Ken Silva has blessed us with another opportunity to learn what not to do. I use him for teaching moments and this is a good one. Ken Silva decided it was in his best interest to challenge a statement which I tweeted:
@dtatusko: our authority comes not from scripture alone, but from the risen christ.
Now anyone reading this who disagrees is not left with many options. Either authority is based on only scripture as if there is no living Christ to guide us, or it is a combination of the two. Quite simple. Not for Silva who needs to read into things while offering the presumption that he's got it all together for us. So this is what Silva reads from this:
Now, I have no way to know why someone like Drew Tatusko wants to work to make people think Sola Scriptura is somehow in opposition to Jesus; however, I can judge that his reasoning is fatally fallacious spiritually.
What? A conditional statement as I made which is "not alone…but also" is not a statement of opposition where the subject and the predicate are mutually exclusive. He further confuses this by saying the following which appears to agree with the tweet I posted which got him upset:
the Risen Christ—the Lord God Almighty Who’s placed His authority and His Word above all things
The emphasis on "and" is mine to illustrate the reading problem. So either Silva is being fantastically dishonest or he has a problem with reading into a text in a process called eisegesis. What we ought to do with scripture is a process of exegesis which is extracting the best possible meaning of a text as it was conveyed at the time of its writing. I am not going to judge which of these two options we are seeing here, but it appears a combination of the two is in play. Silva is clearly building yet another strawman. For what reason I have no idea.
However, a key to the problem is a misinterpretation of one passage that has been misused for all forms of biblical inerrancy and/or infallibilism.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Because scripture has its source in God means that it has a special use for the functions that Paul names here. This in no way is meant to be interpreted as plenary verbal inspiration as Muslims understand to be the source of authority for the Qu'ran. Although Silva appeals to "the literal Greek" in his post, what he fails to understand is that the Greek text of the New Testament is an amalgamation of fragments that scholars worked very hard to assemble in what they believed was the most accurate rendering of what was likely the original source.
However, even if you go to the Greek text, which one? Modern translations come from critical editions that have been edited and assembled by groups of biblical scholars based on manuscripts and fragments scattered all over the world. It is inspired because it is animated in the same way that the Spirit of God animates the human spirit to discern the unfolding of God's revelation. This is the same Spirit that hovers over the void in Genesis. Moreover, did Paul intend his letter to Timothy to be placed on the same level as the Torah, Nev'im, and Kethuvim? To claim this is highly doubtful. Scripture is useful to be sure, but to claim that Paul was ascribing the same authority to his own letters as he ascribed to those Scriptures of the Old Testament is a judgment that Christians make.
The problem is that even if we uphold that the text is "verbally inspired" and assume we have in front of us exactly what God "said" still places the burden of the person interpreting to understand what the text was supposed to mean in the context in which it was written. Further, the translations are interpretations and reading itself is an act of interpretation. Along the path from constructing the Greek text from and into so many critical editions and manuscripts there are interpretive decisions that the reader of the English text is assuming were made correctly. This is why a literal reading or "literalism" is nothing more than a hollow ideology that is less about understanding the Bible than in ascribing authority to one's self. And this is precisely why authority cannot come from just the text, but the risen Christ who reveals the unfolding grace and love of God in the church and in the world.
While Silva claims that I have "enough formal education to confuse" myself, his own reading of his mythic infallible text relies on the work of hundreds and hundreds of biblical scholars before him who brought the text to us in the state we receive it. But I am sure he will not now say that his text is an amalgamation of other more educated and perhaps more confused scholars than myself. Which makes this claim equally as odd, and equally as misinformed as his clear desire to distort the text that lies in front of him for reasons I shall not judge.
I am not sure why Silva does what he does. It is certainly not helpful nor exactly truthful since it is a constant distortion of the text that lies in front of him. I can only pray the peace of Christ for him since it appears he does not experience much of it which is quite sad.
Related posts:
Silva, like many (he isn't a lone, he is small beans really), feel a deep need to correct heresy. My dad, who is a therapist, talks about this a lot. He speaks on personality disorders through this. He sees someone who is drawn to different religions a part of that. For instance, those who have security needs or deep hurt, they find themselves in a more structured or fundamentalist church. My mom is a good example of this. I don't share this to be hurtful towards her, but to give you an idea. My mom was abused as a child. Since then my mom holds strictly to church of Christ beliefs. Lord's supper every sunday, if you miss you might lose your salvation. you should be a part of the church (the church of Christ) or your salvation is questionable….
