word requires interpretation, but not revision. If it was wrong to steal or lie or commit adultery in the time of Christ, it's still wrong today. What changed? Unfortunately, in too many cases, it is the church that has changed!