I think this is the same for those like Silva (I'm not implying he has been abused) that finding the "monster" under the covers and doing things that set out the alarms to it. People like Silva, conservative ones and liberal ones (yes there are liberals), have a deep need to fill that desire to correct, to sound the alarms. It much like getting the rush.
So my question to many, on both sides, after watching for awhile. What are you getting from this? What purpose does it serve? I had to ask this question of myself when I had my own dragon to slay, she, much like Silva, would quote me, misquote me, show her masses the heresy of me and others. The fact is, I could have continued to slay her, I could have continued rebutted her with blog posts and posts at theooze. However, I became more and more unhappy, but I needed that rush. I got to the point I couldn't allow Veronica (how I knew her) to just say bad things. Then I had to ask myself, what purpose did any of it serve. What was I getting out of this. I realized it was all self-serving. A way to make myself righteous. Since that time, I walked away from her. I quit engaging her on all levels. Deleted her link, didn't bother to look when she posted at theooze and soon others did the same. However, damage had been done to the community.
I was also married to a "Silva". Watched him get his jollies out of correcting people, blogging their errors and blog chasing them. I recently, by accident, found where he had pissed some off so much they publicly published my name, our address and phone number. Although I'm not in that situation anymore, to read that scared me, made me angry. That both sides had gone so far as to push that far.
So why does Silva and others seem to have a deep need to correct you, "outlaws" and others….maybe ask yourself why you have a deep need to correct him back. Maybe ask (not you directly) yourself why there is a need to bait him, the pirate guy and a couple of others.
I've watched this for sometime. I see this bait and switch on both sides and I still keep wondering, what is anyone getting out of this.
Just some thoughts to shove off, to put in the "she is talking out her ass", and to say I'm against the ones fighting the good fight. Which I'm not, I just keep wondering, what are any of you getting out of this. Being a "third party", it doesn't look like much. I mostly worry about some friends I have made and the effect on some of this on them. Feels like they are wondering down some "hole" to where the reasons I befriended them in the first place is getting lost in this "fight".
I also asked this in a blog I wrote a couple months ago about this situation. I said this, "They (I asked someone involved in this) responded that they were tired of being attacked and tired watching people they love being abused. I get that I do, but I wonder if we continue the abuse by giving these people attention."
While I'm definitely not a Ken Silva fan, I would say that he correctly understood what you said, as it is a direct attack on Sola Scriptura. What he fails to correctly discern is that Sola Scriptura logically precludes the need for a risen Christ and nullifies the work of his spirit in our lives. He correctly feels threatened because his inexcusable behavior toward others both inside and outside the church is excused, even demanded, by the god he worships. That god being an infallible Bible.
You make some good points. Especially the part about, "Moreover, did Paul intend his letter to Timothy to be placed on the same level as the Torah, Nev'im, and Kethuvim? To claim this is highly doubtful." I am not sure why it is so hard for people like Ken Silva to get this idea. I think they just have blinders on and maybe one day God will remove those blinders.
Good post!
I have a question for wallaceant, Are you familiar with the passage in 2nd Corinthians 11 Which refers to the fact that there is a "different Jesus, a different gospel and a different spirit?" You say that "Sola scriptura" nullifies the work of the Spirit in our lives, How do you know that what you believe and do is by the Spirit of Christ, and from some other supernatural source… By what standard should I accept that Anyone is being led of the Spirit? Is there a standard of truth, or is it anything goes? I am not trying to be a smart alec, I would just like some answers.
2 Timothy 3:16 is still true. I'm not suggesting that we throw out the Bible and make up the rules as we go along. But, the scriptural precedent is that scripture is subject to Jesus and the leading of his spirit, not the other way around. What I'm referring to here is when the apostles were taught by Jesus or led by the Spirit that the law of love supersedes Sabbath laws, Purity laws, Circumcision laws and Dietary laws.
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura was an important step in that it was an attack against the Catholic Dogma that put Papal Bulls and Church Tradition on the same level of authority as Holy Scripture. This is what lead to the justification of the practice of indulgences. It was never intended to excuse people from proper scholarship or from the council of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of Scripture. Which is the extreme to which it has now been taken.
The problem is not in the level of authority that Scripture has over the life of faith, it is in that certain parties have taken Scripture beyond the authority that it has for the express purpose of using it as a weapon against those with whom they disagree.
The charge of bibliolatry is really hard for someone like Silva to dodge.
If scripture is profitable for doctrine , reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, Why do people get so bent out of shape when someone uses for that purpose. I would like to see in the scripture where the precedent is that the Scripture is subject to the leading of the Spirit, It says in 1 John Chapter 4 that we should test the Spirits whether they are of God. Even the Apostle Paul, when he preached the Gospel of Christ to the people of Berea, was subject to the scriptures available at the time. (Acts 17: 10-11). If Scripture is subject to the leading of Jesus, and the Spirit, Then we can hardly condemn the Jehovah's witness or the Mormon for their evangelistic efforts, as they feel they are Spirit lead in what they do. or anyone else for that matter…
I Totally agree that some use the Bible as a weapon, On the other hand, The Word of God is called a two edge sword, Hebrews 4: 12 and Christians are called to Defend the Faith. (Jude verse3). However that should be tempered with the love of Christ, and the concern for the lost.
Thank you for the kind answer, perhaps we will talk further, but for now it is family night, so i must go…
I think most conservatives are ignorant of this, but Judaism has, for the most part, a "concentric circles" view of Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim, the Torah being the most sacred, the prophets the next tier, and the writings the third tier. Most conservatives get nervous when anyone speaks of "the canon within the canon," however, it is not only unavoidable, but absolutely necessary.
thanks for the great thoughts. the only reason i respond is as i said above, there is something instructional and important here. if most christians, if survey data is accurate, don't believe in facts like evolution and an earth that is assuredly older than 10K years old, if people use the bible as a weapon, and if we are in the midst of a perpetually biblically illiterate culture that feeds on inerrancy as an easy system of logic to explain things, there is some need for response lest people persist in the way that silva and others abuse the bible to legitimate their authority over others.
yes, it was not a very good thing of me to suggest i wanted to pick a fight with silva to your point. but, i see examples of this sort of extremity as something instructional. that is to say, if we should not read the bible as he does, what is the best way to read it? i am not sure that many in our various congregations engage in biblical studies seriously enough to make such a judgment. i would hope that some of what i do here can give people other tools to help that discussion – especially in a culture where biblical inerrancy and forms of it are clearly dominant.
muslims work from muhammad backwards to the torah in the same way. it is a deep tradition in christianity to start with the gospels, work through the pauline letters, and then torah, prophets, writings, in that order. this is why in catholic and orthodox mass we stand for the gospel reading to symbolize is centrality for all. moreover, the core of the gospel is the divine mystery that inspires our understanding of it which then filters through the rest of the canon. fundamentalists have it all backwards and tend to start with the law, then paul's statements on the law, then the apocalyptic texts that speak on the outcomes of impurity (again the law), then focus on the sayings of jesus that are related to the law. hence, jesus had to die in our place to ward off god's wrath (more rule of law). so the law is central to fundamentalism, not the resurrected christ who fulfilled that same law. this is especially odd since paul and jesus are clear about their radical re-structuring of the law in terms of god's grace and mercy that gives us freedom to do as jesus did.
The reason to engage watchdog types, ie discernment entities, such as Ken and others, can serve two purposes, but with a caveat.
First, such engagement may serve to bolster ones position, iron sharpens iron so to speak. While I disagree with Ken a great deal, I must admit the discussion process over the years has resulted in growth, its not always a bad thing, but one does need to put on the whole armor of God. Also, not all are called to such, nor are they for all time.
Secondly, innocent individuals can be caught up and be injured. While I seriously doubt any level of engagement will change Ken and the like's tune (only the Holy Spirit can effect that change, and its in His time, not ours) there are tons of folks who just read and lurk. Without engagement, some might be led to believe in what Ken preaches is the whole deal.
By the same token… I do wonder a bit about the magnitude of energy used up in such pursuits. Imagine if the energy used in the bait and switching deal on both sides were used to reach others for Christ, rather than arguing. While I disagree w much of Ken's theology, he is a brother in Christ, his work, just as those of my more liberal brothers and sisters in Christ, could be used for building the kingdom, rather than bashing on each other. I think if one sets aside the bait/switch thing a bit, engagement is justifiable, just poking fights however is not.
The above was in response to mojojules… a comment further down the page, I blew the reply box.
I do see some merit to responding to folks like Silva, or even doing what Silva does, although he takes it way, way, way too far, and I'm in an almost constant state of disagreement with him. (Apprising does come in handy though for finding sites like this one! Silva's posts helped introduce me to others, like Nadia Bolz-Webb, that have been extremely helpful for me!)
As Christians we all have at least some small stake in how the faith is presented. If Christianity is associated with judgmentalism, arrogance, or anti-gay / anti-Muslim attitudes, that has some impact on all of us who profess to follow Christ. I find the majority of the time I spend doing what could be considered "evangelizing" is spent trying to explain that one can be a Christian without having to hate science, or demonize gay people, or believe that everyone who thinks differently is guarenteed to go to hell. You don't want to get to a place where you get life from this sort of thing, but there's something to be said for trying to outline what one believes Christianity is and what it is not, despite appearances to the contrary.
@ d_Jones, one example of the Scripture being subject to the leading of the Spirit is the fact that you have the Scripture. Someone has to decide what books belong in the Bible as canon and what books do not. Scripture doesn't define what books are and are not Scripture. Followers of Jesus over time had to come to a consensus what books they believed the Spirit wanted to preserve for all time as canon, and what books, while maybe good or interesting or helpful, didn't fall under that category. The very fact that you have Scripture is because of the Spirit leading.
But the problem with this blog is you are placing responability for Paul's letters on Paul's intent rather than on how the Holy Spirit directed Paul's writings to say what God wanted to say. Either the 66 books of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore the actual writers make little difference or else the 66 Books are works of men like any other literature and therefore can be dissected and scrutinized and even interpreted based on the culture the writers were living in. But if all 66 books were the work of God and inspired by His unchanging eternal truths, then you cannot view them as this blog views them. Its truth! And truth is never changing!
you are assuming that god used paul as nothing other than a tool to write his letters. there is nothing in scripture to give us that idea other than a poorly rendered exegesis of one word, theopneustos. inspiration is animation and order, it is life. scripture in this sense is a sacrament, a means to the mystery of god that can never be confused with the very being of god. look at how the spirit is consistently used throughout the corpus of scripture and you have your answer. inerrancy betrays this to advance a harmful and incorrect understanding of how scripture functions as a witness to god's work among people, and not as an infallible source of truth.
I would not agree with you there. Paul was important to God and God did not quit working in the world when His Scriptures were completely written but His written revelation to mankind was completed. If you want to keep the door open then you can try and say man chose the 66 books and God is still working so those 66 books were just a witness but we continue to get new revelations all the time so if someone writes those down then they are as Holy as the Bible. On and on. But likewise that approach means that truth has not been established and written down by God and so we are open to deception in believing anything that comes down the pike. I will say this, if anything that is revealed now does not agree with the Scripture given to us in the Bible then it is wrong and Scripture is right. If you don't believe that then you have rock to stand on in your belief system.
where in scripture does it say "in these 66 books and no other". who closed the canon? again, i am not saying that the canon of scriptures is important, but that you are overstating what they actually are and how we got the 66 books we have. you know that catholics include the intertestamental literature right?
does god reveal god's self in preaching? how about in theological texts and commentary on the bible? you want it to be "either obey some abstract idea of infallible scripture" or "believe whatever you want". that's a false polarization of what we actually do when we read any text and that is interpret it in light of our current culture, language, psychology, tradition, etc.
by the way God did not literally write anything down. that what muslims believe, but not christians. for muslims the word is the qu-ran, for christians the word is the resurrected Christ. that is about as basic a component of what makes Christian faith unique that to miss that is to miss it all.
finally, when you make the judgment of whether or not something agrees with scripture you are making that judgment not on the text, but in how you understand that text. this is interpretation. preaching is interpretation. reading is interpretation. the manuscript that you read is already interpreted since it is a translation. if you think you are standing on a rock with the mythic understanding of scripture you desire, then something is wrong. the rock is the risen christ, not the bible alone.
"If you don't believe that then you have no rock to stand on in your belief system."
Amen, brother! No rock to stand on, whatsoever.
Jesus urged Peter to step onto the water. When we're following Jesus, that's where we can expect our feet to go.
Drew,
Matthew 7:24 talks of the man who built his house on the rock vs. the man who built on sand. He said those who hear his words and obey are the wise builders. Jesus makes it clear in the book of John that before Abraham "I AM" showing He is God eternal and His word is forever. Man I am not interested in arguing with you. But if you want to act as if God's Word which is also Christ's Word is totally subject to interpretation and that men decided what books were included in the canon and and its up to preachers and men to decide what the Scriptures mean "to them" then I think you are missing that foundational rock that Christ intended His Word as well as His salvation to be! It is unchanging truth in a world full olf upheval and abstract lies. Don't be decieved as Eve was Drew.
Peace man
And how could God's Word tell us that all Scripture is good for training and rebuking if God's revelation was always changing so no one would know what God was actually thinking?
And if all Scripture is subject to interpretation then who is to say stealing is a sin? Maybe for a poor person it is OK? And who to say that being a liar is a sin. What if you are persecuted and lying in the only way to get out of an unjust situation? And homosexuality is an abomination in Scripture but if it was just a cultural thing for those times thousands of years ago then maybe God is OK with it now? And certainly every murderer has rationale for killing someone who was causing hurt and turmoil in his/her life. So basically there is no truth and it is all subject to what the individual believes. Hmm? Sounds a lot more like 1960s pshycobabble than it does God's Word!
1 John,
Do you read this "literally":
"13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."
Or do you interpret it in light of its longer context? Or do you actually forbid men having long hair and require women in your church to cover their heads?
The passage is put there for a reason. It goes along with the created order of things which God created. The order in the Church also was established by God. The Church of Corinth was running out of control and Paul was putting restoring the order there. It does not matter if we like God's order of things or not. He is the Creator. He made all things to come under the authority of His Son Jesus Christ. Men humble themselves to Christ as thier head and women are under the men. It establishes order just as the military establises order with Generals over sargents who are over privates. If the Privates run loose then the authority over them reels them in and puts them in thier place. This is what Paul was doing in the Church. Re-establishing order in a Church gone wild.
Does my Church ask women to cover thier head? No. But established order God set up is still there and still should be respected.
so, jesus said that the 66 books to which you refer are "the bible"? you evaded the question.
it's not that it's just subject to interpretation, it is in its very presentation already interpreted. if you take the bible seriously and study it beyond the words you see (which are translations of other words) you will understand why. but i have my doubts that you want to study it in its depths. and that is the problem here. as tracy indicates above this is an act of faith, not one of propositional logic.
well, we don't know if god even "thinks" since in god there is no time at all. so from god's "view" whatever that means, what we know of god is how the historically relative media of revelation comes to us. your understanding of god looks absolutely nothing like that of origen who was central to the history of the church in the first few centuries. was he also "wrong" in his rendering of scripture?
i think i respond to silva to engage in conversations like these which i think are instructive and helpful. as most people in the US do share a more literalistic reading of the bible, it is important to be able to understand from where these views originate and then how to educate people to a better knowledge. as i said in the first sentence, this is an opportunity to learn what not to do, and then to reconstruct what we ought to do in kind.
I have been studying the Book of John since Jan 1 and am right now in the 10th chapter. That is practically 9 full months in 10 chapters and I am not even beginning to believe I have mastered these 10 chapters. Your smugness is not very becoming of a man of God.
I will leave your site Dreww because thinking yourself to be wise you are becoming a fool!
how are you studying it? it's not how long you spend on it, but how you spend that time that matters. i am not being smug, just asking specific questions about your methods.
that's not a circle, it's really just a very simple question.
But then aren't you interpreting? The passage does not actually say "I'm reestablishing order in a church gone wild." It explicitly says, by the very nature of things, men having long hair is a disgrace, and that a women should pray with her head convered. You're reading the passage, trying to discern the intent behind it, and then making a conclusion on how to apply that intent today, which, incidentally, you're applying differently than Paul did in Paul's day. That's interpretation isn't it?
But then aren't you interpreting? The passage does not actually say "I'm reestablishing order in a church gone wild." It explicitly says, by the very nature of things, men having long hair is a disgrace, and that a women should pray with her head convered. You're reading the passage, trying to discern the intent behind it, and then making a conclusion on how to apply that intent today, which, incidentally, you're applying differently than Paul did in Paul's day. That's interpretation isn't it?